Page 231 - 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. 231
the interrelation between development, management, and management issues ...
Lika and Kordun regions, however, it is a theme that is outside of the scope
of management concerns for the Park.
Relevance and efficiency of management documentation
Martinić (2010) pointed out the lack of a central agency tasked with pro-
tected areas/national parks, that would manage the implementation and
oversight of existing management plans, as a key problem in Croatian man-
agement of protected areas. The problem with managing protected areas,
however, is much deeper and can be seen via analysis of attained manage-
ment goals. The basic tool for measuring efficiency of protection is a meth-
od known as “Management Effectiveness Tracking Tools” (METT). This
method is widely accepted and often used for determining influences and
for reporting regarding management efficiency and effectiveness (WWF,
2007).
The lack of methodology presents certain problems, such as the fact
that some protected areas are very general (non-specialised), as well as
problems connected to the recognition of specific influences, problems,
and the level of success of certain management actions. This problem shows
the lacking transparency of data and the possibility of subjective assess-
ment (Canteiro et al., 2018), in regard to the fact that the forms for assess-
ing the success of a given management body are (astoundingly) sometimes
filled out by members of the very management body that is being assessed.
Due to the aforementioned problems with objectiveness in the assess-
ment of management, scores were chosen based on interviews with sci-
entists and experts (who have dealt with the problems faced by the Park
for years) in order to assess the efficiency of the Park’s management. This
allowed us to have an approach to assessment that was both multi-disci-
plinary and objective. The interviewed scientists were from the following
fields of study: biology; architecture; social geography; chemical engineer-
ing; forestry; geology; and tourism.
The respondents analysed management goals from the 2007 manage-
ment plan and the outline of the 2018 management plan with the main in-
tent of determining the extent to which the goals were focused on real man-
agement problems and how successful they were at achieving their aims.
The current management transition period and expansive growth in the
number of visitors were taken into account in the experts’ assessments.
General scores were given, grading how focused the management goals
were on the most relevant problems for the Park, as well as scores grad-
229
Lika and Kordun regions, however, it is a theme that is outside of the scope
of management concerns for the Park.
Relevance and efficiency of management documentation
Martinić (2010) pointed out the lack of a central agency tasked with pro-
tected areas/national parks, that would manage the implementation and
oversight of existing management plans, as a key problem in Croatian man-
agement of protected areas. The problem with managing protected areas,
however, is much deeper and can be seen via analysis of attained manage-
ment goals. The basic tool for measuring efficiency of protection is a meth-
od known as “Management Effectiveness Tracking Tools” (METT). This
method is widely accepted and often used for determining influences and
for reporting regarding management efficiency and effectiveness (WWF,
2007).
The lack of methodology presents certain problems, such as the fact
that some protected areas are very general (non-specialised), as well as
problems connected to the recognition of specific influences, problems,
and the level of success of certain management actions. This problem shows
the lacking transparency of data and the possibility of subjective assess-
ment (Canteiro et al., 2018), in regard to the fact that the forms for assess-
ing the success of a given management body are (astoundingly) sometimes
filled out by members of the very management body that is being assessed.
Due to the aforementioned problems with objectiveness in the assess-
ment of management, scores were chosen based on interviews with sci-
entists and experts (who have dealt with the problems faced by the Park
for years) in order to assess the efficiency of the Park’s management. This
allowed us to have an approach to assessment that was both multi-disci-
plinary and objective. The interviewed scientists were from the following
fields of study: biology; architecture; social geography; chemical engineer-
ing; forestry; geology; and tourism.
The respondents analysed management goals from the 2007 manage-
ment plan and the outline of the 2018 management plan with the main in-
tent of determining the extent to which the goals were focused on real man-
agement problems and how successful they were at achieving their aims.
The current management transition period and expansive growth in the
number of visitors were taken into account in the experts’ assessments.
General scores were given, grading how focused the management goals
were on the most relevant problems for the Park, as well as scores grad-
229
