Page 235 - 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. 235
interrelation between development, management, and management issues ...
Management Respon- Respon- Respon- Respon- Respon- Respon- Respon- Respon-
goals dent 1 dent 2 dent 3 dent 4 dent 5 dent 6 dent 7 dent 8
RPRPRP RP RP RP R P RP
Development of 12-212 -2 22 12 1 2 12
institutional &
human capaci- 32-232 -2 32 32 1 2 12
ty and compe-
tence
Management
of property and
infrastructure
In the case of the new management plan, ten goals were deemed to be
relevant, three to be partially-relevant, and three to be irrelevant for the
Park’s management. The goals that were deemed to be irrelevant predomi-
nantly related to resource organisation. The respondents were nearly unan-
imous regarding the improvements, in terms of better-stated goals/sub-
themes, in the new plan over the former plans, but they agreed that the new
goals were rather weakly-linked to the goals of previous management pe-
riods—this is not necessarily a bad thing, as one respondent put it: ‘the old
plan(s) should be filed away and forgotten, only to be dusted off and displayed
as an example of what not to do’.
It is indicative that in the case of both plans, priority in terms of rel-
evance was given to the goals aimed at protecting (preserving) the envi-
ronment, then to protecting cultural heritage and landscapes, and then to
goals aimed at strengthening the local community and ecotourism sup-
ply. Not even the respondents from economic sciences gave high priority to
goals that were oriented towards tourism, hospitality, and marketing. The
respondents stressed that the emphasis of such goals, in terms of sustaina-
ble management of the Park, was ‘the wrong approach, and was not oriented
toward the primary goals underlying the founding of the Park’.
One respondent, however, highlighted one of the dangers of the new
plan that could lead to poor and improper implementation: ‘each measure
has a series of activity indicators, however, it is worrisome that the majori-
ty of them require the engagement of external contractors, which would add
cost and complication, as well as the all-important question of which exter-
nal contractors should be selected and how’. Moreover, one of the respond-
ents stressed that individual goals and their indicators were determined for
a period of ten years, i.e. for the intended duration of the plan, but the se-
quence in the formulation of the goals is not clearly-defined—only the du-
233
Management Respon- Respon- Respon- Respon- Respon- Respon- Respon- Respon-
goals dent 1 dent 2 dent 3 dent 4 dent 5 dent 6 dent 7 dent 8
RPRPRP RP RP RP R P RP
Development of 12-212 -2 22 12 1 2 12
institutional &
human capaci- 32-232 -2 32 32 1 2 12
ty and compe-
tence
Management
of property and
infrastructure
In the case of the new management plan, ten goals were deemed to be
relevant, three to be partially-relevant, and three to be irrelevant for the
Park’s management. The goals that were deemed to be irrelevant predomi-
nantly related to resource organisation. The respondents were nearly unan-
imous regarding the improvements, in terms of better-stated goals/sub-
themes, in the new plan over the former plans, but they agreed that the new
goals were rather weakly-linked to the goals of previous management pe-
riods—this is not necessarily a bad thing, as one respondent put it: ‘the old
plan(s) should be filed away and forgotten, only to be dusted off and displayed
as an example of what not to do’.
It is indicative that in the case of both plans, priority in terms of rel-
evance was given to the goals aimed at protecting (preserving) the envi-
ronment, then to protecting cultural heritage and landscapes, and then to
goals aimed at strengthening the local community and ecotourism sup-
ply. Not even the respondents from economic sciences gave high priority to
goals that were oriented towards tourism, hospitality, and marketing. The
respondents stressed that the emphasis of such goals, in terms of sustaina-
ble management of the Park, was ‘the wrong approach, and was not oriented
toward the primary goals underlying the founding of the Park’.
One respondent, however, highlighted one of the dangers of the new
plan that could lead to poor and improper implementation: ‘each measure
has a series of activity indicators, however, it is worrisome that the majori-
ty of them require the engagement of external contractors, which would add
cost and complication, as well as the all-important question of which exter-
nal contractors should be selected and how’. Moreover, one of the respond-
ents stressed that individual goals and their indicators were determined for
a period of ten years, i.e. for the intended duration of the plan, but the se-
quence in the formulation of the goals is not clearly-defined—only the du-
233
