Page 236 - 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. 236
challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia
ration of lower-level activities is determined—nor is there a timeframe for
their implementation. This opens the possibility for a given activity to be
delayed or otherwise insufficiently pursued, which could result in its ulti-
mately unsuccessful implementation.
In summation, the dominant attitude was that it is certainly better to
have a plan than to not have one, but the fact that the proposed plan will
be adopted late would, in and of itself, be a detriment for its quality imple-
mentation. Additionally, the new plan still largely treats the goals of envi-
ronmental, social, economic, and political sustainability as equally-impor-
tant in an area where this absolutely cannot be the case.
Opportunities for improving management policy
In regard to the identified management problems, it should be emphasised
that contemporary models of management often highlight the need to in-
clude different “additional” aspects in the management of protected areas
(Newsome et al., 2013). The most frequent integration method is to include
the local community, and the integration of socio-cultural sustainability
with environmental sustainability for protected areas in order to attain bet-
ter results in both segments. The second form of integration is to include
the surrounding area in the management of the protected area, where one
model is used for the entire area and the surrounding area serves as a buff-
er zone, protecting the core of the protected area from negative influences,
while the surrounding rural area benefits from the opportunities offered by
protected area status in terms of tourism development and serves as a “ser-
vice area” for the Park (Leusche et al., 2013).
Zoning based on protection characteristics is carried out in the scope
of management plans, i.e. the acceptable level of protection and activities
(tourism and residence) for a given area is precisely determined—this is
particularly the case in Europe. There are usually pre-existing areas that
are used for tourism or housing, regardless of this isolating zoning, which
limit the developmental aspects of the space. At the same time, the sur-
rounding region perceives the protected area as a limitation on develop-
ment, without which it could have a totally different system of manage-
ment or even development. Therefore, protection and development must be
integrated, which is best done by managing the entire area, in which com-
munication between protection and development stakeholders is ensured
and cooperation is heartily encouraged. As with the dimension of environ-
mental sustainability, which is monitored as a part of protection, dimen-
234
ration of lower-level activities is determined—nor is there a timeframe for
their implementation. This opens the possibility for a given activity to be
delayed or otherwise insufficiently pursued, which could result in its ulti-
mately unsuccessful implementation.
In summation, the dominant attitude was that it is certainly better to
have a plan than to not have one, but the fact that the proposed plan will
be adopted late would, in and of itself, be a detriment for its quality imple-
mentation. Additionally, the new plan still largely treats the goals of envi-
ronmental, social, economic, and political sustainability as equally-impor-
tant in an area where this absolutely cannot be the case.
Opportunities for improving management policy
In regard to the identified management problems, it should be emphasised
that contemporary models of management often highlight the need to in-
clude different “additional” aspects in the management of protected areas
(Newsome et al., 2013). The most frequent integration method is to include
the local community, and the integration of socio-cultural sustainability
with environmental sustainability for protected areas in order to attain bet-
ter results in both segments. The second form of integration is to include
the surrounding area in the management of the protected area, where one
model is used for the entire area and the surrounding area serves as a buff-
er zone, protecting the core of the protected area from negative influences,
while the surrounding rural area benefits from the opportunities offered by
protected area status in terms of tourism development and serves as a “ser-
vice area” for the Park (Leusche et al., 2013).
Zoning based on protection characteristics is carried out in the scope
of management plans, i.e. the acceptable level of protection and activities
(tourism and residence) for a given area is precisely determined—this is
particularly the case in Europe. There are usually pre-existing areas that
are used for tourism or housing, regardless of this isolating zoning, which
limit the developmental aspects of the space. At the same time, the sur-
rounding region perceives the protected area as a limitation on develop-
ment, without which it could have a totally different system of manage-
ment or even development. Therefore, protection and development must be
integrated, which is best done by managing the entire area, in which com-
munication between protection and development stakeholders is ensured
and cooperation is heartily encouraged. As with the dimension of environ-
mental sustainability, which is monitored as a part of protection, dimen-
234
