Page 238 - 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. 238
challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia
tal phases of management have been established, based on the research un-
derlying the chapter:
1. the phase of informal management (1883–1948);
2. the phase of management based on spatial plans (1949–1989);
3. the wartime phase—lack of a fundamental management and de-
cision-making body (1990–2002); and
4. the phase of planned management documents (2003–time of
writing).
Despite the largely consistent management presence and actions, it
should be stressed that fundamental management problems have been
identified: functional overburdening; threats to hydro-geological biotopes;
and negative demographic processes in and around the Park. It is discour-
aging that the recent management phase had no answers to these three fun-
damental problems, despite the emphasis that was placed on preserving hy-
dro-geological environmental biotopes—which was totally ignored in the
second and third phases.
With regard to the fact that management of protected areas is a cycli-
cal process, within the framework of which pre-arranged activities are un-
dertaken to achieve specific goals, it is extremely important to observe how
this process unfolded in previous periods, as well as how it is unfolding in
current developmental processes. This process and efficiency assessments,
based on interviews with respondents, show that the majority of goals were
insufficiently relevant and unsuccessfully carried out, which is extremely
important in terms of efficient management. The respondents were largely
of the opinion that while it is better to have a plan that to not have one, the
current plan is flawed in that it treats environmental, social, economic, and
political sustainability goals as equally-important in an area where this (by
definition) cannot be the case.
Finally, integration of protection and development via management of
an entire area would ensure better communication and cooperation among
various stakeholders. Additionally, dimensions other than that of a sus-
tainable environment should be taken into account, e.g. economic and so-
cio-cultural/demographic sustainability, in order to properly manage the
development of a given area. The aforementioned integral model, which
would enable a certain amount of management autonomy for social issues,
is necessary in terms of strengthening the integration of the environment
and the community as two parts of a single ecosystem.
236
tal phases of management have been established, based on the research un-
derlying the chapter:
1. the phase of informal management (1883–1948);
2. the phase of management based on spatial plans (1949–1989);
3. the wartime phase—lack of a fundamental management and de-
cision-making body (1990–2002); and
4. the phase of planned management documents (2003–time of
writing).
Despite the largely consistent management presence and actions, it
should be stressed that fundamental management problems have been
identified: functional overburdening; threats to hydro-geological biotopes;
and negative demographic processes in and around the Park. It is discour-
aging that the recent management phase had no answers to these three fun-
damental problems, despite the emphasis that was placed on preserving hy-
dro-geological environmental biotopes—which was totally ignored in the
second and third phases.
With regard to the fact that management of protected areas is a cycli-
cal process, within the framework of which pre-arranged activities are un-
dertaken to achieve specific goals, it is extremely important to observe how
this process unfolded in previous periods, as well as how it is unfolding in
current developmental processes. This process and efficiency assessments,
based on interviews with respondents, show that the majority of goals were
insufficiently relevant and unsuccessfully carried out, which is extremely
important in terms of efficient management. The respondents were largely
of the opinion that while it is better to have a plan that to not have one, the
current plan is flawed in that it treats environmental, social, economic, and
political sustainability goals as equally-important in an area where this (by
definition) cannot be the case.
Finally, integration of protection and development via management of
an entire area would ensure better communication and cooperation among
various stakeholders. Additionally, dimensions other than that of a sus-
tainable environment should be taken into account, e.g. economic and so-
cio-cultural/demographic sustainability, in order to properly manage the
development of a given area. The aforementioned integral model, which
would enable a certain amount of management autonomy for social issues,
is necessary in terms of strengthening the integration of the environment
and the community as two parts of a single ecosystem.
236
