Page 247 - 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. 247
urism development and green horizons in protected areas of croatia and slovenia ...
protected areas, especially national parks, impacts the capability of many
park administration institutions, and finally, global climate change will af-
fect many protected areas and the tourism taking place in them in unfore-
seeable ways.
One of the most important questions regarding the management of
protected areas (as well as tourism) is financing. As Conner (2007, 210) ar-
gues, ‘protected areas are financed and supported by governments because
they are public goods, that is, they are non-rival and not-excludable’. An
equally-important reason for financing protected areas with public funds
lies in the fact that they represent natural value that has been recognised
and protected by the state for future generations, as natural heritage and
part of the local, regional, and/or national identity.
On the global level, there has been a noticeable trend of reduced fi-
nancing for protected areas from state budgets (as well as from other public
sources), with a parallel increase in entrance fees, educational and recrea-
tional programmes, and other activities. This means that the most attrac-
tive protected areas are increasingly transforming into typical tourism
sights, and in some cases full-fledged tourism destinations, forcing their
primary role—nature protection—to play second fiddle. In such cases, the
management of protected areas closely resembles the management of busi-
ness entities.
This is a real and present problem for successful nature protection,
which has led to paradoxical situations of commercialisation of protect-
ed areas in circumstances when mass tourism has threatened their funda-
mental function, i.e. the reason for which the area was categorised as pro-
tected: nature preservation. On the other hand, with sustainable tourism,
revenues support nature protection activities and can be recognised as a
decided benefit for the maintanence of protected areas. Another positive
aspect of sustainable tourism development in protected areas is the preven-
tion of other, more environmentally invasive activities.
Less-attractive and/or less well-known protected areas have fewer
tourist visits, limiting the scope of tourism services and the financial effect
of entrance fees. In most cases nature protection is not in question, howev-
er, under conditions of reduced public financing and tourism income, na-
ture protection as a fundamental function can come under threat.
The aforementioned management challenges are also visible in exam-
ples of management of protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia. This is clear
in the context of tourism valorisation and administration of speleological
245
protected areas, especially national parks, impacts the capability of many
park administration institutions, and finally, global climate change will af-
fect many protected areas and the tourism taking place in them in unfore-
seeable ways.
One of the most important questions regarding the management of
protected areas (as well as tourism) is financing. As Conner (2007, 210) ar-
gues, ‘protected areas are financed and supported by governments because
they are public goods, that is, they are non-rival and not-excludable’. An
equally-important reason for financing protected areas with public funds
lies in the fact that they represent natural value that has been recognised
and protected by the state for future generations, as natural heritage and
part of the local, regional, and/or national identity.
On the global level, there has been a noticeable trend of reduced fi-
nancing for protected areas from state budgets (as well as from other public
sources), with a parallel increase in entrance fees, educational and recrea-
tional programmes, and other activities. This means that the most attrac-
tive protected areas are increasingly transforming into typical tourism
sights, and in some cases full-fledged tourism destinations, forcing their
primary role—nature protection—to play second fiddle. In such cases, the
management of protected areas closely resembles the management of busi-
ness entities.
This is a real and present problem for successful nature protection,
which has led to paradoxical situations of commercialisation of protect-
ed areas in circumstances when mass tourism has threatened their funda-
mental function, i.e. the reason for which the area was categorised as pro-
tected: nature preservation. On the other hand, with sustainable tourism,
revenues support nature protection activities and can be recognised as a
decided benefit for the maintanence of protected areas. Another positive
aspect of sustainable tourism development in protected areas is the preven-
tion of other, more environmentally invasive activities.
Less-attractive and/or less well-known protected areas have fewer
tourist visits, limiting the scope of tourism services and the financial effect
of entrance fees. In most cases nature protection is not in question, howev-
er, under conditions of reduced public financing and tourism income, na-
ture protection as a fundamental function can come under threat.
The aforementioned management challenges are also visible in exam-
ples of management of protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia. This is clear
in the context of tourism valorisation and administration of speleological
245
