Page 248 - 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. 248
challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia
formations. Bočić et al. (2006, 20), came to the following conclusion after
researching administration models and tourism valorisation: ‘although the
majority of the show caves in Croatia are protected by the category of geo-
morphological monument of nature, their tourism valorization primarily
depends on the way of management. Namely, if a public institution runs a
cave (e.g. Nature Park or National Park), the protection component is more
prominent, ..., as well as the fact that the profit from the cave does not make
the basic element of the public institutions profit structure. On the other
hand, if a private concessionaire manages a show cave, the business orien-
tation towards tourism is more marked. Consequently, in these cases the
connection with local economy is more prominent, just as the significance
of the phenomenon within the tourist destinations’.
Different administrative approaches can also be seen in the exam-
ple of Postojna Cave and Škocjan Caves, the two most-attractive (to tour-
ists) speleological formations in Slovenia. Although both areas enjoy a large
number of visitors, Postojna Cave and its surroundings have developed as
a typical mass tourism destination, while conservation and a “softer” de-
velopment approach with positive efforts on the part of the local commu-
nity characterises the management of Škocjan Caves (Jurinčič and Balažič,
2011).
The systems of management of protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia
show some similarities, but also meaningful differences. In Slovenia, the
system is relatively decentralised (Groznik Zeiler, 2011), due to a bottom-up
approach. Namely, apart from Triglav National Park (the most significant
protected area in the state), public institutions founded and financed by the
state administer all regional parks, landscape parks, and one of the 56 na-
ture reserves.
All other protected areas lack a public institution tasked with their
administration. Local communities (LAU 2) can, if interested, administer
such areas via concession. In such lower-rank protected areas (of interest to
tourists), tourism development is most often not integrated into a unified
tourism supply along with other protected areas. An additional problem in
this sort of management system is the lack of clearly-defined institutional
responsibilities in terms of governance, which can also be seen in the lack
of management plans.
This can lead to situations where the status of protected area is sim-
ply a “paper shield” (e.g. in Zajčja Dobrava, Udin Boršt, and Šturmovci
246
formations. Bočić et al. (2006, 20), came to the following conclusion after
researching administration models and tourism valorisation: ‘although the
majority of the show caves in Croatia are protected by the category of geo-
morphological monument of nature, their tourism valorization primarily
depends on the way of management. Namely, if a public institution runs a
cave (e.g. Nature Park or National Park), the protection component is more
prominent, ..., as well as the fact that the profit from the cave does not make
the basic element of the public institutions profit structure. On the other
hand, if a private concessionaire manages a show cave, the business orien-
tation towards tourism is more marked. Consequently, in these cases the
connection with local economy is more prominent, just as the significance
of the phenomenon within the tourist destinations’.
Different administrative approaches can also be seen in the exam-
ple of Postojna Cave and Škocjan Caves, the two most-attractive (to tour-
ists) speleological formations in Slovenia. Although both areas enjoy a large
number of visitors, Postojna Cave and its surroundings have developed as
a typical mass tourism destination, while conservation and a “softer” de-
velopment approach with positive efforts on the part of the local commu-
nity characterises the management of Škocjan Caves (Jurinčič and Balažič,
2011).
The systems of management of protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia
show some similarities, but also meaningful differences. In Slovenia, the
system is relatively decentralised (Groznik Zeiler, 2011), due to a bottom-up
approach. Namely, apart from Triglav National Park (the most significant
protected area in the state), public institutions founded and financed by the
state administer all regional parks, landscape parks, and one of the 56 na-
ture reserves.
All other protected areas lack a public institution tasked with their
administration. Local communities (LAU 2) can, if interested, administer
such areas via concession. In such lower-rank protected areas (of interest to
tourists), tourism development is most often not integrated into a unified
tourism supply along with other protected areas. An additional problem in
this sort of management system is the lack of clearly-defined institutional
responsibilities in terms of governance, which can also be seen in the lack
of management plans.
This can lead to situations where the status of protected area is sim-
ply a “paper shield” (e.g. in Zajčja Dobrava, Udin Boršt, and Šturmovci
246
