Page 251 - 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. 251
urism development and green horizons in protected areas of croatia and slovenia ...
In this way, some Croatian nature parks (e.g. Papuk, Žumberak-
Samoborsko Gorje, Medvednica) and national parks (e.g. Risnjak and
Northern Velebit), which would be less-visible and less visited by tourists
(thus generating less income) without significant marketing efforts (web
pages, mobile applications, etc.), have been promoted. The number of tour-
ist visits is rising every year in these areas, even though they are still domi-
nantly characterised by educational and recreational activities.
The remaining protected areas are administered by competent pub-
lic institutions on the county (regional) level, which are present in and fi-
nanced by each of Croatia’s 21 counties, and in few cases by cities, towns,
municipalities, and special public institutions. Although the exact man-
ner of management of protected nature areas varies slightly from coun-
ty to county, it can be seen that the presence of an administrative body
has enabled stronger (communal) promotion and integral administration
on the regional level, especially for lesser-known areas of lower protection
categories.
Such a system of management of protected areas (in Croatia), from
the aspect of tourism, opens perspectives of development of (mass) tour-
ism within protected areas themselves, as well as in less-influential are-
as outside of a given park’s borders. This also carries with it the risk that
the most visited national parks could transform into full-fledged tourism
destinations.
Conclusion
Regardless of differences in management, protected areas—foremost na-
tional parks and nature parks in Croatia and Slovenia—are experiencing
more and more visitors each year. In relation to global trends, it is realis-
tic to expect that the number of visitors to these areas will continue to rise,
and that the conflict between tourism development imperatives and nature
protection imperatives will intensify in and around the most-visited pro-
tected areas (e.g. Plitvice Lakes National Park, Krka National Park, Triglav
National Park, and Škocjan Caves Regional Park). Therefore, strict meas-
ures limiting further construction of residential and tourist accommoda-
tion should be enacted, in order to maintain an acceptable balance. Apart
from construction, regulation of visitor traffic flows in national and nature
parks is needed, as well as incentivising and strengthening public transport
over personal automobiles (e.g. buses to Vrata Valley in Triglav National
Park).
249
In this way, some Croatian nature parks (e.g. Papuk, Žumberak-
Samoborsko Gorje, Medvednica) and national parks (e.g. Risnjak and
Northern Velebit), which would be less-visible and less visited by tourists
(thus generating less income) without significant marketing efforts (web
pages, mobile applications, etc.), have been promoted. The number of tour-
ist visits is rising every year in these areas, even though they are still domi-
nantly characterised by educational and recreational activities.
The remaining protected areas are administered by competent pub-
lic institutions on the county (regional) level, which are present in and fi-
nanced by each of Croatia’s 21 counties, and in few cases by cities, towns,
municipalities, and special public institutions. Although the exact man-
ner of management of protected nature areas varies slightly from coun-
ty to county, it can be seen that the presence of an administrative body
has enabled stronger (communal) promotion and integral administration
on the regional level, especially for lesser-known areas of lower protection
categories.
Such a system of management of protected areas (in Croatia), from
the aspect of tourism, opens perspectives of development of (mass) tour-
ism within protected areas themselves, as well as in less-influential are-
as outside of a given park’s borders. This also carries with it the risk that
the most visited national parks could transform into full-fledged tourism
destinations.
Conclusion
Regardless of differences in management, protected areas—foremost na-
tional parks and nature parks in Croatia and Slovenia—are experiencing
more and more visitors each year. In relation to global trends, it is realis-
tic to expect that the number of visitors to these areas will continue to rise,
and that the conflict between tourism development imperatives and nature
protection imperatives will intensify in and around the most-visited pro-
tected areas (e.g. Plitvice Lakes National Park, Krka National Park, Triglav
National Park, and Škocjan Caves Regional Park). Therefore, strict meas-
ures limiting further construction of residential and tourist accommoda-
tion should be enacted, in order to maintain an acceptable balance. Apart
from construction, regulation of visitor traffic flows in national and nature
parks is needed, as well as incentivising and strengthening public transport
over personal automobiles (e.g. buses to Vrata Valley in Triglav National
Park).
249
