Page 34 - 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. 34
challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia
port organisation level, etc. (Geurs and Ritsema van Eck, 2001; Halden et
al., 2005; Litman, 2007; Halden, 2011).
In order to determine whether there is indeed an impact, and the ex-
tent to which transport accessibility is linked to the intensity of tourist
flow in Croatian national parks and nature parks, it is first necessary to de-
fine measurable indicators of transport accessibility assessment, applica-
ble in national parks and nature parks in Croatia. Afterwards, their scoring
should be implemented in each researched national park/nature park and,
finally, the total scores for each researched protected area should be com-
pared to the number of visitors.
Research aims and methodology
The aim of the chapter is to assess transport accessibility in Croatian na-
tional parks and nature parks and examine its connection to tourist flow2
in the stated protected areas. The research is based on the hypothesis that
the protected areas with higher transport accessibility have a higher num-
ber of tourist visits than those with lower transport accessibility. The re-
search included 16 of the 19 Croatian national parks and nature parks, i.e.
those for which it was possible to identify the entrances used by the major-
ity of visitors. The research included the following national parks: Brijuni;
Krka; Mljet; Paklenica; Plitvice Lakes; Risnjak; and Northern Velebit.
Kornati National Park was excluded due to being an insular area for which
it was impossible to determine a single point of entrance used by the major-
ity of visitors. Apart from national parks, the following nature parks were
included in the research: Biokovo; Kopački Rit; Lastovo Islands; Lonjsko
Polje; Medvednica; Papuk; Telašćica; Učka; and Vransko Lake. Velebit and
Žumberak-Samoborsko Gorje nature parks were excluded from the re-
search as it proved impossible to identify which entrance was used by the
majority of visitors.
2 Throughout the chapter, the term tourist flow in a protected area refers to the total
number of visitors who stay for one or more nights within a protected area as well
as day-trippers (tourists who are staying at tourism destinations nearby, one-day ex-
cursionists, as well as the local population living in settlements nearby and visiting
the protected area for recreation). Likewise, it’s important to point out that for some
researched protected areas, mainly national parks that charge entrance fees and na-
ture parks close to coastal and insular tourism destinations (e.g. Biokovo, Velebit,
Telašćica, Lastovo Islands), more pronounced “real” tourist motivation during a vis-
it could be observed; whereas other researched protected areas, mainly nature parks
that do not charge entrance fees (e.g. Medvednica, Žumberak-Samoborsko Gorje),
show a more pronounced recreational motivation among visitors was detected.
32
port organisation level, etc. (Geurs and Ritsema van Eck, 2001; Halden et
al., 2005; Litman, 2007; Halden, 2011).
In order to determine whether there is indeed an impact, and the ex-
tent to which transport accessibility is linked to the intensity of tourist
flow in Croatian national parks and nature parks, it is first necessary to de-
fine measurable indicators of transport accessibility assessment, applica-
ble in national parks and nature parks in Croatia. Afterwards, their scoring
should be implemented in each researched national park/nature park and,
finally, the total scores for each researched protected area should be com-
pared to the number of visitors.
Research aims and methodology
The aim of the chapter is to assess transport accessibility in Croatian na-
tional parks and nature parks and examine its connection to tourist flow2
in the stated protected areas. The research is based on the hypothesis that
the protected areas with higher transport accessibility have a higher num-
ber of tourist visits than those with lower transport accessibility. The re-
search included 16 of the 19 Croatian national parks and nature parks, i.e.
those for which it was possible to identify the entrances used by the major-
ity of visitors. The research included the following national parks: Brijuni;
Krka; Mljet; Paklenica; Plitvice Lakes; Risnjak; and Northern Velebit.
Kornati National Park was excluded due to being an insular area for which
it was impossible to determine a single point of entrance used by the major-
ity of visitors. Apart from national parks, the following nature parks were
included in the research: Biokovo; Kopački Rit; Lastovo Islands; Lonjsko
Polje; Medvednica; Papuk; Telašćica; Učka; and Vransko Lake. Velebit and
Žumberak-Samoborsko Gorje nature parks were excluded from the re-
search as it proved impossible to identify which entrance was used by the
majority of visitors.
2 Throughout the chapter, the term tourist flow in a protected area refers to the total
number of visitors who stay for one or more nights within a protected area as well
as day-trippers (tourists who are staying at tourism destinations nearby, one-day ex-
cursionists, as well as the local population living in settlements nearby and visiting
the protected area for recreation). Likewise, it’s important to point out that for some
researched protected areas, mainly national parks that charge entrance fees and na-
ture parks close to coastal and insular tourism destinations (e.g. Biokovo, Velebit,
Telašćica, Lastovo Islands), more pronounced “real” tourist motivation during a vis-
it could be observed; whereas other researched protected areas, mainly nature parks
that do not charge entrance fees (e.g. Medvednica, Žumberak-Samoborsko Gorje),
show a more pronounced recreational motivation among visitors was detected.
32
