Page 45 - 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. 45
transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow ...
country, in the immediate vicinity of strong coastal tourism destinations
(Zadar, Biograd na Moru, Vodice, Šibenik). An additional reason for high
visitor numbers in Telašćica is also the vicinity of Kornati National Park,
with which it has a certain landscape unity, so it is also visited by many vis-
itors who visit Kornati. Velebit and Biokovo nature parks encompass large
mountains rising steeply above the coast, where strong coastal tourism
destinations have developed (e.g. Crikvenica-Vinodol Littoral, Makarska
Littoral). An important reason for the high number of visitors to Biokovo
Nature Park compared to other nature parks also lies in direct road trans-
port access to the most attractive sights (Sveti Jure and Vošac summits).
The island Lastovo is the central area of Lastovo Islands Nature Park,
and it shows far lower visitor numbers due to its weak transport connec-
tivity. An additional reason for low visitor numbers may also be the mod-
est promotion of the Park on the tourism market. It is noteworthy that this
is the youngest Croatian nature park, founded in 2006, so a stronger de-
pendence on the status of protected area for tourism development can be
expected in the future. Among other nature parks, only Kopački Rit is gen-
erally considered to be a must-see tourist sight during a tour of Baranja, a
region that has had successful development of rural tourism of late, and of
the nearby urban and tourist centre Osijek.
Žumberak-Samoborsko Gorje, Medvednica, Učka, Lonjsko Polje, and
Papuk nature parks encompass mountainous or marsh/flood plain are-
as visited mostly by day-trippers (recreationists) from nearby urban cen-
tres (e.g. Zagreb, Rijeka, Sisak, Osijek), rather than tourists, which is the
main reason for their low visitor numbers. An equally significant reason is
also the fact that in these nature parks, specific locales are not prominent
enough in terms of attractiveness to become independent tourist attrac-
tions in their own right. Rather, the fundamental phenomena due to which
these areas were protected are dispersed throughout a wider area, making
it difficult to valorise them in terms of tourism.
When interpreting data on visits to protected areas, especially na-
ture parks, it is necessary to take into account that they show the estimated
number of visitors and not the number of entrance tickets sold, which indi-
cates discrepancies in relation to the actual numbers of visitors. As there is
no entry fee for nature parks (only for specific locales or attractions there-
in), it is clear that the number of visitors in this category of protected ar-
eas is harder to estimate than in national parks, where entrance fees are
charged. Therefore, it is realistic to expect discrepancies between the offi-
43
country, in the immediate vicinity of strong coastal tourism destinations
(Zadar, Biograd na Moru, Vodice, Šibenik). An additional reason for high
visitor numbers in Telašćica is also the vicinity of Kornati National Park,
with which it has a certain landscape unity, so it is also visited by many vis-
itors who visit Kornati. Velebit and Biokovo nature parks encompass large
mountains rising steeply above the coast, where strong coastal tourism
destinations have developed (e.g. Crikvenica-Vinodol Littoral, Makarska
Littoral). An important reason for the high number of visitors to Biokovo
Nature Park compared to other nature parks also lies in direct road trans-
port access to the most attractive sights (Sveti Jure and Vošac summits).
The island Lastovo is the central area of Lastovo Islands Nature Park,
and it shows far lower visitor numbers due to its weak transport connec-
tivity. An additional reason for low visitor numbers may also be the mod-
est promotion of the Park on the tourism market. It is noteworthy that this
is the youngest Croatian nature park, founded in 2006, so a stronger de-
pendence on the status of protected area for tourism development can be
expected in the future. Among other nature parks, only Kopački Rit is gen-
erally considered to be a must-see tourist sight during a tour of Baranja, a
region that has had successful development of rural tourism of late, and of
the nearby urban and tourist centre Osijek.
Žumberak-Samoborsko Gorje, Medvednica, Učka, Lonjsko Polje, and
Papuk nature parks encompass mountainous or marsh/flood plain are-
as visited mostly by day-trippers (recreationists) from nearby urban cen-
tres (e.g. Zagreb, Rijeka, Sisak, Osijek), rather than tourists, which is the
main reason for their low visitor numbers. An equally significant reason is
also the fact that in these nature parks, specific locales are not prominent
enough in terms of attractiveness to become independent tourist attrac-
tions in their own right. Rather, the fundamental phenomena due to which
these areas were protected are dispersed throughout a wider area, making
it difficult to valorise them in terms of tourism.
When interpreting data on visits to protected areas, especially na-
ture parks, it is necessary to take into account that they show the estimated
number of visitors and not the number of entrance tickets sold, which indi-
cates discrepancies in relation to the actual numbers of visitors. As there is
no entry fee for nature parks (only for specific locales or attractions there-
in), it is clear that the number of visitors in this category of protected ar-
eas is harder to estimate than in national parks, where entrance fees are
charged. Therefore, it is realistic to expect discrepancies between the offi-
43
