Page 60 - 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. 60
challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia
es such as migration (Hall and Jenkins, 1998; Hall et al., 2003; Demonja and
Ružić, 2010).
According to Petrić (2008), tourism in protected areas likewise brings
potential benefits, such as employment possibilities for the local popula-
tion, increased income, stimulation and diversification of the local econ-
omy, encouraged local production, contributions to natural and cultural
heritage protection, and support for research and education of visitors and
the local population. There are also potential costs of tourism in protect-
ed areas, where tourism and recreation put the primary objective of pro-
tecting the natural and cultural phenomena in danger. Apart from those
of an environmental nature (environment degradation, loss of biodiversi-
ty), there are potential costs of a financial, economic (personnel, infrastruc-
ture), and socio-cultural (various conflicts between tourists and tourism
development goals, and the local population) nature (Petrić, 2008).
Ultimately, as a tool in local development, tourism should be used in a
combination of strategies. Tourism and recreation are not appropriate tools
for all rural areas, and not all areas are suited for tourism and/or recrea-
tion. Tourism should not take priority over other traditional activities and
should be complementary to other uses of local resources (Hall et al., 2003;
Boyd and Hall, 2005).
Krka National Park: protection and tourism development
The Park was officially designated in 1985, encompassing an area of 142 km²,
as a result of continuing efforts to protect the Krka River for its outstand-
ing natural values. Its boundaries were revised in 1997, when its southwest-
ern part (including the town Skradin) was excluded from the Park territory,
while its northern boundaries were extended upstream towards the town
Knin. Today, Krka National Park covers 109 km² of the area along the Krka
River and the lower course of the Čikola River. The Park’s main attractive
features are the travertine waterfalls of the Krka River, but it abounds with
various hydrological, geomorphological, and biological values, as well as
cultural and historical heritage (from archaeological sites, medieval for-
tresses, and monasteries to old hydroelectric plants), bearing witness to
centuries of coexistence of man and river.
Even before the national park was established, Krka’s waterfalls and
cultural heritage sites attracted numerous visitors. The Park’s designation
led to the development of a more elaborate visitor management system.
Apart from visits from the local population, a key element in visitation of
58
es such as migration (Hall and Jenkins, 1998; Hall et al., 2003; Demonja and
Ružić, 2010).
According to Petrić (2008), tourism in protected areas likewise brings
potential benefits, such as employment possibilities for the local popula-
tion, increased income, stimulation and diversification of the local econ-
omy, encouraged local production, contributions to natural and cultural
heritage protection, and support for research and education of visitors and
the local population. There are also potential costs of tourism in protect-
ed areas, where tourism and recreation put the primary objective of pro-
tecting the natural and cultural phenomena in danger. Apart from those
of an environmental nature (environment degradation, loss of biodiversi-
ty), there are potential costs of a financial, economic (personnel, infrastruc-
ture), and socio-cultural (various conflicts between tourists and tourism
development goals, and the local population) nature (Petrić, 2008).
Ultimately, as a tool in local development, tourism should be used in a
combination of strategies. Tourism and recreation are not appropriate tools
for all rural areas, and not all areas are suited for tourism and/or recrea-
tion. Tourism should not take priority over other traditional activities and
should be complementary to other uses of local resources (Hall et al., 2003;
Boyd and Hall, 2005).
Krka National Park: protection and tourism development
The Park was officially designated in 1985, encompassing an area of 142 km²,
as a result of continuing efforts to protect the Krka River for its outstand-
ing natural values. Its boundaries were revised in 1997, when its southwest-
ern part (including the town Skradin) was excluded from the Park territory,
while its northern boundaries were extended upstream towards the town
Knin. Today, Krka National Park covers 109 km² of the area along the Krka
River and the lower course of the Čikola River. The Park’s main attractive
features are the travertine waterfalls of the Krka River, but it abounds with
various hydrological, geomorphological, and biological values, as well as
cultural and historical heritage (from archaeological sites, medieval for-
tresses, and monasteries to old hydroelectric plants), bearing witness to
centuries of coexistence of man and river.
Even before the national park was established, Krka’s waterfalls and
cultural heritage sites attracted numerous visitors. The Park’s designation
led to the development of a more elaborate visitor management system.
Apart from visits from the local population, a key element in visitation of
58
