Page 64 - 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. 64
challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia
Tab. 1 Indicators of tourism development in local government units in Šibenik-Knin
County
LGU Number Number Number of Avera- Change in Change in
of beds of over- tourist arri- ge number the num- the num-
in 2018 night stays vals in 2018 of overni- ber of over- ber of tou-
in 2018 ght stays in night stays rist arrivals
Bilice 776 7228 2018/2016 2018/2016
Civljane 26 39132 58 2018
Drniš 395 306 5306 160.7 181.4
Kijevo 26 18576 331 5.4 218.6 241.7
Kistanje 27 951 60 5.3 158.2 138.2
Knin 148 258 1541 3.5 598.1 233.1
Pirovac 22 3868 107 2.9 1612.5 3000.0
Promina 73 782 622 4.3 121.0 111.2
Ružić 56 4095 226 2.5 454.7 713.3
Skradin 932 1477 22699 7.3 137.0 215.2
Šibenik 1375 47748 29801 6.6 525.6 426.4
Tisno 19 79312 117 6.5 155.3 157.0
Unešić 76 1087 338 2.1 132.6 146.3
Vodice 56 3114 315 2.7 135.0 128.6
2589 9.3 217.0 279.3
9.2 231.4 342.4
8.2
Source: eVisitor, 2019
*Note: the whole of the predominantly island and/or coastal municipalities of Murter-
Kornati, Primošten, Rogoznica, and Tribunj were excluded, as well as coastal and island
settlements that were part of other LGUs. The municipalities of Biskupija and Ervenik
did not have any tourist arrivals recorded for 2018.
Although these changes can be attributed to the trend of development
of the tourism supply to complement the tourist centres along the coast and
advancement of different alternative forms of tourism in the hinterland, ar-
eas surrounding the Park also benefit from this position. In words of an in-
terviewee from the Park’s administration, ‘it is like a spine through this
whole area which everyone can very easily latch on to and use its attraction
to develop their offer’. The interviewee saw the national park as the prima-
ry motivation for visitors staying in the area because ‘the national park, in
essence, subconsciously transmits this message that it is an area of peace
and quiet, relaxation, and this is what they need’. The Park has not been
directly involved with developing rural tourism, apart from offering en-
trance tickets at a special fare for tourists staying in registered accommoda-
62
Tab. 1 Indicators of tourism development in local government units in Šibenik-Knin
County
LGU Number Number Number of Avera- Change in Change in
of beds of over- tourist arri- ge number the num- the num-
in 2018 night stays vals in 2018 of overni- ber of over- ber of tou-
in 2018 ght stays in night stays rist arrivals
Bilice 776 7228 2018/2016 2018/2016
Civljane 26 39132 58 2018
Drniš 395 306 5306 160.7 181.4
Kijevo 26 18576 331 5.4 218.6 241.7
Kistanje 27 951 60 5.3 158.2 138.2
Knin 148 258 1541 3.5 598.1 233.1
Pirovac 22 3868 107 2.9 1612.5 3000.0
Promina 73 782 622 4.3 121.0 111.2
Ružić 56 4095 226 2.5 454.7 713.3
Skradin 932 1477 22699 7.3 137.0 215.2
Šibenik 1375 47748 29801 6.6 525.6 426.4
Tisno 19 79312 117 6.5 155.3 157.0
Unešić 76 1087 338 2.1 132.6 146.3
Vodice 56 3114 315 2.7 135.0 128.6
2589 9.3 217.0 279.3
9.2 231.4 342.4
8.2
Source: eVisitor, 2019
*Note: the whole of the predominantly island and/or coastal municipalities of Murter-
Kornati, Primošten, Rogoznica, and Tribunj were excluded, as well as coastal and island
settlements that were part of other LGUs. The municipalities of Biskupija and Ervenik
did not have any tourist arrivals recorded for 2018.
Although these changes can be attributed to the trend of development
of the tourism supply to complement the tourist centres along the coast and
advancement of different alternative forms of tourism in the hinterland, ar-
eas surrounding the Park also benefit from this position. In words of an in-
terviewee from the Park’s administration, ‘it is like a spine through this
whole area which everyone can very easily latch on to and use its attraction
to develop their offer’. The interviewee saw the national park as the prima-
ry motivation for visitors staying in the area because ‘the national park, in
essence, subconsciously transmits this message that it is an area of peace
and quiet, relaxation, and this is what they need’. The Park has not been
directly involved with developing rural tourism, apart from offering en-
trance tickets at a special fare for tourists staying in registered accommoda-
62
