Page 88 - 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. 88
challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia
31% (Tab. 2). What caused such a remarkable change? Interior settlements
lost two-thirds of their population due to complete deagrarisation, which
was not substituted by other economic activities. Having no working op-
portunities, the younger population was forced to leave and some of them
saw tourism in coastal settlements as a potential source of income (Šulc and
Valjak, 2012).
Hence, the population in coastal settlements increased by over three-
fold. Apart from Sobra, these small settlements developed from small ag-
glomerations that consisted of storage buildings and warehouses for boats,
owned by residents of interior settlements. Tourism development, start-
ing in the 1970s, encouraged the transformation of existing objects and the
construction of new ones as rental accommodation for tourists. This was
perhaps sufficient to keep more of the local population on the island (Šulc
and Valjak, 2012), but it was certainly not enough to attract potential mi-
grants from the mainland. During the same period, the population of the
Park decreased by 18%, due to less intensive in-migration, associated with
limited building permits, which, on the other hand, spared that area from
over-construction (Šulc and Valjak, 2012). Despite its role as the tourist cen-
tre of the island, many who work in the Park choose to live in other parts of
the island (Šulc and Valjak, 2012).
The analysed processes show that tourism did not manage to revital-
ise the population, but it contributed to divergent population development
in the interior and on the coast, as well as in settlements within the Park.
Another issue is the small size of the settlements, which generally lack an
economically active population and initiatives, limiting tourism to the sim-
ple “sun and sea” paradigm, i.e. renting accommodation in households, and
does not enable the full potential of the island to be realised.
The analysed spatial mobility is visible in the composition of the popu-
lation by migration features in 2011. Around 54.5% of the population moved
to their present place of residence (i.e. they did not always live there), which
is above the regional average (49.2%), and confirms the rather vivid docu-
mented migration in the recent period (CBS, 2013). Furthermore, 34.4% mi-
grated from another place on the island, as a part of the recent population
redistribution. The share of migrants from the rest of Dubrovnik-Neretva
County is equally high (32.9%), comprising former islanders that had moved
to Dubrovnik and returned to the island to retire, as well as their children,
who see tourism as a source of income (CBS, 2013; Šulc, 2016). The lower
share of in-migrants from other Croatian regions (15.5%) and other coun-
86
31% (Tab. 2). What caused such a remarkable change? Interior settlements
lost two-thirds of their population due to complete deagrarisation, which
was not substituted by other economic activities. Having no working op-
portunities, the younger population was forced to leave and some of them
saw tourism in coastal settlements as a potential source of income (Šulc and
Valjak, 2012).
Hence, the population in coastal settlements increased by over three-
fold. Apart from Sobra, these small settlements developed from small ag-
glomerations that consisted of storage buildings and warehouses for boats,
owned by residents of interior settlements. Tourism development, start-
ing in the 1970s, encouraged the transformation of existing objects and the
construction of new ones as rental accommodation for tourists. This was
perhaps sufficient to keep more of the local population on the island (Šulc
and Valjak, 2012), but it was certainly not enough to attract potential mi-
grants from the mainland. During the same period, the population of the
Park decreased by 18%, due to less intensive in-migration, associated with
limited building permits, which, on the other hand, spared that area from
over-construction (Šulc and Valjak, 2012). Despite its role as the tourist cen-
tre of the island, many who work in the Park choose to live in other parts of
the island (Šulc and Valjak, 2012).
The analysed processes show that tourism did not manage to revital-
ise the population, but it contributed to divergent population development
in the interior and on the coast, as well as in settlements within the Park.
Another issue is the small size of the settlements, which generally lack an
economically active population and initiatives, limiting tourism to the sim-
ple “sun and sea” paradigm, i.e. renting accommodation in households, and
does not enable the full potential of the island to be realised.
The analysed spatial mobility is visible in the composition of the popu-
lation by migration features in 2011. Around 54.5% of the population moved
to their present place of residence (i.e. they did not always live there), which
is above the regional average (49.2%), and confirms the rather vivid docu-
mented migration in the recent period (CBS, 2013). Furthermore, 34.4% mi-
grated from another place on the island, as a part of the recent population
redistribution. The share of migrants from the rest of Dubrovnik-Neretva
County is equally high (32.9%), comprising former islanders that had moved
to Dubrovnik and returned to the island to retire, as well as their children,
who see tourism as a source of income (CBS, 2013; Šulc, 2016). The lower
share of in-migrants from other Croatian regions (15.5%) and other coun-
86
