challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia • Edited by Miha Koderman and Vuk Tvrtko Opačić challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Challenges of tourism development in protected areas of Croatia and Slovenia Edited by Miha Koderman and Vuk Tvrtko Opačić 2020 Scientific Monograph Challenges of tourism development in protected areas of Croatia and Slovenia Editors ■ Miha Koderman, Vuk Tvrtko Opačić Reviewers ■ Dejan Cigale, Zoran Klarić Language Editor ■ Christopher Grey Kaufmann Typesetting ■ Jonatan Vinkler Cover photos ■ Izidora Marković Vukadin (Plitvice Lakes National Park), Miha Koderman (Triglav National Park) Published by Založba Univerze na Primorskem (for publisher: Prof. Klavdija Kutnar, PhD, Rector) Titov trg 4, SI-6000 Koper Editor-in-chief ■ Jonatan Vinkler Managing editor ■ Alen Ježovnik Hrvatsko geografsko društvo/Croatian Geographical Society (for publisher: Prof. Danijel Orešić, PhD, President) Marulićev trg 19, HR-10000 Zagreb Koper, Zagreb 2020 ISBN 978-961-7055-08-5 (pdf) http://www.hippocampus.si/ISBN/978-961-7055-08-5.pdf ISBN 978-961-7055-09-2 (html) http://www.hippocampus.si/ISBN/978-961-7055-09-2/index.html DOI: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-7055-08-5 © 2020 Založba Univerze na Primorskem/University of Primorska Press and Hrvatsko geografsko društvo/Croatian Geographical Society Izdaja je sofinancirana po pogodbi ARRS za sofinanciranje izdajanja znanstvenih monografij v letu 2020. Publication of this book is financially supported by Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia for the year 2020. Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani COBISS.SI-ID=33308163 ISBN 978-961-7055-08-5 (pdf) ISBN 978-961-7055-09-2 (html) Contents 7 Preface Vuk Tvrtko Opačić, Miha Koderman 9 Chapter 1: Explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of Croatia and Slovenia Slaven Gašparović, Vuk Tvrtko Opačić 27 Chapter 2: Transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow in Croatian national parks and nature parks Petra Radeljak Kaufmann 53 Chapter 3: Rural tourism in the surroundings of Krka National Park: factors of development and spatial impacts Ivan Šulc 75 Chapter 4: Tourism in protected areas and the transformation of Mljet island, Croatia Valentina Brečko Grubar, Nataša Kolega, Gregor Kovačič 103 Chapter 5: The importance of protected areas on the Slovenian coast for tourism and how they could be impacted by climate change Romina Rodela, Valentina Brečko Grubar 121 Chapter 6: Nature-based tourism in the eastern part of Kraški Rob: an overview of current situation and future prospects Gregor Kovačič, Miha Koderman 145 Chapter 7: Development of tourism and second homes in the area of Sviščaki in southwestern Slovenia 5 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Bojana Lipej, Lovrenc Lipej, Simon Kerma 173 Chapter 8: Škocjanski zatok Nature Reserve: a case study of a protected urban wetland area and tourist attraction Igor Jurinčič 193 Chapter 9: Spatial planning of tourism in protected nature areas in Slovenia and the tourism carrying capacity of Škocjan Caves Regional Park Izidora Marković Vukadin 211 Chapter 10: The interrelation between development, management, and management issues in Plitvice Lakes National Park Miha Koderman, Vuk Tvrtko Opačić, Izidora Marković Vukadin 241 Chapter 11: Tourism development and green horizons in protected areas of Croatia and Slovenia: synthesis and perspectives 253 Authors 259 Reviews 6 Preface This collection of research is the result of fruitful collaboration between the Department of Geography of the University of Zagreb in Croatia, and the Department of Geography of the University of Primorska in Slovenia, which was implemented within the framework of a bilateral research project entitled “Comparative analysis of spatial development of tourism in protected areas of Croatia and Slovenia”, in 2018 and 2019. The authors found a background for their research in the fact that Croatia and Slovenia are interesting cases for examining the spatial development of tourism in protected areas of nature, as they shared the same socio-economic context of development in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After their independence and the period of transition, they faced different development dynamics and adopted various approaches for management and development of protected areas. Today, both countries are members of the European Union and are confronted with many similar challenges regarding the implementation of the concept of sustainable tourism in protected areas. The main objective was to perform a comparative analysis of the spatial development of tourism in protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia. In order to achieve this goal, the authors of the chapters studied several examples of tourism development in protected areas in both countries. Spatial development of tourism was analysed using quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g. in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders) with an ap-doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-7055-08-5.7-8 7 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia propriate cartographic depiction in GIS and graphic presentation of data. Additionally, special emphasis was given to the question of spatial planning and management with elaboration of proposals and recommendations for the further development of tourism in the protected areas of both countries. Chapters in this monograph were concluded in December 2019 and consequently they do not mention the COVID-19 pandemic that has shak-en the world and established a “new reality” in the tourism sector. The editors are satisfied that the extent of the studied protected area will expand in the near future with the establishment of Dinara Nature Park in Croatia. These facts confirm the importance of continuous research of tourism in general, as well as tourism in protected areas, due to its rapidly changing character. The authors of each chapter sincerely hope that this collection of work will contribute to scientific collaboration between geographers in Croatia and Slovenia, as well as with other scholars, practitioners, students and stakeholders who deal with management and sustainable development of tourism in protected areas. The editors would like to thank the authors of the chapters for their commitment and collaboration, reviewers for their valuable input and critiques, as well as everyone else who was involved in the creation of this research and the publishing process. Special appreciation must be given also to our patient spouses for their enormous tolerance during couch surfing in Zagreb and Šenčur. Editors Šenčur, June 2020 8 Chapter 1 Explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of Croatia and Slovenia Vuk Tvrtko Opačić, Miha Koderman Abstract In this chapter, IUCN categories of protected areas are defined, along with categories of protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia with emphasis on the harmonisation thereof with IUCN categories. Additionally, the intent of each individual category of protected area in Croatian and Slovenian legislation is explained, in order to assess the possibility of their tourism valorisation and make a comparison. Tourism develops and influences space in different ways throughout the world. This means that in the most visited protected areas, tourism has become one of the key factors for transformation of protected areas and their surroundings. In contrast, tourism is not strongly developed in less-popular protected areas, and their scientific, educational, and recreational functions are stronger than tourism. Key words: categories of protected areas, IUCN, tourism, Croatia, Slovenia Introduction Increasing demand for tourism and recreational activities in protected areas has many positive and also negative environmental consequences. Managers of protected areas face important dilemmas when they decide doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-7055-08-5.9-25 9 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia between policies that strengthen nature conservation and consequently limit the progress of tourism related activities, and those that allow more moderate development of protected areas, thus enabling the growth of their recreational function. In the last decade, integrated management of protected areas has striven towards the implementation of the concept of sustainable tourism development. Although this concept has become widely accepted and has been successfully introduced in some protected areas, it is still often inappropriately and/or inadequately carried out in regard to its theoretical assumptions. Additionally, there is a frequent lack of concrete research aimed at identifying the spatial effects of tourism on the basis of defined and measurable indicators of the state of the environment. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN in further text) defines a protected area as ‘a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated, and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ (Leung et al., 2018). IUCN’s definition of protected areas is partially included in both Croatian and Slovenian legislation that relates to nature protection (Berginc et al., 2006; Marković, 2015). According to Croatian Nature Protection Act (Official Gazette, 80/13) a protected area is defined as a ‘geographically clearly-defined area that is intended for nature protection and in which long-term actions for nature protection and ecosystem preservation are carried out’. In Slovenian legislation, nature protection is covered by the Nature Conservation Act (1999), the fundamental legal act that has been amended many times since its inception. Protected areas are established in order to protect species and habitats, together with ecosystem services and natural processes (Sovinc, 2017) and can be classified into several categories concerning the level of conservation or management goals (Tab. 1). It is important to mention that each state determines categories according to its own criteria, so the categories from different states that bear the same name might not actually be analogous in terms of level and manner of protection (Klarić and Gatti, 2006). In order to unify the criteria for declaring certain categories of protected areas on the global level, the tendency in most states is to implement the IUCN categorisation of protected areas (Dudley, 2008; Leung et al., 2018). Examples of harmonisation of categories of protected areas, as well as deviation from IUCN categorisation, are visible in some cases in Croatia and Slovenia. 10 explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Tab. 1 IUCN protected area categories IUCN Name type of the category Definition Strictly protected for biodiversity and also possibly geological/ geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and im-Ia Strict nature reserve pacts are controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values. These areas are primary used for scientific research and monitoring. Usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining Ib Wilderness area their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, protected and managed to preserve their natural condition. Large natural or near-natural areas protecting large-scale ecological processes with characteristic species and ecosystems, II National park which also have environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities. Areas set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, marine cavern, geological feature III Natural monument or feature such as a cave, or a living feature such as an ancient grove. This category usually comprises of smaller areas with important significance for visitors. Areas to protect particular species or habitats, where manage-IV Habitat/species man- ment reflects this priority. Many will need regular, active inter-agement area ventions to meet the needs of particular species or habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category. Where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced a distinct character with significant ecological, biological, V Protected landscape or seascape cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values. Areas which conserve ecosystems, together with associated cul-Protected areas with tural values and traditional natural resource management sys-VI sustainable use of tems. Generally large, mainly in a natural condition, with a pro-natural resources portion under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level non-industrial natural resource use, compatible with nature conservation, is seen as one of the main aims. Source: according to Leung et al., 2018, adapted by authors Categories of protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia According to data of the Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia (2019c), protected areas encompass 8.54% of the total area of the Republic of Croatia, i.e. 12.22% of land territory and 1.94% of sea territory. Of all categories of protected areas in Croatia, the greatest amount of area is given to nature parks, ahead of significant landscapes, re-11 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia gional, and national parks. Categories of protected areas in Croatia are divided by legislation according to the IUCN categorisations, as shown in Tab. 2, while their spatial distribution is shown in Fig. 1. Tab. 2 Types of protected areas in Croatia Category IUCN Number Surface of protection Purpose Manage- ment level category of areas (km2) Strict Conservation of original National reserve nature, nature monitoring, and Ia 2 24.19 and education. regional Conservation of original natural National values; scientific, cultural, educa- park tional, tourism, and recreation- National II 8 979.63 al purpose. Conservation of natural phe- Special nomena due to uniqueness, rar- National, reserve ity, representativeness, and/or regional, IV 77 400.11 particular scientific significance. local Protection of biological and Nature park landscape diversity; educational, cultural, historical, tourism, and National V 11 4320.48 recreational purpose. Landscape diversity protection, Regional park sustainable development, and Regional V 2 1025.56 tourism. Natural Environmental protection; sci- Regional monument entific, aesthetic, or education- al purpose. and local III 80 2.27 Protection of landscape val- ue and biodiversity; protection Significant of cultural and historical value; Regional landscape protection of landscape with pre- and local V 82 1331.28 served unique features; rest and recreation. Conservation of natural or plant- Park forest ed forests of great landscape val- Regional, ue; rest and recreation. local - 27 29.54 Preservation of a horticultural- Horticultural ly shaped space or plant(s) with monument aesthetic, stylistic, artistic, cul- Regional - 119 8.36 tural, historical, ecological, or scientific value. Area of protected areas within other protected areas 593.39 TOTAL 408 7528.03 Sources: Marković, 2015, according to Zupan, 2012; Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019a 12 explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Fig. 1 Spatial distribution of protected areas in Croatia Source: Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019c In regard to the level of management, the highest level (state) is characteristic for national parks, nature parks, strict reserves, and special reserves. As far as the level of protection goes, strict reserves are the most protected and are not meant for mass, organised tourist visits. This means that such areas are essentially irrelevant in terms of tourism valorisation. It can be said that national parks (Bralić, 2000) and nature parks—with regard to their size and intended use—are by far the most important and most-visited type of protected area in Croatia (See: Chapter 2). Namely, each national park and nature park is managed by the state via a competent public institution that is charged with nature protection and development of other economic activities like tourism, recreation, education, and promotion (Opačić et al., 2005). 13 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia This serves to strengthen the institutional and financial sustainability of the national system of protected areas in Croatia, and also facilitates the cooperative marketing presentation of all Croatian national and nature parks included in the project “Parks of Croatia” (Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2017) (See: Chapter 11). This cooperative presentation and promotion on the tourism market has resulted in significant growth in the number of visitors to the parks in question over the last few years (See: Chapter 2). It is worth mentioning that protected areas are declared in order to protect nature, and not to strengthen tourism and/or recreation. Sustainable tourism in most protected areas, however, is a welcome activity, as shown in Tab. 2. Thereby, with regard to leisure activities, it is worth differentiating the role of national parks, which attract both foreign and domestic tourists (Vidaković, 2003), from nature parks—some of which are more oriented toward tourism, while others are oriented toward recreation on the part of the local population (Opačić et al. 2014). National parks distinguish themselves in terms of attractiveness and number of visitors, like other protected areas that have been recognised by UNESCO as exceptionally valuable and given the status of World Heritage Site (e.g. Plitvice Lakes National Park in Croatia and Škocjan Caves Regional Park in Slovenia) (Holden, 2013). The majority of remaining categories of protected areas in Croatia are not included in the tourism and/or recreation supply to the same degree, rather they have a conservational and educational role that stem from their value as part of Croatia’s natural heritage. Such areas are managed by public institutions that have been founded in each of Croatia’s 21 counties (regional-level management), and in some cases by cities, towns, municipalities, and special public institutions. According to the Nature Conservation Act (1999), protected areas of nature in Slovenia are, on a basic level, divided into larger (national park, regional park, landscape park) and smaller areas (strict natural reserve, nature reserve, natural monument). The categories of all protected areas, their purpose and compliance with the IUCN categorisation are shown in Tab. 3, while their spatial distribution in Slovenia is shown in Fig. 2. 14 explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Tab. 3 Types of protected areas in Slovenia Category Number Surface of protection Purpose IUCN category of areas (km2) A large area with many natural values and with a high level of biodiversity cov- ering the majority of the national park; II (at least the original nature with preserved eco- 75%) and National park systems and natural processes is present; V (a max-1 839.82 there may also be areas in a smaller por- imum of tion of the national park of greater hu-25%) man influence, which is in harmony with nature. An extensive area of regionally impor- tant ecosystems and landscapes with V (at least 75%), and Regional park larger parts of the original nature and ar- eas of natural values, which are inter- II (a max- 3 429.91 twined with areas of nature where hu- imum of man influence is greater. 25%) An area with emphasised qualitative and long-term interaction between man and Landscape park nature, which has many ecological and V 46 1299.71 landscape values, and/or a high level of biodiversity. An area of naturally conserved geotopes, habitats of endangered, rare or charac- Strict natural reserve teristic plant or animal species, or an area importance for the conservation of I 1 0.02 biodiversity, where natural processes oc- cur without human impact. An area of geotopes, habitats of endan- gered, rare, or typical plant or animal Nature reserve species, or an important area for the con- servation of biodiversity, which is also IV 56 54.96 maintained through balanced human ac- tivity in nature. An area containing one or more natural Natural monument values that have exceptional shape, size, content, or position, or are a rare exam- III 1164 192.69 ple natural values. TOTAL 1271 2817.11 Sources: Berginc et al., 2006; Sovinc et al., 2011; Slovenian Environment Agency, 2019 Protected areas in Slovenia amount to 2,817.11 km2 (in 2019), thus covering 13.9% of Slovenia’s surface area (Slovenian Environment Agency, 2019). Considering the relationship between protection and development, protected areas in Slovenia can be classified into 4 groups (Lampič et al., 2011, 60-61): 1) protected areas in which protection excludes development (strict 15 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Fig. 2 Spatial distribution of protected areas in Slovenia Source: Slovenian Environment Agency, 2019 16 explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of croatia and slovenia nature reserves, IUCN type Ia and Ib); 2) category “equilibrium”, where protection and development are equally important (regional and landscape parks, IUCN type V); 3) conservation-oriented protected areas in which protection has priority over development (national parks, IUCN type II; natural monuments; IUCN type III); and 4) development-oriented protected areas, where development has priority, while respecting protection regimes, biodiversity, and important habitats (areas in Natura 2000 and ecologically significant areas). Although the main role of protected areas can be attributed to the protection and conservation of nature (protection, maintenance, and restoration of habitats, as well as regular and continuous monitoring of the state of the park and its impact area), one cannot overlook their educational and research value, as well as their contribution to the development of the wider areas around them and human activities—aimed at greater socio-economic well-being in general (Hribar et al., 2011). As an example, tourist and recreational activities in protected areas can also be pointed out. In Slovenia, Triglav National Park plays a dominant role among protected areas, as it covers over 4 percent of the country’s territory. Its leading role is also reflected in the category of nature protection (it is the only national park in Slovenia) and in tourist and recreational visits (Groznik Zeiler, 2011), as it is visited by over 2 million visitors annually (Triglav National Park, 2016). Other categories of protected areas register a significantly lower number of visitors; they are mostly visited by domestic visitors and tourists who usually visit a broad tourism area. It should be mentioned that Slovenia has no regional administrative level of political governance, which is why only national and local levels of governance exist (although the plans for a regional administrative level of political governance were introduced in 2007). Despite this fact, there are three regional parks in Slovenia, which by definition represent large areas of regionally characteristic ecosystems and landscapes. They are managed by the municipalities (LAU 2) in which the protected areas are located, or by public institutions. Such level of protected area management can represent a problem in terms of financing, management, and organisation of work. In both countries, a significant part of territory is also included in the Natura 2000 network, which is undoubtedly positive in terms of nature protection. The share of protected areas in Slovenia is 32.4% (Natura 2000, 2019) and in Croatia 29.3% (Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019b). In terms of tourism development, the areas of 17 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia the Natura 2000 network that are also already protected under other categories of nature protection are very important. In the described context, such smaller protected areas (including those in Natura 2000 network) are usually declared to be of “local” importance and are therefore the concern of local communities—mainly municipalities. In such cases, the budget for protected areas is limited and protected areas are sometimes regarded as development restrictions by the local population (Mrak, 2008). A comparison of the structure of protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia according to category shows quite a few differences between the two states. This is somewhat surprising because these are small, neighbouring states which share nearly identical natural regions (Pannonian lowlands, Dinarides, Adriatic coast). Apart from this, the most important part of the development of protected areas in both states actually took place when they were both part of the same state: the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The category of nature park, which accounts for the largest portion of the total area of territory with protected status in Croatia, does not exist in Slovenia. The category that is most similar to the Croatian nature park category in Slovenia is either regional or landscape park, but there are major differences in the manner of management. The only category of protected area that, by definition and significance for ecology and tourism among protected areas, is essentially the same in both states is national park. It is interesting that this category also best corresponds to the IUCN definition, which confirms the key significance of national parks among protected areas on the global level. Furthermore, the major aforementioned differences, connected to levels of management of protected areas, stem from the lack of regional-level governance in Slovenia. Context and structure of the book At first glance, nature protection and tourism or recreation are incompatible activities. An increase in the number of visitors to a given protected area can have various negative impacts, like water, air, soil, and noise pollution, and reductions in the number and diversity of plant and animal species. This negatively influences biodiversity, and visually degrades the area (e.g. traffic and other tourism/hospitality infrastructure) (Mihalič, 2006; Cigale, 2009; Marković Vukadin, 2017). Conversely, a protected area should be understood as a site of valuable natural heritage, and one of the most important functions of natu-18 explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of croatia and slovenia ral (or cultural) heritage is to educate visitors. Protected areas are popu-larised by their inclusion in the tourism supply, thus becoming important goals for tourism and recreational mobilities. Under conditions of globalisation and the everyday stress of living in cities, the contemporary tourist is increasingly interested in learning about the values of local nature areas (Newsome et al., 2013)—especially protected areas. As a consequence of the aforementioned trend, there has been recognised growth in the significance of nature-based tourism (Coghlan and Buckley, 2013), ecotourism (Fennell, 2013), and tourism in protected areas specifically. ‘Equally the term ecotourism should be understood as promotion of non-mass travel in naturally sensitive, protected areas where the visitor would raise public awareness towards preserving the natural environment and therewith, with its activities support the local community (Gosar, 2017, 3–4)’. The aforementioned forms of tourism show numerous advantages, as they take place within paradigms of sustainable development, for both protected areas and the wider area, i.e. community or state. Namely, increased income (from tickets, souvenirs, guided tours, etc.) for protected areas ensures additional resources that, along with investment in nature protection, increase the value of the area in the long term (Bushell and McCool, 2007), and also influence increasing ecological awareness of visitors and the local population. From the aspect of tourism, the most attractive protected areas (e.g. Plitvice Lakes National Park or Triglav National Park) can become generators of tourism development and the entire economy of the wider area in which they are found, because their tourism branding also promotes the entire region and even the state itself. Thereby, a key precondition is that tourism capacity and the majority of its associated infrastructure should not be within the protected area. It should be mentioned that the influence of such national parks on the wider area is not always positive. Regarding the example of the village Saborsko on the border of Plitvice Lakes National Park, Kušen and Klarić (2000) emphasised that the foundation of a national park can disrupt traditional rural systems, i.e. the daily lives of the local population. In this context, national parks can be seen as ‘a foreign body in a previously unnoticed rural area’ (Kušen and Klarić, 2000, 440)”. The main theme of this collection of research is comparative analysis of spatial development of tourism in protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia from a geographical perspective, in order to identify similarities and differences. Apart from confirmation of the spatial implications of tourism in 19 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia protected areas in both states, another goal was to compare the development of tourism and its spatial influence and impacts in selected case studies. Guided by this objective, relevant experts on the topic of tourism in protected areas from both countries were invited to highlight the presented topic via their work on representative case studies. Transport and transport infrastructure are an unavoidable precondition and development factor for tourism in all types of tourism areas, including protected areas. Therefore, the second chapter is dedicated to the topic of transport accessibility in Croatian national parks and nature parks. The authors examine its connection to tourist flow through analysis of five indicators, including public transport connectivity, public transport frequency, road transport connectivity, and temporal distance from urban areas and larger tourist centres. Some national parks that are visited by a large number of tourists can be recognised as bearers of tourism, encompassing the wider area around the protected area itself. Examples of such national parks are Krka and Mljet national parks in Croatia. The research regarding Krka National Park presented in the third chapter, focuses on the development of rural tourism in its surrounding area, which has been characterised by intense development of rural tourism in recent years. The fourth chapter deals with the influence of tourism on the demographic development of the island Mljet in southern Dalmatia, which has become a popular tourism destination since its northwestern part was declared a national park in 1960. The research focuses on the socio-economic transformation and social pressure of tourism on a small local community. Although the transformative role of tourism in lesser-known protected areas (most often those of a lower level of protection) is significantly weaker, wider knowledge of their conservational and educational role within the framework of nature-based tourism is very valuable and aids in guiding future development and management of protected areas. Additionally, it is also important to research the geographical aspects of recreational activities in protected areas, such as various forms of active recreation (mountaineering, fishing, birdwatching), as well as secondary housing. Protected areas on the Slovenian coast and in the Dinaric karst region are good examples for this. The fifth chapter of this book discusses the influence of climate change on protected areas along the Slovenian coast. The Sečovlje Saltpans, Strunjan, and Debeli Rtič landscape parks and Škocjanski zatok Nature Reserve represent “islands of nature” in the mostly urbanised coastal zone 20 explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of croatia and slovenia of Slovenia, which is why they became important primarily as leisure areas and secondarily as tourism areas. With the goal of confirming possibilities for the development of nature-based tourism in rural areas of Kraški Rob, the sixth chapter of this book contains a scored assessment of the attractiveness of natural attractions and their tourism accessibility. The seventh chapter of the book deals with second homes, as a form of recreation and potentially also of tourism in protected areas (Natura 2000). The described phenomenon is presented using the example of the village Sviščaki in forested area around Snežnik Mountain—the highest mountain in Slovenia that is outside of the Alps. Regarding the example of Škocjanski zatok Nature Reserve, the eighth chapter of the book shows the transformation of a once-degraded area in the vicinity of the port city Koper, which has become a protected marsh area with educational and tourism/recreational functions, due to the process of renaturalisation. The last three chapters are dedicated to the planning of tourism and management in protected areas from the aspect of tourism in both states. The ninth chapter tackles spatial planning in tourism in protected areas in Slovenia, and primarily gives an overview of planning on different levels (national to local), before examining them using the examples of Škocjanski zatok Nature Reserve, Lipica (Natura 2000), and Škocjan Caves Regional Park. The tenth chapter discusses the interrelation between development, management, and management issues in Plitvice Lakes National Park—the most visited protected area in Croatia. In this chapter, phases of tourism development according to Butler’s model (TALC) and the related management phases and approaches are presented. The last chapter synthesises the main findings of the research presented in the previous chapters and integrates these findings into recommendations for future management of protected areas, in keeping with the concept of sustainable tourism. Conclusion It can be concluded that protected areas differ in intended purpose, in relation to both IUCN categorisation and categorisation in Croatia and Slovenia. One of the main differences between the Croatian and Slovenian systems of protected areas is that there are more types of protected areas in Croatia (9 in total) than in Slovenia (6 in total). In Croatia, there is a higher number of “large” protected areas (national parks, nature parks), while 21 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia in Slovenia the number of small scale protected areas is higher (1,164 nature monuments). There are also large differences in the scope and characteristics of tourism in individual categories of protected areas. Some of them (e.g. national parks) can satisfy a wide spectrum of tourism motivations with what they offer and, therefore, attract numerous tourists of general motivation, while other categories (e.g. natural monuments) generally only attract specific groups of visitors. In contrast, some protected areas with stricter protection regimes (e.g. strict natural reserves) essentially do not participate in the organised tourism supply, regardless of their inherent attractiveness and natural beauty. Finally, some protected areas (especially those in the vicinity of cities, e.g. nature parks or park forests) are ideal for recreation on the part of the local population and, in these areas, leisure/recreational activities are much more developed than tourism. In the most-visited national parks tourism (often mass tourism—especially during the summer tourism season) has become the main factor of transformation of both protected areas and the areas surrounding them. Namely, the surrounding area brings both positive and negative changes, occasionally threatening nature protection imperatives, i.e. the fundamental function of all protected areas. In contrast, in lesser-known protected areas, i.e. those with a lower level of protection, tourism is the initial phases or not present, so their scientific, educational, and recreational functions are more strongly emphasised than tourism (commercial). As a specific dominant form of tourism in such areas, nature-based tourism stands out. The spatial reflection of such tourism is gentler and also has the effect of spreading ecological awareness and educating visitors. References Berginc, M., Kremesec Jevšenak, J., Vidic, J., 2006: Sistem varstva narave v Sloveniji, Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor, Ljubljana. Bralić, I., 2000: Turizam i nacionalni parkovi u Hrvatskoj, Turizam 48 (4), 373-378. Bushell, R., McCool, S. F., 2007: Tourism as a tool for conservation and support of protected areas: setting the agenda, in: Tourism and protected areas: benefits beyond boundaries (eds. Bushell, R., Eagles, P.), CAB International, Oxfordshire – Cambridge, 12-26. 22 explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Cigale, D., 2009: Turizem in rekreacija kot dejavnika okoljskih obremenitev, in: Okoljski učinki prometa in turizma v Sloveniji (eds. Špes, M., Ogrin, D.), Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana, 86-105. Coghlan, A., Buckley, R., 2013: Nature-based tourism, in: The Routledge handbook of tourism and the environment (eds. Holden, A., Fennell, D.), Routledge, London – New York, 334-344. Dudley, N. (ed.), 2008: Guidelines for applying protected area management categories, IUCN, Gland. Fennell, D., 2013: Ecotourism, in: The Routledge handbook of tourism and the environment (eds. Holden, A., Fennell, D.), Routledge, London – New York, 323-333. Gosar, A., 2017: Managing sustainable tourism in protected areas, in: Tourism in protected areas of nature in Serbia and Slovenia (eds. Filipović, D. et al.), University of Belgrade, Faculty of Geography, Belgrade, 3-11. Groznik Zeiler, K., 2011: Razvojna vloga zavarovanih območij v Sloveniji, in: Razvoj zavarovanih območij v Sloveniji (eds. Nared, J. et al.), Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana, 23-32. Holden, A., 2013: Protected areas and tourism, in: The Routledge handbook of tourism and the environment (eds. Holden, A., Fennell, D.), Routledge, London – New York, 276-284. Hribar, M., Šmid Hribar, M., Erhartič, B., 2011: Premislek o razvoju in zavarovanih območjih, in: Razvoj zavarovanih območij v Sloveniji (eds. Nared, J. et al.), Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana, 11-21. Klarić, Z., Gatti, P., 2006: Ekoturizam, in: Hrvatski turizam: plavo, bijelo, zele-no (eds. Čorak, S., Mikačić, V.), Institut za turizam, Zagreb, 149-165. Kušen, E., Klarić, Z., 2000: Razvoj turizma u rubnim područjima nacionalnih parkova: primjer Saborsko, Turizam 48 (4), 439-446. Lampič, B., Mrak, I., Plut, D., 2011: Geographical identification of development potential for the sustainable development of protected areas in Slovenia, Hrvatski geografski glasnik 73 (2), 49-65, DOI: 10.21861/hgg.2011.73.02.04. Leung, Y. F., Spenceley, A., Hvenegaard, G., Buckley, R. (eds.), 2018: Tourism and visitor management in protected areas: guidelines for sustainability, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 27, IUCN, Gland. Marković, I., 2015: Problemi i mogućnosti održivoga upravljanja zaštićen-im prirodnim područjima: primjer Nacionalnoga parka Plitvička jezera, 23 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Doctoral Thesis, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Department of Geography, Zagreb. Marković Vukadin, I., 2017: Sustainability issues in management of tourism in protected areas: case study of Plitvice Lakes National Park, in: Evolution of destination planning and strategy: the rise of tourism in Croatia (eds. Dwyer, L. et al.), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 201-219, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-42246-6_10. Mihalič, T., 2006: Trajnostni turizem, Ekonomska fakulteta, Ljubljana. Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2017: Projekt PARCS – pregled rezultata, Zagreb. Mrak, I., 2008: Small size protected areas - development potentials of Slovenia, Hrvatski geografski glasnik 70 (1), 5-23, DOI: 10.21861/hgg.2008.70.01.01. Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., Dowling, R. K., 2013: Natural area tourism: ecology, impacts and management, Channel View Publications, Bristol – Buffalo – Toronto. Opačić, V. T., Curić, D., Jandras, M., Kutle, K., Marijan, N., Mirt, I., Perković, D., Vodanović, I., 2014: Zaštićena područja kao rekreacijske zone grada – primjer Parka prirode Medvednica, Hrvatski geografski glasnik 76 (1), 61-87, DOI: 10.21861/HGG.2014.76.01.04. Opačić, V. T., Lukić, A., Fuerst-Bjeliš, B., 2005: Sustainable development of recreation and tourism in the protected areas of Croatia: issues and indicators, Problemi na geografijata 3-4, 209-223. Sovinc, A., 2017: Explanatory notes on international standards for planning tourism and use of natural resources in some categories of protected areas, in: Tourism in protected areas of nature in Serbia and Slovenia (eds. Filipović, D. et al.), University of Belgrade, Faculty of Geography, Belgrade, 13-26. Sovinc, A., Fišer, Pečnikar, Ž., Gosar, A., 2011: Govorimo isti jezik? Primerjava mednarodnih in slovenskih meril kategorizacije zavarovanih območij, in: Razvoj zavarovanih območij v Sloveniji (eds. Nared, J. et al.), Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana, 33-40. Vidaković, P., 2003: Nacionalni parkovi i zaštićena područja u Hrvatskoj, Fond za stipendiranje mladih za zaštitu prirode i turizam Zagreb – 1990, Zagreb. Sources Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019a: Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature, Zagreb, http://www. 24 explanatory notes on tourism in protected areas of croatia and slovenia haop.hr/hr/tematska-podrucja/zasticena-podrucja/zasticena-podrucja/ zasticena-podrucja-u-rh (28. 11. 2019) Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019b: Natura 2000 Network Database, Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature, Zagreb. Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019c: Nature Protection Database, Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature, Zagreb. Natura 2000, 2019: Natura 2000 v Sloveniji, http://www.natura2000.si/index. php?id=45 (29. 11. 2019) Nature Conservation Act, 1999: Uradni list RS 56/99. Republic of Croatia, 2013: Nature Protection Act, Official Gazette 80/2013. Slovenian Environment Agency, 2019: http://kazalci.arso.gov.si/sl/content/zavarovana-obmocja-4?tid=40 (09. 12. 2019) Triglav National Park, 2016: Management Plan for the Triglav National Park 2016-2025, https://www.tnp.si/assets/Javni-zavod/Nacrt-upravljanja/JZ-TNP-Nacrt-upravljanja-TNP-2016-2025.pdf (22. 11. 2019) 25 Chapter 2 Transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow in Croatian national parks and nature parks Slaven Gašparović, Vuk Tvrtko Opačić Abstract The aim of the chapter is to assess transport accessibility and examine its connection to tourist flows in Croatian national parks and nature parks. The research 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 majority of visitors. The assessment of transport accessibility for these 16 entrances to protected areas was conducted using the following indicators: a) public transport connectivity (bus, ship/catamaran/ferry); b) public transport frequency; c) road transport connectivity; d) temporal distance from cities/towns; and e) temporal distance from larger tourist centres. The scoring of individual indicators for each protected area was determined and the protected areas were ranked accordingly. In order to determine the connection between transport accessibility and tourist flow, a correlation analysis was conducted for each national park and nature park, with the transport accessibility score as the independent variable and the number of visitors as the dependent variable. Key words: transport accessibility, tourist flow, national park, nature park, sustainable development, geography, Croatia doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-7055-08-5.27-52 27 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Introduction Although they are not considered to be a basis of tourism attraction, transport accessibility, transport connectivity, and transport infrastructure are highly significant preconditions for creating and developing a tourism destination (Prideaux, 2000; Kušen 2002; 2010; Čavlek et al., 2011). The intensity of tourist flow is often proportionate to transport accessibility, quality of transport connectivity, and infrastructure in a tourism destination. However, increasing traffic volume caused by the expansion of tourist travel in popular tourism destinations leads to ecological and financial challenges. Although the concept of sustainable tourism development, which facilitates spending leisure time in a clean and peaceful environment, is currently imposed as an essential approach to tourism destination management, it is becoming practically unachievable for more and more tourism destinations. Along with problems arising from high costs of transport infrastructure construction and maintenance (e.g. motorways, modern airports, quality rail network, cruise ship terminals, car parks), traffic in tourism destinations today frequently has a negative impact on the environment (Müller, 2004). With the purpose of satisfying motives to spend leisure time in ecologically clean and peaceful surroundings and also learn about natural heritage, protected areas are becoming increasingly popular sights/destinations in the modern tourism and recreation supply. The rise of popularity of protected areas in the tourism demand is concurrent with the increase in conflicts between their transport accessibility and connectivity as preconditions for a higher number of visitors, and sustainable tourism development imperatives that require special attention in managing protected areas. It is noteworthy to emphasise that these areas are not characterised as protected for promotion of their most valuable parts of natural heritage, rather for their protection and preservation for future generations. National parks and nature parks represent one of the largest and most visited categories of protected areas in Croatia in terms of surface area (Bralić, 2000; Klarić and Gatti, 2006; Opačić et al., 2014), so the conflicts between their transport accessibility as a factor of tourism flow and their sustainable development are most pronounced (Fig. 1). According to data from the Nature Protection Database of the Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia (2017), protected areas in Croatia encompass 7,528.03 km2 (8.54 % of Croatian territory, including territorial seas). National parks (979.63 km2 in total) and nature parks 28 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. Fig. 1 National parks and nature parks in the Republic of Croatia (4,320.48 km2 in total) together encompass 5,300.11 km2, i.e. 70.41 % of the entire area of all protected areas in Croatia, and in 2018 they were visited by 4,444,063 visitors (Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019). The increasing transport accessibility of national parks and nature parks directly and indirectly impacts their sustainable development. For example, one of the most visible direct negative impacts of increased transport accessibility is the construction of transport infrastructure, which irreversibly changes the natural environment, and for which there are increasing spatial demands (Daigle and Zimmermann, 2004; Opačić et al., 29 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia 2005). Simultaneously, ecologically valuable space within the borders of national parks (Monz et al., 2016) and nature parks, and their immediate surroundings is exhausted, which shrinks the habitats of numerous plant and animal species (Ament et al., 2008). Marković Vukadin (2017) recognised the three most negative consequences of the increase in mass visits to national and nature parks: the increase in solid waste; wastewater; and transport. Within the context of Plitvice Lakes National Park, through which state road D11 passes, Marković (2015) also emphasised the problem of visitor safety in the national park due to the increased number of vehicles present on the state road. Increased toxic gas emissions, caused by the combustion of fossil fuels, produces air, water, and land pollution. Additionally, noise pollution and light pollution are also increasing (Müller, 2004; Newsome et al., 2013). The indirect negative impact of transport on national parks and nature parks that has arisen from the increase in their transport accessibility is reflected in the increase in the number of visitors primarily to the most attractive zones (the zones of the fundamental phenomena, due to which a particular area was characterised as protected). Consequently, there has been an increase in the amount of solid and liquid waste (e.g. sewage), as well as damage to fundamental phenomena (e.g. travertine barriers in Plitvice Lakes and Krka national parks) (Opačić et al., 2005). From the tourism demand aspect, the increased number of visitors during the peak season negatively impacts the general tourist experience, which creates a negative perception of overcrowding in Croatia’s protected areas. Moreover, tourist flow in national and nature parks is characterised by extreme spatial and temporal concentration, which increases negative impacts on the environment (Gosar, 2017). Namely, the highest visitor pressure is directed to the zones of fundamental phenomena, and on a yearly level (during peak season) and weekly level (certain weekdays) (Williams, 2003), which the management boards of individual protected areas try to mitigate by raising the entrance fees in peak season and limiting the daily number of visitors or the number of visitors allowed in the protected area simultaneously (Plummer, 2009). On the other hand, a smaller number of tourists and recreational visitors in some national parks and nature parks 1 In Croatia, roads are categorised as follows (labelled with a letter and a number): motorway = autocesta (Ax); state road = državna cesta (Dx); county road = županijska cesta (Žx); local road = lokalna cesta (Lx). For the purpose of this chapter, the Croatian abbreviated labels of individual roads will be used, e.g. state road D1. 30 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. may be due to their weaker transport accessibility, as one of the main limiting factors of tourist visits. For an optimal management of national parks and nature parks it is necessary to implement planning of sustainable transport, which means: a) minimising atmospheric pollution; b) minimizing noise; c) minimizing land use conversion; d) minimizing the direct impacts of visitation on the environment; e) minimizing the impacts of visitation on the recreational experience; f) safeguarding the visual perception of naturalness; g) enabling all visitor groups to move freely; h) ensuring the protection of the local communities’ quality of life; and i) ensuring financial sustainability (Orsi, 2015b). As good practice examples, we can state “stick measures”, i.e. minimising and limiting car and bus traffic while simultaneously encouraging “carrot measures”, i.e. marketing and visitor education with strengthened bus transport to protected areas and organised shuttle transport within protected areas, as well as bicycle traffic (Eaton and Holding, 1996; Cullinane, 1997; Cullinane and Cullinane, 1999; Daigle, 2008; Collum and Daigle, 2015; Guiver et al., 2015; Orsi, 2015a; Weston et al., 2015). Within the context of promoting desirable modes of transport in protected areas there has been an increased level of discussion regarding the concept of so-called “slow travel”, based on pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, and some forms of rail, river and sea traffic, as well as bus traffic, whereby visitors can have deep experiences of the beauty of protected areas (Dickinson and Lumsdon, 2010). Transport accessibility is viewed through three components (origin – link – destination) and can be defined from two aspects: as the ease by which an individual or group can reach one or several opportunities, and the ease by which a destination can be reached generally. Considering that transport accessibility is a broad and flexible concept, characterised by a high level of complexity, there are several indicators that can be used in measuring it. Transport accessibility measurement indicators can be simple (e.g. number of public transport stops within an area, the length of a given road), but also more complex, including a time component, trans-31 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 extent to which transport accessibility is linked to the intensity of tourist flow in Croatian national parks and nature parks, it is first necessary to define 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 compared to the number of visitors. Research aims and methodology The aim of the chapter is to assess transport accessibility in Croatian national 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 number of tourist visits than those with lower transport accessibility. The research 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 majority 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 majority 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 research 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 excursionists, 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 nature parks close to coastal and insular tourism destinations (e.g. Biokovo, Velebit, Telašćica, Lastovo Islands), more pronounced “real” tourist motivation during a visit 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 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. The assessment of transport accessibility for the 16 entrances to protected areas researched in this paper was conducted using the following indicators: a) public transport connectivity (bus, ship/catamaran/ferry); b) public transport frequency; c) road transport connectivity; d) temporal distance from cities/towns; and e) temporal distance from larger tourist centres. Considering that some tourists arrive at protected areas by public transport, the first indicator for assessing transport accessibility was the public transport connectivity of each protected area. In order to determine its public transport connectivity, the cartographic analysis with Google Maps (Google Maps, 2019) was used to determine the existence of public transport stops for bus transport and ship/catamaran/ferry ports, within a maximum buffer of 800 m (which corresponds to a 10-minute walking distance) from the entrance mostly used by visitors. Even though a 400 m distance (i.e. a 5-minute walking distance) is often considered adequate for using public transport (e.g. Murray and Wu, 2003; Hurni, 2006; 2007; Kimpel, 2007), this distance is usually used in the study of public transport accessibility in cities. Some authors consider that the longer distance, in this case 800 m (i.e. a 10-minute walk), from a public transport stop can also be taken into consideration, e.g. in research by Murray et al. (1998) and Hurni (2006; 2007). In this research it is assumed that the tourists who arrive at the protected area are willing to walk for a maximum of 800 m, or 10 minutes, from a public transport stop to the entrance of a protected area3. Regardless of the existence of a public transport stop within 800 m of the protected area, the frequency of public transport was also an impor-3 For the purposes of this research, places in an extended sense (settlements, localities) rather than strict geographical locations /coordinates of the gates were taken as the entrances to the protected areas. Considering this, when assessing the connectivity of a protected area by public transport, the distance of the gate itself from the public transport station could be taken into account and the connectivity by public transport could be assessed in two categories (strong and weak connectivity). In the case of Croatian protected areas, the following national and nature parks would have weak connectivity, where the distance of the gate is more than 800 meters (or a 10-minute walk) from the nearest public transport station: Risnjak; Paklenica; and Krka national parks, as well as Telašćica and Vransko Lake nature parks, but the research results and conclusions were not affected. Taking into account the other analysed indicators, the selection of entrances to protected areas, which are described in detail below, could be considered as well-grounded. 33 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia tant factor in studying transport accessibility of the protected area. Public transport frequency impacts a range of activities of its users. For this purpose, public transport frequency of the busiest day in the season was taken as an accessibility indicator. For example, public transport frequency impacts passenger waiting time (especially in case of stopovers), as well as how people organise their plan for activities corresponding to departures/arrivals of public transport. A higher frequency of public transport makes it easier for visitors to plan their visit, as well as organise their time. In addition to public transport, visitors to protected areas also use personal vehicles. For them, road infrastructure is of high importance, especially in terms of road category (motorway, state road, county road, local road), together with the width and quality of the road. Road category (with all its parameters) affects the speed, safety, and quality of the journey, but also the connectivity of the protected area with the rest of the country. The assumption is that a higher road category means better quality, which enables greater safety and speed of travel—meaning better transport accessibility. Therefore, the road transport connectivity indicator was taken as one of the parameters of transport accessibility. It was determined in terms of road category leading to the entrance to the protected area. Cities play a significant role in tourist travel as departure/arrival and/ or transit points. From a transport point of view, cities include transport terminals and ports for short or long journeys, and lines of public transport at the local, regional, national, and international levels. This is why they often play an important role as departure points to protected areas. The assumption was that the vicinity of cities/towns would lead to an increase in the number of visitors to the nearby protected area. Therefore, the time distance by car/ship between the protected area and the closest settlement with the administrative status of city/town was taken as one of the accessibility indicators. In this case, time distance was measured considering that a smaller spatial distance does not necessarily signify a shorter temporal distance and vice versa. This approach is in line with new tendencies in transport accessibility studies (e.g. Kaza, 2015). Temporal distance values in this research were determined using Google Maps (Google Maps, 2019). In accordance with the previous indicator, it can be assumed that the vicinity of a leading tourist centre will lead to an increased number of visitors to a protected area. A leading tourist centre means a greater possibility of using transport services and, like in the case of the previous indicator, its temporal distance from a protected area was taken as one of the indica-34 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. tors of transport accessibility. In this sense, a leading tourist centre in the coastal area means a local self-government unit (city/municipality) with at least 1,000,000 overnight stays a year or in continental part of Croatia with at least 100,000 overnight stays a year in 2018 (Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2019). After determining assessment indicators for transport accessibility of protected areas, each were scored on a point scale (Tab. 1). The scoring of transport accessibility indicators of protected areas in the context of tourist flow is related to similar methodological approaches in geographic research. Fyhri and Hjorthol (2009), for example, assessed the impact of various indicators on mobility of social groups, while Casas et al. (2009) assessed transport-based social exclusion on the availability of living opportunities. Also, D’Haese et al. (2011) used the assessment method to determine the impact of distance and environmental criteria to active travel. The main advantages of this methodological approach are spatial and topic ap-plicability, while the main disadvantage is that there can be subjectivity in creating indicators and scoring. Tab. 1 Indicators for assessing transport accessibility of protected areas and their scoring Indicator Indicator scoring (number of points) Public transport connectivity of the protected area 0 = no connection 1 = connection 1 = 1-2 daily departures Public transport frequency 2 = 3-5 daily departures 3 = 6 or more daily departures 1 = local road (L) Road connectivity of the protected area 2 = county road (Ž) 3 = state road (D) 4 = motorway (A) 1 = more than 60 minutes 2 = 46–60 minutes Temporal distance from the protected area to nearby city/town 3 = 31–45 minutes 4 = 16–30 minutes 5 = up to 15 minutes 1 = more than 60 minutes Temporal distance from the protected area to leading tourist 2 = 46–60 minutes centres 3 = 31–45 minutes 4 = 16–30 minutes 5 = up to 15 minutes 35 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia The scoring of individual indicators for each protected area was determined with consideration to the total number of points and protected areas were ranked (whereby a higher number of points indicates a higher score of transport accessibility). In order to determine the connection between transport accessibility and tourist flow, a correlation analysis of each protected area’s score of transport accessibility and the number of visitors according to data from the Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia was conducted. Then the Pearson correlation coefficient, with the score of transport accessibility as the independent variable and the number of visitors as the dependent variable, was calculated. Transport accessibility assessment for protected areas The assessment of specific indicators of transport accessibility, as well as the total score of transport accessibility for analysed national parks and nature parks are shown in Tab. 2. The highest scores of transport accessibility among national parks were achieved by Plitvice Lakes and Krka national parks. The entrances to Plitvice Lakes National Park are located along state road D1, which allows for high accessibility, by both public and private transport. State road D1 is highly significant in terms of the transport connectivity of the Republic of Croatia considering that it connects the border crossing Macelj (on the border with Slovenia) and Split. Regarding the location of the entrance to Plitvice Lakes National Park next to state road D1, there is a range of bus lines connecting the continental part of Croatia with the Croatian Littoral that pass by the entrance and serve as connections to Plitvice Lakes National Park (there are at least ten separate daily departures that pass through the Park). Since it is a state road, it has better quality and safety than the county roads that access some of the protected areas of Croatia. In accordance with the research methodology, although Plitvice Lakes National Park is not located in the vicinity of larger urban centres nor leading tourist centres, it was regarded as an individual city/town, i.e. as an individual tourist centre, in and of itself, for the purposes of the research described in this chapter. Krka National Park also achieved a high score of transport accessibility, identical to Plitvice Lakes National Park. As opposed to other national parks and nature parks, the entrance to Krka National Park is located in the immediate vicinity of motorway A1, which connects Zagreb and Ploče, enabling exceptional transport connectivity on the national and regional scale for both public and private transport. Considering that one of 36 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. Tab. 2 The assessment of transport accessibility of national parks and nature parks according to indicators istan- earby n istan- ntre eading Protected area ransport ransport onnecti- tow t ce tal nectivity quency vity To poral d rom n poral d rom l con fre m city/ m Public t Public t Road c touris Te ce f Te ce f Plitvice Lakes 1 3 3 5 5 17 Krka 1 3 4 5 4 17 Brijuni 1 3 3 4 5 16 Kopački Rit 1 3 2 5 5 16 Vransko Lake 1 3 3 4 4 15 Medvednica 1 3 2 4 4 14 Paklenica 1 3 3 3 3 13 Telašćica 1 2 3 3 3 12 Risnjak 1 1 3 4 2 11 Lastovo Islands 1 3 3 1 1 9 Lonjsko Polje 1 2 1 4 1 9 Mljet 1 2 3 1 1 8 Northern Velebit 0 0 2 3 1 6 Papuk 0 0 2 3 1 6 Učka 0 0 2 2 2 6 Biokovo 0 0 1 1 1 3 the main entrances to Krka National Park is located in Skradin, transport accessibility within the context of the vicinity to an urban centre is high. There are several bus lines with approximately ten daily departures passing through Skradin. The leading tourist centre as an indicator of transport accessibility of Krka National Park, however, is Šibenik, which is about 20 minutes away by car. Brijuni National Park has the next highest transport accessibility score. The entrance to Brijuni National Park is the coastal settlement Fažana, which was also taken as a leading tourist centre in the analysis. In its immediate vicinity is state road D21, leading from the border crossing Kaštel (on the border with Slovenia) to Pula, which enables significant transport accessibility. Pula, the nearest urban centre, is the main point of origin of public transport to Fažana, with more than ten daily departures. Fažana is, 37 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia however, more than 15 minutes distant from Pula by car, which resulted in a lower score of transport accessibility compared to Plitvice Lakes National Park and Krka National Park. The main entrance to Paklenica National Park is the coastal settlement Starigrad on state road D8 (a.k.a. the Adriatic Highway) located 1.5 km from the gate of Park. State road D8 runs from the border crossing Rupa (on the border with Slovenia) to the border crossing Karasovići (on the border with Montenegro). The proximity of this road enables easy access by public or private transport, whereby there are about ten bus lines departing daily from Starigrad in the direction of either Rijeka or Zadar. However, the greater distance from urban and leading tourist centres lowers the total score of transport accessibility of Paklenica National Park. Zadar, the closest urban centre and leading tourist centre, is a bit less than 45 minutes from Starigrad by car. The village Crni Lug (1.5 km from the gate of national park) was selected as the main entrance to Risnjak National Park. Although it is located on state road D32 (which runs from the border crossing Prezid, on the border with Slovenia, to Delnice), public transport is not significantly developed. There are only two daily bus line departures on this road. Furthermore, Delnice, the closest urban centre, is located more than 15 minutes away by car; while Crikvenica, the closest leading tourist centre, is a bit less than one hour away from Risnjak National Park by car. It is also noteworthy that there is no direct bus connection from Crikvenica to the Park. Mljet National Park, as opposed to Brijuni, is located further from the coast. Additionally, the area of the Park does not cover the entire island. Therefore, the main entrance to the national park is a village on the island called Polače. State road D120 passes through the entire island and through the Park. Polače is connected to the rest of the island Mljet with two daily bus line departures and two daily catamaran departures toward Dubrovnik and Lastovo. Mljet National Park is rather far from Dubrovnik, the closest urban and tourist centre—roughly 100 minutes by catamaran or 145 minutes by car. Northern Velebit National Park is the lowest-ranked national park with regard to transport accessibility. The village Krasno (15 km from the gate of national park) was selected as the entry point to the national park. It is connected by county roads Ž5126 and Ž5140, which have a lower quality and safety level in relation to state roads. Public transport to the park does not exist. Otočac, the closest urban centre, is located at a bit more than 30 38 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. minutes away by car, and the leading tourist centre (Crikvenica) is 75 minutes away by car. Regarding nature parks, the highest score was achieved by Kopački Rit Nature Park. The settlement of Kopačevo was selected as the entrance to the Park. The Park is connected to Osijek, the closest urban and also tourist centre, by county road Ž4056. The Park is roughly 15 minutes from Osijek by car, and is connected by public transport with 7 daily bus departures. Vransko Lake Nature Park and its entrance Prosika are located in the immediate vicinity of the state road D8 (less than 1 km away) and it is well-connected by public transport, which increases its total score of transport accessibility. Its transport accessibility score is also increased by the relative vicinity of the town Vodice, an urban and leading tourist centre, which is located at about 20 minutes away by car. The entrance to Medvednica Nature Park is its highest summit (Sljeme), because the highest zone of Medvednica is also the most visited area of this nature park. It is connected by county roads Ž1048 and Ž1049 with the closest urban and tourist centre—Zagreb— and is roughly 20 minutes away by car. It is also connected to Zagreb by eight daily bus departures. At the time of writing, a cable car to the summit Sljeme is being built, which will further increase its public transport accessibility. Telašćica Nature Park is a unique protected area, because it is located on the island Dugi Otok. The island settlement Sali (1.5 km from the gate of the Park) was selected as the entrance to the nature park. State road D109 runs along the entire island. There are no public buses, but there is public sea transport. Sali is connected to Zadar, as an urban and leading tourist centre, via a 45-minute ferry ride that runs four times daily. Lastovo Islands Nature Park is far from the mainland, which means that it has lower transport accessibility. The island settlement Ubli, the entrance to the Park, is connected by a larger number of ship departures travelling to Vela Luka, Dubrovnik, and Split, as well as eight bus departures passing along the island on the state road D119. However, the transport accessibility score took a significant hit due to temporal distance from an urban centre (Korčula), which is 75 minutes away by ship, as well as from the leading tourist centre (Split) that is over four hours away by ship. Lonjsko Polje Nature Park holds the same transport accessibility score as Lastovo Islands Nature Park. The difference is in the road category. Namely, Lonjsko Polje is one of two nature parks, along with Biokovo, that 39 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia is connected by a local road (the lowest quality and safety level of road). The entrance to the park is the village Čigoč, which has relatively weak public transport connectivity. The transport accessibility score is improved by the vicinity of an urban centre (Sisak), which is less than 30 minutes away from Čigoč by car, while the leading tourist centre (Zagreb) is slightly less than 90 minutes away by car. Just as in the case of Medvednica, the summit of the mountain is the entrance to Učka Nature Park. The county road leading to Učka is narrow and winding, so the summit is not connected by public transport. Opatija, which is both the largest urban and leading tourist centre of the immediate area, is located at a less than 45 minutes from the summit of Učka by car. Papuk Nature Park has an identical transport accessibility score to Učka Nature Park. The entrance to Papuk Nature Park (Jankovac mountain hut, as the most visited site in the park) is not connected by public transport, and personal vehicles access it via county road Ž4253. Moreover, Papuk Nature Park is far from the nearest urban centre (Slatina), as well as from the area’s leading tourist centre (Osijek). Jankovac mountain hut is slightly less than 45 minutes from Slatina and 95 minutes from Osijek by car. Biokovo Nature Park had the lowest score of transport accessibility. The summit Sveti Jure (the highest summit of the mountain and one of the most attractive and most visited park localities for tourists) was selected as the entrance to the park, and it can be reached by a narrow and winding local road. Makarska is the closest urban and tourist centre and is roughly 65 minutes away by car. There are no public transport options available for travelling to Biokovo. The connection between transport accessibility and tourist flow in protected areas Although the amount of visitors to Croatian national parks and nature parks is increasing every year, there is an evident and pronounced difference in visits to national parks compared to nature parks. Furthermore, great differences in the number of visitors can be observed if protected areas are compared individually (Tab. 3, Tab. 4)4. 4 The tables show the official data from the Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia related to the estimated number of visitors—not of the total number of entrance tickets sold. 40 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. Tab. 3 Number of visitors to Croatian national parks from 2013 to 2018 Year National Park 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Plitvice Lakes 1,188,798 1,184,449 1,357,304 1,429,228 1,720,331 1,796,670 Krka 786,635 804,411 951,106 1,071,561 1,284,720 1,354,802 Kornati 94,257 105,000 157,574 220,057 229,061 237,435 Brijuni 151,007 153,086 160,010 181,560 169,299 171,794 Mljet 120,464 100,787 112,156 126,699 140,329 145,751 Paklenica 114,381 122,189 119,686 127,848 140,561 144,624 Northern Velebit 15,777 14,360 16,471 20,299 22,919 30,638 Risnjak 13,725 11,338 12,715 14,346 16,575 16,816 Total 2,485,044 2,495,620 2,887,022 3,191,598 3,723,795 3,898,530 Source: Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb, 2019 Tab. 4 Number of visitors to Croatian nature parks from 2013 to 2018 Year Nature park 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Telašćica 121,746 114,413 113,295 116,378 123,327 124,841 Vransko Lake 10,938 13,449 unknown 24,385 114,598 122,256 Biokovo 44,059 46,378 46,982 54,820 64,130 64,484 Velebit 35,317 32,030 37,202 43,091 49,889 56,319 Žumberak-Sa- moborsko Gorje 2,800 1,652 52,600 44,254 41,674 43,179 Kopački Rit 26,013 26,764 29,836 38,679 37,062 40,135 Lastovo Islands 29,792 21,209 unknown 17,000 24,520 29,567 Medvednica 20,560 26,191 29,873 32,591 34,423 20,081 Učka 2,346 1,687 unknown 30,000 30,000 20,000 Lonjsko Polje 11,850 12,320 12,100 16,500 17,000 17,500 Papuk 6,636 5,741 4,333 5,685 7,470 7,171 Total 312,057 301,834 326,221 423,383 544,093 545,533 Source: Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb, 2019 The number of visitors to national parks was seven times higher in 2018 than the number of visitors to nature parks. It is worth emphasising here, however, that the official number of visitors is not wholly accurate. Namely, certain nature parks have a significantly higher number of visitors compared to official data. The absence of an entrance fee in nature parks is the main reason for this; entrance fees are only charged for some individual sights or activities within nature parks. Therefore, the actual number 41 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia of visitors to nature parks located near large cities with high recreational demand (e.g. Medvednica, Žumberak-Samoborsko Gorje, Učka) is significantly higher than official data. It can be assumed that the aforementioned nature parks have a higher number of visitors than most national parks. For the most visited parks—Plitvice Lakes and Krka—there were three, i.e. two and a half times more visitors than all visits to the rest of the national parks combined, confirming the significantly higher general tourist attractiveness of national parks than of nature parks. Plitvice Lakes is the most visited national park in Croatia, because it is the only Croatian protected area included in the UNESCO World Nature Heritage list. In other words, this status provides the Park a greater level of attraction than other Croatian national and nature parks, because it guar-antees a certain sensation or “wow-effect” to visitors, i.e. promising to be a memorable tourism experience (Opačić, 2019). Due to the aforementioned, as well to the accommodation capacity in and around the protected area, it should be observed as a tourism destination in and of itself and pillar of tourism development of the wider area (Lika, Kordun). Among other national parks, Krka National Park stands out in visitor numbers. Its high number of visits is due to the Park’s exceptional level attractiveness to tourists, high transport accessibility due to the nearby town (Skradin) and strong coastal tourist centre (Šibenik), as well as its motorway connection to other leading tourism destinations along the Adriatic coast. Other national parks that stand out in number of visitors (Kornati, Brijuni, Mljet, and Paklenica) are also situated on the Croatian Littoral, which is the leading tourism area of Croatia. In contrast to the aforementioned parks, Northern Velebit and Risnjak national parks, despite their level of ecological preservation and tourist attractiveness, are significantly less visited. Both of these national parks encompass some of the most well-preserved mountainous areas of Croatia, and they have lower transport accessibility than most of the national parks located on the coast and islands. A significant reason for lower visitor numbers is also the fact that the most attractive sights of the Northern Velebit and Risnjak national parks (certain summits of Velebit, Premužić Trail, Veliki Risnjak Peak, the source of the Kupa River) are inaccessible by car, thus demanding more time and effort in order to visit them. The most prominent nature parks in terms of visitor numbers are definitively Telašćica and Vransko Lake. The reason for this is their geographical position on the Croatian Littoral, the leading tourism area in the 42 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 visitors 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 transport 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 connectivity. An additional reason for low visitor numbers may also be the modest 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 dependence on the status of protected area for tourism development can be expected in the future. Among other nature parks, only Kopački Rit is generally 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 areas visited mostly by day-trippers (recreationists) from nearby urban centres (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 attractions 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 nature 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 indicates discrepancies in relation to the actual numbers of visitors. As there is no entry fee for nature parks (only for specific locales or attractions therein), it is clear that the number of visitors in this category of protected areas is harder to estimate than in national parks, where entrance fees are charged. Therefore, it is realistic to expect discrepancies between the offi-43 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia cial statistical data of the Ministry of Environment and Energy regarding the number of visitors, and the actual number of visitors. In order to determine the extent to which transport accessibility for entrances to the 16 Croatian national parks and nature parks is related to the number of visitors, the method of correlation analysis was used, whereby the transport accessibility scores for entrances to protected areas were taken as the independent variable, and the number of visitors as the dependent variable. On the level of all protected areas included in the analysis, a strong correlation between the transport accessibility score of a protected area and the number of visitors in 2018 (N=16; r=0.536) was determined, whereby the more transport-accessible Croatian national parks and nature parks were those with higher numbers of visitors, i.e. higher tourist flow (Fig. 2). A high value of Pearson coefficient is weighted mainly by national parks, recording an even higher correlation among the variables, as opposed to nature parks, where a correlation between transport accessibility and the number of visitors in 2018 was not determined. Therefore, an even stronger correlation between the transport accessibility score and the number of visitors in 2018 (N=7; r=0.706) is shown for national parks, whereby the more transport-accessible national parks show higher visitor numbers. It is noteworthy that the number of national parks in the correlation analysis is low, so these results can be taken into consideration only as illustrative (Fig. 3). A higher level of correlation between the transport accessibility score and the number of visitors in national parks can be explained with the fact that national parks, in the context of the number of visitors (tourist visits), can be identified with tourist sights (some even with tourism destinations). It could be recognised that better quality of their transport accessibility is in line with their higher tourist flow. Namely, national parks are generally more attractive to tourists than nature parks, due to their higher level of protection and preservation of nature. Therefore, considering the significance of transport accessibility, they showcase features similar to other tourist sights/destinations. Furthermore, national parks undoubtedly keep more accurate records of the number of visitors, because all visitors are required to pay an entrance fee during their visit. Nature parks show lower levels of correlation between their transport accessibility score and the number of visitors (N=9; r=0.355), leading to the conclusion that the more transport-accessible Croatian nature parks are of-44 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. Fig. 2 Scatter plot of the transport accessibility score of the protected area (x) and the number of visitors in 2018 (y) in Croatian national parks and nature parks Source: authors, according to data from the Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019 Fig. 3 Scatter plot of the transport accessibility score of the protected area (x) and the number of visitors in 2018 (y) in Croatian national parks Source: authors, according to data by the Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019 45 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia ten not the most visited. As with national parks, it is necessary to emphasise the small number of nature parks in the sample, so the results of the correlation analysis should only be taken into consideration as illustrative (Fig. 4). A significantly weaker correlation between the transport accessibility score and the number of visitors in nature parks leads to the conclusion that these protected areas, in terms of visitor numbers (tourist visits), are less attractive to tourists. They are also less prominent in marketing campaigns on the tourism market, so the number of visitors to nature parks does not depend on the quality of transport accessibility to the same extent as it does in national parks. The exceptions to this are nature parks with a large number of visitors, located in the vicinity of leading coastal tourism destinations, as well as those featuring highly attractive tourist sights (e.g. escarpments in Telašćica Nature Park and the summits Sveti Jure and Vošac in Biokovo Nature Park that offer views of the Dalmatian islands and Dalmatinska Zagora). In the observed context, these nature parks “behave” like national parks, i.e. like tourist sights/destinations in and of themselves. Moreover, the estimation of the number of visitors to nature parks is less accurate in comparison to national parks, because there is no entrance fee Fig. 4 Scatter plot of the transport accessibility score of the protected area (x) and the number of visitors in 2018 (y) in Croatian nature parks Source: authors, according to data by the Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019 46 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. to the nature park itself, only to specific sights or specific activities/programmes within the protected area; therefore, these findings should be taken into consideration with reserve. Conclusion Transport is one of the significant preconditions and factors of tourist flow in all types of tourist areas. The role of transport in protected areas as a tourist factor is especially pronounced, because transport is simultaneously a prerequisite for a large number of tourist visits, but it is also a limiting factor due to potentially adverse environmental circumstances. The aim of this chapter was to assess transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow in Croatian national parks and nature parks. The research observed 16 of the 19 Croatian national parks and nature parks, in which it was possible to determine entrances used by the majority of visitors during their visit. The 16 locations selected in this way underwent scoring assessment using a point scale to determine transport accessibility, according to the following factors: a) public transport connectivity (bus, ship/catamaran/ferry); b) public transport frequency; c) road connectivity; d) time distance from city/town; and e) time distance from a leading tourist centre. In order to determine the connection between transport accessibility and tourist flow, a correlation analysis was conducted for each national park and nature park in 2018, with the transport accessibility score as the independent variable and the number of visitors as the dependent variable. The research showed that the national parks and nature parks with better transport accessibility also have higher visitor numbers. This conclusion rises from the strong correlation between transport accessibility and tourist flow in national parks, whereas in nature parks the correlation between these variables is weaker. The latter can be explained with the fact that national parks are more attractive in a tourism context and are more exposed via marketing campaigns in the tourism supply than nature parks, therefore, they attract a larger number of (foreign) tourists. Those national parks that feature accommodation capacities within their borders, e.g. Plitvice Lakes, Brijuni, Mljet, can be identified as tourism destinations in and of themselves and are frequently presented as such on the tourism mar-47 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia ket. Therefore, within the context of tourism valorisation, the majority of Croatian national parks are recognised as tourist sights belonging to larger tourism destinations (tourism regions). Most nature parks located in the vicinity of leading Croatian coastal tourism destinations (e.g. Telašćica, Vransko Lake, Biokovo) “behave” in a similar way to national parks on the tourism market, so it could be pre-sumed that tourists prevail in the structure of their visitors. On the other hand, certain nature parks with recreational attractiveness and facilities (e.g. Medvednica, Žumberak-Samoborsko Gorje, Učka), are predominantly visited by day-trippers from urban centres nearby, whereby a significant motive for the visit is recreation. The chapter represents a contribution to research of the connection between transport and tourism in protected areas, and it should serve as a starting point for future, more comprehensive research studies aimed at enhancing the quality of the implementation of sustainable development principles in the management of protected areas. Thereby, it is especially important to place emphasis on improving the spatial orientation of visitor flows in protected areas, in order to maintain protection of nature as a primary and fundamental goal, while simultaneously developing sustainable tourism and recreation. References Ament, R., Clevenger, A. P., Yu, O., Hardy, A., 2008: An assessment of road impacts on wildlife populations in U.S. National Parks, Environmental Management 42 (3), 480-496, DOI: 10.1007/s00267-008-9112-8. Bralić, I., 2000: Turizam i nacionalni parkovi u Hrvatskoj, Turizam 48 (4), 373-378. Casas, I., Horner, M. W., Weber, J., 2009: A comparison of three methods for identifying transport-based exclusion: a case study of children’s access to urban opportunities in Erie and Niagara Counties, New York , International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 3 (4), 227-245, DOI: 10.1080/15568310802158761. Collum, K. K., Daigle, J. J., 2015: The shift from automobiles to alternatives and the role of intelligent transport systems, in: Sustainable Transportation in Natural and Protected Areas (ed. Orsi, F.), Routledge, London - New York, 57-69. 48 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. Cullinane, S., 1997: Traffic management in Britain’s national parks, Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal 17 (3), 267-279, DOI: 10.1080/01441649708716985. Cullinane, S., Cullinane, K., 1999: Attitudes towards traffic problems and public transport in the Dartmoor and Lake District National parks, Journal of Transport Geography 7 (1), 79-87, DOI: 10.1016/S0966-6923(98)00027-1. Čavlek, N., Bartoluci, M., Prebežac, D., Kesar, O., 2011: Turizam – ekonomske osnove i organizacijski sustav, Školska knjiga, Zagreb. Daigle, J. J., 2008: Transportation needs in national parks: a summary and exploration of future trends, The George Wright Forum 25 (1), 57-64. Daigle, J. J., Zimmermann, C. A., 2004: Alternative transportation and travel information technologies: monitoring parking lot conditions over three summer seasons at Acadia National Park, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 22 (4), 81-102. D’Haese, S., De Meester, F., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Deforche, B., Cardon, G., 2011: Criterion distances and environmental correlates of active commuting to school in children, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 8 (88), 1-10, DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-88. Dickinson, J., Lumsdon, L., 2010: Slow Travel and Tourism, Earthscan, London – New York. Eaton, B., Holding, D., 1996: The evaluation of public transport alternatives to the car in British National Parks, Journal of Transport Geography 4 (1), 55-65, DOI: 10.1016/0966-6923(95)00037-2. Fyhri, A., Hjorthol, R., 2009: Children’s independent mobility to school, friends and leisure activities, Journal of Transport Geography 17 (5), 377-384, DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.10.010. Geurs, K. T., Ritsema van Eck, J. R., 2001: Accessibility measures: review and applications, RIVM Report 408505 006, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46637359_Accessibility_Measures_Review_and_Applications (16. 03. 2019) Gosar, A., 2017: Managing sustainable tourism in protected areas, in: Tourism in protected areas of nature in Serbia and Slovenia (eds. Filipović, D. et al.), University of Belgrade – Faculty of Geography, Belgrade, 3-11. Guiver, J., Davies, N., Weston, R., 2015: Visitor preferences toward scheduled bus use in natural and protected areas, in: Sustainable Transportation in Natural and Protected Areas, Routledge (ed. Orsi, F.), London - New York, 45-56. 49 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Halden, D., 2011: The use and abuse of accessibility measures in UK passenger transport planning, Research in Transportation Business and Management 2, 12-19, DOI: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.05.001. Halden, D., Jones, P., Wixley, S., 2005: Measuring accessibility as experiences by different socially disadvantaged groups, Working Paper 3: Accessibility Analysis Literature Review, Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster, London, https://pdfs.seman-ticscholar.org/bf91/f2ab89d40532290e73c5381acdd47c9238e2.pdf?_ ga=2.123485452.625183411.1565549820-713115584.1565549820 (16. 03. 2019.) Hurni, A., 2006: Transport and social disadvantage in Western Sydney: a partnership research project, University of Western Sydney and Western Sydney Community Forum, Sydney, https://researchdirect.westernsyd-ney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A23088/datastream/PDF/view (16. 03. 2019.) Hurni, A., 2007: Marginalised groups in Western Sydney: The experience of sole parents and unemployed young people, in: No Way To Go – Transport and Social Disadvantage in Australian Communities (eds. Currie, G. et al.), Monash University ePress, Clayton, 10.1-10.11, DOI: 10.2104/nwtg0710. Kaza, N., 2015: Time dependent accessibility, Journal of Urban Management 4 (1), 24-39, DOI: 10.1016/j.jum.2015.06.001. Kimpel, T., Dueker, K., El-Geneidy, A., 2007: Using GIS to measure the effect of overlapping service areas on passenger boardings at bus stops, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 19 (1), 5-11. Klarić, Z., Gatti, P., 2006: Ekoturizam, in: Hrvatski turizam: plavo, bijelo, zele-no (eds. Čorak, S., Mikačić, V.):, Institut za turizam, Zagreb, 149-165. Kušen, E., 2002: Turistička atrakcijska osnova, Institut za turizam, Zagreb. Kušen, E., 2010: A system of tourism attractions, Tourism 58 (4), 409-424. Litman, T., 2007: Evaluating accessibility for transportation planning: measuring people’s ability to reach desired goods and activities, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, http://www.vtpi.org/access.pdf (16. 03. 2019.) Marković, I., 2015: Problemi i mogućnosti održivoga upravljanja zaštićen-im prirodnim područjima: primjer Nacionalnog parka Plitvička jezera, PhD Thesis, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Department of Geography, Zagreb. Marković Vukadin, I., 2017: Sustainability issues in management of tourism in protected areas: case study of Plitvice Lakes National Park, in: Evolution of Destination Planning and Strategy: the Rise of Tourism in 50 transport accessibility as a factor of tourist flow .. Croatia (eds. Dwyer, L. et al.), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 201-219, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-42246-6_10. Monz, C., D’Antonio, A., Lawson, S., Barber, J., Newman, P., 2016: The ecological implications of visitor transportation in parks and protected areas: examples from research in US National Parks, Journal of Transport Geography 51, 27-35, DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.11.003. Murray, A. T., Davis, R., Stimson, R. J., Ferreira, L., 1998: Public transportation access, Transportation research part D: Transport and Environment 3 (5), 319-328, DOI: 10.1016/S1361-9209(98)00010-8. Murray, A. T., Wu, X., 2003: Accessibility tradeoffs in public transit planning, Journal of Geographical Systems 5 (1), 93-107, DOI: 10.1007/s101090300105. Müller, H., 2004: Turizam i ekologija: povezanost i područja djelovanja, Masmedia, Zagreb. Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., Dowling, R. K., 2013: Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management, Channel View Publications, Bristol – Buffalo – Toronto. Opačić, V. T. 2019: Tourism valorisation of cultural heritage, in: Cultural Urban Heritage: Development, Learning and Landscape Strategies (eds. Obad Šćitaroci, M. et al.), The Urban Book Series, Springer Nature, Cham, 181-196, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-10612-6_15. Opačić, V. T., Curić, D., Jandras, M., Kutle, K., Marijan, N., Mirt, I., Perković, D., Vodanović, I., 2014: Zaštićena područja kao rekreacijske zone grada – primjer Parka prirode Medvednica, Hrvatski geografski glasnik 76 (1), 61-87, DOI: 10.21861/HGG.2014.76.01.04. Opačić, V. T., Lukić, A., Fuerst-Bjeliš, B., 2005: Sustainable development of recreation and tourism in the protected areas of Croatia: issues and indicators, Problemi na geografijata 3-4, 209-223. Orsi, F., 2015a: Sustainability potentials of various transport modes in natural settings, in: Sustainable Transportation in Natural and Protected Areas (ed. Orsi, F.), Routledge, London - New York, 28-41. Orsi, F., 2015b: Sustainability requisites of transportation in natural and protected areas, in: Sustainable Transportation in Natural and Protected Areas (ed. Orsi, F.), Routledge, London - New York, 11-27. Plummer, R., 2009: Outdoor recreation: an introduction, Routledge, London – New York. Prideaux, B., 2000: The role of the transport system in destination development, Tourism Management 21 (1), 53-63, DOI: 10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00079-5. 51 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Weston, R., Davies, N., Guiver, J., 2015: Cycle tourism development in parks: the experience of the Peak District National Park (UK), in: Sustainable Transportation in Natural and Protected Areas (ed. Orsi, F.), Routledge, London - New York, 140-149. Williams, S., 2003: Tourism and recreation, Prentice Hall, Harlow. Sources Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2019: Tourism, 2018, Statistical Reports 1639, Zagreb. Google Maps, 2019: Map data ©2019. Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2017: Nature Protection Database, Croatian Agency for the Environment and Nature, Zagreb. Ministry of Environment and Energy of the Republic of Croatia, 2019: Internal Data, Zagreb. 52 Chapter 3 Rural tourism in the surroundings of Krka National Park: factors of development and spatial impacts Petra Radeljak Kaufmann Abstract This chapter focuses on the development of rural tourism in the area surrounding Krka National Park, situated in northern Dalmatia. Via various functions, especially tourism and recreation, protected areas can influence local development. Since the 1960s, settlements in the surroundings of Krka National Park have faced challenges related to depopulation and socio-economic development. The goal of this chapter is to analyse factors of recent intense development of rural tourism, its spatial impacts in the immediate vicinity of the Park, and various potentials for further development. These trends should be looked at in the framework of tourism development of the Park itself, as well as tourism development trends in the interior of Dalmatia. A case study of the Town of Drniš was conducted to closely examine recent trends and the potential for development of rural tourism in the near future. Key words: rural tourism, protected areas, geography, Krka National Park, Drniš, Dalmatia, Croatia doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-7055-08-5.53-73 53 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Introduction National parks are defined by the Nature Protection Act (Official Gazette 80/13, 15/18, 14/19) as a predominantly unaltered area of exceptional and varied natural values encompassing one or more ecosystems. This category of protected area is primarily intended to protect nature and landscapes and to serve scientific, cultural, educational, and recreational purposes. Tourism and recreation are also present in national parks, in so far as they do not endanger the natural environment. According to Hall and Boyd (2005), tourism that develops in relation to conserving or protecting natural areas (ecotourism, national parks) is a form of nature-based tourism, which also includes tourism in natural settings (such as adventure tourism) and tourism focusing on certain elements of the natural environment (such as safari and wildlife tourism, nature tourism, and marine tourism). It is largely via tourism and visitor management systems that protected areas influence local development in the areas that surround them. Krka National Park is situated in the northern part of the Croatian coastal region of Dalmatia. It was proclaimed in 1985, protecting the Krka River and its waterfalls, as well as the lower course of the Čikola River (the Park’s southwestern and northern boundaries were revised in 1997). It has seen a steep increase in the number of visitors in recent decades, reaching 1.4 million in 2018. The Park partially includes the territories of seven local self-government units: the City of Šibenik; the towns of Knin, Drniš, and Skradin; and the municipalities of Ervenik, Kistanje, and Promina1 (Fig. 1). Since the 1960s, the settlements near the Park have often been characterised by depopulation and problems with socio-economic development (See: Bjelajac, 2008). Previous research demonstrated that, despite intense growth in tourist volume, the Park exercised almost no influence on the stabilisa-tion of settlement patterns in this depopulated zone. However, some socio-economic impacts were recognised, especially in the areas closest to main tourist points of the Park and along main routes leading to the Park’s entrances (Radeljak and Pejnović, 2008). One of the important trends in the last decade has been the development of rural tourism in the wider area. 1 In total, Šibenik-Knin County consists of 20 local self-government units. These include the municipalities of Bilice, Biskupija, Civljane, Ervenik, Kijevo, Kistanje, Murter-Kornati, Pirovac, Primošten, Promina, Rogoznica, Ružić, Tisno, Tribunj, and Unešić, as well as towns/cities of Drniš, Knin, Skradin, Šibenik, and Vodice. 54 rural tourism in the surroundings of krka national park .. Fig. 1 Local government units (towns and municipalities) in Šibenik-Knin County in relation to Krka National Park2 2 The source for administrative borders was the Central Registry of Spatial Units (CGA, 2013). 55 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia The goal of this chapter is to discern factors contributing to the aforementioned trends and the impacts of such developments. Therefore, statistical indicators were analysed to show the development of the visitation system in Krka National Park, as well as changes in the number of tourist arrivals and overnight stays in the general vicinity of the Park. In order to fully explore how the development of tourism relates to local development, a case study of the Town of Drniš was conducted. Data collection was based on interviews and conversations. Four interviews with local actors—representatives of the Town of Drniš administration, the local tourist board, family agricultural holdings that offer tourism-related services, and Krka National Park—were conducted in August and October 2019. Additionally, three interviews conducted in October 2015 within the scope of the CRORURIS3 project, with the Town mayor, a representative of the Local Action Group, and an entrepreneur were used to provide an overview of the general development context and compare development trends. The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. The structure of the chapter is as follows. First, several points related to the development of rural tourism, especially in the context of protected areas, are presented. Second, protection, recreation and tourism development in Krka National Park are analysed, together with the trends visible in the surrounding areas. Finally, factors of development and impacts of rural tourism are explored in the case of the Town of Drniš, as one of the local government units participating in the territory of the Park. Protected areas and rural tourism Preservation and protection without serious consideration regarding the area immediately beyond the boundaries of a given protected area were the basic elements of the concept of protected areas until the middle of the 20th century. By the end of the same century, the paradigm had come to include an integrated approach in protected area policy, incorporating protected areas as well as their surroundings. This approach attempts to satisfy the interests of protection and use, seeing (especially) larger protected areas as tools of sustainable regional development (Mose and Weixlbaumer, 2007), which can provide impulses for tourism development, marketing of 3 The research project CRORURIS (2014–2017) developed a set of alternative future scenarios for Croatian rural areas in 2030 (See: Lukić and Radeljak Kaufmann, 2017). 56 rural tourism in the surroundings of krka national park .. regional products, and for the development of innovative regional products and services (Hammer, 2007). Once an activity which focused on viewing the landscape, or pursu-ing entertainment such as hunting or fishing (Butler, 2011), rural tourism has come to encompass different activities and forms of tourism related to natural and cultural resources in rural areas (Demonja and Ružić, 2010). It should be noted that the specific activities that are engaged in during leisure, recreation, or tourism, are in many cases identical, and key differences can be found in the location, duration, or possibly attitudes, motivations, and perceptions of the participants. The differences between recreation and tourism in particular have become less significant and it is often difficult to determine whether participation in an activity is of a recreational or touristic nature (Butler et al., 1998). For instance, there may be no difference in location or activity between “rural tourism” and “countryside recreation”. Many rural tourists and recreationalists are excursionists, i.e. day-trippers, as opposed to those who stay overnight (Hall et al., 2003). Rural tourism is diverse and exactly how it is understood varies among countries (e.g. Hall et al., 2003). In general, it is based in a rural environment, including a predominantly natural environment, a village, or a smaller town, with expressed forms of traditional agriculture or outstanding natural values. It is connected with local community, traditional culture and products, and should be seen in the context of multi-functional activities in a rural area. Apart from farm tourism, it includes other forms of tourism in a rural area, such as residential tourism, sports and recreational tourism, cultural tourism, religious tourism, adventure tourism, camping tourism, health tourism, nautical tourism, fishing tourism, and gastronomic tourism (Demonja and Ružić, 2010). Activities undertaken in rural areas are increasing and diversifying, and significantly affecting environmental, economic, and social change. This has attracted attention from policy makers at different levels, indicating the need for adequate planning and management (Hall et al., 2003). Rural tourism is credited with having economic and non-economic effects (Demonja and Ružić, 2010). Its contribution to rural development can include revitalising local economies and improving the quality of life, offering supplementary income for farming, crafts, and services, providing opportunities to re-evaluate heritage and identity, maintaining and renovating buildings and infrastructure, and even influencing demographic process-57 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 population, increased income, stimulation and diversification of the local economy, 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 protected areas, where tourism and recreation put the primary objective of protecting the natural and cultural phenomena in danger. Apart from those of an environmental nature (environment degradation, loss of biodiversity), there are potential costs of a financial, economic (personnel, infrastructure), 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 recreation. 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 outstanding natural values. Its boundaries were revised in 1997, when its southwestern 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 rural tourism in the surroundings of krka national park .. Krka National Park since the beginning has been its location near the touristically-developed Adriatic coastline, making it easy for many tourists to come to the Park for day trips. The peak number of visitors in the early stage of Park visitation was reached in 1988 (385,837). In this period, the Park had 20 permanent and 60 seasonal employees (Knežević-Grubišić, 1997). From 1991 to 1995, during the Croatian War of Independence4, many parts of the Park sustained damage and all visitation stopped. Tourism and recreation in the Park slowly recovered after the War, and the 1988 maximum of visitors was surpassed in 2001 (451,314 visitors). Apart from the impacts of the global economic recession (starting in 2008), which affected the total number of tourists in Croatia, the number of visitors to the Park has been continually increasing, exceeding one million for the first time in 2016 and continuing on to 1,354,802 in 20185 (Fig. 2). National park visitor surveys conducted in 2013, 2017, and 2018 indicate that the most numerous visitors are 28–49 years old with a high level of education. In addition, most of the surveyed visitors come to the Park with their family and friends. The largest number of surveyed visitors come from European Fig. 2 The number of visitors to Krka National Park 1996–2018 Sources: Krka National Park, 2007; CBS, 2008; CBS, 2009; CBS, 2010; CBS, 2011; CBS, 2012; Krka National Park, 2019 4 Referred to in Croatia as the Homeland War ( Domovinski rat). 5 The number of Park visitors does not include members of the local population visiting the Park’s churches and monasteries, or engaging in leisure/recreation activities. 59 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia countries—primarily Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom, Poland, the Netherlands, and Croatia. The main reasons cited by visitors for visiting Krka National Park are: nature/beautiful landscape; rest and relaxation; swimming; photography; richness of flora and fauna; and recreation (Kontić, 2018; Krka National Park, 2018a). Main characteristics of visitation to Krka National Park are its seasonality and uneven spatial distribution. The average number of visitors in the Park peaks in summer months, primarily July and August (with 315,235 visitors in August on average in the 2014–2018 period), while the number of visitors in winter months is very small (~1,500 or less in January and February) (Fig. 3). The Park’s principal tourist attraction is Skradinski Buk—the travertine waterfall and its surroundings—which is visited by 97–98% of the Park’s visitors. In 2017, a visitor limitation model was introduced with the decision to restrict the maximum capacity to 10,000 visitors at any given time at Skradinski Buk (Krka National Park, 2018b). Other important attractions include: Roški Slap, another well-known travertine waterfall and its surrounding zone; the island Visovac with its monastery and church; the Krka Monastery; and the Burnum archaeolog-Fig. 3 The average number of visitors to Krka National Park per month in the 2014–2018 period Source: Krka National Park, 2019 60 rural tourism in the surroundings of krka national park .. ical site. The Park’s visitation system includes boat excursions, road transportation, walking trails, and bicycle routes. In parallel to the increase in the total number of visitors, the visitation system has been spreading out spatially, i.e. new trails have been opened for visitors and more locales have been made easily accessible. Apart from trying to achieve a more balanced spatial distribution of visitors6, an important goal has been to “activate” the area of the upper course of the Krka River by attracting more visitors to the northern parts of the Park. The Unknown Krka: the hidden treasures of the upper and lower course of the Krka River project ran from 2015 to 2019 and was co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. It encompassed nature conservation, investments in infrastructure, visitor management, educational and presentation activities, as well as cooperation with the local community, hoping to influence the overall development of the area of the upper and middle course of the Krka River (Krka National Park, n. d.). Together with the increase in the complexity of Park’s functions, and especially with the development of tourism and recreation, the number of Park employees also increased. These jobs are related to the basic administrative functions, protection/preservation, maintenance, promotion of natural and cultural heritage, scientific research, and tourism and visitor management. In 2008 there were 114 permanent and 95 seasonal employees (Pejnović and Radeljak, 2009), and in 2017 there were 214 permanent and 130 seasonal employees (SAO, 2019). Most of the visitors of Krka National Park who were surveyed in 2013, 2017, and 2018 were staying in private accommodation (30–41%), followed by hotels (23–28%), campsites (9–10%), boats (3–11%; unsurprising given that there is a marina in nearby Skradin), etc. (Kontić, 2018; Krka National Park, 2018a). The number of Park visitors staying in the surrounding area is still relatively small. In general, among the local government units in Šibenik-Knin County, excluding coastal settlements, the largest number of beds, tourist arrivals, and overnight stays is found in the Šibenik, Skradin, and Bilice areas (Tab. 1). All local units, however, saw an increase in the number of tourist arrivals and overnight stays. 6 Most visitors surveyed in either 2013, 2017, or 2018 did not use the opportunity to buy entrance tickets for multiple-day visits (Kontić, 2018; Krka National Park, 2018a). 61 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 Avera- Change in Change in Number Number Number of ge number the num- the num- LGU of beds of over- tourist arri- of overni- ber of over- ber of tou- in 2018 night stays in 2018 vals in 2018 ght stays in night stays rist arrivals 2018 2018/2016 2018/2016 Bilice 776 39132 7228 5.4 160.7 181.4 Civljane 26 306 58 5.3 218.6 241.7 Drniš 395 18576 5306 3.5 158.2 138.2 Kijevo 26 951 331 2.9 598.1 233.1 Kistanje 27 258 60 4.3 1612.5 3000.0 Knin 148 3868 1541 2.5 121.0 111.2 Pirovac 22 782 107 7.3 454.7 713.3 Promina 73 4095 622 6.6 137.0 215.2 Ružić 56 1477 226 6.5 525.6 426.4 Skradin 932 47748 22699 2.1 155.3 157.0 Šibenik 1375 79312 29801 2.7 132.6 146.3 Tisno 19 1087 117 9.3 135.0 128.6 Unešić 76 3114 338 9.2 217.0 279.3 Vodice 56 2589 315 8.2 231.4 342.4 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, areas surrounding the Park also benefit from this position. In words of an interviewee 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 primary 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 entrance tickets at a special fare for tourists staying in registered accommoda-62 rural tourism in the surroundings of krka national park .. tion facilities in the surrounding area, in order to incentivise longer stays. Nonetheless, their intention is to place all visitor centres outside of the Park in nearby local communities. The Park also invests a part of their funds for local community development, and cooperates with stakeholders in developing plans and management strategies. Factors of development and impacts of rural tourism in the surroundings of Krka National Park: a case study of the Town of Drniš The Town of Drniš is a local self-government unit within Šibenik-Knin County, situated in the northern Dalmatian hinterland. It covers an area7 of 351.75 km2 consisting of the town Drniš (the main urban centre) and 26 rural settlements (Fig. 4). The neighbouring municipalities of Unešić, Ružić, and Promina can be considered a part of the Drniš subregion, as they were part of the area of the former, larger Municipality of Drniš, which existed until 1992. Fig. 4 Geographical position of the Town of Drniš 7 Calculated based on the Central Registry of Spatial Units (CGA, 2013). 63 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia The greatest population in the area of the Town of Drniš (19,538) was recorded in 19618, followed by a period of intense depopulation, both in Drniš and the wider region of Dalmatinska Zagora. Depopulation was primarily the consequence of strong out-migration towards main urban centres in the coastal zone or the capital (Zagreb), and of an increase in employment abroad. The population of the town Drniš itself, however, grew until 1991, when its peak population (4,653) was recorded; but only a small number of the out-migrating population of surrounding rural settlements settled in Drniš, while the majority moved towards more developed regional centres (Radeljak, 2015). The 1991–1995 Croatian War of Independence was strongly felt in direct and indirect demographic and economic loss-es. In 2011, the population of the Town of Drniš was 7,498, of which 3,144 lived in the town Drniš (CBS, 2013). Out-migration and emigration have continued in recent years, with a new wave following Croatia’s accession to the European Union in 2013. Many rural settlements have been left with a small population, often with an unfavourable age and education structure (Compare: Bjelajac, 2009). In the 1980s, i.e. the pre-War period, development of Drniš was based on agriculture and the manufacturing industry (e.g. stone processing, tex-tile industry, a large pig farm and prosciutto drying facility, wine production). The war damages and loss of market, combined with issues related to the overall transition in Croatia from a centrally-planned to a market-based economy, followed by the economic crisis starting in 2008, all resulted in economic decline. The manufacturing industry is still important in the local economy, although it is characterised by a reduced number of businesses with lower production levels and fewer available jobs in relation to the situation in the 1980s. Traditional agricultural products (primarily Drniški pršut— prosciutto from Drniš—cheese, and wine) are another important element. Contemporary Drniš can be characterised as a place with, in words of an actor, ‘ideal parameters for living’, which should ‘promote itself as an ideal town for raising kids’, given the general feeling of safety, availability of a kindergarten, primary and secondary school, music school and additional activities, its favourable location, and climate. On the other hand, in places of similar character in Croatia ‘a perception is also created among young people that, in reality, there is no perspective, no future’, especially related to the availability and diversity of jobs in the area. 8 According to CBS, n. d. 64 rural tourism in the surroundings of krka national park .. Development of rural tourism in the Town of Drniš has had a steep increase in recent years. This can be seen from the number of tourist arrivals and overnight stays, which both increased almost 7 times9 (Tab. 2). A decade ago, the first few facilities for accommodation were actually family agricultural holdings, offering gastronomic and accommodation services. However, according to an interviewee, that kind of accommodation did not develop further. Development of the typical sort of private accommodation dominated (rooms, apartments, and houses to rent), but without the gastronomic segment (i.e. various types of food service establishments). It should also be stressed that financial incentives have been available for the construction of swimming pools from different levels of government, to help boost the development/adaptation of suitable rural tourism facilities. In general, according to an interviewee’s data, the owners of 35 out of 87 facilities in the area of Drniš are not local residents—the largest number of those live in Šibenik, although many of them are connected to Drniš by origin. A good example of rural tourism development is the area of Miljevci, consisting of seven villages (Bogatić, Brištane, Drinovci, Kaočine, Karalić, Ključ, and Širitovci) in close proximity to Krka National Park. According to an interviewee from an agricultural holding involved with tourism, there are around 20 people who rent property in Miljevci, including agricultural holdings, apartments, and/or houses. This interviewee’s family has been involved with rural tourism since 2007. They had previous experience working with tourism and hospitality at the seaside and wanted to transfer their experience to their home region. The beginning was difficult because there were hardly any tourists (around 2,000 overnight stays a year in the whole area of Drniš). Gradually, with time, investment, and effort, the numbers increased—in their case, and in the whole area of the Town of Drniš. They were able to improve their rental property and services (e.g. adding a pool, and offering food), which enabled them to increase prices. In the first few years the tourist season went on for 2–2.5 months (July and August) with around 100 overnight stays, but now it starts in the middle of April and lasts until the end of October, amounting to 800–900 overnight stays in their facility. On average, their guests stay for 2 or 3 days. Most of them come from United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Germany. 9 Apart from commercial accommodation, data in Tab. 2 include a small share of non-commercial accommodation. 65 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Tab. 2 Tourist arrivals and overnight stays in the Town of Drniš between 2010 and 2018 Arrivals Overnight stays Year Dome- Dome- stic Foreign Total Chain index stic Foreign Total Chain index 2010 450 324 774 / 1653 1250 2903 / 2011 686 815 1501 193.9 1543 2503 4046 139.4 2012 625 1116 1741 116.0 2513 4147 6660 164.6 2013 573 1513 2086 119.8 1075 4397 5472 82.2 2014 775 1742 2497 119.7 2352 5487 7839 143.3 2015 798 2395 3193 127.9 1965 7091 9056 115.5 2016 906 2942 3848 120.5 2102 9887 11989 132.4 2017 652 2992 3644 94.7 2130 12659 14789 123.4 2018 937 4391 5328 146.2 2114 17064 19178 129.7 Source: Drniš Tourist Board, 2019 There are several important factors contributing to these trends, starting with the very intense tourism development of the whole country, including the littoral region of Dalmatia, where tourism development has traditionally been concentrated in the coastal zone. Tourism development, however, has also spread to the interior of Dalmatia, with the strengthening of rural tourism. An interviewee pointed out the advantages of the hinterland—peace and quiet, nature, and undisturbed rest, comfortable accommodation, and (usually) lower prices in relation to the coast. The geographical location of the Town of Drniš is favourable in terms of tourism development; besides being approx. 30 km away from the touristically-developed coastal zone, its position makes it a suitable base for conveniently visiting different attractions within a two-hour drive, such as Plitvice Lakes National Park, Kornati National Park, Zadar, Šibenik, and Split. The fact that a part of Krka National Park is located in the area of the Town of Drniš is one of the key elements of its position, which was also stressed by interviewees: ‘it represents a magnet for visitors’. According to one of the interviewees, the influence of the national park is also visible in the strong development of accommodation facilities, which are promoted over the Internet, stressing their favourable location in relation to Krka National Park. Nevertheless, they ‘equally emphasise their proximity to 66 rural tourism in the surroundings of krka national park .. Šibenik, their proximity to the sea, and even proximity to other large centres along the coast’. Local government initiative has also been important in tourism development. This is visible in several EU-funded projects, such as the “Tourism Development in Krka National Park boundary areas” (2014–2016), “Adriatic Canyoning” (2017–2019), and “Natura Drniš” (2017–2019). These projects consisted of activities such as creating bicycle trails, walking paths, and setting up a zip line in the Čikola River canyon. Furthermore, they included the development of marketing and management plans, and the creation of the Centre for Development of Competencies for Rural Tourism in Pakovo Selo—an info centre for those who are involved with or are planning to involve themselves with rural tourism. According to an interviewee from the local government, they would like to motivate visitors of the Park to stay in this area longer, via projects and the development of tourism infrastructure. Overall, the main tourist activities in the Town of Drniš are diverse. In terms of cultural tourism, the main attraction is the collection of works of the famous Croatian sculptor Ivan Meštrović, who hailed from the area. Active and adventure tourism activities include walking, hiking, cycling, free climbing, canyoning, and riding a zip line. The local gastronomy is also attractive to visitors—local wines, rakija (brandy), olive oil, pršut, and panceta (pancetta). A couple of interviewees stressed the importance of Drniški pršut: ‘. . . what we have is this pršut as a product making this area recognisable’. The positive impacts of tourism in the local area, according to interviewees, are visible in infrastructural development, new potentials and opportunities for the local population, improvements in quality of life, and protection of natural and cultural heritage. The area has seen investments in the renovation of old houses, which are then rented out to tourists. Interviewees did not focus on the potentially negative sides to these trends. What is needed in terms of the local tourism supply is to improve catering services and the selection of restaurants, i.e. diversify and expand the gastronomic supply. Furthermore, better cooperation and networking would be another boost to tourism development, or in words of an actor: ‘I think that if everyone would work together, this would go much faster and that there would be much better effects’. It is also important to have good long-term effects of different projects, where different institutions contin-67 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia ue carrying out planned activities. The full effects of the proximity to Krka National Park in the areas around the upper course of the Krka River are expected in coming years, along with a more spatially balanced visitation system and various activities offered to visitors in the upper course. ‘But [Krka] National Park is a national park. In reality, its task is not development of tourism, although in our region it is the main driving force and a large institution, which has both the human capacity and the financial capacity to do . . . the largest and most important set of activities’. Tourist agencies (based in Šibenik and Drniš) have been increasingly including this area in their offers. ‘Although the focus is not so much on Drniš, as much as it is a kind of general product hinterland, which then includes, depending on interests, some individual tours which . . . maybe do not represent us in the best possible way because we are part of some excursion into the Šibenik-Knin or Split-Dalmatia hinterland, where I am not sure if those visitors . . . have an actual opportunity to experience Drniš . . .’. Agencies could include more of the local tourism supply, which also needs to be more discernible, especially in terms of the gastronomic supply. ‘Agencies often look for . . . services such as tasting rooms, meaning something fast enough, simple enough, attractive enough, and cheap enough, all in one’. Plans for the development of rural tourism in the coming years include protecting and promoting cultural heritage, further development of visitor infrastructure, accommodation and gastronomic services, and strengthening the position of Drniš as a centre of rural tourism in this part of the Šibenik-Knin County, to serve as a starting point from which tourists can easily visit various nearby attractions. The general trends in the future will depend on the wider development context and trends coming from the national level, in terms of main economic activities, funds available, and advancement of decentralisation processes. A key factor in this context will be the level of proactivity on the part of the local community, i.e. how well available opportunities will be used, how sustainable the management and use of local heritage will be, and how successfully tourism will be combined with other economic activities. Rural tourism in the Town of Drniš could be a part of an integral development strategy. How far it can go in terms of influencing negative demographic trends and giving a boost to local economy, however, remains to be seen. 68 rural tourism in the surroundings of krka national park .. Conclusion Protected areas open up possibilities for development of tourism and recreation, not only within their own boundaries, but also in the (predominantly rural) areas that surround them. Rural tourism encompasses different activities, which can affect local economic development, development of infrastructure, social and demographic processes, identities, heritage, and values in a rural area. How sustainable those effects will be depends, for example, on the characteristics of the area, the wider development context, as well as planning and management of tourism activities. With over one million visitors and strong fiscal and management capabilities, Krka National Park has the potential to bring direct and indirect benefits to nearby local communities through employment, education, and cooperation with the local population, and most of all through its visitor management system and tourism development. The effects of rural tourism development are visible in nearby areas, in connection to the favourable location in relation to the Park, but also as part of a general trend of rural tourism development in the interior of Dalmatia, spreading from the highly touristically-developed coastal zone. The case of rural tourism development in the Town of Drniš, which has seen a rather steep increase in the number of tourist arrivals and stays in recent years, shows the importance of several factors contributing to this trend. Those factors include its location in close proximity to Krka National Park and the coastal zone, but also accessibility to other important attractions (e.g. Plitvice Lakes National Park, Split, or Zadar) within a two-hour drive, and strong local initiative in a situation where economic diversification is crucial to counteract negative demographic trends. The effects of tourism development are especially visible in infrastructural development, renovation of old houses, and protection and management of natural and cultural heritage. Tourism has created potentials and opportunities for the local population (in combination with local agricultural products, for example). Keeping in mind the primary function of the Park of protecting its natural and cultural heritage, the full potential of its influence on the local development of the areas in the upper course of the Krka River can be expected in the years to come. This will also depend on how successful the Park’s management will be in achieving a more balanced visitor management system. Thereby, it is important to develop the local tourism supply 69 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia further, especially in terms of catering services and restaurants. However, demographic processes are a key issue for the future development, together with strengthening the network of actors and making rural tourism part of an integral development strategy in Dalmatinska Zagora in general. References Bjelajac, S., 2008: Naselja i kretanje stanovništva u porječju Krke, Godišnjak Titius 1 (1), 227-257. Bjelajac, S., 2009: Strukturalne promjene stanovništva porječja Krke u razdoblju 1991. - 2001., Godišnjak Titius 2 (2), 253-274. Boyd, S., Hall, C. M., 2005: Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Making Peripheral Destinations Competitive, in: Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Development or Disaster? (eds. Hall, C. M., Boyd, S.), Channel View Publications, Clevedon – Buffalo – Toronto, 273-280. Butler, R. W., 2011: Sustainable tourism and the changing rural scene in Europe, in: Sustainable Tourism in Rural Europe, Approaches to development (eds. Macleod, D. V. L., Gillespie, S. A.), Routledge, London – New York, 15-27. Butler, R, Hall, C. M., Jenkins, J. M., 1998: Introduction, in: Tourism and recreation in rural areas (eds. Butler, R. et al.), Wiley, Chichester, 3-16. Demonja, D., Ružić, P., 2010: Ruralni turizam u Hrvatskoj, s hrvatskim primjerima dobre prakse i europskim iskustvima, Meridijani, Samobor. Hall, C. M., Boyd, S., 2005: Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Introduction, in: Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Development or Disaster? (eds. Hall, C. M., Boyd, S.), Channel View Publications, Clevedon – Buffalo – Toronto, 3-17. Hall, C. M., Jenkins, J. M., 1998: The policy dimensions of rural tourism and recreation, in: Tourism and recreation in rural areas (eds. Butler, R. et al.), Wiley, Chichester, 19-42. Hall, D., Mitchell, M., Roberts, L., 2003: Tourism and the Countryside: Dynamic Relationships, in: New Directions in Rural Tourism (eds. Hall, D. et al.), Ashgate, Aldershot, 3-15. Hammer, T., 2007: Protected Areas and Regional Development: Conflicts and Opportunities, in: Protected Areas and Regional Development in Europe: Towards a New Model for the 21st Century (ed. Mose, I.), Ashgate, Aldershot – Burlington, 21-36. Knežević-Grubišić, M., 1997: Nacionalni parkovi Krka i Kornati u funkciji razvoja maritimnog turizma, Suvremeni promet 17 (3-4), 285-289. 70 rural tourism in the surroundings of krka national park .. Kontić, P., 2018: Istraživanje tržišta i izrada studije praćenja i unapređivanja kvalitete usluga kroz analizu rezultata anketa posjetitelja Nacionalnog parka „Krka“, Nacionalni park „Krka“, Parkovi Hrvatske, Šibenik, http:// www.npkrka.hr/upload/stranice/2018/03/2018-03-01/205/usporedbarezu-ltataanketa2013i2017.pdf (28. 08. 2019.) Lukić, A., Radeljak Kaufmann, P., 2017: A Scenario-based Approach to Discuss the Future of Croatian Rural Areas: Developing the Conceptual Framework of the CRORURIS Project, in: ISR-Forschungsbericht Heft 43: New developments in the rural space of Central and South-East Europe, Proceedings of the meeting of the Working Group on Central Europe in conjunction with the German Congress of Geography (ed. Jordan, P.), Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Stadt- und Regionalforschung, Vienna, 31-47. Mose, I., Weixlbaumer, N., 2007: A New Paradigm for Protected Areas in Europe?, in: Protected Areas and Regional Development in Europe: Towards a New Model for the 21st Century (ed. Mose, I.), Ashgate, Aldershot – Burlington, 3-19. Pejnović, D., Radeljak, P., 2009: Funkcija rada Nacionalnog parka “Krka” i njezin prostorni utjecaj, Godišnjak Titius 2 (2), 223-238. Petrić, L., 2008: How to Develop Tourism Sustainably in the Coastal Protected Areas? The Case of “Biokovo Park of Nature”, Croatia, Acta Turistica Nova 2 (1), 5-24. Radeljak, P., 2015: Dalmatinska zagora u perspektivi razvoja Dalmacije do 2031. godine: primjer Grada Drniša, in: Stručno-znanstveni skup Gospodarske mogućnosti Zagore i oblici njihova optimalnog iskorištavanja, Zbornik radova (eds. Matas, M., Rako, A.), Kulturni sabor Zagore – podružnica Zagreb, Institut za jadranske kulture i melioraciju krša, Zagreb – Split, 205-221. Radeljak, P., Pejnović, D., 2008: Utjecaj turizma na održivi razvoj funkcion-alne regije Nacionalnog parka “Krka”, Godišnjak Titius 1 (1), 329-361. Sources ArcMap 10.3.1. Basemap, National Geographic World Map. Croatian Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2008: Posjetitelji važnijih turističkih zna-menitosti i atrakcija u 2007. , Priopćenje 44 (4.4.8/4), www.dzs.hr (01. 04. 2012) 71 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Croatian Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2009: Posjetitelji važnijih turističkih zna-menitosti i atrakcija u 2008. , Priopćenje 45 (4.4.8/4), www.dzs.hr (01. 04. 2012) Croatian Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2010: Posjetitelji važnijih turističkih zna-menitosti i atrakcija u 2009. , Priopćenje 46 (4.4.6/4), www.dzs.hr (01. 04. 2012) Croatian Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2011: Posjetitelji važnijih turističkih zname-nitosti i atrakcija u 2010. / Visitors to Main Tourist Sights and Attractions in 2010, Priopćenje / First Release 47 (4.4.8/4), www.dzs.hr (01. 04. 2012) Croatian Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2012: Posjetitelji važnijih turističkih zname-nitosti i atrakcija u 2011. / Visitors to Main Tourist Sights and Attractions in 2011, Priopćenje / First Release 48 (4.4.8/4), www.dzs.hr (01. 04. 2012) Croatian Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2013: Census of population, households and dwellings in 2011: Population by sex and age, by settlements, www.dzs.hr (20. 8. 2014) Croatian Bureau of Statistics (CBS), n. d.: Naselja i stanovništvo Republike Hrvatske 1857. – 2001., Šibensko-kninska županija – broj stanovnika po naseljima, www.dzs.hr (20. 08. 2014) Croatian Geodetic Administration (CGA), 2013: Central Registry of Spatial Units in the Republic of Croatia (GIS shapefiles in accordance with the 2011 census), Zagreb. Drniš Tourist Board, 2019: Data on tourist arrivals and overnight stays in the Town of Drniš 2010–2018. eVisitor, 2019: Information system for check-in and check-out of tourists. Gisdata, 2008: Digital Atlas of the Republic of Croatia (GIS shapefiles). Krka National Park, 2007: Data on the number of visitors 1996–2006. Krka National Park, Parks of Croatia, 2018a: Analiza ankete provedene u Nacionalnom parku „Krka“ 2018. , http://www.npkrka.hr/upload/stranice/2018/03/2018-03-01/205/analizaankete2018.pdf (29. 08. 2019) Krka National Park, News, 2018b, http://www.npkrka.hr/clanci/New-sustainable-measures-Skradinski-buk/405/en.html (30. 08. 2019) Krka National Park, 2019: Data on the number of visitors 2011–2018. Krka National Park, Unknown Krka project, n. d., http://www.np-krka.hr/ stranice/Unknown-Krka-students-Skradin/220/en.html (02. 09. 2019) Republic of Croatia, 2013: Nature Protection Act, Official Gazette 80/2013, 15/2018, 14/2019. 72 rural tourism in the surroundings of krka national park .. State Audit Office, Šibenik Regional Office (SAO), 2019: Izvješće o obavljenoj financijskoj reviziji Javne ustanove Nacionalni park Krka za 2017. , http:// www.revizija.hr/datastore/filestore/190/NACIONALNI-PARK-KRKA. pdf (28. 08. 2019) 73 Chapter 4 Tourism in protected areas and the transformation of Mljet island, Croatia Ivan Šulc Abstract Located in southern Dalmatia, Mljet has some of the best-preserved nature among the inhabited Adriatic islands, and the western part was declared a national park in 1960. After World War II, the island faced intensive depopulation and transformation from an agriculture-oriented economy to a service-oriented economy. This chapter investigates the role of tourism in the socio-economic transformation of the island and the social pressure of tourism on the small local community. The goals were to investigate the role of tourism in demographic processes on Mljet, its impact on the socio-economic development of the island, and to measure the pressure of tourism on the local community. The research confirmed the significant role of tourism in the island’s socio-economic and demographic transformation, but it also revealed some of the highest levels of social pressure due to tourism in southern Dalmatia, which is not acceptable for a tourism area with a highly-preserved natural environment. Key words: protected area, nature-based tourism, coastal tourism, depopulation, social pressure of tourism, islands, geography, Mljet, Croatia doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-7055-08-5.75-102 75 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Introduction Coastal regions in the Mediterranean have experienced very intensive tourism development since the end of World War II, which has been even more amplified on islands (Bramwell, 2003). Rapid development of coastal tourism, based on attracting broad masses of tourists, is associated with strong expansion of hotels and other accommodation capacities (often of lower quality) (Ioannides, 2001; Andriotis, 2006; Chapman and Speake, 2011). Tourism gives an impulse to the economic development of local communities that otherwise would not have any development opportunities outside of agriculture, but has also caused large changes in coastal landscapes and the transformation of rural settlements into urbanised tourism areas (Andriotis, 2006). Unfortunately, unplanned tourism development in some areas has generated negative environmental, socio-cultural, and economic impacts, and deteriorated the perceived attractiveness of destinations for potential tourists, who have started choosing less-transformed areas (Ioannides, 2001; Andriotis, 2006; Pulina and Biagi, 2006; Garay and Cànoves, 2011). In areas with high physical and social pressure of tourism, a part of the population has also started to feel the negative aspects of tourism, especially on the part of the population that is not directly involved in tourism (Doxey, 1975; Butler, 1980; Black, 1996; Bramwell, 2003). Bossevain and Theuma (1998) associate such negative attitudes with the development of “quality” tourism products that rapidly consume scarce natural resources, due to large infrastructural requirements (e.g. upscale hotels, marinas, golf courts) and demands for large amounts of land and natural resources. However, Zhong et al. (2008) showed, in the case of Zhangjiajie National Park in China, that negative impacts of tourism are not confined only to coastal areas— they can also affect natural areas on the mainland. Furthermore, the case of Plitvice Lakes, the national park the most threatened by over-tourism in Croatia, speaks in favour of the aforementioned theses. The course and characteristics of tourism development in Croatia has largely followed the trends in the broader Mediterranean area, with one major difference: development took place under two different socio-economic systems (socialist and capitalist) and was completely halted by the Croatian War of Independence (1991–1995) (See: Šulc, 2017). Furthermore, tourism urbanisation has been dominated by new construction or reconstruction of private houses with apartments and rooms available for rent to tourists, while there were relatively few hotels (Šulc, 2016; 2019). These processes 76 tourism in protected areas and the transformation of mljet island, croatia spread from the mainland to the islands later, and caused severe transformations in some small island communities (See: Starc, 2001; Faričić et al., 2010; Šulc and Zlatić, 2014; Šulc, 2016). Only protected areas in the coastal zone, with stricter regulation regimes, remained partially spared from unplanned and chaotic tourism construction. At the same time, most islands experienced highly negative demographic processes (Nejašmić, 1992; Lajić, 2006; Lajić and Mišetić, 2006; Nejašmić and Mišetić, 2006), which have only recently begun to show signs of improvement. This chapter, therefore, investigates to what extent tourism has contributed to demographic changes and socio-economic processes on Croatian islands, using the case of Mljet, a medium-sized Adriatic island with a highly-preserved natural environment and a small population. Goals of the chapter are: (1) to investigate the role of tourism in demographic processes on Mljet; (2) to determine the impact of tourism on the socio-economic development of the island; and (3) to measure the intensity of the pressure of tourism on the local community. Research methods The research is based on “desk” methods that involve the analysis of data on tourism, population, and vital events. Statistical data on tourism consist of the number and structure of tourist arrivals, overnight stays (from 1966 to 2016), and tourist beds (from 1976 to 2016). Data was not analysed on a yearly basis, rather every fifth year was compared. Data was used in its original form to analyse tourism development and as combined indicators to estimate the social pressure of tourism— tourism function index (number of tourist beds per 100 inhabitants) and tourism intensity (number of tourist arrivals per 100 inhabitants). The analysis of demographic processes used census data from the 1961–2011 period, consisting of population size, migration features, age-sex composition, education, economic activity, sector of activity, and agricultural population. Despite the changes in the methodology of censuses (censuses from 1961, 1971, 1981, and 1991 used de jure methodology and the 2001 and 2011 censuses used place of usual residence), the minor discrepancy in the population stemming from different methodologies is irrelevant for the purposes of this research and data was used in its original form. It is important to note that data on sector of economic activity was not available for 1981, as well as data on agricultural population for 2011, which is no longer registered in censuses. 77 challenges of tourism development in protected areas of croatia and slovenia Census data were used in the analysis of the demographic and socio-economic transformation of Mljet as absolute numbers (number of inhabitants), the share of certain segments of the population relevant for the analysis, or as relative indicators (education index, activity rate etc.). Classifications (percentage) of the population according to population composition are: (1) age composition—young (0–14 years), adult (15–64 years), and elderly population (aged 65+); (2) migration features—population that has always lived in the same settlement and population that moved from other settlements in the same municipality, other municipalities, other counties, or from abroad; (3) educational composition—population without primary education (