Tourism development and green horizons in protected areas of Croatia and Slovenia: synthesis and perspectives

Abstract

This chapter discusses different management approaches and recommendations for administration of protected areas, where tourism is recognised as one of the most important management challenges-depending on the situation, it can be either a curse or a blessing. Therefore, the goal of this chapter is to compare methods of management of protected areas in Croatia and Slovenia, with an emphasis on tourism. The systems of administering protected areas in both countries show some similarities, but also have major differences. In Slovenia, the system is relatively decentralised, especially for protected areas that are of a lower category of protection. This is the result of a bottom-up approach. In Croatia, the top-down approach, mainly characterised by centralised management, prevails-especially in the case of management of national parks and nature parks. Differences in management approaches influence the level to which a given protected area is included in the tourism supply, which is consequentially reflected in forms of tourism as well as differential spatial influences.

Methodological challenges in the research on second homes: lessons learned from the Alpine region, Slovenia and the Municipality of Kranjska Gora

“…Consequently, these dwellings have been categorized as primary residences, not as second homes. Moreover, the analysis by the Statistical Office also shows that many of the objects that were categorized as second homes in 2002, have had their categorization changed to vineyard cottages (especially in the regions of Pomurje and Southeastern Slovenia) (Koderman 2017). Similar census of buildings and dwellings was also conducted in the years 2015 and 2018, were a decreasing trend of the number of second homes and the share of them in the total housing stock is visible: in 2018, only 2.3 % of the housing stock was officially registered for second home use on the national level.…”

“…If we would consider the estimate numbers per countries previously published by Sonderegger and Bätzing (2013) for 2012, we could interpret a drastic two-fold increase in approximately a decade. A doubling in the number of second homes in the last decade seems unlikely, given the spikes in second-home construction periods reported in the literature in different Alpine Area (Gosar 1989;Macchiavelli 2011;Delorme 2014;Koderman 2017;Gerber and Tanner 2018). This discrepancy in assessment between two estimations methods is nonetheless very significant, and calls into question our ability to accurately estimate the number of second homes, based on the availability of data and given definitions.…”

“…Research can have various objectives, including a better understanding of the spatial distribution of their development (Sonderegger and Bätzing 2013) and origins, the motives and the changing practices of their owners or residents (Sarman and Czarnecki 2020), the role of second homes in tourism (Machiavelli 2011;Blondy, Vacher and Vye 2016), their perception and interest for local stakeholders (Gerber and Tanner 2018), and also their diverse effects on the territories in economic, environmental, and social terms (Coppock 1977;Gosar 1989;Roca 2013;Cretton, Boscoboinik and Friedli 2020). Controversies surrounding second homes about the pressure they exert on the environment (Koderman 2017), public service providers (Larsson and Müller 2019) and on the real estate available for permanent purposes prompts renewed research to report their consequences over time (Paris 2009;Müller and Hoogendoorn 2013;Carrosio, Magnani and Osti 2019). However, while the nature of the effects can be listed, they are often difficult to measure in any tangible way as well as to assess the exact number of second homes in a given area.…”

Introduction: The (In)visibility of Multi-locality in Theory and Practice

“…Work in this vein has helped map out the evolving second home landscape in Slovenia, tracking the effects of increasing numbers of second homes on the spatial development of settlements, villages, and towns through different historical periods. In particular, I highlight the research conducted in protected areas in the Slovenian Alps, in Triglav National Park (Gosar, 1987a(Gosar, , 1989Koderman, Salmič, 2013;Koderman, 2017), in which researchers examined the effects of second home developments on cultural landscapes and on tourism development.…”

Untitled

“…The three municipalities mentioned seem to be the most interesting areas for researching the phenomenon of second homes, as theyalso recorded the highest share of second homes in the municipal housing stock in the last census of 2018, as already shown in Figure 1: 25.7%, 24.5% and 23.1%, respectively (Statistični urad Republike Slovenije, 2023a). Other studied areas in the Alpine and pre-Alpine regions include the area of Triglav National Park, which is spread across 8 municipalities (in addition to the three mentioned, also Bled, Gorje, Jesenice, Kobarid and Tolmin) (Koderman, 2017), and the municipality of Cerklje na Gorenjskem (which was studied in a comparative study with the municipality of Komen in the Mediterranean region) (Goluža, 2013).…”