prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2015 str. 62     <-- 62 -->        PDF

and conservation status of nature (87%). Motives for visit and visitor satisfaction in the Zadar county are in trend with the research from 2006 (Krpina 2009).
• While in other protected areas the main activity is photographing nature, in this area it is hiking. Therefore it is necessary to create a convenient visiting system – good pedestrian infrastructure (maps, clarity of signalisation, quality of trails), and activities of visitors harmonised with the aims of nature conservation.
• Almost every fifth visitor of the NaP Telašćica experienced crowdedness as well in the park and in arrival/departure.
• The visitors of the parks in this research are satisfied or medium satisfied with the cleanliness of the park and the politeness of park staff, and least satisfied by the quality transport within the park, adaption to visitors with special needs and additional offers of the park (excursions/education), for which the majority marked „don’t know”.
• The improvement of the offer and content of the park (fixing trails, improved cleanliness of the park and sanitary facilities, improved signposts in the park, information panels in different languages, more shops, more recreational elements, more offers for people with special needs, improvement of environment, infrastructure or buildings) is still important for park management. The visitors in the Zadar county additionally propose more variability in arrival of visitors during the day and more marketing via internet.
• The results gained from the examined visitors have been compared with the results of examined staff which lead to specific conclusions. The difference between the perception of visitors and park staff is for the NP Paklenica mostly visible in the marking of overall satisfaction by visitors: very high and medium by staff. In the NaP Vransko Jezero visitors marked high and staff low, while in the NaP Telašćica, visitors marked low while the staff estimated the overall satisfaction as high. The results are one of the inputs to management models and allow the design of management recommendations focused in the same time on conservation of natural resources as well as satisfying the users. They can be applied in management planning in protected areas and in future planning of tourist offers that are directly linked to them.
• Concerning the limited possibilities of use of protected parts of nature as well as the general or specific conservation, these parts of nature can only be used in a strictly controlled and moderate way. In this sense, classic types of tourism are limited and advantage s given to scientific, excursion, rural, healthy, recreational, fishing (hunting),educational and similar types of tourism (Španjol 1993).
• It is necessary to determine the carrying capacity which presents the maximum number of people that can be at the same location at the same time without causing any irreversible change and degradation of the physical surrounding and without violation of the recreational experience of the visitor (Tišma and Maleković, 2009). The tourist offer should be extended on the surrounding area, which would allow the conservation of natural values and the distribution of visitors to a larger area, and at the same time would include the local population with their products.
• In the parks investigated in the Zadar county, no expressed tourist pressure is present. Nevertheless, in order to ensure the future conservation of the overall natural and cultural values that were the reason of conserving these areas, it is necessary to, beside the measuring of attitudes and characteristics of visitors, to measure the impact of visitors on the biodiversity values of these areas. The impact of visitors is not so much dependent on the number of visitors, than on the management level of park visitation.
• Such researches indicate the need of continuous, standardised and comparable data and information collection on visitors in all parks. This will improve the management of the parks as well as on the park level as on the national Croatian level. This will lead to a crucial component for development and planning of tourism as an important part of Croatian economy.
Agriconsulting S.p.A., 2005: Procjena turističke strukture i prijedlozi za održivi razvoj turizma u području KEC projekta. Projekt očuvanja krškog ekosustava. Ministarstvo kulture Republike Hrvatske
Ajzen, I., 1991: The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Javna ustanova NP Paklenica, 2010. Starigrad-Paklenica.
Javna ustanova PP Telaščica, 2010. Sali.
Javna ustanova PP Vransko jezero, 2010. Biograd.
Jović, D., 2004: Posjetitelji u Nacionalnom parku Paklenica. Povodom 55.godišnjice NP „Paklenica“. Paklenički zbornik Vol.2, 129–134., Starigrad-Paklenica.
Klarić, Z. E. Kušen, R. Tomljenović, D. Krešić, Z. Petrović, 2006: Lokalni master plan turizma Parka prirode „Vransko jezero“ i njegove okolice. Institut za turizam. Zagreb.
Krpina, V., 2009: Uloga šuma i šumarstva u turizmu i zaštiti prirode na području Zadarske županije, Magisterij, 101 str. Šumarski fakultet Zagreb.
Leon, C. J., M. González, J. E. Arańa, 2005: Vrednovanje obilježja turističkog okoliša na Kanarskim otocima. Turizam Vol. 53(2): 175–185., Zagreb.
Lukić, N., 1995: Procjena prirodnih ljepota NP „Paklenica“. Simpozij povodom 45.godišnjice NP „Paklenica“. Paklenički zbornik Vol.1, 325–328., Starigrad-Paklenica.
Lukač, G., V. Hršak, 2005: Influence of visitor numbers on breeding birds in the Paklenica National Park, Croatia. Ekológia, 24(2): 186–199., Bratislava.