549199.popadic_kovacic

8/17/2019 549199.Popadic_Kovacic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/549199popadickovacic 1/8

Mladenka Popadić, Assistant1

Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Croatia

[email protected]

Nataša Kovačić, AssistantFaculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Croatia

[email protected]

CROATIAN TOURISM STRATE! AN" #I$"$I%E TOURISM

A&st'a(t

The development and promotion of the awareness about nature, preservation of nature and the

human connection with it, has resulted in strengthening the links between the environment

and tourism. The paper discusses the possibilities of wildlife resource valoriation trough

tourism sector and illustrates its transformation to tourist attraction and resource. !n Croatia

wildlife tourism "#T$ does not e%ist as a tourist product. &nimals e%ist as a part of the offer,

but they are not an independent attraction. #ild animals are a part of the tourist offer in 'oos

and there is also the possibility of observing wild animals "wolves, birds$ in the various tour

operators offers "partially different tour operators ( tourist agencies deal with it$. Manycountries manage networks of natural areas where wildlife is protected by law, but that allow

and promote their observation by tourists. Croatia is following this e%ample when it comes to

protecting the animals, but there is no clear conception when it comes to the relation towards

wildlife tourism on an institutional level.

The research sought to e%amine the possibilities of wildlife tourism on the Croatian territory.

The basic assumption is defined as the reversibility of the impact on the environment. The

research proposes a model of acceptance ")#*M$, presented as a graphical imagery. +reat

attention needs to be paid to developing effective management strategies that are based on

knowledge and the precautionary principle. The inputs which are necessary for the making of

the model will not be specially defined in this paper. !nstead the authors propose a theoretical

operational strategies as the source of data.

Key words: Wildlife tourism, Croatia, SWEM model, tourism strategy, sustainable development

1) Int'od*(tion

1 Corresponding author. Tel. -/0 01 234 565. 7rimorska 42, 7.8. 9o% 35, 01416 8pati:a, Croatia.

mailto:[email protected]






#hile mass tourism is spreading fast worldwide, having the tendency of further growth, the

interaction between space and tourism is ac;uiring undesirable flows. The use of space as a

basic tourist resource in the frame of sustainable economy development as well as the

protection of space and environment is gaining more and more importance "<u=en, 2661$.

Croatia is a country that follows trends. &nimals have gained a special meaning in the last

decade, not :ust for the production of food and raw materials but also for the touristassessment of some area. !n Croatia the non>consumptive side of human relations with

wildlife is only in it?s beginnings while in some countries it is becoming a crucial element of

the tourist offers, especially as an attraction and a primary resource.

Consideration of the attractiveness of the animal world or fauna of a destination has to be

based on the emotional and rational relationship of the individual towards animals. &ccording

to <u=an "2662$, the relationship to this world can be divided into several groups innate

sense of comfort or discomfort, passion for hunting or gathering, pleasure of breeding,

en:oying of special kinds of food, :oining of historical significance development of

environmental awareness and e%otic species.

This paper defines wildlife tourism and outlines possible economic and environmental

benefits from developing wildlife>based tourism. !t identifies possible economic benefits on

one side and its influence on the environment on the other side. The paper will not analye the

tourists who are interested in wildlife tourism. Therefore, this paper will discuss how wildlife

tourism can be considered as a potential instrument for sustainable development in Croatia.

+) "einition o t-e #T

Tourism is not :ust achieved in destinations where people travel because of the sun and sea

but because it is intensively e%panding in every corner of the world where there are natural

resources, unspoiled nature, rare andor endangered plants and animal species. 7anAiB <ombol

"266/$ is speaking about alternative tourism as of a new approach to thinking, caring and

thinking about the problems of tourism. &ccording to the recent research this kind of tourism

is e%panding three times faster than conventional mass tourism and it is e%pected that their

share in the *uropean tourism market will be 26 percent in the ne%t 26 years.

#ildlife tourism is an important tourist activity and it has a fast>growing popularity.

ewsome et al. "2660$ says that the wildlife tourism refers to travelling whose main focus is

observing animals in their natural habitat and environment and it can be regarded from two

aspects that can also overlap. First, the consuming one which is based on tangible activities

"hunting and fishing$ and the second, non>consuming aspect that is based on the e%perienceand perception "observation of animals$.

.) I/pa(ts on 0ildlie

#ildlife tourism has become a potentially lucrative activity. !n the past three decades wildlife

tourism is attracting more and more the attention of tourists and as destinations. Croatia is not

an e%ception, especially because of its biodiversity. 8n the other hand, the impacts are both

positive and negative for the wildlife. The positive impacts include "9allantyne, et.al. 2616$

the providing of income for the ongoing protection and sustainable management of wildlife

and wildlife habitat. The positive effects are the economic benefits for local communities,

protection of endangered animal species.



#ildlife tourism can also have negative effects on the resource on which it depends > animals.

The main reasons why the mammals are being endangered is the destruction and

fragmentation of the habitat, fragmentation of the population, decline of the habitat ;uality.

For e%ample, Deynolds "2661$ suggests several causes of impacts on wildlife by recreational

and tourism activities. )tarting from the most e%treme ones harvestdeath, clearing of habitat

"it deals with complete or near complete removal of the native ecosystem$, pollution, animalemigration, reduced animal production and reproduction "if tourism activities decrease the

feeding due to disturbance from perceived danger of the animal conditions is likely to

deteriorate$, habituation.

Deynolds and 9raithwaite "2661$ also discuss the ways to control tourist interaction with

wildlife. They emphasie three types of strategic methods physical and regulatory methods,

economic strategies and educational strategies. These strategies try to control the number of

tourist. The Croatian e%ample for negative impacts associated with birdwatching. Tourist

boats regularly visit the cliffs of the islands where the griffon vultures are nesting "they are

endangered and protected by law$, and they horn and make noise in order to see them. The

young vultures are terrified by the noise and because they are still ine%perienced when itcomes to flying, they fall into the sea and after their feather soaks they drown. &lthough the

tourists do not have bad intentions, their interference can seriously harm the animals and

therefore it is necessary to ensure professional help so that the interference can be reduced to

the minimum. Enderstanding the animals in their wild surrounding and educating the tourists

is the best way for the prevention of negative interference.

) #T develop/ent st'ate23

The strategy of sustainable tourism in Croatia is created in order to increase the economic

benefits which the state is receiving from tourism and at the same time to work on the

preservation and sustainable development principles "ational initiatives for the

implementation of the strategy of sustainable tourism development$. Croatia seeks to improve

its competitiveness on the global tourism markets. This re;uires the transition from the

currently dominant low>value mass tourism to offering a high>level ;uality of the various

tourist product. !t is, however not easy to achieve such a ma:or shift. !t re;uires a cohesive

approach, common vision and coordinated action ( between the public and private sector as

well as within the industry. The model proposes how this can be achieved when it comes to

wildlife tourism.

Fig.1. iagram ( #ildlife tourism.

!n order to e%amine how to make #T possible while minimising the effect on the animals and

habitat, it is important to e%amine current tourism development. 9ased on current state of

development, new ideas can be developed. !t also suggest that preliminary research lead to

sustainable wildlife tourism and ultimately serve the interests of conservation, as illustrated inFig.1.



8perationalisation and synergic effects of operational strategies have to be implemented in the

innovation of the sustainable development policy ")tipanoviB, 266G$. These operational

strategies are marketing strategy, D strategy, offer strategy, financial and human resources

strategy. Those are inputs that help to define the economic benefit for the sustainable wildlife

eligibility model. &nyone who would want to engage in any #T pro:ect has to conductresearch on "i$ the impact on the environment and animals based on the impacts on the, "ii$

financial benefit analysis based on operational strategies.

!t is vital for the ecological and economic wildlife tourism sustainability that wildlife

populations, resources on which the tourism businesses depend on are not damaged, and it is

desirable that their conservation or welfare is enhanced "Higginbottom, 2664$. The D

strategy is very important. The research of the #T product needs to be continuously

implemented and ad:usted to the destination.

Marketing strategy according to the concept of marketing, target markets and effective

transfers of desired satisfaction are becoming the key. Croatia is a destination that needs tomove away from the Isun and seaI concept and change as well as diversify its offer (

specialisation. !t should use the Ibiodiversity positionI, but not affect its balance. #T fulfils

all the re;uirements for this. #ildlife>based tourism is something that Croatia needs to

e%perience.

Croatia has become aware of its natural resources in the last decade and thus become an

attractive destination. 9ecause of this, various tour operators understand the importance of

this tourism segment. )hould such a valuable resource be randomly organied on the initiative

of a private entrepreneurJ & high riskthreat occurs that a growing number of similar offers "in

the absence of control mechanisms that regulate the process$ will inevitably cause a conflict

with the environment. The conflict cannot be avoided, it should however get ad:usted,

reduced and brought into balance.

epending on the arearegion in Croatia it is necessary to ad:ust the product "for e%ample the

animal watching in Kika+orski <otar where the mountain area is specific as opposed to

observing listening to and monitoring birds in <opaAki Dit, Mlaka...$. Croatia is regionally

biologically diverse. However the same approach should be present in all the areas >

preservation of the nature.

!t is necessary to plan the productionsupply. &s this is a Inew pro:ectI from the concept

strategy of production or offer with respect to the production range we can only speak aboutthe development of new productsservices. The development of new products is according to

)tipanoviB "266G$ based on research results and development, which tries to remove the

shortcomings of earlier products, to be more successful on the market, achieve greater

customer satisfaction and better business results. !t can be concluded that the potential

IproductsI need to be compared, analyed and tried to improved relating to the e%isting #T

pro:ects.

4) SUSTAINA5$E #I$"$I%E TOURISM E$II5I$IT! MO"E$ 6S#EM7



#e present an eligibility model depending on the economic benefit on one side and its

influence on the environment on the other side "Fig.2$. The model classifies four different

dimensions, two of which are not acceptable, one completely acceptable and one being

acceptable under certain conditions.

The model shows fragility of the wildlife tourism and the necessity for careful analysis beforedeciding about its implementation. The model shows that there are a lot of aspects that can

benefit from tourism which will be based on wildlife or some of its segments, the local

community, nature protectors as well as the tourism industry. !t is e%tremely important to

inform all the interested parties about the relations of partnerships so they can find a way in

order to enable wildlife tourism and produce new forms of tourism. The use of the model as a

tool for managing wildlife tourism is discussed in the paper.

#hen mentioning the popularity of wildlife tourism, there is a particularly sensitive sub:ect. !t

is about the survival of animals and their environment "habitat$. The authors graphically

define the IpointsI of the best and worst case scenarios, and the different scenarios between

the endpoints. These points can be seen e%clusively through the theoretical abstract case, sothat they can be ranked to determine if it is acceptable to organie this type of tourism in some

areas or not.

Fig.2. )ustainable #ildlife Tourism *ligibility Model ")#*M$.

The key issues of the sustainable wildlife tourism eligibility model are the Effects on wildlife,

and the Profitability (Economic benefit. The figure provides a framework in which the

authors suggest the 7oint of reversibility. The 7rague of reversibility defines the areas where it

is acceptable to organie this type of wildlife tourist product on a particular protected area,

and in which areas it should not be allowed, regardless of the financial effect.

The effect on wildlife is a defined dimension going from left to right, so that the

environmental impact point of view in the specified direction is increasingly reduced "the



more it is to the right, the more it reduces$. The leftmost point represents the ma%imum

impact on the environment "e%tremely negative$. The rightmost point represents a point of

minimal environmental impact "no impact$. This is the point to which the model strives to.

*very pro:ect which is supposed to be based on that should make sure that the model which is

being implemented goes more to the right. &ll preparatory work necessary for the

implementation of the model must try to reduce the effect on the environment to the minimum"right part of the model$.

8n the other side, the second dimension ( profitability "*conomic benefit$ is the measure of

the financial turnover of the pro:ect, going from its minimum up to the ma%imum on the

highest point of the Model.

!"#" E$planation of t%e Model

The *ligibility Model defines 4 different group ratios between environmental impact and

profitability of the pro:ect "!, !!, !!!, and !L$. The & length "point of reversibility$ placedacross the model defines the point from which the pro:ect can or does not have to be

implemented. Kooking on the left of the & length any impact on the environment is

absolutely unacceptable. The main reason is that at this level of the conse;uences impact the

nature of things is that they are irreversible "areas ! !!$. 8n the other end "right from the &

line$ the impact on the environment allows reversibility, and as such it is defined as

acceptable, but under conditions which will be e%plained in the te%t to come.

!"&" Space '

)pace !, bounded by points *, F and + is the space of ma%imum impact on the habitat and

population "environment$, and as such it is defined as a space of absolute irreversibility of

nature. &ny action regarding this area must be stopped even in an early stage of the pro:ect.

This space is characteried with a short period from the first impact until total irreversibility

of the habitat "this is very sensitive since minimal and short impacts cause permanent and

incalculable conse;uences on the environment$. &lthough this area represents great danger, or

its possible conse;uences, it is because of the very obvious catastrophic effects, and if there is

no deliberate negative action, every signal it shows must be enough to stop the activity in the

region.

!"" Space ''

)pace !! is bounded with points &, , * and +. &s it is evident from the scheme, it is the

largest space. The characteristic of this area associated with the implementation of the pro:ect

is identical to the space !. !f the inputs indicate that their ratio is found within the rhombus,

the implementation of the wildlife tourism should not be launched. *vidently, the ;uestion is

why do we need to distinguish these two areasJ &s it is obvious, the sie of the rhomb

presumes that most ratios will be found precisely in this IgrayI one. &lthough the one itself

is defined as one in which the implementation of wildlife tourism is not allowed, every result

found in this space must be sub:ect to additional controls or reviews. The *+ length presents

the boundary with the one of absolute prohibition, and the left of the & with the one in

which the implementation is acceptable. Changing the values of inputs that can result from

changes in e%ternal factors or from identifying errors in the initial study could provide)transition) from a one with not implementation into a implementation one. !n these cases



the possibility of errors is probable. Taking the already discussed into consideration, this can

result in unpredictable conse;uences.

!"*" Space '''

)pace !!! is bounded by points &, and C. !t is the space in which it is possible to realie a#ildlife tourism pro:ect. The possible impact that the pro:ect will have on the habitat and

animal population is defined as a reversible process. &lthough this space is defined as one in

which environmental impacts are likely to happen, this can be neutralied with funding. #hat

characteries ratios between economic benefits and environmental impacts in this area is the

fact that the funds obtained by ta%ing the activities will not be sufficient to neutralie

environmental impact created by the pro:ect. &s a possible solution the author s suggests

subsidy funds. The author s will not go into the source of subsidies, but it can be presumed that

these must be state or local government founds. &s an e%ample, we will take the point 3 on

the graph which represents the ratio of economic benefits and environmental impacts. The

impact on the environment is defined with the label 8, while economic benefits in the same

ratio are labelled 9. !n order for this pro:ect to be acceptable from the standpoint of environmental impact, the minimum economic benefit re;uired is labelled with 9: on the

*conomic benefit line. !t is precisely the difference between the points 9 9: that shows the

amount of the subsidied funds in the effect 8.

!"!" Space '+

Depresents a triangle bounded by points &, 9 and C. !t can also be called best case scenario.

This is an area for which we ascribe ratios of *conomic benefits and *ffect on wildlife, which

indicate the possibility of maintaining a self>sustainable wildlife tourism. &t each point of the

mentioned area, impact on animals and their habitat has a characteristic that is absolutely

reversible, and the economic effects are of such nature that they allow self>financing from the

income generated by tourism activity, without the need for subsidies.

;) Con(l*sion

Degardless of the attractiveness of the wildlife tourism, the environmental sustainability of

#T pro:ects in Croatia is of crucial importance "the model is applicable regardless of the

country$. The pro:ect should be given a lot of attention since the resources on which they are

based are very fragile. The model observes the animal world and its habitat from the point of

unchangeability. The reversibility of the habitat from possible disorders is the priority and

condition no. 1. 8nly after satisfying this re;uirement it is possible to consider this pro:ectfurther. &chieving the primary re;uirement does not meet all the criteria which are necessary

for the realiation of the pro:ect. The ne%t pre>re;uirement is the financial self>sustainability

of the pro:ect. !n fact, any disturbance in the environment and in the animal world has to be

neutralied by using funds gained from the pro:ect along with the already mentioned

possibility of subsidies.

This paper proposes a general sustainable wildlife tourism model ")#*M$. The proposed

model links the two areas, the impact on wildlife and economic benefit. The model portrays if

it is possible to launch an e%actly defined self>sustainable pro:ect or if the pro:ects are based

on possible subsidies on a specific area.

Further research has left room for defining inputs and values and to scale up the economic benefit and impacts on environment ( effects on wildlife. Considerations should be in the



direction of numerical defining inputs so as to determine the ma%imum number and the

number of classes. The impacts which have been listed in the paper should be standardied in

further studies andor ;uantified. )pecifically, a benchmark of each impact is proposed as well

as the definition of the mathematical calculation so that a scoring scale of the total impact is

visible. This re;uires the determination of the percentage importance of each of the analyed

habitat effects. Taking the diversity of habitats into consideration, the assumption is that it will be necessary to develop more mathematical models. &s this is about a non>economic

mathematical model, the involvement of researchers from different fields of science is

suggested. & multi>disciplinary approach is needed.

&lso, if we strive toward sustainable tourism its necessary to encourage pro:ects in space !L.

Dange and effectiveness of different methods can include a differential ta%ation system and

educational strategies.

Ree'en(es

9allantyne, D., et al., Lisitors? learning for environmental sustainability Testing short> and,

ourism Management "2616$, doi16.161G:.tourman.2616.11.66

9urns, +. K., Howard, 7. "266$. #hen wildlife tourism goes wrong a case study of

stakeholder and management issues regarding ingoes on Fraser !sland &ustralia.

ourism Management, &*, G33>512.

Higginbottom, <. "2664$. Wildlife tourism: 'mpacts, management and planning" +old Coast.

Common +round 7ublishing. CDC for )ustainable Tourism.

<ueni, C. Mceely, N. "266/$. -ature. based ourism. ordrecht )pringer.

<u=en, *. "2661$. Turiam i prostor <lasifikaci:a turistiAkih atrakci:a. Prostor, (&#, 1>12.

Moore, ). &., Dodger, <. "2616$ #ildlife tourism as a common pool resource issue

enabling conditions for sustainability governance. /ournal of Sustainable ourism,Lol. 1/, o 5, /1>/44.

ewsome, . et al. "2660$. Wildlife tourism" Clevedon Channel Liew 7ublications.

8rams, M. 9. "2662$. Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction a review of issues and impacts.

ourism Management, &, 2/1>23.

7anAiB <ombol, T. "2666$. Sele0tivni turi1am. 2vod u menad3ment prirodni% i 0ulturni%

resursa" Matul:i TMC7 )agena.

DadoviB, N. "1333$. 7regled stan:a biolo=ke i kra:obrane ranolikosti Hrvatske sa strategi:om

i akci:skim planovima a=tite, 'agreb rOavna uprava a a=titu prirode i okoli=a

Deynolds, 7. C., 9raithwaite, . "2661$. Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife

tourism. ourism Management , &&, 1>42.

)hackley, M. "133G$. Wildlife tourism" Kondon !nternational Thomson 9usiness 7ress.

)tipanoviB, C. "266G$. Koncepci4a i strategi4a ra1vo4a u turi1mu. Sustav i poslovna politi0a"

8pati:a Fakultet a turistiAki i hotelski menadOment.

Tapper, D. "266G$. #ildlife watching and tourism a study on the benefits and risks of a fast

growing tourism activity and its impacts on species. 9onn Enited ations

*nvironment 7rogramme "E*7$.

The Croatia Tourism Cluster. "266$. Competitiveness )trategy Croatian Tourism !ndustry.

httppdf.usaid.govpdfPdocs7&3/.pdf. &ccessed 21.6.11.

Tisdell, C. "266$. *conomic &spects of *cotourism #ildlife>based Tourism and !ts

Contribution to ature. Sri 5an0an /ournal of 6gricultural Economics" Lol. 0, o.1

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADD983.pdf.%20Accessed%2021.03.11

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADD983.pdf.%20Accessed%2021.03.11

549199.popadic_kovacic

Documents