Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9851-4
Introduction of Participatory Conservation in Croatia, Residents’ Perceptions: A Case Study from the Istrian Peninsula Barbara Sladonja • Kristina Brsˇcˇic´ • Danijela Poljuha • Neda Fanuko • Marin Grgurev
Received: 29 June 2011 / Accepted: 15 March 2012 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract Croatia, like many other transition countries has undergone radical changes in its nature protection models. This paper discusses a historical overview, present situation and future possibilities for nature conservation in Croatia. A conservative top-down approach to nature protection was applied in the past in Croatia and is now being replaced by a prevalent bottom-up approach. Social context is crucial to introducing participatory conservation, therefore special concern is given to the perception of the local population towards protected area management in Istria as a case study in Croatia. Survey data were used to assess the conservation knowledge of local populations and their perception towards Protected Areas (PAs), leadership activities and management authorities in Istria County. This paper examines the perceptions of 313 residents living in and around six natural PAs located in Istria. The results revealed a moderate general knowledge about PAs in Istria and environmental issues, and a low awareness of institutions managing PAs, eagerness to participate in the activities of PAs and general support for the conservation cause.
B. Sladonja (&) K. Brsˇcˇic´ Department of Economy and Development, Institute of Agriculture and Tourism Porecˇ, 52440 Porecˇ, Croatia e-mail:
[email protected] D. Poljuha Research Centre METRIS, Istrian Development Agency (IDA) Ltd., Zagrebacˇka 30, 52100 Pula, Croatia N. Fanuko Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Sl. Krautzeka bb, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia M. Grgurev State Institute for Nature Protection, Mazˇuranic´a Sq. 5, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Understanding the perception of local residents enables the creation of feasible, long-term strategies for the implementation of participatory conservation. The research identifies the need for greater human, technical and financial efforts to strengthen the management capabilities of local agencies responsible for PAs. The process of participatory conservation optimization in Croatia is underway and world experiences must be observed in order to create a congruent, site-specific model with the best possible results. Keywords Participatory conservation Perceptions Croatia Istria Protected areas Sustainable development
Introduction Nature conservation is a complex issue that requires the consideration of many factors and relationships (Fu and others 2004). In recent decades, approaches to environmental management have shifted from a traditional centralized system to a participatory approach that is community-oriented and holistic in its view of the environment (Kapoor 2001). There is an emerging body of literature that analyzes participatory conservation and debates its benefits and possible dangers (Kapoor 2001; Kellert and others 2000, Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2003; Fu and others 2004; Kluva´nkova-Oravska´ 2001; Adams and Thomas 2006; Koehler and Koontz 2008; Khadka and Nepal 2010). Although participatory conservation models are numerous and differently named, active citizen participation is considered a key component in all of them (e.g., Participatory environmental management (Kapoor 2001; Khadka and Nepal 2010), Participatory Development (Campbell and Vainio-Matilla 2003),
123
Environmental Management
Community Based Conservation (CBC) (Berkes 2003; Campbell and Vainio-Matilla 2003, Kluva´nkova´-Oravska´ 2001; Mehta and Kellert 1998; Brunckhorst 2010; Shackleton and others 2010), Community Natural Resource Management (CNMR) (Kellert and others 2000), Benefit-based approaches (Gadd 2005; Kideghesho and others 2007), Co-management (Parr and others 2008), Collaborative Management (CM) (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996)). The principle of interdisciplinary conservation has emerged at a time when the science of ecology has undergone three shifts: a shift from reductionism to a systems view of the world, a shift to include humans in the ecosystems, and a shift from an expert-based approach to participatory conservation and management (Berkes 2003). This apparently ‘‘new’’ approach is actually the traditional approach supported by the old definition of ecology as ‘‘the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment’’. In fact, living organisms include humans in much the same way that humans are involved in the participatory approach. Because of our desire to control and save the environment, we have forgotten this basic postulate and temporarily excluded social context from environmental issues. The old/new approaches were mainly developed in Western capitalist countries but are now dominant in most of the world, whereas participatory conservation has followed specific development paths in transition countries (Elliott and Udovcˇ 2005; Mackelworth and Caric´ 2010; Mackelworth and others 2011; Tickle and Clarke 2000; Vuletic´ and others 2010). Transition has caused a shift in political philosophy that has led to the demise of authoritarian rule and the dawn of democracy, human rights and drastic changes in nature protection from exclusive to inclusive and from top-down to bottom-up (Khadka and Nepal 2010). Former strict nature protection as applied through the top-down management model seeks to protect nature by removing social elements from the context (Khadka and Nepal 2010). Participatory conservation needs certain preconditions in order to take root and its implementation depends on legal, social, economic and ecological ambits (Kellert and others 2000). Studies about perceptions and attitudes are being widely used in evaluating public understanding, acceptance and the impact of conservation interventions (Allendorf 2007; Alibeli and Johnson 2009; Badola 1998; Bauer 2003; Boonzaier 1996; Kideghesho and others 2007; Walpole and Harold 2001; Wang and others 2006). Croatia boasts a long tradition of nature protection (Kosovic´ 2006). As in many other countries, the first examples of nature protection in Croatia are linked to the second half of the 19th century. These initial attempts were the result of enthusiasts from different professions: rangers,
123
biologists, geographers, doctors, lawyers, artists etc. The first institutions that were funded with the aim of nature protection were the Croatian Nature Society (1885) and the Society for the Arrangement of Plitvice Lakes and its Surroundings (1893). In an effort to provide an official framework for nature protection, the Law on Bird Protection (1893), Law on Hunting (1893) and Law on Underground Protection (1900) were issued. These legislative acts were aimed at protecting individual nature values and rarities, and did not have a global vision of protection. A comprehensive legal framework in the form of the Law on Nature Protection was finally completed in 1960 during the period of communism in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ); this law underlined the importance of an all-inclusive nature protection. Although Croatian nature protection under the Yugoslav federation was thoroughly documented and organized on paper, its implementation was subject to policy and was not efficiently applied in practice (Mackelworth and others 2011). Croatia has existed as an independent State since 1991. The collapse of socialism in the SFRJ brought widespread opportunities for changes in environmental policy and management. Regardless, Croatia’s turbulent past, its transition from socialism to democracy, the War of Independence from 1991 to 1995, post-war corruption and political conflicts (Massey and others 2003) have not left much room for environmental issues and planned long-term nature protection. The 2003 Law on Nature Protection introduced the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity from the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which was ratified by Croatia in 1996. In contrast to its predecessor, this law embraced the protection and preservation of all biological and landscape values while introducing measures for sustainable development. This new conception of nature protection was built into a national strategy and action plan of biological and landscape protection issued in 1999 by the Croatian parliament. Today, this law and other regulations are supervised by the Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection through the Directorate for Nature Protection and the State Institute for Nature Protection (Drzˇavni zavod za zasˇtitu prirode, DZZP). While the centralized socialist system did not allow for the transfer of competences to lower levels, transition and democracy provided the authorities with opportunities for such a transfer. In order to decentralize the authorities, the Law on Nature Protection (Official Gazettes 70/05) issued in 2005 authorizes the establishment of regional agencies for the management of Protected Areas (PAs). The Istrian County recognized the need for such institutions even earlier, in 1996 and subsequently established the Public Institution (PI) Natura Histrica, the first regional agency for the management of PAs in Croatia. As a direct result of this law, there
Environmental Management
are presently 26 regional institutions found in all Croatian regions as well as in some municipalities. Like many Eastern European countries, Croatia has a bid to join the European Union (EU) (Mackelworth and others 2011). As a result, much new legislation is aimed at establishing minimum standards for the environment, implementing commitments to international agreements and establishing rules for the integrity of the marketplace (Belfiore 1996; Tickle and Clarke 2000). Not all of the six republics of the former SFRJ have followed the same path. Slovenia has been a member of the EU since 2004 and is unique among transition countries for a continuity of public administration (Elliott and Udovcˇ 2005). Croatia will presumably be the second former Yugoslav republic to join the EU and could therefore represent a model for other former republics. Positive changes have occurred and Croatia is following European and world trends in nature protection, however environmental protection and sustainable development is still in competiton with the mainstream, short-term ‘‘business as usual’’ development model (Mackelworth and Caric´ 2010). Croatia plays an important role in the regional geopolitical configuration of Southeast Europe and can therefore potentially influence the future development of neighboring countries (Cvrtila 2000). Thus principles adopted in nature protection can also be applied to other countries. One of the most significant actions is the transition from central planning to a market-based, internationally integrated economy with a well-developed legislative framework (Zellei and others 2005). The same principles are valid for environmental issues. Renowned for its natural beauty and historical heritage, Croatia has gained popularity as a popular tourist destination. The preservation of its natural resources is of vital importance for sustainable, long-term development (Krstinic´ Nizˇic´ and Golja 2009). In Croatia, as in many Mediterranean countries, (Lanquar 1990; Montanari 2008) pressures on natural resources are growing as tourism expands. The creation and proper management of PAs is a successful tool for a most feasible strategy in mitigating the unwanted effects generated by these pressures. Istria, as one of the most developed tourist regions in Croatia, has recognized its potential and protected the most valuable areas. The main economic activities are tourism and agriculture with an emphasis on rural area development and the preservation of olive groves and vineyards. In past years, much effort has been made to protect and wisely exploit its natural potential. Istria is the largest Adriatic peninsula; located in the Northwest corner of the Adriatic Sea, it is one of the most biologically diverse regions in Croatia (Natura Histrica 2011). Istria’s favorable geographic position at the heart of Europe, halfway between
the Equator and the North Pole, combined with its complex terrain and a mixture of Mediterranean and continental climate, has given rise to a rich biodiversity and unique combination of natural beauty, settlements and potential value of high economic and aesthetic qualities. The Ministry of Culture 2011 identifies 33 PAs in the Istrian County; categories include national park, special reserve, nature park, significant landscape, nature monument, park forest and park architecture monument. PAs cover about 9 % of the Istrian County and PI Natura Histrica manages about 6 % of the total area (Natura Histrica 2011). However, only a few research studies have been done on the status of Istrian PAs (Fabijanic´ and Klaric´ 1993; Fatovic´ Ferencˇic´ 2006) and little is known about the perceptions and beliefs of local residents regarding these areas. Most threats to these natural PAs come from the smallscale activities of local communities, such as deforestation, hunting and agricultural practices; uncontrolled urbanization has caused changes in wildlife populations and loss of natural habitats. Environmental education and conservation as well as development activities have been insufficient around Istrian PAs. PA managers have neither the human capacity nor the technical and financial resources to manage these areas without the cooperation of local communities. Finding ways to improve and strengthen the relationships between local residents and PAs is critical to the long-term success of conservation efforts (Fiallo and Jacobson 1995). Although there are many attitudinal studies throughout the world, few similar studies have been conducted in Croatia (Cˇaldarovic´ 2002; Tomas 2006) and none in Istrian region. Successful participative conservation requires a legislative framework, management understanding and determination as well as a local willingness to implement conservation programs. In Istria, the first requirement has been fulfilled; we still know very little about local perception of nature protection and participative conservation, therefore the second and third requirements lack the information needed for efficient environmental planning. The results presented in this paper support the idea of participative conservation models for PA managers and additionally serve to illustrate possible directions for nature protection in Istria, Croatia and neighboring countries. Our objectives were to: (1) examine conservation models used in Croatia during the political changes of the last decade while analyzing present efforts in participative conservation (2) describe local residents’ general knowledge about PAs in Istria, their perceptions of PAs as well as their willingness to be engaged in the PAs activities (3) obtain meaningful data for PA managers in an effort to assist in the creation of future environmental management plans in Istria and Croatia.
123
Environmental Management
Study Area Istria is the largest Adriatic peninsula situated in the Northwest of the Adriatic Sea, with an area (3,476 km2) that is shared by Croatia, Slovenia, and Italy (Fig. 1). The largest part, or 3,130 km2 (90 % of the surface), belongs to the Republic of Croatia. Most of the Croatian part of the peninsula is situated in the Istrian Region (2,820 km2) and it accounts for 4.98 % of the entire surface of the Republic of Croatia. Surrounded by the sea from three sides, Istria has always served as a natural crossroad between the Middle European continental area and the Mediterranean. Istria’s coastline is 455 km long, with islands and islets making up 539.9 km. Over 205,000 people or 4.65 % of the nation’s population live here. According to economic indicators, the leading activities are the processing industry, tourism and trade. Historically, much attention was given to agriculture and the production of organic food, wine and olive cultivation (Official Tourist Portal of Istria or Sluzˇbeni Turisticˇki Portal Istre 2011). The Istrian Region was chosen as the case study with a focus on six contrasting PAs (Brijuni National Park (Brijuni), ‘‘Motovunska sˇuma’’ (Motovun Forest), Palud,
Fig. 1 Geographical position of Istria
123
‘‘Donji Kamenjak i Medulinski arhipelag’’ (Kamenjak), Ucˇka Nature Park (Ucˇka) and ‘‘Dolina i usˇc´e Mirne’’ (Mirna)) with different legal statuses and levels of protection, in an effort to gain a broad representation of the values people hold toward different types of PAs and to look at the similarities and differences among them (Fig. 2, Table 1). Table 1 presents the investigated PAs. Overview of Investigated PAs Brijuni, with its 14 islands and surrounding marine area, is one of eight national parks in Croatia and the only Istrian national park. Because the first settlements on Brijuni date back to the middle of the Neolithic period, this national park presents a rich cultural and historical heritage. About a hundred years ago, the Brijuni botanical gardens became home to animals from various regions of the world; in 1912, the zoological gardens were founded. The development orientation of Brijuni focuses on an economically sustainable model that is based on viable tourism, hotel management and traditional agriculture founded on environmentally acceptable technologies, with the intent to preserve the area for future generations. Each year, the park receives about
Environmental Management Fig. 2 Protected areas included in the study
Table 1 Summary description of studied PAs in Istria Category of protection
Management authority
Size
Year of establishment
‘‘Brijuni’’
National Park
National Public Institution Brijuni National Park
33.9 km2
1983
‘‘Motovunska sˇuma’’ (Motovun Forest)
Special Reserve of Forest Vegetation
Natura Histrica (Regional Public Institution) and Hrvatske sˇume Ltd
9 km2
1963
‘‘Palud’’
Special Ornithological Reserve
Natura Histrica (Regional Public Institution)
0.18 km2 land ? 0,03 km2 water
2001
‘‘Donji Kamenjak i Medulinski Arhipelag’’ (Kamenjak) ‘‘Park prirode Ucˇka’’ (Ucˇka)
Significant Landscape
Public Institution Kamenjak (Municipality of Medulin)
30 km of coastal line
1996
Nature Park
National Public Institution ‘‘Ucˇka Nature Park’’
160 km2
1999
‘‘Dolina i Usˇc´e Mirne’’ (Mirna)
Significant Landscape and Special Ornithological Reserve
Natura Histrica (Regional Public Institution)
4.6 km2
Not yet established
150,000 visitors and hosts about 29,000 guests in its hotel facilities (Nacionalni park Brijuni 2011). Managed by the National Governing Council of the PI Brijuni, this PA does not have any permanent residents or villages.
Motovun Forest, a mixed oak forest located near the old medieval town of Motovun, is renowned for its white truffles (Tuber magnatum Pico) producing area in Croatia (Bragato and others 2010). Motovun Forest is situated in
123
Environmental Management
the fluvial plain of the Mirna River, which flows into the Adriatic Sea through a hilly landscape. It represents the last remains of ancient common oak (Quercus robur L.) and narrow-leaved ash (Fraxinus angustifolia L.) forests that covered the fluvial plains of the northern Adriatic Sea area for thousands of years. From the 15th to the 19th century, the area produced valuable ship timber. The wood from this area was used for Venice abutment pillars, thus ancient Venice stands on Motovun timbers. Today, Motovun Forest has remained mostly state property and is now managed by PI Natura Histrica and ‘‘Hrvatske sˇume’’ Ltd, the public enterprise responsible for the management of forests and woodlands in the Republic of Croatia. Palud is one of the last preserved marshes on the Adriatic coast. This PA is not inhabited by people but is located near the town of Rovinj which is a popular tourist destination hosting over 30,000 summer tourists each season. Today it provides shelter to many permanently settled birds, migratory birds, turtles, eels and mullets. The ornithological fund has identified 217 registered bird species that use the PA’s lush vegetation for nesting or as a stop on their migration path to other destinations such as Africa. Some are very rare and a special treat for bird enthusiasts (cattle egret—Bubulcus ibis Bonaparte, black wing stilt— Himantopus himantopus L., avocet—Recurvirostra avocetta L., glossy ibis—Plegadis falcinellus L., red crested pochard—Netta rufina Pallas, ferruginous duck—Aythya nyroca Gu¨ldensta¨dt, broad billed sandpiper—Limicola falcinellus Pontoppidan, knot—Calidris canutus L.). This PA is managed by PI Natura Histrica, though the town of Rovinj has also invested in the area in order to create an interesting and accessible site (Official Tourist Portal of Istria, Sluzˇbeni turisticˇki portal Istre 2011). Kamenjak is a combination of meadows, bushes and macchia located in the South of Istria. The latest research has revealed the uniqueness of plant life in this area (Brana 2002; Kamenjak 2011). On the meadows of Kamenjak, numerous species of orchids can be found including the endemic Istrian serapias (Serapias istriaca Perko). The island of Fenoliga inside the Kamenjak PA is one of the most famous paleontological sites in Europe, renowned for its collection of dinosaur footprints. At least six different dinosaur tracks have been recorded with more than 100 footprints (Mezga and Bajraktarevic´ 1999). The surrounding marine area hosts the Mediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus Hermann), one of the most endangered sea mammals in the world. Its population in the Mediterranean Sea and Eastern Atlantic Ocean is estimated at 350 exemplars. The last recorded sighting happened in the spring of 2011 when a fisherman reported seeing one in the Kamenjak area (personal communication from fisherman). Today, the lower Kamenjak area and Medulin archipelago are managed by PI Kamenjak which was established by the municipality of Medulin.
123
Ucˇka is one of 11 nature parks in Croatia and one of the most recent Croatian parks and PAs to be managed by a national PI which started its operation in September 2001. Park management is continuously very active in project implementation (Park Prirode Ucˇka 2011). The Mirna river estuary is in the process of gaining protection. The area is quite diverse from a biological point-of-view, especially because of its avifauna. Over the past couple of years, 193 bird species have been recorded in the Mirna estuary (Lukacˇ 1998; Rubinicˇ 1996; Rucner 1998; personal communications).
Research Methods Fieldwork locations were chosen according to the distribution of PAs in Istria, which is considered a case study for Croatia. Out of 31 Istrian PAs, we chose the six with the most active management including areas managed by all PA-managing institutions in Istria (Table 1). Survey areas included villages that are located inside the parks along with towns that are adjacent to municipalities neighboring the PAs. We tried to survey a similar number of respondents from each PA. The total number of residents in the examined municipalities was 49,825 (Census 2011) which represents 24 % of the total Istrian population. Questionnaires were collected in face-to-face interviews and by phone; they were administered to residents who live both in and around the six PAs. Respondents were randomly selected from the phone book. Less than ten percent refused to be interviewed. The survey team consisted of five people (one man and four women). The questionnaire was written in Croatian and Italian because of the large Italian population that lives in Northern Istria. Survey responses were later translated into English. The data were collected during June and July 2007. Although the interviews were conducted at all hours of the day, they were mainly administered during work hours and each interview took between 10–15 min to complete. We included residents who were younger than 18 but over 16 because we were interested in representing the perception of future generations. Participation was on a voluntary basis and no compensation was provided for the interview. In an effort to obtain an unbiased response, no information about the PAs was given to respondents until after the interview was completed. The field research questionnaire contained a mixture of 13 open-ended and close-ended questions. Open-ended questions were later statistically presented in results with the aim of avoiding suggested answers. These answers were grouped and statistically presented as quantitative values. The survey, which was divided into several parts, comprised of questions regarding socio-demographic variables
Environmental Management
(gender, age, level of education, residence, profession), economic aspects (household income), general knowledge about PAs in Istria and perception towards PAs as well as level of willingness to be engaged in the activities of PAs. As a measure of knowledge, four questions were posed: (1) Can you identify any PAs in Istria? (2) Which PA is closest to you? (3) Which institution is in charge of the management of the PA closest to you? (4) Do you know which animal or plant species is the most endangered in Istria? If the respondent did not know the PA closest to his place of residence, he was given the answer so the interview could continue. As a measure of perceptions about living close to a PA, its management, and local involvement in PA activities, six questions were posed: (1) Do you consider your position close to a PA an advantage or disadvantage? (2) Do you wish to join any PA activities? (3) Is the local population sufficiently involved in PA management? (4) Do the managing institutions take sufficient care of PAs? (5) Should tourism, agriculture, small enterprisers etc. be further developed in PAs? (6) Should entrance to and movement within the PAs be limited? For data evaluation, a 7-point Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 to 7 where 1 = disagree with the statement while 7 = fully agree with the statement. The obtained data were analyzed with standard statistical methods, descriptive statistics, V2 (Chi-square) and analysis of variance (ANOVA). For data analysis, SPSS statistical software and MS Excel were used. Data on a measure of perceptions toward living close to a PA, its management and involvement in PA activities were analyzed separately for each PA; if there were no significant differences present, further analyzes were performed on a single dataset.
Results A total of 313 interviews were conducted in 34 communities. Socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 2. Both genders are represented in the survey. The prevalence of women can be attributed to the fact that most interviews were conducted during standard work hours when still traditionally women are more often home taking care of their children and doing housework, while the men are working. The sample was organized into six age groups ranging from 16 to over 65 years. In total, 63.3 % of total respondents lived in small places or villages while 36.7 % lived in towns. General Knowledge About PAs Most of the respondents (85.9 %) claimed to know about Istrian areas protected by the Nature Protection Act (NN 70/05, NN 139/08) and could identify several. In most cases,
Table 2 Socio demographic and economic characteristics of the respondents Selected features Gender structure Age structure
Frequency Female
192
Male
121
38.7
Total 16–18
313 59
100.0 18.8
18–25
43
13.7
26–40
64
20.4
41–55
91
29.1
56–65
34
10.9
Over 65
22
7.1
313
100.00
62
19.8
Total Education structure
Primary school
173
55.3
Polytechnic school
46
15.0
College and higher
32
10.2
313
100.00
Scholar
60
19.7
Official
55
18.1
Technician Entrepreneur
42 33
13.8 10.9
Retired person
26
8.5
Teacher, professor
25
8.2
Home-maker
20
6.6
Student (undergraduate)
16
5.3
Craftsman
13
4.3
Engineer
12
3.9
Unemployed Total Average monthly income (household)
61.3
Secondary school
Total Occupation
Percent
Up to 5,000 HRK (685 €a)
2 304
0.7 100.00
93
35.5
5,001–15,000 HRK (685–2,055 €) 15,001–30,000 HRK (2,055–4,110 €)
158
60.3
11
4.2
Total
262
100.0
Source Research results a Exchanging rate for euro was 1 euro = 7.3 HRK on July 31st 2007 according to average rate of the Croatian National Bank (On 02 February 2012 the rate was 1 euro = 7.58 HRK)
they identified Ucˇka (60.59 %) and Brijuni (50.19 %), followed by 19.7 % who identified Motovun Forest, 14.13 % who were aware of Kamenjak, 11.52 % who indicated Palud and 6.32 % who knew of the Mirna river estuary. Five out of the six most identified PAs were those chosen for our study, confirming the validity of our selection. Respondents also cited many other areas under protection, demonstrating a solid knowledge about PAs (Fig. 3). Respondents were asked to identify the PA closest to their home; Ucˇka was identified by 92 % of respondents,
123
Environmental Management Fig. 3 Indicated protected (and non protected) areas in Istria, according to respondents (n = 269)
Brijuni by 62 %, Kamenjak by 40 %, Motovun Forest by 39 %, Mirna by 34 % and Palud by 33 %. In response to the question ‘which institution or authorities are responsible for PA management’ only 23 % of 313 respondents claimed to know while 77 % did not know. Moreover, in 68 % of the cases, respondents who claimed knowledge about PA management (72 of them) specified an incorrect institution. Most respondents (70 %) could indicate some protected species; 21 % indicated Istrian cattle (‘‘bosˇkarin’’) as the most endangered species, followed by truffles (12 %), deer (10 %), spring flowers (8 %), song birds (7 %) and donkeys (6 %). Perceptions about Living Close to a PA, Its Management, and Local Involvement in PA Activities Perception was tested separately for each PA and further for all PAs together as a singular dataset. Prior to the establishment of regional agencies for PA management the sole Istrian policy for nature protection was implemented according to the ‘‘old fashioned’’ top-down model. Only recently have there been efforts to involve the local population and as a result, protected areas other than national parks are becoming more important. Therefore, results for singular PAs are presented only if there was a statistically significant difference in answers. Otherwise, the data was considered as a unique dataset. Regarding the opinion towards involvement in PA activities, 58 % of all respondents declared that they would like to be involved, 27 % were not sure and 15 % did not want to participate in PA activities. Data were analyzed separately for each PA and there was a statistically significant difference in answers
123
(v2 = 48.70, df = 10, p \ 0.000). The highest difference was noted for respondents near Brijuni, with only 23.81 % of respondents willing to participate in PA activities. This discrepancy is probably due to the fact that this PA has no permanent inhabitants and is managed by a national public institution and therefore still operating according to the traditional centralized model. A highly positive attitude towards involvement in PA activities may also reflect social desirability bias because it is not supported by a real involvement in different projects (reported by PA managers). Social desirability bias is the tendency of respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. In this case, it took the form of overreporting good behavior; it is unlikely that a respondent would state that he is not interested in environmental issues because an interest in the environment is considered to be fashionable in our present society. Regardless, there could be significant inconsistencies between what is said and what is done (Macdonald and Johnson 2000). When asked whether living near a PA is an advantage, 54.31 % of all respondents considered it an advantage, 6.07 % considered it a disadvantage, and a large number of respondents were undeclared (39.6 %) and expressed no opinion. The reasons for positive and negative statements are presented in Fig. 4. The main disadvantage expressed by respondents had to do with an absence of personal gain related to living in or close to a PA, a lack of control over guided activities inside PAs, or no explanation was given for the negative perception. The most frequently expressed advantages of living in or close to PAs were: natural beauty (15.65 %), living in a protected and cared environment (12.14 %), clean environment (9.27 %) (Fig. 4).
Environmental Management
Fig. 4 Explanations given by the respondents regarding the advantages or disadvantages of living close to PAs (the only disadvantage is marked by an asterisk)
Respondents’ Attitudes Classified by Socio-Demographic and Economic Aspects Of all respondents, the least knowledgeable regarding the management of PAs was the age group of 16–18 (7 %) and the most informed were the 41–55 year-old group (38 %), with an average value of 23 % (v2 = 24.44, df = 5, p \ 0.000). In relation to age groups and the question ‘do you consider it an advantage to live near or in a PA’ the lowest level of positive responses came from the under 18 age group (30 %) and the highest from the over 66 age group (80 %), with an average value of 54 % (v2 = 48.06, df = 10, p \ 0.000). Interest for engagement in PA conservation activities was minimally expressed among the 19–25 year age group (43 %) and most highly expressed in the 56–65 year age group (68 %), with an average value of 58 % (v2 = 30.70, df = 10, p \ 0.001). In relation to the level of education and the question whether Istria has areas that are protected by the law, respondents with primary education responded positively in 76 % of cases (which is the lowest share), and the highest proportion of positive responses came from the group that completed post-secondary education (96 %), with an average value of 86 % (v2 = 9.19, df = 3, p \ 0.027). By level of education and knowledge about which institution is legally responsible for protecting PAs, respondents with primary school education were the least informed (3 %) whereas the most informed were found in the group with post-secondary education (37 %) with an average of 23 % (v2 = 19.71, df = 3, p \ 0.000). The group that saw living close to PAs as an advantage the least
was the group with a basic level of education (37 %), while the highest share belonged to those with post-secondary education (76 %), with an average value of 54 % (v2 = 29.62, df = 6, p \ 0,000). In relation to employment and the advantage of living close to a PA, the smallest proportion of positive answers came from a group of students (32 %), while retirees in 84 % cases gave positive answers with an average value of 54 % (v2 = 52.12, df = 20, p \ 0.000). In terms of occupation, housewives expressed the least interest in being involved in activities related to the conservation of PAs in Istria (35 %), whereas most teachers would like to be involved in PA activities (72 %) (v2 = 36.27, df = 20, p \ 0.014). In order to assess the perceptions of respondents, a selection of statements was given to them for evaluation through the 7 point Liker scale (Table 3). Respondents felt that the local population is not sufficiently involved in the protection of nature and that current institutions do not sufficiently care about these areas. Respondents rated a controlling entry and movement in a PA as important and thought these areas needed to develop additional activities for the purpose of economic development (Table 3). Statistically significant differences existed in the variable ‘‘average monthly household income’’ and the statement ‘‘existing institutions that manage PAs are taking good care of nature protection in these areas’’ (F(6, 261) = 3.173, p = 0.005). The lowest rating for this statement was given by respondents with a monthly household income of 15,001-30,000 HRK (M = 2.72, SD = 1.35) and the highest rating was given by respondents with a monthly
123
Environmental Management Table 3 Rating of offered statements related to the observed PAs (n = 313) Statement
Grade of agreeing 1 = not agree, 7 = strongly agree Mean
Mode
Median
SD
Local residents are sufficiently involved in nature conservation
2.61
1
2
1.41
Existing institutions that manage PAs, are taking good care of nature protection in these areas Tourism, agriculture, crafts, etc. should be developed in PAs with the aim of the economic development of the area
3.5
3
3
1.64
4.96
7
6
2.14
It is important that entry and movement in a PA is controlled
6.38
7
7
1.17
household income up to 5,000 HRK (M = 3.81, SD = 1.70) (the exchange rate for the euro according to the average rate of the Croatian National Bank on 02 February 2012 was 1 euro = 7.58 HRK). Respondents with a monthly household income of 5,001-15,000 HRK rated the statement with an average grade of 3.29, SD = 1.58. Depending on a respondents’ place of residence, there were significant differences in relation to the statement ‘‘tourism, agriculture, crafts, etc. should be developed in PAs with the intent to economically develop the area’’ (F(6,312) = 3.568, p = 0.002). Urban residents scored the statement with an average grade of 4.53 (SD = 2.37) while rural residents gave a slightly better average grade of 5.2 (SD = 1.89).
Discussion Nature Protection in Croatia Transition countries exhibit different adaptation processes in nature protection issues that depend on each country’s administration heritage (Goetz 2001; Oszla´nyi and others 2004). Some countries (e.g., Estonia, Czech Republic) have developed a comprehensive system of protected areas out of nothing (Elliott and Udovc 2005). Other countries (e.g., Slovenia) already had many nature protection institutions in place before their transitions, however the transition process complicated any effective implementation of these protection programs (Elliott and Udovc 2005). Like Slovenia, Croatia had a settled legislative body and long tradition in nature protection before its transition (Kosovic´ 2006; Mackelworth and others 2011). Its political overturn in the early 1990s led to the adoption of new legislation; however its implementation is still inadequate (Mackelworth and others 2011). War, transition, post war problems and political and economic instability left little room for
123
nature protection issues or for ensuring that the management of PAs developed in line with world trends (Massey and others 2003). Croatia is recognized as a very important player in the regional geopolitical configuration and is considered an example for neighboring countries (Cvrtila 2000). There is a meaningful implementation gap defined as ‘‘the deficit between the set of legal norms and the capacity to implement and enforce them’’ (Elliott and Udovc 2005; Kluva´nkova´-Oravska´ 2001). Croatia is currently undergoing the accession process to the EU (Mackelworth and others 2011). This has accelerated many processes initiated by political changes and its transition. All of the new economies of Southeast Europe are queuing to join the EU national legislation and are therefore rapidly taking into account EU requirements (Vuletic´ and others 2010; Zellei and others 2005). Europeanization has accelerated the evolution of environmental policies and administration reforms, but it has also resulted in small-scale problems related to management and inappropriate practices. In fact, many Croatians are not accustomed to actively participating in nature protection. Long-range passiveness and a state controlled way of life are slowly being replaced by a more active society, but the process is not easy. Croatia needs time to adjust to the democratic system (Mackelworth and others 2011) and generational replacement will hopefully bring new individuals with advanced approaches to nature protection. Several studies have suggested that the EU’s interest in the environment of Eastern Europe is not wholly altruistic (Baker 1995; Gowan 1995) and today we are witnessing severe economic and political problems in the EU; nonetheless, Croatia’s foreign policy is focused on acceding to the EU. Undoubtedly, there are benefits to an EU accession, (Tickle and Clarke 2000) especially in regards to environmental issues. Political and economic stability enables citizens to focus on other ideals such as environmental issues and protection (Elliot 1991). The development of a decentralized, integrated approach is crucial to creating a sustainable nature protection and to maintaining the multifunctional role of protected areas (Vuletic´ and others 2010). Public participation in the decision-making process should be introduced in order to favor a dialogue between all stakeholders involved in the nature protection process. Although the participatory approach has been critically evaluated in literature and its merits queried, (Berkes 2003; Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2003; Kapoor 2001; Kellert and others 2000; Koehler and Koontz 2008) there are more positive (Kellert and others 2000; Khadka and Nepal 2010; Kluva´nkova´-Oravska´ 2001) than negative (Kellert and others 2000) examples of this approach. According to Berkes (2003) there is no simple answer to the question of whether participatory conservation is the best approach;
Environmental Management
sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. Participatory conservation must be properly managed to include all stakeholders and to integrate participatory mechanisms within and between all actors (Kapoor 2001). Croatia is attempting a popular participatory approach to nature protection. Considering the complexity of the participatory concept and the fact that there is no available literature on the introduction of this concept to Croatia, we performed an additional informal interview with PA managers (former and actual directors and employees of PI Natura Histrica, Ucˇka Nature Park, and Hrvatske sˇume Ltd) and environmental policy makers (employees of the State Institute for Nature Protection) (unpublished data); the interview served to help us better understand nature protection development in Croatia and it allowed us to examine the issues intrinsically, from the point-of-view of those who create and implement regulations on nature protection. Since there are lessons to be learned from all over the world, Croatia must try to incorporate these collective experiences and select the best model for its conditions and circumstances. One of the first priorities should be to resolve the conflict between economic progress and nature protection, and to establish connections between stakeholders. Using protected area institutions as engines for local development will enhance Croatia’s integrated approach to nature protection. Of course, no measure can lead to success if the local population is not willing to take up this opportunity. Considering Croatia’s precarious general social and economic conditions, present funding and human resources must be used wisely and productively. Due to the global economic crises and the current political situation in Croatia (recent parliamentary elections, EU referendum, a series of corruption scandals, raising unemployment etc.) we perceive a lack of confidence and a global state of indifference and pessimism amongst the population. In such a climate, it is not easy to attract attention and obtain more financial and infrastructural resources for nature protection initiatives. This makes the mission of local environmental agencies even more difficult. Istria County is one of the most entrepreneurial and economically developed regions in Croatia (SeeNet Programme 2010); it is also considered a regional leader for its contemporary ideas regarding public awareness, human rights and nature protection. Istria was not directly involved in the independence war; its geographical position and human resources have always placed it closer to Europe than to the Balkans, and therefore its models are often transmitted to the rest of Croatia and later on to other neighboring countries. Local Perceptions Towards Conservation in Istrian PAs Local participation is the driving force of successful PAs and a precondition for long term sustainable development.
It has been determined that a positive public attitude is a key indicator of a PA’s success (Rao and Geisler 1990). We know almost nothing about the perceptions of local population towards nature protection in Istria. Therefore, the data obtained from this study could be helpful to administrative planning, PA management and monitoring the efficacy of subsequent policies. Our study revealed that most respondents had a solid general knowledge of PAs and nature protection. The four most indicated PAs in Istria included two recently protected areas (Ucˇka and Kamenjak) and two long-standing parks (Brijuni and Motovun Forest). Following this trend, the highest percentage of respondents living close to the PAs of Ucˇka and Brijuni were able to identify the nearest PA. 92 % of respondents were aware of Ucˇka, which could be the result of all the effort that is put into marketing and promotional activities by its management group. This example suggests that the tradition of PAs can be revived through good management and targeted marketing and promotional activities that focus on generating awareness amongst the local populations (Fu and others 2004). Despite their knowledge of PAs in general, a very small number of respondents demonstrated knowledge of managing institutions. This suggests that PA authorities do not invest enough effort in informing the public of their role. Moreover, local residents declared that they were not very satisfied with the management of PAs and with their involvement in nature conservation. No differences emerged due to an institution’s jurisdiction or whether the public institution was at a national level (Brijuni, Ucˇka, Motovun Forest), county level (Palud, Mirna) or local level (Kamenjak). In some cases, the respondents’ attitudes toward management were far more negative than their feelings toward the PAs themselves (Allendorf and others 2006). Our results do not address the negative attitude toward PA management; rather, they address the low level of knowledge that many respondents had regarding a PA’s staff activities. Other authors have established that PA activities such as training, promote favorable conservation attitudes in the future (Allendorf 2007; Baral and Heinen 2007). The responsibility of PA management affects various groups in society and these activities can determine whether groups will support the PAs (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996; Infield and Namara 2001; Khadka and Nepal 2010). Infield and Namara (2001) concluded that intensive activities by a PA’s management toward the general population result in a significant improvement in conservation attitudes. Although the first local institution for the management of PAs in Croatia was first established in Istria in 1996 followed by the rest of Croatia in 2005, the major initiatives for bottom-up management started only recently. Informal discussions with the PI Natura Histrica staff have revealed that it struggles with the problem of not being
123
Environmental Management
identified by the population and other local institutions as the group who is ‘‘in charge’’ of environmental issues in PAs. Continuous marketing activities and different programs in the PAs are slowly improving the situation and the institution is becoming more locally recognized. In regards to protected species, the top three most mentioned species were designated to human food production (i.e., cattle, truffles and deer). These species-even if they’re protected—are used for human consumption under specified conditions. None of the respondents identified some of the attractive endangered species like the Mediterranean Monk Seal, Orchids or Noble Pen Shell. Protected species management is a complex issue that includes biological, social and perceptual factors (Kellert 1985). Istrian residents are more likely to care about species that directly impact economic growth or deliver a gastronomic benefit. This attitude is further confirmed in literature; it is more likely that people will know and manage species with a clear economic benefit (Kellert and others 2000). General perceptions of PAs and a willingness to participate in PA activities are positive; this could be because former management provided no restrictions, therefore people did not link PAs with any kind of restrictions. There were no statistical differences between single PAs in Istria and this is probably the result of a long period of centralized nature protection systems. Only recently have local agencies and civil society begun to act locally, giving the population the opportunity to actively participate in nature protection and PA management. Society’s resistance towards the creation of parks was never present because land and other resources are abundant and no true constraints by the management were given. A positive attitude towards PAs is an instrument that must still be further developed; the present results should serve as an incentive for management personnel to intensify all actions related to the involvement of local residents. Co-management of PAs with the resident population can reduce the social consequences and enhance assimilation of such areas by locals. Several benefits could emerge from such cooperation. PAs could obtain valuable and precious manpower while justifying their existence in certain areas; the local population would feel connected and incorporated into the territory, and possibly benefit from it. The most commonly cited explanations for negative attitudes indicate that a profit-based approach is an important motivational factor in securing local support for conservation (Mehta and Kellert 1998; Khadka and Nepal 2010). Communities that receive environment-related benefits are more likely to support conservation efforts. The local population has a more positive attitude towards PAs because of perceived benefits such as employment and the tourism industry (Fiallo and Jacobson 1995). There are also opposite demonstrations in the literature; Khadka and
123
Nepal (2010) established that benefits may not always lead to higher public participation. We feel that balancing income-generating activities with environmental protection would upgrade actual models of nature protection. According to certain authors, social, demographic and economic factors can (Fiallo and Jacobson 1995; Mehta and Kellert 1998) or cannot be (Baral and Heinen 2007) predictors of conservation attitudes. Most of our results were congruent with other published studies. Based on the outcome of our interviews, respondents who were younger than 18 were not well informed about PA management, failed to see many advantages of living close to a PA and did not wish to participate in PA activities. This could be related to their diverse interests that often do not include environmental issues; regardless, the results suggest that more effort should be made to educate young people since they demonstrate an awareness of environmental issues and represent our future (Snaddon and others 2008). Fostering young peoples’ commitment to nature protection is a very important issue (Menzel and Bo¨geholz 2010). The study by Winter and others (2007) indicated that younger populations appear more favorable towards conservation than middle aged or elderly populations. In our study, the highest knowledge about PAs was found among middle-aged respondents (41–45 years). Our results also indicate that people with a higher level of education are also more educated about PAs and their management, and therefore see more advantages linked to PAs. This is in accordance with many other similar studies (Fiallo and Jacobson 1995; Kideghesho and others 2007; McClanahan and others 2005). On the other hand, level of education may not necessarily benefit conservation strategies (Khadka and Nepal 2010; Kideghesho and others 2007; Winter and others 2007). From all listed respondents’ employments, students gave the lowest rate of positive answers and retirees the highest when asked if there was an advantage of living close to a PA. This is a disconcerting sign that again points to insufficient actions in schools and with young people in general. Regarding the willingness to be involved in PA activities, teachers are the most interested. It has been documented that teachers have favorable attitudes regarding environmental issues (Larijani and Yeshodhara 2008). When it comes to singular willingness from all sides regarding involvement in PA activities, there are conditions for efficient cooperation but there are still non-defined barriers for efficient collaboration in practice. Regarding the income levels of respondents, no differences were observed in regards to knowledge or attitude, with the exclusion of the fact that respondents with a higher income were more critical about PA management than those with lower income levels. There are contrasting results in the literature; in some cases, environmental awareness
Environmental Management
increased with increasing economic well-being (Mehta and Kellert 1998) whereas in others it diminished (Khadka and Nepal 2010) and some authors reported that both the rich and poor had the same attitude (Baral and Heinen 2007). More than half of all respondents think that more economic activities should be developed in the PAs; this statement was more present in respondents from villages where many people stated that the entrance to the PA should be better controlled and movements within the PA better monitored. It is obvious that the locals expect a more active approach to conservation. At the moment, we have no information regarding the type of activities that would trigger a positive environmental attitude but this is certainly something that should be further investigated in future studies. Implications for PA Management The traditional top-down approach to nature protection in Istria and Croatia is being replaced by bottom-up conservation. This new approach treats local communities as key partners in wildlife management and calls for their participation in social development and biodiversity conservation. Despite the beauty and ecological and social importance of these areas, no systematic approach has been taken to ensure the long-term sustainable development of natural resources in Istria. Fortunately, these sites in Istria still do not require complete protection and human involvement is welcome as long as it is accompanied by an effective management and conservation policy. The needs and interests of local residents should receive adequate priority (Ahnstro¨m and others 2009). Particular attention must be given to non-economic benefits since these values have been found to play an important role in people’s relationship with PAs (Allendorf 2007). Among the non-utilitarian values, we stress that cultural, spiritual and aesthetic values should be considered in the future management plans of Istria. Istria has very important historical sites (Skorin-Kapov 2011) and combining natural and cultural heritage has been proven a successful combination (Pfueller and others 2011). Production activities compatible with protection should be stimulated, especially within areas with lower protection levels. The Istrian economy is based on two activities: tourism and agriculture (Lukic´ 2006). To date, tourism in Istria has relied on the sea and its resources. However ecotourism could improve the tourist offering in rural areas, with activities such as bird-watching (Palud and Mirna), bike tours (Palud, Brijuni, Kamenjak), diving (Brijuni), hiking (all PAs), and wilderness camping (Motovun Forest, Ucˇka, Kamenjak). Areas that do not require tourism and total protection can be viewed as contributing to sustainable development (Pfueller and others 2011). Ecotourism can contribute to local economies, and research by Mehta and Kellert (1998) has demonstrated that local
communities have had a very positive attitude toward ecotourism. Organic agriculture and production with special designations (Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), traditional specialty (TS)) should also be considered as suitable activities to be performed in Istrian PAs.
Conclusions Participatory conservation is currently the most acceptable model of PA management in the world. It is a dynamic process that responds to the changes in human needs as well as the environment. In general, Croatia has trends in nature protection similar to other transition countries where changes in its nature protection policy came from a regime change in the late 1980s and later from the adaptation pressures of the Europeanization process. Its model of nature protection is closely observed and possibly copied by neighboring countries. We see no alternative to the implementation of participatory conservation in Croatia. The process has already begun with legislation being prepared over the years, and Croatia has shown a prerogative to incorporate the best examples from other countries in order to implement and develop a unique national nature policy. This study conducted in Istria showed that the local population has a generally positive perception towards nature protection and involvement in PA activities and that they support the cause of conservation. This attitude, however, is not supported by participation in practice and should therefore be fostered and directed to encourage further protection of the PAs, to raise awareness about the value of PAs among local residents, to educate and promote income generating activities as well as non-economic activities, and to drum up stronger governmental support. It is still not completely clear what creates a motivation for participation, but profit-based incentives as well as noneconomic incentives could be regarded as an effective method for the implementation of participative conservation. Istria and Croatia present opportunities to combine participative conservation and production activities such as tourism and agriculture. The study found that the current practice of environmental protection in Istria is on a straight path; institutional and management efforts must be continued and supported by suitable personnel who possess the time, knowledge and skills in participative management to improve financial support. Future world trends in nature protection must be observed but without imperatives regarding the implementation of conservation models. Each area is site-specific, it has particular postulates and conditions, and therefore warrants a unique approach; there are no universally successful models.
123
Environmental Management Acknowledgments We would like to thank the staff who assisted in conducting the questionnaires. Most of all, we would like to thank all the people who participated in the survey and offered their time and insights. We also thank the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports for their financial support as well as the Institute of Agriculture and Tourism and Ucˇka Nature Park for in kind support. Additionally, the authors would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their detailed and incentive comments. Thanks go to Dr. Elvis Zahtila from the Public Institution Natura Histrica for providing inspiration and direction to the study. At last but not least, we would like to thank Mirna Radojcˇic´ and Dr. Alenka Hlousˇek-Radojcˇic´ for detailed and valuable proofreading, and Marin Krapac for technical advices.
References Adams WM, Thomas DHL (2006) Mainstream sustainable development: the challenge of putting theory into practice. Journal of International Development 5(6):591–604. doi:10.1002/jid.338 0050604 Ahnstro¨m J, Ho¨ckert J, Bergea˚ HL, Francis CA, Skelton P, Hallgren L (2009) Farmers and nature conservation: what is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24:38–47. doi:10. 1017/S1742170508002391 Alibeli MA, Johnson C (2009) Environmental concern: a cross national analysis. Journal of International and Cross-Cultural Studies 3(1):1–10 Allendorf TD (2007) Residents’ attitudes toward three protected areas in southwestern Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(7): 2087–2102. doi:10.1007/s10531-006-9092-z Allendorf T, Swe KK, T OO, Htut Y, Aung M, Aung M, Allendorf K, Hayek L, Leimgruber P, Wemmer C (2006) Community attitudes toward three protected areas in Upper Myanmar (Burma). Environmental Conservation 33(4):344–352 Badola R (1998) Attitudes of local people towards conservation and alternatives to forest resources: a case study from the lower Himalayas. Biodiversity and Conservation 7(10):1245–1259 Baker S (1995) The scope for east-west collaboration. In: Blowers A, Glasbergen P (eds) Environmental policy in an international contex. Arnold, London, pp 135–165 Baral N, Heinen JT (2007) Resources use, conservation attitudes, management intervention and park-people relations in the Western Terai landscape of Nepal. Environmental Conservation 34(1):64–72. doi:10.1017/S0376892907003670 Bauer H (2003) Local perceptions of Waza National Park northern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30(2):175–181. doi:10. 1017/S037689290300016X Belfiore S (1996) The role of the European community in the Mediterranean coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management 31(2–3):219–258. doi:10.1016/S0964-5691(96)000 35-X Berkes F (2003) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18(3):621–630 Boonzaier E (1996) Local responses to conservation in the Richtersveld National Park, South Africa. Conservation Biology 5(3): 307–314 Borrini-Feyerabend G (1996) Collaborative management of protected areas. Tailoring the approach to the context. Issues in social policy. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, ISBN 2-8317-0350-6 Bragato G, Vignozzi N, Pellegrini S, Sladonja B (2010) Physical characteristics of the soil environment suitable for Tuber magnatum production in fluvial landscapes. Plant and Soil 329: 51–63. doi:10.1007/s11104-0090133-8 Brana S (2002) Bogatstvo biljnog svijeta juga Istre. Franina i Jurina. 2002:55–57
123
Brunckhorst DJ (2010) Using context in novel community-based natural resource management: landscapes of property, policy and place. Environmental Conservation 37:16–22. doi:10.1017/S037 6892910000342 Cˇaldarovic´ O (2002) Social and economic aspects of tourist development in the Neretva Delta area: potentials, interests and challenges. Workshop on joint rural tourism strategy Metkovic´, Croatia, July 2–4, 2002 Campbell LM, Vainio-Mattila A (2003) Participatory development and community-based conservation: opportunities missed for lessons learned? Human Ecology 31:417–437. doi:10.1023/A: 1025071822388 Census (2011) www.dzs.hr. Accessed 10 September 2011 Cvrtila V (2000) Croatia—the ‘‘Gateway’’ to Southeast Europe. Politicˇka misao. Croatian Political Science Review 37(5):150–159 Elliot ED (1991) A cabin on the mountain: reflections on the distributional consequences of environmental protection programs. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 5–7 Elliott C, Udovcˇ A (2005) Nature conservation and spatial planning in Slovenia: continuity in transition. Land Use Policy 22:265–276. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.02.002 Fabijanic´ TS, Klaric´ Z (1993) Ecotourism in national parks and protected areas—regional park of central Istria: needs and conceptual answers for economic development in a protected area. Tourism Review 48(3):13–17 Fatovic´ Ferencˇic´ S (2006) Brijuni archipelago: story of Kupelwieser, Koch and Cultivation of 14 Islands. Croatian Medical Journal 47(3):369–371 Fiallo EA, Jacobson SK (1995) Local communities and protected areas: attitudes of rural residents towards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 22:241–249. doi:10.1017/S037689290001064X Fu B, Wang K, Lu Y, Liu S, Ma K, Chen L, Liu G (2004) Entangling the complexity of protected area management: the case of Wolong Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern China. Environmental Management 33(6):788–798 Gadd ME (2005) Conservation outside of parks: attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32(1): 50–63 Goetz KH (2001) Making sense of post-communist central administration: modernization, Europeanisation or Latinisation? Journal of European Public Policy 8(6):1032–1051 Gowan P (1995) Neo-liberal theory and practice in Eastern Europe. New Left Review 213:3–60 Infield M, Namara A (2001) Community attitudes and behavior towards conservation: an assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35:48–60. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3008.2001.00151.x Kamenjak Javna Ustanova (2011) www.kamenjak.hr. Accessed 08 November 2011 Kapoor I (2001) Towards participatory environmental management. Environmental Management 63:269–279 Kellert SR (1985) Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management. The Journal of Wildlife Management 49(2):528– 536. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3801568 Kellert SR, Mehta JN, Ebbin SA, Lichtenfeld LL (2000) Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural Resources 13:705–715 Khadka D, Nepal SK (2010) Local responses to participatory conservation in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environmental Management 45:351–362 Kideghesho JR, Røskaft E, Kaltenborn BP (2007) Factors influencing conservation attitudes of local people in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(7):2213–2230 Kluva´nkova´-Oravska´ T (2001) Improving environmental decision making in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The case
Environmental Management of the nature protection in the Slovak Republic. Human Dimensions Research in Austria and CEECs, May 18–19, Graz Koehler B, Koontz TM (2008) Citizen partcipation in collaborative watershed partnerships. Environmental Management 41:143– 154. doi:10.1007/s00267-007-9040-z Kosovic´ M (2006) Modeliranje upravljanja zasˇtic´enim podrucˇjima na primjeru upravljanja ‘‘Park-sˇume Marjan’’ Master thesis. Faculty of Economy, University of Split Croatia Krstinic´ Nizˇic´ M, Golja T (2009) Adoption of ecological orientation in hospitality management: evidence from Croatia (1331–677X). Ekonomska istrazˇivanja 22:111–131 Lanquar L (1990) Integration of the environment in tourism planning for the Mediterranean coast. Tourism Reports 1990(2):49–62 Larijani M, Yeshodhara K (2008) An empirical study of environmental attitude among higher primary school teachers of India and Iran. Journal of Human Ecology 24(3):195–200 Lukacˇ G (1998) Bogatstvo i raznolikost faune ptica Istre. In: Kovacˇic´ D, Sˇtamol V, Vujcˇic´-Karlo S, Kerovec M, Mrakovcˇic´ M, Kucˇinic´ M, Kletecˇki E, Lukacˇ G (eds) Fauna Istre, 379-400. Hrvatski prirodoslovni muzej, Zagreb Lukic´ A (2006) Rural areas in the new development conditions. In: International scientific conference ‘‘rural areas in the new development conditions’’ Ohrid, Makedonija Macdonald DW, Johnson PJ (2000) Farmers and the custody of the countryside: trends in loss and conservation of nonproductive habitats 1981–1998. Biological Conservation 94:221–234. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00173-1 Mackelworth PC, Caric´ H (2010) Gatekeepers of island communities: exploring the pillars of sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability 12(4):463–480 Mackelworth P, Holcer D, Jovanovic´ J, Fortuna C (2011) Marine conservation and accession: the future for the Croatian Adriatic. Environmental Management 47:644–655. doi:10.1007/s00267010-9460-z Massey G, Hodson R, Sekulic´ D (2003) Nationalism, liberalism and liberal nationalism in post-war Croatia. Nations and Nationalism 9(1):55–82 McClanahan TR, Davies J, Maina J (2005) Factors influencing resource users and managers’ perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32(1):42–49 Mehta JN, Kellert SR (1998) Local attitudes toward communitybased conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area. Environmental Conservation 25:320–333 Menzel S, Bo¨geholz S (2010) Values, beliefs and norms that foster Chilean and German pupils’ commitment to protect biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental 5(1):31–49 Mezga A, Bajraktarevic´ Z (1999) Cenomanian dinosaur tracks on the Islet of Fenoliga in southern Istria, Croatia. Cretaceous Research 20:735–746 Montanari A (2008) Tourism and the environment-limitations and contradictions in the EC’s Mediterranean region. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 86:32–41. doi:10.1111/j.14679663.1995.tb01826.x Nacionalni park Brijuni (2011) http://www.brijuni.hr. Accessed 15 February 2011 Natura Histrica (2011) http://www.natura-histrica.hr. Accessed March 10, 2011 NN 70/05 (2005), 139/08 (2008), 99/09 (2009). Narodne Novine, Official Gazzette http://www.nn.hr. Accessed 10 Mar 2011 Oszla´nyi J, Grodzin´ska K, Badea O, Shparyk Y (2004) Nature conservation in Central and Eastern Europe with a special emphasis on the Carpathian Mountains. Environmental Pollution 130(1):127–134. doi:10.1016j.envpol.2003.10.128
Park Prirode Ucˇka (2011) http://www.ucka.hr Accessed 10 September 2011 Parr JWK, Jitvijak S, Saranet S, Buathong S (2008) Exploratory co-management interventions in Kuiburi National Park, Central Thailand, including human-elephant conflict mitigation. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 7(3):293–310. doi:10.1504/IJESD.2008.021901 Pfueller SL, Lee D, Laing J (2011) Tourism partnerships in protected areas: exploring contributions to sustainability. Environmental Management 48(4):734–749. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9728-y Rao KC, Geisler C (1990) The social consequences of protected areas development for resident populations. Society and Natural Resources 3(1):19–32 Rubinicˇ B (1996) Ptice doline reke Mirne v Istri na Hrvasˇkem. 1. del Gaviiformes -Charadriiformes. Falco 10:5–42. Koper Rucner R (1998) Ptice hrvatske obale Jadrana. Hrvatski prirodoslovni muzej i Ministarstvo razvitka i obnove, Zagreb SeeNet Programme (2010) A trans-local network for the cooperation between Italy and South East Europe Local democratic governance in Istria County. First report. http://www.cespi.it/SEENET/ Istria.pdf. Cited 22 October 2011 Shackleton CM, Willis TJ, Brown K, Polunin NVC (2010) Reflecting on the next generation of models for community-based natural resources management. Environmental Conservation 37:1–4. doi:10.1017/S0376892910000366 Skorin-Kapov J (2011) A short historical overview of Istria and, especially, Pula. www.croatiahistory.net. Accessed 10 October 2011 Sluzˇbeni Turisticˇki Portal Istre (2011) http://www.istra.hr. Accessed 10 September 2011 Snaddon JL, Turner EC, Foster WA (2008) Children’s Perceptions of rainforest biodiversity: which animals have the lion’s share of environmental awareness? PLoS ONE 3(7):e2579. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0002579 Tickle A, Clarke R (2000) Nature and landscape conservation in transition in Central and South-Eastern Europe. European Environment 10:211–219 Tomas Nacionalni Parkovi i Parkovi prirode (2006) http://www. iztzg.hr/UserFiles/Pdf/Tomas/2006_TOMAS_NP_I_PP_HR.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2011 Vuletic´ D, Potocˇic´ N, Krajter S, Seletkovic´ I, Fu¨rst C, Makeschin F, Galic´ Z, Lorz C, Matijasˇicˇ D, Zupanicˇ M, Simoncˇicˇ P, Vacik H (2010) How socio-economic conditions influence forest policy development in central and south-east Europe. Environmental Management 46:931–940. doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9566-3 Walpole MJ, Harold JG (2001) Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 28:160–166. doi:10.1017/S037689290100 0169 Wang SW, Lassoie JP, Curtis PD (2006) Farmer attitudes towards conservation in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park Bhutan. Environmental Conservation 33(2):148–156. doi:10.1017/S0376 892906002931 Winter SJ, Prozesky H, Esler KJ (2007) A case study of landholder attitudes and behavior toward the conservation of renosterveld, a critically endangered vegetation type in cape floral Kingdom, South Africa. Environmental Management 40:46–61. doi: 10.1007/s00267-006-0086-0 Zellei A, Gorton M, Lowe P (2005) Agri-environmental policy systems in transition and preparation for EU membership. Land Use Policy 22(3):225–234. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.09. 008
123
