Search

Protected areas play a key role in nature conservation but are also crucial for tourism. There are international recommendations in nature conservation (IUCN), and several international conservation conventions exist. Nevertheless, the protection categories are different in each country, and the proportion of protected areas also varies. Here we compare the nature conservation systems of some countries (Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia and Croatia) taking into consideration their nature protection laws. The selection of countries is based on an international project dealing with “Karst and National Parks”. For the comparison, national data sources and an international database (WDPA) are used. Our results show that the protection categories of the studied countries are largely similar, but there are unique characteristics as well (such as “forest park”, “monument of park architecture” in Croatia; “nature conservation area” in Hungary or “protected landscape element” in Slovakia, etc.). On the other hand, the internal proportions of protection categories are more heterogeneous, like, for example, the proportion of national parks within all protected areas which is 57.0 percent in Hungary but 11 percent in Croatia. International protection categories (Natura 2000, Ramsar, UNESCO World Heritage natural sites, UNESCO MAB reserves) are more or less similarly present in the countries studied (except Serbia, where there are no Natura 2000 areas yet). If national categories and Natura 2000 sites are all taken into consideration (and the overlapping areas are counted only once), then Croatia has the highest proportion of protected areas (39.1%), Slovakia is in second place with 37.5 percent, while Romania (23.5%) and Hungary (22.0%) show a similar proportion, and with the lack of Natura 2000, Serbia has 9.1 percent at present. As for the reliability of the WDPA, we found that this varies from country to country, with significant deficiencies for certain countries (e.g. Serbia) and very good reliability for others (e.g. Hungary, Slovakia). However, the availability of WDPA is in many cases better than that of national data, and since it also provides GIS data, it can be considered a useful tool for examining international trends and mapping protected areas.

Nature parks are protected natural areas whose purposes are the protection and conservation of landscapes in which the interaction of human activities with nature over time has created a distinct area, with significant landscape and/or cultural value, often with great biological diversity. This is the case of Apuseni Nature Park, which includes a significant karst terrain and is a very important tourist destination. In this article, we examine the attitude of local people towards the protected area with the help of a questionnaire composed of 32 questions. After the general questions, the economic situation was examined first. Then the respondents had to evaluate the values and the difficulties of their region and their relation to tourism. The answers reveal that they are aware of the importance of tourism, which may represent a serious complementary income for them. The most intriguing questions were some open-ended questions, which focused on the relationship of locals to Apuseni Nature Park. Based on the answers, we can conclude that the negative opinions slightly dominate. The dissatisfaction of the locals, the feeling of limitations due to the park are expressed in many different ways. But probably the most relevant problems can be linked to the rules and laws. As it is a nature park, people in fact, live inside the park, thus, the equilibrium between their lives and the purposes of the park should be approached. The administration of the nature park should involve local people more closely in decision-making, and maybe certain rules should be changed.

Protected areas play a key role in nature conservation but are also crucial for tourism. There are international recommendations in nature conservation (IUCN), and several international conservation conventions exist. Nevertheless, the protection categories are different in each country, and the proportion of protected areas also varies. Here we compare the nature conservation systems of some countries (Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia and Croatia) taking into consideration their nature protection laws. The selection of countries is based on an international project dealing with "Karst and National Parks". For the comparison, national data sources and an international database (WDPA) are used. Our results show that the protection categories of the studied countries are largely similar, but there are unique characteristics as well (such as "forest park", "monument of park architecture" in Croatia; "nature conservation area" in Hungary or "protected landscape element" in Slovakia, etc.). On the other hand, the internal proportions of protection categories are more heterogeneous, like, for example, the proportion of national parks within all protected areas which is 57.0 percent in Hungary but 11 percent in Croatia. International protection categories (Natura 2000, Ramsar, UNESCO World Heritage natural sites, UNESCO MAB reserves) are more or less similarly present in the countries studied (except Serbia, where there are no Natura 2000 areas yet). If national categories and Natura 2000 sites are all taken into consideration (and the overlapping areas are counted only once), then Croatia has the highest proportion of protected areas (39.1%), Slovakia is in second place with 37.5 percent, while Romania (23.5%) and Hungary (22.0%) show a similar proportion, and with the lack of Natura 2000, Serbia has 9.1 percent at present. As for the reliability of the WDPA, we found that this varies from country to country, with significant deficiencies for certain countries (e.g. Serbia) and very good reliability for others (e.g. Hungary, Slovakia). However, the availability of WDPA is in many cases better than that of national data, and since it also provides GIS data, it can be considered a useful tool for examining international trends and mapping protected areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]