Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Comparative Governance and Lessons from Tara and Triglav National Parks

Abstract

This paper investigates how governance frameworks shape sustainable tourism outcomes in protected areas by comparing Tara National Park (Serbia) and Triglav National Park (Slovenia). Both parks, established in 1981 and classified under IUCN Category II, exhibit rich biodiversity and mountainous terrain but differ markedly in governance structures, institutional integration, and local community engagement. Using a qualitative, indicator-based methodology, this research evaluates ecological, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. The findings reveal that Triglav NP demonstrates higher levels of participatory governance, tourism integration, and educational outreach, while Tara NP maintains stricter ecological protection with less inclusive management. Triglav’s zoning model, community council, and economic alignment with regional development policies contribute to stronger sustainability outcomes. Conversely, Tara NP’s centralized governance and infrastructural gaps constrain its potential despite its significant conservation value. This study highlights the importance of adaptive, inclusive governance in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within protected areas. It concludes that hybrid approaches, combining legal rigor with participatory flexibility, can foster resilience and sustainability in ecologically sensitive regions.

1. Introduction

Sustainability represents a development approach aimed at balancing economic, social, and environmental objectives in the long term. Within tourism, it involves promoting practices that reduce harm to nature and local cultures while generating benefits for the local population [1]. According to Trišić et al. [2], sustainable tourism can be achieved in ecologically sensitive destinations when its development simultaneously supports nature conservation, improves local livelihoods, enhances visitor experience, and strengthens institutional capacities. An essential component of this process is the promotion of responsible consumption patterns among tourists, which serve as a foundation for minimizing environmental pressures and achieving long-term sustainability goals [3]. When applied to protected areas, and particularly to national parks (NP), sustainable tourism serves a dual purpose: it enhances visitor awareness and fosters understanding of natural values while supporting the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. In these sensitive environments, tourism must be carefully managed to ensure that visitor activities do not degrade natural resources, disrupt wildlife, or marginalize local populations [4]. NPs therefore require governance models that align tourism development with ecological integrity and the interests of surrounding communities.

As noted by Oleśniewicz et al. [4], mountain NPs make up a substantial portion of Europe’s protected areas, with nearly half of the 220 NPs being located in mountainous regions. Their analysis highlights that tourism visitation in these areas varies widely depending on geographical and infrastructural conditions. For example, NPs in Scandinavia tend to receive relatively few visitors due to their remote locations and limited accessibility, whereas Alpine parks attract significantly more tourists, primarily because of their strong transport connectivity and well-developed tourism infrastructure. In different national contexts, the development and management of sustainable tourism in mountain NPs reflect broader political, economic, and institutional frameworks. This is particularly evident in the cases of Tara NP in Serbia and Triglav NP in Slovenia, two examples of protected areas that have become increasingly significant as tourism destinations. While both parks were founded in the same year (1981) and are situated in mountainous border regions rich in biodiversity and natural and cultural heritage, they differ in terms of their governance structures, levels of tourism development, and integration of local populations into destination management. Tara NP is characterized by dense forest cover, endemic species, and relatively moderate tourism flows, with growing efforts to improve sustainable tourism infrastructure and planning. Its governance is shaped by centralized public institutions with increasing but still limited stakeholder engagement at the local level. Triglav NP, Slovenia’s only national park, is located in the Julian Alps and features a more decentralized management model, with stronger traditions of public participation, regional integration, and cross-border cooperation.

Despite the growing recognition of protected areas as key areas for implementing the SDGs, the governance models that underpin tourism development within these areas vary significantly across national contexts. While some NPs adopt participatory and integrative frameworks that align with sustainability principles, others remain embedded in centralized and preservation-oriented structures, often lacking strategic alignment with broader socio-economic and environmental objectives. This raises critical questions about the institutional prerequisites and governance mechanisms that enable or constrain sustainable tourism in protected natural areas.

In response to the challenges posed by uneven institutional capacities and diverse governance models in protected areas, this study conducts a comparative analysis of tourism governance in Tara and Triglav NPs. It examines how distinct governance approaches influence the implementation of sustainable tourism practices across ecological, economic, and social dimensions. The analysis focuses on identifying concrete strengths and shortcomings within each park’s management system. Through this lens, the study derives comparative lessons, namely, governance practices that have demonstrated effectiveness in one context and could be meaningfully adapted to improve outcomes in the other. These insights contribute to a broader “lessons learned” framework that promotes adaptive, participatory, and context-sensitive approaches to sustainable tourism governance. The findings are intended to inform future policy design, institutional learning, and capacity building across protected areas in Southeast and Central Europe. In theoretical terms, the study contributes to the literature on environmental governance by advancing understanding of how context-specific institutional arrangements shape the practical implementation of sustainability in protected area tourism.

Based on the conceptual focus of the study and its indicator-based comparative design, the following hypotheses are proposed:

○

H1: Tara and Triglav National Parks exhibit significantly different governance models, particularly regarding institutional integration, zoning systems, and stakeholder participation mechanisms.

○

H2: Differences in governance structures between the two parks are associated with distinct patterns of tourism development and divergent economic outcomes at the local level.

○

H3: Variations in governance approaches influence the scope and quality of community involvement in protected area planning and management.

These hypotheses form the foundation for comparative analysis and support the identification of context-sensitive, transferable practices aimed at enhancing sustainability in protected areas with varying institutional contexts.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainable Tourism Governance and SDGs

Tourism and nature conservation have long been interconnected, particularly within the context of protected areas. This relationship is mutually beneficial yet inherently complex as commercialized protected areas depend on tourism for visibility and funding, while tourism relies on their ecological and cultural value, though these interests may at times be in conflict [5]. The tourism and hospitality industries are widely recognized for their ability to generate important economic and social outcomes, such as employment, regional development, and cultural exchange [6]. Nevertheless, in the context of protected areas, tourism can also have harmful effects, including environmental degradation, pressure on natural resources, and disruptions caused by over tourism or the cumulative ecological footprint of tourism-related activities [7]. These risks underscore the need to integrate sustainability principles into tourism practices within protected areas.

Precisely, sustainable tourism, especially within national parks and other high-protection zones, provides a framework for balancing the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of development. Sustainable tourism in protected areas is closely aligned with the principles of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [8] and contributes to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Goal 4.7, which promotes education for sustainable development, aligns with the role of NPs in providing environmental education through well-developed visitor and learning infrastructure. Specifically, Goal 5.5, which calls for ensuring women’s full and effective participation in leadership, is particularly relevant in the context of park management bodies such as Park Councils, where gender-balanced participation remains an important dimension of good governance. Goal 8.9 further supports sustainable tourism by fostering job creation and promoting local culture and products, which are particularly important for communities living near NPs. Infrastructure development challenges, such as limited transport and digital connectivity, relate to Goal 9.1, which advocates building resilient, inclusive, and sustainable infrastructure. Inclusive governance and local empowerment, as key elements of sustainable tourism governance, are reflected in Goal 10.2, which promotes the social, economic, and political inclusion of all people, particularly through participatory decision-making mechanisms. In addition, sustainable tourism contributes to Goal 11 by enhancing the protection of cultural and natural heritage (Target 11.4) and strengthening rural–urban linkages through inclusive spatial planning (Target 11.a). Goal 12.b highlights the need to develop tools for monitoring tourism impacts, which is essential for assessing sustainability in ecologically sensitive areas. Goal 13.1 (Climate Action) is particularly relevant for high-altitude ecosystems, where strengthening resilience to climate change is a key management priority. NPs, especially those that are part of mountainous ecosystems, are also directly linked to Goal 15, which emphasizes the conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems. Finally, achieving sustainable tourism in these contexts often relies on effective multi-stakeholder collaboration, as promoted by Target 17.17, which calls for partnerships among public authorities, local communities, and the private sector. As outlined by the World Tourism Organization [9], sustainable tourism seeks to minimize negative impacts while maximizing benefits for all stakeholders, including the environment, host communities, and visitors. International bodies such as UNESCO and the IUCN further stress that tourism in protected areas should actively support biodiversity conservation, respect local cultural values, and generate meaningful advantages for local populations [10,11].

Achieving sustainable tourism within protected areas requires not only alignment with global development targets but also a more detailed understanding of the governance frameworks that shape management practices in specific socio-ecological contexts. According to Borrini-Feyerabend et al. [12], protected area governance refers to the principles, policies, and decision-making processes that influence how these areas are managed. Furthermore, these authors emphasize that there is no universally ideal governance model, but rather a set of “good governance” principles that can guide efforts across different protected area systems. To achieve this, Eklund & Cabeza [13] emphasize the need for more empirical research that critically examines governance-related variables, particularly in terms of understanding causal relationships and evaluating governance quality as a basis for setting effective conservation priorities.

However, numerous obstacles persist. Empirical studies from Croatia highlight a lack of systematic planning and monitoring mechanisms, which reduce resilience to external shocks and limit the adoption of innovative approaches [14]. Similar challenges are observed in Austria, where effective governance requires coherent regional strategies, stakeholder networking, and integrated destination marketing to reconcile conservation with visitation goals [15]. Case studies from Portugal emphasize the need for inclusive governance models in which key stakeholders are actively engaged in collaborative decision-making [16]. In response to persistent threats, such as climate change, human land use, and invasive species, Hoffmann [17] advocates for adaptive management, biocultural conservation, and climate-smart strategies, all supported by robust data infrastructures and continuous monitoring. Comparative international experiences suggest that inclusive and adaptive governance models can enhance protected area resilience, improve conservation outcomes, and ensure that tourism-related benefits, whether economic, social, or institutional, are distributed equitably among stakeholders respecting the principles of sustainable tourism.

2.2. Cases of Tourism, Nature Conservation, and Local Development

Despite the recognized potential of sustainable tourism to support conservation and local development, protected areas continue to face numerous structural and operational challenges. Among the most pressing are the lack of adequate financial investment, weak or fragmented management structures, policy frameworks that do not fully support sustainable tourism, and insufficient mechanisms for ensuring that local communities benefit from tourism activities [18]. Although NPs have traditionally been regarded primarily as spaces for environmental protection, recent research highlights their potential to actively contribute to local socio-economic development through well-managed sustainable tourism. Rather than functioning solely as zones of preservation, protected areas can evolve into dynamic engines of local growth, supporting community resilience, stimulating small-scale entrepreneurship, and reinforcing the long-term sustainability of the region [19].

The role of the local population is fundamental to sustainable tourism management, particularly in protected natural areas where tourism development directly intersects with everyday life and local livelihoods. As highlighted by Stojanović et al. [20], both residents and visitors represent the core stakeholders in tourism, with residents playing a crucial role in shaping the long-term viability of tourism practices. Local support for sustainable tourism largely derives from its perceived benefits, including contributions to environmental preservation, enhanced visitor satisfaction, and economic gains directed toward the local community [21]. Furthermore, Burksiene and Dvorak [22] emphasize that the effectiveness of performance management in protected areas is closely linked to the genuine inclusion of local and indigenous communities in governance processes as their active participation enhances the legitimacy and sustainability of management outcomes. The relationship between local communities and sustainable tourism is inherently bidirectional. While tourism can generate employment, stimulate infrastructure development, and contribute to local and regional growth [14], its success often depends on the willingness of the local population to support and participate in tourism initiatives. Encouragingly, recent research has shown that local populations often demonstrate increasing enthusiasm for tourism promotion and involvement in planning and decision-making processes [23].

The connection between tourism, nature conservation, and local development is particularly evident in remote, mountainous, or economically disadvantaged regions, where traditional economic activities may be limited. In such areas, tourism often represents one of the few sustainable opportunities for generating income, creating employment, and improving local infrastructure. When planned and managed sustainably, tourism can serve as a catalyst for revitalizing local economies while simultaneously promoting environmental awareness and conservation.

Achieving these outcomes, however, requires more than just the presence of tourism activity. It depends on balanced and coordinated development across economic, socio-cultural, and ecological dimensions. As Zhang [24] emphasizes, sustainable development is conditioned not only by collaboration among stakeholders but also the integration of goals related to economic growth, cultural preservation, and environmental protection. This integrated perspective is particularly relevant in NPs, where tourism development must align with conservation objectives and respond to the needs of the local population.

Effective destination management increasingly recognizes the importance of involving the local population as active stakeholders in tourism development, particularly in protected areas. Their participation is often viewed as essential for ensuring long-term sustainability as it fosters local ownership and aligns tourism activities with the needs and values of all residents. Ideally, such participation results in tangible benefits for the local population, including income generation, improved services, and greater influence in decision-making processes. However, research in the Serbian context reveals that these outcomes are not always realized in practice. According to Jojić Glavonjić and Lović Obradović [25], residents living near protected areas in Serbia report minimal, if any, benefits from tourism or conservation-related activities.

The socio-economic impact of tourism on local populations can manifest in both direct and indirect ways. Direct effects typically include employment in tourism-related services, support for small businesses, and infrastructure investments that serve both visitors and residents. Indirectly, tourism can contribute to broader economic revitalization, especially in rural or economically underdeveloped regions. In Slovenia, the concept of sustainable tourism has gradually gained prominence over the past two decades, supported by national tourism policies that emphasize the integration of economic, social, and environmental dimensions [26]. The Slovenian tourism strategy 2022–2028 [27] emphasizes sustainability as a core principle, advocating a balanced development of tourism that ensures the preservation of natural and cultural heritage, with a particular focus on protected areas and the involvement of local communities. Similarly, the tourism development strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2016–2025 highlights the importance of guiding all relevant stakeholders in developing tools for the implementation of sustainable tourism in protected areas, including zoning, visitor management, environmental impact assessments, and ethical guidelines [28]. Furthermore, the strategy identifies the development of tourism infrastructure and superstructure as a funding priority supported by the European Union. However, the development of sustainable tourism remains uneven across its key dimensions. As Dimitrijević et al. [29] note, Serbia’s tourism sector lags behind that of more developed economies, both in terms of its overall contribution to national economic development and in achieving a positive tourism balance.

2.3. Management of Sustainable Tourism in Mountain NPs

Mountain NPs, while often rich in natural beauty and tourism potential, face a unique set of challenges that limit their ability to fully benefit from sustainable tourism. These challenges frequently include underinvestment in accommodation facilities and recreational infrastructure, which in turn affects the overall quality of the visitor experience, shortens the average length of stay, and contributes to workforce instability in tourism-related services [30]. In addition to infrastructural limitations, challenges in mountain NPs may also arise from conflicting perspectives among key stakeholders involved in park management. A study conducted in Rocky Mountain NP in the United States revealed both shared and divergent views between park managers and concessionaires regarding sustainable ecotourism and visitor experiences. While there was general agreement on the positive role of ecotourism activities, notable disagreements emerged around issues such as carrying capacity, the environmental impact of horse use, and visitor-related conflicts [31].

Positive examples from various national contexts demonstrate that sustainable tourism in mountain NPs can be successfully implemented when supported by strategic partnerships and structured management approaches. In the case of Yellowstone NP in the United States, effective collaboration between the NP Service and a private hospitality concessionaire has led to the integration of sustainability principles across park operations. This partnership enabled the reconciliation of diverse stakeholder interests and the fulfillment of both conservation and visitor service mandates. Despite certain challenges, such as tensions related to historic preservation and geographic remoteness, Yellowstone has managed to apply all three pillars of sustainability in practice, offering a model for other parks seeking to achieve similar outcomes [32]. Similarly, research from the German Alps emphasizes the importance of adopting a holistic and evidence-based approach to developing sustainable mountain tourism. Key factors identified include the use of sustainability indicators, cross-border cooperation, and active stakeholder engagement. These elements are seen as essential not only for the implementation and monitoring of sustainable tourism products but also for fostering a broader culture of sustainability at the destination level [33].

Mountain NPs in both Serbia and Slovenia hold significant potential for sustainable tourism development, yet they face diverse challenges and operate within different institutional and policy frameworks. In Serbia, research suggests that tourism in mountain destinations does not fully align with the principles of sustainable development. The sustainability of tourism in Serbia’s NPs cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader socio-economic context and the challenges of measuring sustainable development goals, as highlighted in recent analyses of vulnerability and sustainability indicators in Serbia [34,35]. Gaps are observed in planning, environmental management, and the integration of local communities, which limits the long-term viability of tourism as a development tool [36]. Some locations, however, show more encouraging trends. For example, research on tourism development in the rural areas surrounding Kopaonik NP indicates that current practices contribute positively to sustainable rural development, reflecting a moderate yet promising level of sustainability [37]. Similarly, research in Fruška Gora NP points to partial alignment with sustainability goals while also emphasizing the need for improvement across all three dimensions of sustainability. A key recommendation is to base tourism infrastructure development on environmental protection principles and to actively involve local residents in planning processes [38].

By contrast, Triglav NP in Slovenia operates within a more developed institutional and governance framework. The Triglav NP Act provides a comprehensive legal basis for the management of Slovenia’s only NP. It defines zoning and protection regimes, establishes guidelines for sustainable development within the park and surrounding municipalities, and outlines mechanisms for local population participation in park governance [39]. Despite this more robust regulatory setting, challenges remain. Earlier research on residents’ perceptions of park management reveals varying levels of satisfaction and engagement. While some inhabitants expressed dissatisfaction, others reported more positive experiences, with perceptions often shaped by whether residents live inside or outside the park’s boundaries [40]. Analyses suggest that unclear management structures, legal inconsistencies, and insufficient funding have contributed to long-standing conflicts that hinder regional development. Nonetheless, the park holds strong potential to become a model of sustainable tourism, particularly if legislation is further harmonized with international standards and participatory governance mechanisms are meaningfully implemented [41].

Although sustainable tourism in protected areas has been the subject of extensive academic and policy discussions, comparative studies that systematically examine how different governance frameworks influence the relationship between tourism development and the local population remain limited. In particular, little attention has been given to cross-country analyses involving protected areas with differing institutional contexts, stages of tourism development, and levels of local population participation. Comparing Tara NP and Triglav NP offers a valuable opportunity to explore these dynamics as both parks share similar geographical characteristics but operate under distinct legal, policy, and management frameworks. Such a comparison can provide important insights for enhancing sustainable tourism practices and improving outcomes for local populations in protected areas across diverse settings. It also enables the identification of good practices that may be transferable between countries.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

Tara NP is located in Western Serbia and has been under state protection since 1981. The park covers approximately 25,000 hectares and encompasses most of the Tara and Zvijezda mountain ranges, bordered by the Drina River between the towns of Bajina Bašta (Serbia) and Višegrad (Bosnia and Herzegovina). It is a medium-high mountain area with limestone bedrock, an average elevation between 1000 and 1200 m.a.s.l., and prominent peaks reaching up to 1600 m. The terrain is intersected by canyons and gorges, while the lowest point is the Vrelo River at 234 m.a.s.l. [42]. The park features diverse natural landscapes, traditional rural settlements, and relatively low-intensity but seasonally concentrated tourism [43]. Visitors most commonly engage in nature-based and cultural activities such as hiking, mountaineering, cultural sightseeing, swimming, and riding the “Šargan Eight” heritage railway [44].

Triglav NP is located in the northwestern part of the country, bordering Italy and near the Austrian border. It lies in the southeastern section of the Alpine massif and largely overlaps with the Eastern Julian Alps. The park spans 840 km², which constitutes around four percent of Slovenia’s territory, making it one of the country’s most significant protected natural areas. Established originally in 1924 as the Alpine Conservation Park, its current status was formalized with the enactment of the Triglav NP Act in 1981. The park is named after Triglav, Slovenia’s highest peak, which rises to 2864 m.a.s.l., while its lowest point is the Tolmin Gorges at 180 m. The park is characterized by rugged mountainous terrain and rich natural and cultural heritage, attracting thousands of visitors each year. Notable attractions include the emerald green Soča River, the Boka and Kozjak waterfalls, the Tolmin Gorge, the Vintgar Gorge, and Lake Bled. Winter tourism is also present, particularly in the Vogel ski resort located within the park boundaries [45].

3.2. Method

The objective of this research is to conduct a comparative analysis of sustainable management practices in protected natural areas, using case studies of Tara NP (Serbia) and Triglav NP (Slovenia). The study focuses on three dimensions of sustainability: ecological, economic, and social. A qualitative, descriptive–analytical approach was used, with elements of a comparative case study methodology. The research relies exclusively on secondary data sources, including the analysis of official documents, management strategies, available statistical data, and relevant studies in the academic literature.

These two NPs were selected due to their similar way of functioning as protected natural areas, similar geographic position, differing national and institutional contexts, and varying degrees of integration of sustainable development principles in management and tourism. The same framework of nature protection and tourism exploitation, as well as differences in institutional practices and community participation, facilitates the comparison.

Data were sourced from the official websites of the NPs (www.nptara.rs, www.tnp.si), official statistical databases of Serbia and Slovenia, direct data requests from Tara NP (under “e-mail” in Table 1), management plans of NPs [46,47], and other publicly available sources. The data primarily refer to the 2022/2023 period. Based on the available data, a set of indicators was developed (Table 1) to enable a measurable and comparable assessment of how each protected area aligns with sustainability principles. The methodological framework consists of several interrelated methods, including a thematic analysis of the content of strategic and management documents, a SWOT analysis to identify internal and external factors affecting sustainability, and a comparative analysis of two destinations. The comparative analysis focuses on identifying weaknesses and differences in management, branding, stakeholder participation, and ecotourism development, with the aim of recognizing good practices from one NP that could be applied to the other in order to align with sustainable tourism principles and generate benefits for the local population.

In Serbia, in addition to the Law on NPs, the Management Plan of NP Tara (2020–2029) [47] represents the most important legal document governing the protection, utilization, and administration of protected areas, taking into account the needs of the local population. The plan was developed in accordance with the Law on Nature Protection, the recommendations of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the National Strategy for the Development of Protected Areas. Although Serbian legislation is not fully harmonized with EU environmental law, the Law on Nature Protection and the management plan for Tara NP incorporate principles from EU nature conservation directives (such as the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive) through Serbia’s participation in the EMERALD ecological network, which serves as a transitional mechanism for alignment with NATURA 2000 standards. These elements reflect the country’s progress in aligning with the EU acquis under Chapter 27—Environment of the EU accession process [35]. Tara NP is classified as IUCN Category II (focused on the conservation of natural values and nature-based recreation), which methodologically enables comparison with Triglav NP, which falls under the same IUCN category. Based on the elements included in the management plan, indicators of ecological sustainability can be calculated, such as zoning schemes, spatial pressures, and visitor numbers.

The total population of Triglav NP was derived from data on 21 settlements located entirely within the park’s boundaries. This approach ensures consistency with earlier datasets and reflects the official data available at the time of the analysis. Population data as of 1 January 2023 [48] were used to maintain comparability, particularly since Serbia conducted its census two months earlier, in October 2022, For Tara NP, which encompasses 33 settlements; 12 partially included settlements (with larger population) were excluded to avoid inflating the demographic baseline. Final data collection and analysis were conducted based exclusively on publicly available and methodologically transparent sources, including national statistical offices [48,49], tourism reports, and NP management plans [46,47]. Although the reference period is 2022/2023, the data remains valid for mid-2025 given that demographic and institutional conditions in both parks change slowly, and the current management plans (Tara 2020–2029; Triglav 2016–2025) are still in effect.

In addition to thematic and comparative analysis, a SWOT analysis was applied to synthesize findings related to ecological, economic, and especially social sustainability. This method was chosen for its ability to integrate diverse qualitative observations and highlight internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as external opportunities and threats relevant to strategic park governance. In the context of social sustainability, SWOT provides a structured way to reflect on community participation, institutional transparency, education programs, and accessibility challenges—particularly in the absence of primary empirical data. It serves not as a standalone evaluation tool but as a complementary framework that links indicator-based findings to broader strategic implications. This approach is well-established in comparative sustainability research and supports the formulation of actionable insights for governance improvement [50]. In cases where publicly available data were incomplete or unavailable, official information was directly requested from the Tara NP management authority and obtained upon request. The retrieved data are presented in Table 1. The operationalization of indicators involved aligning them with the core sustainability dimensions and selecting available, comparable data points across both NPs. In cases where numerical data were incomplete or unavailable (e.g., for community participation), document content was analyzed qualitatively using pre-established thematic categories. A directed content analysis approach was applied, with sustainability pillars serving as coding frameworks, allowing the triangulation of quantitative data with qualitative insights from official documents.

4. Results

The management structures of the two parks exhibit significant similarities. Tara NP is a public institution established by the Government of the Republic of Serbia, while Triglav NP is managed as a public institute under the supervision of the Slovenian Ministry of Natural Resources and Spatial Planning. Both institutions are led by a director and supported by professional departments responsible for nature protection, tourism, forestry, and infrastructure. Tara’s management includes expert teams focusing on ecology, monitoring, spatial planning, education, and tourism. The primary focus in Tara NP is on biodiversity conservation, promotion of ecotourism, education, and sustainable use of natural resources. In contrast, Triglav NP adopts an integrated management approach that includes nature protection, sustainable development, and active engagement of local communities and visitors. Based on data from the official websites of both parks [42,45], Tara NP emphasizes partnerships with local communities, schools, tourism organizations, and international projects. Triglav NP is notable for its formalized zoning system and well-developed educational and volunteer programs.

In addition to comparing management structures and institutional focus, the paper also examines the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability, highlighting both similarities and differences in their application. This comprehensive approach illustrates the extent to which these protected areas function in accordance with sustainable development principles.

4.1. Ecological Significance and Biodiversity

Tara NP is recognized as one of the most biologically diverse areas in Serbia, with particular emphasis on the preservation of relict and endemic species, such as Pančić’s spruce (Picea omorika). This park represents one of the rare areas in the Balkans where primary forest ecosystems have remained intact [47]. Its high biodiversity value is confirmed by its designation as an Important Plant Area (IPA) and an Important Bird Area (IBA). Additionally, Tara is included in international conservation networks such as the EMERALD and NATURA 2000 networks. In terms of butterfly diversity, the park is among the richest areas in Europe, with 140 documented species. Since 2003, Tara has been recognized as a Prime Butterfly Area (PBA) in Serbia [47].

The park maintains stable populations of large mammals thanks to abundant smaller species. It has the highest density of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Serbia and also hosts wolves, wildcats (Felis silvestris), pine martens (Martes martes), and the endangered otter (Lutra lutra). Forests cover two-thirds of Tara NP, while one-third reflects human influence. Aquatic habitats make up only 0.23% [47]. Reducing traditional mowing threatens grasslands, risking habitat loss [51]. Park management focuses on forest protection, monitoring large mammals, and conserving mountain and river ecosystems. However, zoning and ecological capacity assessments are still limited.

The park is home to 1156 species, including 47 strictly protected species and 163 protected species, with 29 protected under CITES and 115 on Serbia’s Preliminary Red List [47]. The park also hosts 76 endemic taxa. Protected butterflies include Lycaena dispar, Hypodryas maturna, and Euphydryas aurinia; notable insects include Rosalia alpina and Morimus funereus. Among fish, protected species are Hucho hucho, Rutilus pigus, Cobitis elongata, and Sabanejewia aurata. Amphibians of European concern include Triturus macedonicus, Triturus cristatus, Emys orbicularis, and Bombina variegata. Birds such as the corncrake (Crex crex), western capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), and three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) are protected. The Serbian stick grasshopper (Pyga sp.), endemic to Tara and Mokra Gora, is critically endangered due to habitat loss from logging. In contrast, the brown bear is of “least concern” due to its stable numbers. These facts underscore Tara NP’s national and European conservation value.

Characteristic species of Triglav NP, representative of Alpine ecosystems, include the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra), red deer (Cervus elaphus), alpine marmot (Marmota marmota), edible dormouse (Glis glis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), brown bear (Ursus arctos), black grouse (Tetrao tetrix), white-throated dipper (Cinclus cinclus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and Soča trout (Salmo marmoratus), among many others [46]. Triglav NP is also part of the European NATURA 2000 network and contains 28 typical ecosystems and 46 protected species under the EU Habitats Directive. Some of these species fall under the category “unfavorable condition—getting worse”, such as Euphydryas aurinia (meadowsweet), Rosalia alpina (alpine longhorn beetle), Triturus carnifex (Italian crested newt), Bombina variegata (yellow-bellied toad), Eryngium alpinum (Alpine sea holly), and Gladiolus palustris (marsh gladiolus). Others, such as the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), are grouped into the “bad condition—getting worse” category [46].

Nearly half of the park is covered by forests. In the first protection zone, forests are left to natural processes, while in the second and third zones, they are managed in a sustainable manner. Due to the area’s inaccessibility, the forests here are better preserved than the national average [46]. Triglav NP applies an integrated approach to conservation, with clearly defined core, buffer, and transition zones that ensure a balance between visitor intensity and ecosystem protection. The park emphasizes mountain and aquatic ecosystem management, with well-developed monitoring programs, erosion prevention strategies, and biodiversity conservation efforts. Triglav has established itself as a model of sustainable park management by integrating conservation, education, and scientific research.

This research includes three ecological indicators (Table 1): the ecological load index [EL] (the ratio between the total annual number of visitors [V] and the area [A] of the protected zone in km²), the protection core (zone ratio), and the number of protected species. Together, these indicators offer a comparative snapshot of ecological management effectiveness and reveal important contrasts in conservation strategy between the two parks. In 2023, the total number of visitors was 68,387 for Tara and 277,025 for Triglav [52,53].

EL = V/A

Both Tara and Triglav NPs implement zoning systems as fundamental tools of spatial planning and conservation management, yet they follow distinct frameworks rooted in their respective national and international legislative contexts. Tara NP utilizes a three-tier protection model defined by national law, distinguishing between the following [47]:

• Zone I (Strict protection): Covering 33.55 km² (13.4%), this zone allows only scientific research and monitoring; all forms of logging, hunting, and construction are prohibited.
• Zone II (Active protection): This zone encompasses 116.64 km², where limited interventions are permitted for ecological management, such as controlled forest thinning for biodiversity conservation.
• Zone III (Sustainable use): This is the largest area, at 100.14 km², where regulated tourism, education, and sustainable resource use are allowed.

These are summed to a total of 250 km², with clearly delineated rules and surface areas for each zone. In contrast, Triglav NP adopts a zoning framework in line with the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) concept, comprising the following [45]:

• Core zone: This constitutes 37.5% of the park, reserved for strict nature protection and scientific monitoring only.
• Buffer zone: This constitutes 32.5% of the park, allowing for low-intensity educational and recreational use.
• Transition zone: This constitutes 30% of the park, where sustainable human activities such as tourism and agriculture are permitted.

While the Triglav NP plan does not provide exact area measurements for each zone (they are available on the official site of the NP), its framework is clearly aligned with international conservation standards, focusing on integrating nature protection with sustainable regional development. The main differences between the two systems lie in the legal foundation (national vs. international framework), the degree of integration of human activities, and the clarity and precision of zoning boundaries (Tara provides exact surface areas, while Triglav presents a conceptual model). Overall, both parks enforce zoning as a key mechanism for balancing conservation and development, but the Triglav model is more closely aligned with participatory and internationally standardized approaches, while Tara’s model remains more restrictive and state centered. This difference in zoning philosophy reflects broader institutional orientations and has implications for stakeholder inclusion, flexibility in management, and long-term sustainability.

Table 1. Comparative sustainability indicators for Tara and Triglav NPs.

	Indicator	Tara NP (Serbia)	Triglav NP (Slovenia)	Data Source
Ecological	Ecological load index	3.8	2.8	[52,53]
	I category/core	13.4%	37.5%	[45,47]
	Protected species	47	46	[46,47]
Economic	Tourism economic activity index	84.5	327.5	[48,52]
	Accommodation capacity	6–6500 beds	31,154 beds	e-mail * and [48]
	Employment share in tourism	4%	19%	[49,54]
Social	Park council with locals	2/3	3/3	e-mail *
	Education and awareness program for visitors and the local population	2/3	3/3	e-mail *
	Is there public transportation/access?	1/3	2/3	[45,46,47,53]

* “E-mail” data was obtained from Tara NP upon request.

Table 1. Comparative sustainability indicators for Tara and Triglav NPs.

	Indicator	Tara NP (Serbia)	Triglav NP (Slovenia)	Data Source
Ecological	Ecological load index	3.8	2.8	[52,53]
	I category/core	13.4%	37.5%	[45,47]
	Protected species	47	46	[46,47]
Economic	Tourism economic activity index	84.5	327.5	[48,52]
	Accommodation capacity	6–6500 beds	31,154 beds	e-mail * and [48]
	Employment share in tourism	4%	19%	[49,54]
Social	Park council with locals	2/3	3/3	e-mail *
	Education and awareness program for visitors and the local population	2/3	3/3	e-mail *
	Is there public transportation/access?	1/3	2/3	[45,46,47,53]

* “E-mail” data was obtained from Tara NP upon request.

4.2. Economic Sustainability

Tourism serves as a vital source of income for both Tara and Triglav NPs. However, notable differences exist in the degree of economic sustainability and integration of tourism into local development strategies. Tara NP predominantly relies on seasonal tourism, with peak activity during the summer months. Ecotourism infrastructure remains underdeveloped, and the promotion of local products is limited. Although some initiatives support the inclusion of local producers and accommodation providers, institutional backing for community economic empowerment is fragmented and insufficient. In contrast to Tara, Triglav NP has made more progress in integrating tourism into regional development strategies, though challenges remain. The park promotes sustainable mobility, supports local producers through branding initiatives such as “Bohinjsko/from Bohinj,” and encourages diversification of tourism beyond the high season. Still, increasing visitor pressure, particularly in hotspots like Lake Bohinj and the Triglav Lakes Valley, raises concerns about ecological carrying capacity and the long-term balance between nature conservation and economic gain [46].

Three key economic indicators have been identified to assess tourism-related economic performance: the tourism economic activity index [TEA] (the ratio of total annual overnight stays [O] to the population [P] of the municipalities encompassing the park), accommodation capacity, and employment share in tourism. In 2023, Tara NP recorded 258,185 overnight stays, while Triglav NP had 780,694 [48,52]. Significant differences also exist in the composition of tourists. In Tara NP, approximately 90% of visitors are domestic, whereas in Triglav, domestic tourists account for only one-third of total visitation [52,53].

TEA = O/P

Tara NP spans across ten settlements in the municipality of Bajina Bašta: Beserovina, Zaovine, Zaugline, Jagoštica, Konjska Reka, Mala Reka, Perućac, Rasište, Rača, and Solotuša. According to the 2022 census, these settlements had a combined population of 3056 residents, which is nearly 600 less than the previous census conducted 11 years earlier [49]. The number of inhabitants of Triglav NP was calculated for 21 settlements (belonging to the municipalities of Bohinj, Kranjska Gora, Bovec, and Tolmin), which entirely belong to the territory of the protected area, as explained in the methodology, and the sum of their inhabitants is 2384.

In 2023, the municipality of Bajina Bašta had a total of 7587 employed individuals, equating to 325 employees per 1000 residents. Within the category of “accommodation and food services”, only 321 individuals were employed. Therefore, employees in tourism made up approximately 4% of the total workforce in the settlements surrounding the park. In contrast, Triglav NP has developed a functional ecotourism model in which local businesses are closely integrated into the park’s strategic framework. Regulations support sustainable visitor management, and tourists are actively guided toward responsible forms of travel and accommodation. The park’s economic model functions as a part of a broader rural sustainable development strategy, supported by European Union funds and national development policies. This model ensures a systemic and well-coordinated approach to tourism governance.

Based on UNWTO methodology, the total number of people employed in tourism across the four municipalities within Triglav NP in 2023 was 1947, including 461 in Bohinj, 380 in Bovec, 873 in Kranjska Gora, and 233 in Tolmin. The total number of employed individuals in these municipalities was 10,269, indicating that approximately one in five residents is employed in tourism, a clear sign of deep economic integration of tourism into the local economy. In municipalities like Kranjska Gora, even 72% of employees work in tourism [46]. Such figures highlight the systemic integration of tourism into the local economy in Triglav NP, contrasting sharply with the more fragmented and seasonal economic impact observed in Tara NP.

4.3. Social Sustainability and Community Involvement

In the context of social sustainability, the two NPs exhibit markedly different levels of community engagement and institutional participation. Triglav NP has established a well-defined and functional institutional mechanism for community involvement through the Park Council (Svet Triglavskega narodnega parka). This advisory body plays a key role in connecting local communities, municipalities, NGOs, and other stakeholders with park management. Its responsibilities include reviewing strategic and annual management documents, participating in spatial planning discussions, and representing local interests in the decision-making process. The park council serves as a platform for structured and continuous cooperation, aligning with the park’s broader goal of sustainable development and participatory governance. The Triglav management plan emphasizes the importance of active local engagement, making the council a central element in the park’s governance model. This reflects a high level of institutionalization, influence, and integration of the local community in park management and planning, representing a score of 3 out of 3.

One notable institutional mechanism for community involvement in Tara NP is the NP Tara Users’ Council, established in 2018 with the goal of facilitating dialog between park management and local stakeholders. The council consists of 16 members, representing a range of local interests including tourism, forestry, environmental protection, and municipal authorities. It meets two to three times annually and provides input particularly on issues related to spatial planning and land use within the park. While the existence of this council reflects progress toward participatory governance, its current role remains primarily consultative, with limited influence over broader decision-making processes, such as budget allocation, strategic tourism planning, or long-term conservation priorities. Moreover, the Management Plan for 2020–2029 emphasizes that the strengthening of community engagement is a future objective, indicating that participatory structures are still evolving. Given these factors, the Users’ Council can be rated 2 out of 3 in terms of community participation. This score acknowledges the formalization and consistency of the council’s operation while also recognizing the need for deeper integration of local voices in park governance. For Tara NP to achieve a fully participatory management model, further institutional support and empowerment of the council will be necessary.

Triglav NP has developed a comprehensive and institutionalized education and awareness program aimed at both visitors and the local population. The park offers a diverse range of formal and informal educational activities, which are systematically integrated into its long-term management strategy. For local residents, workshops focus on traditional ecological knowledge, the sustainable use of natural resources, the preparation and marketing of local food products, and the preservation of cultural heritage. These programs help strengthen community identity and promote sustainable livelihoods. In addition to community-oriented initiatives, the park conducts seasonal educational programs for visitors, often in collaboration with external partners such as NGOs, schools, and tourism organizations. Triglav NP also provides educational activities for children and youth across all education levels, including partnerships with primary and secondary schools within the Julian Alps UNESCO MAB (Man and the Biosphere) area. Public outreach includes exhibitions, mobile information centers, and participation in fairs both domestically and abroad. Importantly, the park also addresses vulnerable groups, supporting lifelong learning and skills development to enhance employment opportunities and social inclusion. This high score reflects the institutionalized, inclusive, and strategic nature of Triglav NP’s education and outreach efforts, which serve as a model for integrated environmental communication in protected areas, representing a score of 3 out of 3. The structured nature of these programs contributes not only to raising awareness but also to long-term social resilience and support for conservation initiatives.

Compared to Triglav NP, Tara NP has initiated educational programs and awareness campaigns aimed at promoting ecological values and sustainable tourism. These efforts include interpretative trails, seasonal activities, volunteer initiatives, and collaboration with schools. However, the scope and structure of these programs remain relatively modest and fragmented. While the park has established the NP Tara Users’ Council to include local stakeholders, this body functions primarily in a consultative capacity, with limited decision-making power. The absence of a fully developed, year-round educational strategy and systematized participatory framework may undermine long-term management sustainability, especially in terms of fostering community ownership and support for conservation goals. The score for this indicator is 2 out of 3 because there are education and information activities and also cooperation with schools and locals, but there is no integrated and multi-layered program like for Triglav NP.

Limited accessibility and seasonality of public transport present a significant challenge to sustainable tourism development in both NPs, although to different degrees. In the case of Triglav NP, there are formal bus and rail connections to the broader park region, particularly during the summer months. However, access to more remote locations within the park becomes difficult in the off season. Low service frequency and the complexity of transfers reduce accessibility for visitors without private vehicles, limiting opportunities for inclusive and sustainable mobility. In contrast, while basic road infrastructure exists to provide access to Tara NP, public transport to most key destinations within the park is irregular or entirely lacking. The absence of an integrated transport system significantly restricts access for non-driving visitors and poses a clear obstacle to the development of sustainable tourism. Notably, the park’s official website does not include a transportation section, which in itself reflects the limited availability of such services. An examination of local public transport providers, such as GSP Bajina Bašta and Lasta (operating from Užice town), shows that bus services to villages within the park are infrequent and primarily intended for local residents, not tourists. As a result, public transport receives a score of 1 out of 3 in the comparative assessment. There are no direct or regular lines from major urban centers such as Belgrade or Novi Sad to central tourist sites in the park, including Mitrovac, Zaovine, and Perućac. Most routes terminate in Bajina Bašta, with no organized onward connections to the main attractions within the protected area. This limited accessibility may reduce the park’s appeal to international and domestic eco-tourists and presents a barrier to inclusive, low-impact tourism development. In comparison, Triglav NP offers a more functional (though still seasonally limited) public transport system, whereas Tara NP remains largely dependent on private vehicles, representing a score of 2 out of 3. Thus, from the perspective of sustainable mobility and accessibility, this justifies a lower rating for Tara.

4.4. SWOT Analysis of Sustainable Management Practices

Based on the collected results, a SWOT analysis of sustainable management practices in both NPs has been developed and is presented in

Table 2. Integrated SWOT analysis—Tara and Triglav NPs.

Strengths	Weaknesses
Both parks are part of the Natura 2000 ecological network and contain exceptional biodiversity, including endemic, relict, and protected species.	Tara NP has rigid zoning and centralized governance, which reduce management flexibility and limit stakeholder involvement.
Triglav NP has institutionalized participatory structures (e.g., park council) and a long-standing tradition of international cooperation (UNESCO MAB, Europarc, and Alparc).	Tara NP has weak integration of tourism into the local economy, strong seasonality, and limited appeal to international visitors.
Triglav NP has high tourism employment (19%), robust accommodation capacity, and diversified offers (hiking, cycling, and winter sports).	Tara NP has limited public transport connectivity to park sites and poor digital accessibility; there is no transportation info on the official website.
Triglav NP has developed over 500 educational and interpretative units; local communities are actively involved in decision-making.	Triglav NP has poor supporting infrastructure in surrounding rural areas (e.g., roads, shops, internet, and public transport).
Tara NP has a steady tourism revenue trend (with a notable peak in 2017), pristine landscapes, and intact forest ecosystems.	Both parks face pressure on natural habitats due to increasing visitation; Tara’s higher ecological load index (3.8) indicates vulnerability.
Opportunities	Threats
Tara NP has potential for developing participatory governance and stronger institutional mechanisms for community inclusion.	Climate change impacts alpine ecosystems and water availability in both parks, especially in Triglav’s high-altitude zones.
Innovation in low-carbon tourism (e.g., eco-trails, agro-tourism, interpretive centers) aligns with sustainability trends.	Triglav NP has a risk of over-commercialization in buffer/transition zones if development pressures go unchecked.
Alignment with the UN SDGs (especially SDGs 11, 12, 13, 15, 17) offers access to EU funds and international partnerships.	Tara NP has potential political interference and a lack of cross-sectoral coordination (e.g., conservation vs. tourism).
Triglav can draw from Tara’s stricter legal protection frameworks in core ecological zones.	Youth outmigration and demographic decline reduce long-term community sustainability in both areas.

. This analysis serves as a tool to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with current governance models and community participation structures in each park.

4.5. Discussion of Hypotheses

H1. The assumption that Tara and Triglav National Parks exhibit significantly different governance models is supported. As shown in the comparative analysis, Triglav NP operates under a participatory governance model with formalized mechanisms such as the park council, zoning aligned with the UNESCO MAB framework, and integrated regional strategies. In contrast, Tara NP maintains a centralized, state-led governance structure with limited stakeholder engagement and a more rigid zoning scheme based on national law. These findings confirm H1 and illustrate the structural divergence in institutional integration and stakeholder inclusion.

H2. The results support the hypothesis that governance differences correspond with distinct tourism development patterns and local economic outcomes. Triglav NP demonstrates a significantly higher tourism economic activity index (327.5 vs. 84.5), greater accommodation capacity, and a fivefold higher share of employment in tourism compared to Tara NP. This suggests that Triglav’s governance model facilitates stronger integration of tourism into the regional economy. Tara’s underdeveloped infrastructure, weak local involvement, and limited visitor services reflect the consequences of its centralized and preservation-focused approach. Thus, H2 is confirmed.

H3. The comparative social sustainability indicators validate that governance variations shape the scope and quality of community involvement. Triglav NP scores higher on all social indicators—community representation, education and awareness programs, and public transport accessibility—reflecting a deeply institutionalized participatory model. In contrast, Tara NP’s local engagement mechanisms, though present, remain consultative and less influential in decision-making. This discrepancy supports H3, demonstrating that participatory governance correlates with more robust community inclusion in park management.

5. Discussion

The comparative analysis of ecological, economic, and social indicators demonstrates that Tara and Triglav NPs represent two distinct governance models with differing levels of institutional integration, participatory engagement, and ecological management. Triglav NP aligns more strongly with contemporary principles of sustainable protected area governance, while Tara NP remains rooted in a state-centered, preservation-oriented framework. This divergence can be partially attributed to the broader governance context in Serbia, where mountain regions still lack a coherent strategic framework for both development and conservation. The absence of an integrated policy and an effective system for managing sustainable development continues to hinder the alignment of protected area governance with European standards [55]. These structural differences result in varying capacities for adaptive management, local empowerment, and multi-dimensional sustainability.

Ecological indicators reveal that although Tara NP hosts a higher number of strictly protected species (47 vs. 46) and exhibits exceptional endemic biodiversity, its ecological load index (3.8) is higher than Triglav’s NP (2.8), suggesting greater pressure per square kilometer from visitation. Additionally, the proportion of strictly protected areas is notably lower in Tara NP (13.4%) compared to Triglav NP (37.5%). This discrepancy reflects Tara’s NP more fragmented application of zoning despite its rich natural heritage. Despite these structural shortcomings, Tara NP retains largely intact ecosystems and abundant natural resources, positioning it as a site with considerable potential for future sustainable tourism development, provided that appropriate planning and investment mechanisms are implemented [56]. The Triglav NP model, with its biosphere-inspired core–buffer–transition zones, demonstrates a more holistic integration of conservation and human activity, facilitating ecological stability and enabling community co-existence with natural systems. Still, the successful zoning framework in Triglav NP has not been fully matched by sustained engagement in biodiversity-supporting agricultural practices. Limited participation in agri-environmental measures and ongoing land abandonment, despite common agricultural policy incentives, points to the need for more targeted policies and stronger institutional support [57].

Economic indicators further emphasize these divergences. Triglav NP significantly outperforms Tara in terms of tourism economic activity (327.5 vs. 84.5), accommodation capacity (31,154 vs. 6000–6500 beds), and employment share in tourism (19% vs. 4%). In addition to these quantitative gaps, Brankov et al. [43] point to systemic challenges in Tara NP, including insufficient investment in tourism infrastructure and governance deficits, and most notably, the inadequate involvement of competent managing bodies and the politically motivated recruitment of underqualified staff. These figures illustrate the depth of tourism integration into the local economy in Slovenia. Moreover, the composition of visitation differs markedly; Triglav NP attracts a predominantly international audience, while Tara NP remains heavily dependent on domestic tourists. This contrast suggests different branding and market positioning strategies, with Triglav NP capitalizing on EU-supported rural tourism development, while Tara NP exhibits underutilized ecotourism potential. Notably, although tourism revenues in Tara NP were stable from 2008 to 2021, a sharp peak occurred in 2017, after which values returned to previous levels [58]. This volatility indicates a lack of strategic positioning and resilience in tourism flows.

Social sustainability indicators reinforce the institutional gaps between the two parks. Triglav NP achieves the highest score (3/3) across categories such as community participation (via the park council), educational programs, and public transportation (2/3) accessibility. In contrast, Tara NP scores lower (2/3 or 1/3), reflecting modest progress in stakeholder engagement and infrastructural limitations. While the Tara Users’ Council represents a step forward, its role remains consultative, with limited influence on budgeting or strategic planning. As the Management Plan of NP Tara (2020–2029) notes, strengthening community participation remains a future goal, not a current achievement. Furthermore, public transport access is minimal, with no regular links from major cities to key tourist areas like Mitrovac or Zaovine, and the park’s website lacks a transport section entirely, an indicator of low institutional prioritization of sustainable mobility. The predominance of private car use in Tara NP reflects the limited availability of alternative transport options, although a portion of arrivals through organized group visits introduces a degree of partial alignment with sustainable mobility principles [56].

In contrast, Triglav NP has invested in developing and maintaining comprehensive visitor infrastructure of over 500 units, including park centers, info stations, mountain trails, cycling routes, and ski areas, all managed directly by the park itself [47]. Nevertheless, it also faces challenges related to broader infrastructural gaps, such as poor roads, limited internet, lack of shops and public transport in remote areas, and insufficient interpretation of cultural and natural heritage. These are not tourism-specific problems but rather reflect deeper socio-spatial inequalities in the surrounding rural environment. The persistence of such infrastructural shortcomings underscores the centrality of investment in tourism-related facilities, not only as a catalyst for regional economic development but also as a means of enriching visitor interaction with protected landscapes. As Apriyanti et al. [59] emphasize, infrastructure serves as a foundational element that supports both the accessibility and interpretive depth of the tourism experience.

From a governance perspective, zoning systems play a symbolic and functional role. In Tara NP, zoning is legally precise but rigid, emphasizing strict protection and state control. This model is effective for conservation enforcement but lacks flexibility. Triglav NP, by contrast, implements a zoning system grounded in participatory and adaptive management principles. Its core–buffer–transition model not only regulates spatial use but embodies an inclusive conservation ethos. As the discussion in the management plan highlights, zoning in Triglav NP integrates tourism, agriculture, and cultural practices into the park’s mission, contributing to public trust and policy coherence.

These contrasting cases offer valuable cross-learning opportunities. Tara NP can draw several lessons from Triglav’s NP experience:

• The development of a participatory governance framework, such as a multi-stakeholder park council with advisory and co-decisional powers, could improve institutional legitimacy and community support.
• Diversifying tourism offerings and improving access (both digital and physical) through infrastructure investment would help stabilize visitation and expand economic benefits.
• Integrating education and interpretation programs into long-term strategy, beyond seasonal or fragmented activities, can support community identity, stewardship, and sustainable livelihoods.

Conversely, Triglav NP could learn from Tara’s more restrictive conservation model, especially in highly sensitive areas. The Serbian approach to zoning, while rigid, provides clear legal demarcations and stronger protection against land use encroachment. This could serve as a corrective balance to Triglav’s more permissive buffer and transition zones, where pressures from tourism and rural development may increase.

In summary, managing protected areas in the context of modern tourism involves complex challenges, including biodiversity conservation [60], nature preservation, safeguarding cultural heritage, socio-economic development, community engagement, and adaptive governance [61]. The comparative lens used in this study demonstrates that no single model is universally optimal; rather, sustainability depends on the alignment between institutional design, stakeholder context, and evolving environmental and economic conditions. Both parks operate within different political and socio-economic systems, yet they share a common mission, balancing nature conservation with human well-being. Strengthening their capacities through mutual learning, strategic investments, and participatory models could enhance their resilience and relevance in the face of ongoing global pressures.

The SWOT framework offers a synthetic lens through which the contrasting institutional logics and development trajectories of Tara and Triglav NPs can be understood in strategic terms. Rather than reiterating ecological or economic indicators, the analysis highlights the interplay between governance structure, community integration, and systemic adaptability. Notably, the juxtaposition of centralized versus participatory management models emerges not merely as a technical distinction but as a foundational determinant of long-term sustainability potential. Crucially, the opportunities and threats identified in both contexts underscore that neither model is intrinsically superior; rather, their effectiveness is context-dependent and contingent on policy alignment, stakeholder coherence, and responsiveness to emerging challenges. The presence of institutional maturity in Triglav NP and regulatory clarity in Tara NP suggests the potential for mutual reinforcement, where legal robustness and participatory flexibility are not mutually exclusive but potentially synergistic. In this sense, the SWOT matrix does not merely diagnose existing conditions but points toward a strategic hybridization of governance approaches, which could serve as a model for protected areas in similar socio-political settings.

This comparative study illustrates how protected area governance can serve as a powerful instrument for localizing the SDGs in border, mountain, and ecologically sensitive regions. Rather than treating tourism, conservation, and community participation as separate domains, the examples of Tara and Triglav NPs highlight the interdependence of these processes, and, by extension, the overlapping relevance of several SDG targets. Triglav NP’s institutional structure, which embeds participatory decision-making and integrates tourism into the local economy, exemplifies how biodiversity protection can be aligned with inclusive development. This reflects the intent of SDG 11 to strengthen spatial integration and cultural heritage protection while simultaneously advancing economic resilience, as envisioned in SDG 8. In contrast, Tara NP’s centralized governance and underdeveloped tourism infrastructure expose critical barriers to achieving these goals. However, its strong legal framework for core zone protection offers insights for fulfilling the conservation imperatives of SDG 15, especially in mountain ecosystems.

Differences in stakeholder involvement and governance transparency also speak to deeper issues of equity and institutional capacity, key concerns of SDGs 10 and 16. The lack of transport connectivity and digital infrastructure in Tara NP underscores the infrastructural challenges tied to SDG 9, while Triglav’s advanced educational programming aligns with the transformative ambitions of SDG 4. Furthermore, both parks face cross-cutting risks linked to climate variability, reinforcing the urgency of embedding adaptive, climate-responsive governance in line with SDG 13.

Crucially, this analysis reaffirms that the effective implementation of SDG principles in protected areas requires more than isolated projects or sectoral improvements. It demands a coherent governance vision grounded in multi-actor collaboration, transparent planning, and flexibility in institutional design, a logic embodied in SDG 17. The governance trajectories of Tara and Triglav NPs suggest that sustainable tourism in NPs is not only a vehicle for local development but also a concrete arena in which global sustainability agendas are contested, negotiated, and realized.

6. Conclusions

This comparative study of sustainable tourism governance in Tara NP (Serbia) and Triglav NP (Slovenia) reveals critical differences in institutional approaches, community integration, and the effectiveness of sustainability implementation. While both parks are situated in ecologically valuable mountain regions and share IUCN Category II status, their governance trajectories diverge significantly. Triglav NP benefits from a participatory, EU-aligned management model with embedded stakeholder engagement, diversified tourism offerings, and integrated sustainability indicators. In contrast, Tara NP operates under a more centralized and preservation-oriented system, with limited participatory mechanisms and underdeveloped tourism infrastructure. Ecological, economic, and social indicators demonstrate Triglav’s relative advancement in balancing conservation with socio-economic development, though it faces challenges such as over-tourism and infrastructural gaps in remote areas. Tara NP, despite possessing high biodiversity and intact ecosystems, is characterized by weak institutional coordination, low economic returns from tourism, and minimal inclusion of local communities in strategic planning. Nevertheless, it holds significant potential for transformation if strategic investments, participatory frameworks, and inter-sectoral collaboration are prioritized.

Theoretically, this paper contributes to the growing body of literature examining how governance models shape sustainability outcomes in protected areas. More specifically, it builds on and extends scholarship on participatory governance in protected areas, comparative institutional analysis in sustainability studies, and adaptive co-management frameworks, particularly in the context of post-socialist and transitional policy environments. It emphasizes the interdependence of ecological, economic, and social dimensions and demonstrates that governance structure, particularly the contrast between participatory and centralized models, can significantly influence sustainability performance even in comparable natural contexts. By applying a comparative, indicator-based approach to two mountain parks with shared IUCN classification but different institutional settings, the study refines the understanding of how institutional maturity and stakeholder integration affect practical sustainability implementation. It expands comparative frameworks by illustrating the potential of hybrid governance models that combine legal rigor with participatory flexibility. Furthermore, the findings underscore the value of adaptive and inclusive governance as a theoretical foundation for operationalizing the SDGs in protected areas, particularly within transitional or post-socialist policy environments. Practically, the findings provide actionable insights for park managers, planners, and local governments. Triglav NP offers scalable examples of how to institutionalize stakeholder participation, diversify tourism, and embed education into park functions. For Tara NP, the results point to clear intervention areas: improved transport access, enhanced tourism infrastructure, and the empowerment of local governance bodies. These lessons may be transferable to other mountain parks across Southeast Europe facing similar development constraints. Key actionable findings of this study include (1) the importance of participatory governance for integrating sustainability goals; (2) the role of institutional maturity in facilitating balanced tourism development; and (3) the transferability of tested practices from more advanced contexts, such as Triglav NP, to underutilized but ecologically rich parks like Tara NP.

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

Beyond the immediate case studies, this approach offers a replicable model for other protected areas operating under comparable ecological, institutional, and socio-economic conditions. Rather than developing isolated monitoring systems, park administrations could adopt the indicator categories presented here to promote methodological consistency and facilitate long-term tracking of progress. This would not only enhance internal planning but also enable more meaningful comparisons across national borders. Furthermore, knowledge exchange between parks through structured dialogs, joint capacity building, or policy workshops can help disseminate effective governance tools, such as co-management arrangements, incentive structures for community engagement, and mechanisms for balancing ecological integrity with tourism development.

The limitations of the study include reliance on secondary data and a lack of primary empirical insights from local stakeholders. Future research should incorporate longitudinal surveys, in-depth interviews, and participatory mapping to better capture community perspectives and evolving governance dynamics. Comparative studies involving additional parks across Central and Southeast Europe would further enrich the understanding of institutional determinants of sustainability in protected mountain areas. In particular, mixed-method approaches could help triangulate quantitative indicator data with qualitative perceptions, leading to more robust and context-sensitive policy recommendations. Ultimately, this study underscores that sustainable tourism in NPs is not merely a technical goal but a governance challenge rooted in policy design, stakeholder collaboration, and institutional maturity. Strengthening this intersection through applied research, inclusive governance models, and policy learning across borders will be essential for aligning protected area management with global sustainability targets. Cross-border learning, strategic hybridization of governance models, and alignment with global sustainability frameworks will be essential for NPs to thrive as both ecological sanctuaries and drivers of local development.