4 PERSPECTIVES ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS | VOL 44 | 2026 given that in 2025 Croatia recorded more than 21.8 million tourist arrivals (Croatian National Tourist Board, 2026), nearly 15% higher than in 2018. To remain competitive while addressing these pressures, Croatia has opted to develop sustainable tourism models, efforts facilitated by EU frameworks (Bolfek et al., 2025; Pantovic et al., 2023). The National Recovery and Resilience Plan and the 2030 Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy aim to promote environmentally responsible tourism, improve resource management, and encourage more balanced regional and seasonal distribution (Bolfek et al., 2025; European Commission, 2021). Nonetheless, tourism continues to grow rapidly. Without careful management, Croatia could mirror trends in Spain, where widespread, unregulated tourism has contributed to housing shortages, environmental degradation, and public backlash against tourism, prompting cities like Barcelona to impose restrictions on short-term rentals and visitor capacity. Croatia is already experiencing similar stresses, most evident in the coastal destinations of Dubrovnik and Split (Bolfek et al., 2025; Macias, 2024). Moving to sustainable tourism calls for more than restricting tourist access to coastal areas or adding ecolodges; it demands a coordinated, interagency approach. Both providers and visitors are increasingly aware of these dangers and rethinking traditional vacation models (Pantovic et al., 2023). Some regions are already exploring limited and heavily monitored tourism in protected areas such as the Deliblato Sands Special Nature Reserve in Northern Serbia or adopting car-free models that collaborate with and benefit local communities (Croatian National Tourist Board, 2025; Trišić et al., 2023). Even so, these initiatives represent only first steps in national transformation. Even as Croatia has established the necessary policy frameworks and started integrating innovative solutions, their effectiveness depends on how they are implemented in practice, as explored in the next section. Drivers of Croatia’s compliance trap Croatia’s limited progress toward sustainability is not the result of insufficient policy adoption but of structural constraints that hinder effective implementation. As illustrated in Table 1, a divergence exists between high levels of formal compliance and limited ecological outcomes. This persistent gap defines Croatia’s compliance trap, in which policies are adopted and reported but not translated into measurable environmental improvements. *Pre-accession biodiversity estimates are not directly comparable to post-accession figures due to limited monitoring coverage and the absence of standardized EU reporting requirements prior to accession. †Data are from 2006 and include vascular plants and vertebrate/invertebrate fauna. Sources: aEuropean Environment Agency, 2025; bBiodiversity Information System for Europe, n.d.; cMinistry of Environmental Nature and Protection, 2014; dState Institute for Nature Protection, Ministry of Culture, Republic of Croatia, 2006. Table 1 Croatia’s formal compliance versus outcomes Indicator Pre–EU accession* Post–EU accession* What it shows Protected land (%) 12.3 (2012)a 38.2b Rapid legislative alignment with EU conservation requirements Natura 2000 sites 0 783b Formal compliance driven by EU accession Protected marine area (%) ~2c 9.5b Expansion of marine conservation in alignment with Natura 2000 Species with favorable status (%) ~40†,d 7.14b Improved reporting reveals conservation challenges Species with poor/bad status (%) ~43†,d ~46b Persistent threats to biodiversity despite policy compliance Species with unknown status (%) ~17†,d ~47b Limited monitoring capacity due to structural constraints Indicator Pre–EU accession* Post–EU accession* What it shows Protected land (%) 12.3 (2012)a 38.2b Rapid legislative alignment with EU conservation requirements Natura 2000 sites 0 783b Formal compliance driven by EU accession Protected marine area (%) ~2c 9.5b Expansion of marine conservation in alignment with Natura 2000 Species with favorable status (%) ~40†,d 7.14b Improved reporting reveals conservation challenges Species with poor/bad status (%) ~43†,d ~46b Persistent threats to biodiversity despite policy compliance Species with unknown status (%) ~17†,d ~47b Limited monitoring capacity due to structural constraints Indicator Pre–EU accession* Post–EU accession* What it shows Protected land (%) 12.3 (2012)a 38.2b Rapid legislative alignment with EU conservation requirements Natura 2000 sites 0 783b Formal compliance driven by EU accession Protected marine area (%) ~2c 9.5b Expansion of marine conservation in alignment with Natura 2000 Species with favorable status (%) ~40†,d 7.14b Improved reporting reveals conservation challenges Species with poor/bad status (%) ~43†,d ~46b Persistent threats to biodiversity despite policy compliance Species with unknown status (%) ~17†,d ~47b Limited monitoring capacity due to structural constraints Indicator Pre–EU accession* Post–EU accession* What it shows Protected land (%) 12.3 (2012)a 38.2b Rapid legislative alignment with EU conservation requirements Natura 2000 sites 0 783b Formal compliance driven by EU accession Protected marine area (%) ~2c 9.5b Expansion of marine conservation in alignment with Natura 2000 Species with favorable status (%) ~40†,d 7.14b Improved reporting reveals conservation challenges Species with poor/bad status (%) ~43†,d ~46b Persistent threats to biodiversity despite policy compliance Species with unknown status (%) ~17†,d ~47b Limited monitoring capacity due to structural constraints Improved reporting reveals conservation challenges
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==