77 MARTINDALE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE References Abbasian, S., Onn, G., & Arnautovic, D. (2020). Overtourism in Dubrovnik in the eyes of local tourism employees: A qualitative study. Cogent Social Sciences, 6, 1775944. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2020.1775944 Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. (2016). Operation Storm — The battle for Croatia, 1995. Banac, I. (1984). Great Serbia and Great Yugoslavia. In The national question in Yugoslavia: Origins, history, politics (pp. 141–225). Cornell University Press. Bishop, K. L. (2014). Using cultural heritage as a tool for post-war recovery: Assessing the impact of heritage on recovery in post-war Dubrovnik, Croatia [Ph.D. dissertation]. University of York. Bobic, S., & Akhavan, M. (2022). Tourism gentrification in Mediterranean heritage cities: The necessity for multidisciplinary planning. Cities, 124, 103616. doi: 10.1016/j. cities.2022.103616 City of Dubrovnik. (n.d.-a). The destruction and restoration of Dubrovnik from 1991 until 2000. City of Dubrovnik. (n.d.-b). Restoration of Dubrovnik. City of Dubrovnik. (2017). Project Dubrovnik: Respect the City. Clack, T. (2022). Cultural heritage on the frontline: The destruction of peoples and identities in war. University of Oxford. Croatia 1991 (rev. 2013). (n.d.). Constitute Project. Corak, S., Mikacic, V., & Ataljevic, I. (2013). An ironic paradox: The longitudinal view on impacts of the 1990s Homeland War on tourism in Croatia. In R. Butler & W. Suntikul (Eds.), Tourism and war (pp. 161–175). Routledge. Croatian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Statistical yearbook of the Republic of Croatia 2013. Government of the Republic of Croatia. (2013). Proposal for tourism development strategy of the Republic of Croatia until 2020. Grad Dubrovnik. (n.d.). Historical Marker Database. Hensel, H. (2023). Yugoslav army shells Dubrovnik. EBSCO. Hristić, D. N., Pantić, M., & Stefanović, N. (2024). Tourism as an opportunity or the danger of saturation for the historical coastal towns. Sustainability, 16, 4080. doi:10.3390/su16104080 Kaminski, M. (1998, November 18). Croatia tries to lure tourists back; Hopes ride on marketing campaign. Wall Street Journal. lived through it. An example in Rijeka has had great success. There, NGO Without Borders works to preserve cultural and historical heritage while responding to the evolving needs of the community, addressing not only the legacy of and past conflict in Croatia but also the challenges residents face today (Udruga Bez granicam, n.d.). Such an organization could contribute to Dubrovnik’s postwar heritage recovery by working in ways that go beyond physical reconstruction and focus on community and cultural preservation. Specifically, it could preserve heritage through involving local residents directly, documenting memories, traditions, and oral historical accounts of the Old City to help restore a sense of community and heritage that was impaired during and after conflict. The organization could also advocate for balancing tourism with heritage protection, ensuring that the walled center not become increasingly a museum rather than a city. Instead, Dubrovnik can again be filled with residents and connected as a community. Finally, an NGO can plan events and support local arts in order to reactivate cultural spaces that have been damaged and underused since the war. This organization would seek to repair the living heritage of the Old City, one that cannot be easily reconstructed with the fixing of buildings alone. Dubrovnik should channel some of its high revenue from tourism into community repair, funding NGOs and cultural organizations that focus on its intangible heritage. Conclusion Considering Dubrovnik’s and wider Croatia’s rich cultural and historical history, the Old City must remain livable for residents, not just visitable by tourists. Yes, tourism is important for the economy of Croatia and can foster broader cross-cultural dialogue and understanding, but Dubrovnik’s current model is unsustainable. This article has noted the lasting marks that conflict can have on a given place, people, and cultural identity. Both conflict and rebuilding have serious impacts on physical spaces along with the mental health of inhabitants and the cultural heritage that connects them. How a country rebuilds matters as much as the rebuilding itself. A holistic approach is important for mitigating as many effects as possible. Dubrovnik illustrates what happens when physical reconstruction moves forward without a plan for the rest. Its walls have been rebuilt, but across Croatia, the harder work remains regarding maintaining community, memory, and cultural identity that reconstruction alone cannot deliver. Organizations like Rijeka’s NGO Without Borders demonstrate that intangible heritage recovery is possible but requires the same commitment Croatia once awarded to Dubrovnik in restoring its image.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==