Conservation Under Siege: The Intersection of Tourism and Environmental Threats in Croatian Protected Areas

Abstract

This paper investigates the illegal activities that may negatively impact the environment in Croatia’s protected areas, particularly those associated with tourism. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and sensitivity analysis are used to identify distinct high-risk activities specific to different park types. Coastal parks are found to be particularly vulnerable to maritime-related illegal activities, with high risk exposure from mooring vessels and swimming in prohibited areas. These parks also face significant risks from illegal fishing and the capture of strictly protected plants and animals, highlighting the need for enhanced marine ecosystem protection. Mountainous and forest parks face significant risks from fire-related activities, while wetland parks are sensitive to poaching and illegal fishing. Additionally, diverse landscape parks show increased vulnerability to littering, poaching, and the collection or harvesting of strictly protected plants and animals. The results underscore the necessity for tailored risk-management strategies that prioritize interventions based on park-specific challenges. By addressing the unique vulnerabilities of each park type, this study contributes insights into mitigating environmental threats posed by tourism and emphasizes the importance of continuous monitoring and adaptive management in protected areas.

1. Introduction

Protected areas play a critical role in the conservation of biodiversity, the preservation of natural habitats, and the provision of recreational opportunities. In Croatia, national parks represent vital ecosystems that support a diverse range of species and offer unique natural experiences for visitors. However, these protected areas face growing threats from various forms of illegal activities committed by visitors, which pose significant risks to their ecological health and conservation goals [1,2].

1.1. The Role of Protected Areas in Sustainable Tourism

Protected natural areas serve as critical assets for biodiversity conservation, recreation, and education. These areas are designed to safeguard natural habitats and promote environmental stewardship while providing opportunities for tourism that can benefit local communities and economies [3]. However, balancing the demands of tourism with the need for conservation presents significant challenges. The concept of sustainable tourism, which seeks to harmonize environmental preservation with socio-economic development, is fundamental to managing protected areas effectively [4].

Local perceptions of sustainable tourism in the Jaltepeque Estuary Biosphere Reserve in El Salvador indicate that effective management of biosphere reserves necessitates actionable strategies rather than mere rhetoric. Successful implementation relies on understanding and integrating these perceptions into management practices to achieve genuine sustainability outcomes [4]. Effective implementation of regulatory frameworks is essential for promoting a sustainable tourism model that supports both local communities and environmental conservation [4].

1.2. Environmental Impacts of Tourism in Protected Areas

Tourism can both support and threaten the conservation goals of protected areas. On one hand, it provides economic opportunities and raises awareness about environmental issues. On the other hand, unregulated tourism can lead to environmental degradation, such as habitat destruction, pollution, and the disturbance of wildlife [5]. The study of tourism in Vojvodina’s protected natural areas highlights that appropriate management measures and the implementation of effective protection strategies are necessary to prevent overexploitation of natural resources [6].

The significance of tourism planning lies in its ability to integrate considerations of the natural environment alongside national identity. Effective planning should aim to harmonize the preservation of ecological integrity with the cultural values that define a nation’s identity. This approach not only enhances the visitor experience but also fosters a sense of stewardship among local communities, aligning with the principles of sustainable tourism management [7].

1.3. Nature-Based Solutions for Sustainable Tourism Development

Nature-based Solutions (NbSs) offer promising strategies for addressing the socio-economic pressures of tourism in protected areas. NbSs utilize natural processes to achieve conservation goals and manage environmental risks, offering a framework for integrating ecological and social sustainability into tourism practices [5]. These solutions advocate for approaches that support biodiversity conservation while meeting the needs of local communities.

Research indicates that tools like impact assessments are effective in evaluating the environmental effects of tourism activities [8]. Systematic assessments play a critical role in balancing the benefits of tourism with the necessity for conservation. This highlights the importance of impact evaluation in the management of protected areas, as it helps inform strategies that protect natural resources while supporting sustainable tourism initiatives [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15].

1.4. Challenges in Protected Area Management

Illegal activities pose significant threats to the integrity of protected areas worldwide. Globally, actions such as poaching, illegal fishing, unauthorized construction, and habitat destruction have been recognized as major drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation [16,17,18]. These activities disrupt the ecological balance, degrade natural habitats, and undermine the effectiveness of conservation efforts.

In Europe, research has also highlighted the interplay between human pressures—such as tourism—and illegal activities in sensitive ecosystems like national parks, where balancing visitor use with environmental protection is a persistent challenge [19]. Croatian national and nature parks are no exception, facing similar pressures due to their ecological diversity and high visitor numbers [19].

Balancing tourism and conservation has emerged as a critical focus in protected area management. Research highlights the dual impact of tourism, where economic benefits and conservation funding often come at the cost of ecological degradation. High visitor numbers contribute to illegal activities, and overuse of resources, amplifying the need for robust management strategies [6,7,9].

While efforts in Croatian protected areas have primarily concentrated on broader conservation issues like climate change, wildfire management, and visitor impacts, fewer studies have examined illegal activities as direct threats. Existing research has explored tools like Geographic Information Systems (GISs) for monitoring environmental risks and assessing park-management effectiveness [10,15]. However, understanding the frequency, distribution, and environmental impacts of illegal activities across diverse ecosystems remains underexplored.

Analyzing the drivers and consequences of illegal activities within the specific context of protected areas offers valuable insights for tailoring conservation measures. Incorporating these considerations into broader conservation frameworks can improve the sustainability and resilience of protected ecosystems, ensuring their preservation for future generations [9,13].

1.5. Research Objectives

The purpose of this study is to analyze regional differences in the frequency and types of illegal activities committed by visitors across various national parks in Croatia, focusing on their potential as risk factors that could lead to negative environmental consequences. By examining how these illegal activities vary between regions and identifying their environmental impacts, this research aims to provide valuable insights for developing effective management strategies and improving conservation practices in Croatia’s protected areas.

The specific goals of this study are to analyze regional patterns in the frequency and types of illegal activities as environmental threats across Croatian national parks and nature parks, to formulate region-specific recommendations aimed at improving conservation efforts and mitigating the risks posed by these illegal activities, and to investigate potential correlations between park-visitation rates, accessibility, and the occurrence of illegal activities in order to guide targeted management strategies.

In light of these objectives, this study seeks to address the following key questions:

• What are the regional patterns in the frequency and types of illegal activities across Croatian national parks and nature parks?
• How do risk-exposure levels differ among various park types in Croatia, and what specific challenges do these differences present for conservation efforts?
• What recommendations can be formulated to improve conservation efforts based on the observed patterns of illegal activities in the parks?

The effective management of protected areas requires a nuanced understanding of the environmental impacts of tourism and the implementation of sustainable practices. The challenges identified in global studies, from the impacts of urbanization and tourism to the role of local perceptions and nature-based solutions, provide a valuable context for exploring the specific issues faced by national parks and nature parks in Croatia [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31].

The significance of this study lies in its potential to address the current gaps in research on illegal activities in Croatian national parks and nature parks by offering a comprehensive, region-specific assessment. While existing studies have explored the broader impacts of such activities [32,33], there has been limited examination of how these activities and their environmental consequences vary across different park types.

Current research indicates that illegal activities in protected areas are widely acknowledged as major threats to biodiversity and ecosystem health [33,34]. However, there is a need for more detailed, localized studies to better understand these threats. In Croatian national parks, previous research has highlighted the presence of illegal activities [33] but has not sufficiently explored the regional differences or the specific environmental threats they pose. By focusing on the frequency, types, and environmental impacts of illegal activities across different park regions, this study aims to support the development of more effective, targeted conservation measures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Study Area and Design

The study was conducted across seventeen national parks and nature parks in Croatia from 2021 to 2023. These parks were selected to represent a diverse range of ecosystems and geographical locations, categorized as follows:

• Coastal parks: Brijuni, Krka, Kornati, Mljet, Telašćica, Lastovo Islands
• Mountainous and forest parks: Northern Velebit, Risnjak, Velebit, Biokovo, Učka, Medvednica, Papuk
• Wetland and lowland parks: Kopački Rit, Lonjsko Polje
• Diverse landscape parks: Plitvice Lakes, Krka, Paklenica.

These parks were chosen for their representativeness of Croatia’s protected areas network and their varying levels of tourist activity and environmental pressures.

A comprehensive research design was implemented to collect data on illegal activities and environmental management practices (Figure 1). The study focused on 17 specific illegal activities that visitors might engage in, which negatively impact the environment. These include unauthorized construction, illegal fishing, poaching, capturing strictly protected plants and animals, illegal logging, illegal exploitation of mineral resources, improper waste disposal, littering, causing fires, lighting fires outside designated areas, driving/parking outside designated areas, anchoring vessels (in inland waters), mooring vessels (on maritime property), camping in prohibited areas, swimming in prohibited areas, damaging visitor infrastructure, and installing signs/advertisements without permission [35,36].

2.2. Data Collection

Data for this study were gathered through a comprehensive document review of park-management reports, visitor logs, and official records of illegal activities in Croatian national and nature parks. These documents were sourced from online repositories and official park databases, ensuring access to reliable and up-to-date information. The reviewed materials provided detailed records of the types and frequency of illegal activities, as well as visitor numbers and management practices, across different park regions. The data collection spanned from January 2021 to April 2024, allowing for a thorough analysis of illegal activity trends and patterns during this period [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59].

2.3. Data Analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were employed to analyze the data:

• Qualitative analysis: A thematic analysis was performed on the document reviews to identify common patterns, challenges, and management strategies related to illegal activities in different park regions. This allowed for a deeper understanding of the contextual factors influencing illegal activities and their impact on conservation efforts. For qualitative analysis, additional data were drawn from records regarding the protection, maintenance, preservation, promotion, and use of the parks, as well as information on undertaken projects [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. These data were crucial for scoring the risk exposure.
• Quantitative analysis: For quantitative analysis, the study utilized records on illegal activities documented in park-management reports, including frequency and type of offenses [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. These data were essential in constructing a baseline for understanding the scope of illegal activities in the parks. Descriptive statistics, including means, medians, and percentages, were calculated to evaluate the contribution of each illegal activity to the overall risk exposure in each park type. To determine whether there were significant differences in risk exposure between the various park types (e.g., coastal, mountainous, wetland, and diverse landscape parks), a one-way ANOVA test was conducted. To investigate the regional patterns in the frequency and types of illegal activities across Croatian national and nature parks, as well as the differences in risk-exposure levels and their implications for conservation efforts, the following hypotheses were formulated:
  • Null Hypothesis (H0): There are no statistically significant differences in the frequency and types of illegal activities across different regions and park types in Croatian national and nature parks.
  • Alternative Hypothesis (H1): There are statistically significant differences in the frequency and types of illegal activities across different regions and park types in Croatian national and nature parks.

2.4. Risk Analysis

The risk analysis involves a comprehensive process of risk identification, qualitative and quantitative risk analysis, and an overview of risk monitoring and controlling (Figure 1). The goal is to assess the risk exposure associated with illegal activities across various Croatian national and nature parks.

2.4.1. Risk Identification

Two primary methods were used for risk identification: Problem Tree Analysis and the Ishikawa Diagram [60,61]:

• The Problem Tree Analysis was used to deconstruct illegal activities in Croatian protected areas into their root causes (underlying systemic issues), direct causes (immediate triggers), and consequences. This method allowed for a systematic understanding of the interconnected factors contributing to each illegal activity:
  • Identifying core problems: The starting point was to identify illegal activities as the central issue affecting protected areas.
  • Root causes and driving factors: The analysis mapped the underlying drivers of these activities, such as insufficient law enforcement, inadequate visitor education, and socio-economic pressures on surrounding communities. These factors were grouped under broader categories, including policy gaps, lack of infrastructure, and visitor behavior.
  • Consequences: The Problem Tree illustrated the cascading effects of these activities, such as habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, and decreased ecological resilience. This visual representation clarified how illegal activities are not isolated issues but part of a larger system of challenges.

By breaking down the problem into these components, the Problem Tree Analysis informed the prioritization of interventions, focusing on addressing root causes rather than symptoms.

2.

The Ishikawa Diagram (Fishbone Diagram) was employed to visually categorize the potential causes of illegal activities into key groups. This tool facilitated the identification of patterns and interrelations among contributing factors, offering a structured approach to addressing these issues.

The Ishikawa Diagram grouped causes of illegal activities into categories such as:

• Institutional factors: Gaps in enforcement, policy inconsistencies, and lack of interagency coordination.
• Environmental factors: Geographic challenges, such as the difficulty of monitoring remote or rugged areas.
• Human factors: Visitor behaviors, local economic pressures, and lack of awareness about conservation rules.
• Technological factors: Limited use of advanced monitoring tools like drones and GIS systems.

This categorization helped identify how different factors interrelate. For example, inadequate monitoring technology in remote areas (a technological factor) exacerbates the inability to detect unauthorized construction (an institutional factor).

The outputs from the Ishikawa Diagram were directly used to refine the FMEA scoring. For example, the difficulty of detection due to geographic challenges was incorporated into the D (Detection) dimension of FMEA, ensuring that scores reflected real-world conditions.

These methods enhanced the research by:

• Comprehensive risk identification: Both methods provided complementary insights. The Problem Tree focused on causal pathways, while the Ishikawa Diagram emphasized categorizing and interrelating the factors contributing to illegal activities.
• Data-driven prioritization: Findings from these tools informed the allocation of risk-exposure (RE) scores by grounding them in a detailed understanding of the causes and challenges specific to each illegal activity.
• Improved targeting of management strategies: Combining insights from these methods enabled the identification of specific intervention points, such as enhancing enforcement mechanisms or increasing visitor education efforts in high-risk areas.

2.4.2. Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Analysis

To prioritize the risks for further analysis, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were employed. Qualitative analysis involves assessing the risk factors based on their likelihood of occurrence and potential impact. In contrast, the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method [62,63] was used for quantitative risk analysis, evaluating risks based on three dimensions: probability of occurrence (O), severity (S), and detection (D). FMEA assigns numerical values (1–5) for each dimension, where higher numbers indicate a higher risk. The allocation of scores for O (Occurrence), S (Severity), and D (Detection) was informed by the results of risk identification conducted during the study. This process involved analyzing specific illegal activities observed across Croatian national and nature parks and their underlying causes, as identified using the Problem Tree Analysis and the Ishikawa Diagram.

Scores for occurrence (O) were assigned based on risk identification findings, including reports from Croatian protected areas that document the frequency of illegal activities and reflect the geographic and environmental conditions influencing their prevalence.

Severity scores (S) reflect the ecological impact of illegal activities, determined through the analysis of their direct and indirect consequences. These scores were assigned based on:

• The nature of the ecosystem affected (e.g., wetlands with sensitive biodiversity received higher severity scores for activities like poaching and capturing protected species).
• The potential for recovery (e.g., activities causing long-term habitat damage were scored higher than those with short-term effects).

The detection (D) dimension in FMEA represents the likelihood of detecting an illegal activity before it causes significant harm. Detection scores were based on the ease or difficulty of detecting each illegal activity. A lower detection probability (higher score) increases the overall risk exposure (RE) because undetected activities are more likely to persist and escalate, leading to greater environmental damage. Conversely, a higher detection probability (lower score) reduces RE, as activities that are easily detected can be addressed promptly, minimizing their impact. For example, high detection probability (Score = 1): Littering in highly monitored tourist areas is often noticed quickly by park staff or visitors, reducing its risk exposure. Low detection probability (Score = 5): Poaching in remote wetland areas is challenging to detect due to dense vegetation and limited surveillance, increasing the associated risk exposure. This “inverse relationship” ensures that the scoring reflects the critical role of monitoring and enforcement in mitigating illegal activities. The scores were assigned using:

• Current monitoring capabilities in each park type (e.g., the use of surveillance tools like drones or patrolling practices).
• Visibility of activities (e.g., littering in open areas had higher detection probabilities compared to poaching in dense forests).

The overall Risk Exposure (RE) is calculated as:

RE = O × S × D,

(1)

where:

RE = Risk Exposure

O = Probability of Risk Occurrence

S = Probability of Risk Severity

D = Probability of Detection.

The probability of occurrence, probability of impact and probability of detection for each type of illegal activity, are estimated. A scale of 1–5 for all of them is used:

The scale definitions for FMEA analysis:

O (Probability of Risk Occurrence):

1—Very rare occurrence

2—Uncommon occurrence

3—Moderate occurrence

4—Frequent occurrence

5—Very frequent occurrence

S (Probability of Risk Severity):

1—Negligible impact on the environment

2—Minor impact on the environment

3—Moderate impact, some recovery required

4—Significant impact, recovery difficult

5—Severe impact, long-term recovery

D (Probability of Detection):

1—Very high detection probability (easily noticed)

2—High detection probability

3—Moderate detection probability

4—Low detection probability

5—Very low detection probability (hardly detected)

The scoring process incorporated both qualitative and quantitative data from the park-management reports [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. These reports provided the necessary insights for allocating scores, ensuring that the scoring criteria reflected the documented trends and practices in each park. The scoring for the risk exposure was carried out using a systematic approach based on the evidence of illegal activities, management actions, and ongoing projects as presented in the reports.

The allocation of scores involved interpreting the frequency and impact of identified illegal activities, along with assessing the likelihood of detection based on the current management practices in place. The final scores reflect a combination of observed trends, expert assessments embedded within the reports, and the established conservation frameworks applied in the parks.

Sensitivity analysis [64]:

Sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore how variations in the risk factors impact overall risk exposure. The Total Risk Exposure (TRE) calculation includes only the illegal activities that are identified as relevant to each park type, rather than all 17 activities. For example, in coastal parks, activities like mooring vessels, illegal fishing, and swimming in prohibited areas are included in TRE, as these are the most relevant risks. Activities unrelated to the coastal context, such as illegal logging, are excluded.

Similarly, in wetland parks, activities like poaching and capturing protected species are prioritized, while maritime-related activities like anchoring vessels are not considered.

This selective inclusion ensures that the TRE reflects the actual risk landscape of each park, aligning with its unique environmental and operational challenges.

By adjusting the risk exposure (RE) of each illegal activity by ±20%, we evaluated the robustness of the assessment and identified critical factors.

The Total Risk Exposure (TRE) for each park type was calculated as the sum of all risk exposures (REs) across activities:

Total Risk Exposure (TRE) = Σ (RE values for all illegal activities),

(2)

While calculating risk exposure is essential for assessing the current risk landscape, sensitivity analysis introduces a dynamic element. It enables a better understanding of potential variations, helps prioritize actions, and supports the development of more resilient and adaptive management strategies [64].

2.5. Ethical Considerations

This study adhered to established ethical research standards, prioritizing the confidentiality and security of all collected data. Since the data were exclusively sourced from publicly available reports and documents, no personal or sensitive information was involved. All data were securely stored and analyzed in accordance with ethical guidelines for managing publicly accessible information.

2.6. Limitations and Data Availability

Several limitations may influence the interpretation of results and the applicability of findings. The geographical scope of the research is limited to selected Croatian national and nature parks. While these parks represent diverse ecosystems, the findings may not be generalizable to all protected areas in Croatia. The reliance on data derived exclusively from park-management reports introduces potential reporting bias, as these reports may underreport certain activities or overemphasize others due to institutional priorities or limited resources.

The comprehensiveness of risk identification depends heavily on the quality of existing reports and observations, which can vary across parks due to differences in monitoring capacities and reporting standards. Additionally, while the scoring process for risk exposure (RE) follows a systematic framework, it involves qualitative interpretation of data. This introduces a degree of subjectivity, even though efforts were made to align the scores with documented evidence. Predicting the long-term effectiveness of management measures is also inherently uncertain. Evolving environmental challenges, such as shifts in visitor behavior and emerging illegal activities, may affect the relevance and performance of current strategies.

All materials, data, and protocols used in this study are publicly available. The datasets utilized in the analysis are available through park-management repositories, and the analysis scripts can be obtained upon request from the corresponding authors.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of Illegal Activities in Croatian National Park and Nature Parks by Regions

The occurrence of illegal activities—such as unauthorized construction, illegal fishing, poaching, capturing protected species, illegal logging, mineral exploitation, improper waste disposal, littering, starting fires, driving/parking in restricted areas, anchoring and mooring vessels in prohibited waters, camping or swimming in unauthorized areas, damaging infrastructure, and installing unauthorized signage—varied in both causes and consequences depending on the type of park. These activities often stem from a combination of human pressure, lack of enforcement, and accessibility, with their environmental impact differing significantly based on the ecological and geographical characteristics of each park. Visitor density, a critical factor influencing the frequency and types of illegal activities, varies significantly across parks. For the period from 2021 to 2023, the visitor density data (

Table 1. The visitor density across the parks for coastal, parks, mountainous and forest parks, wetland and lowland parks and diverse landscape parks for 2021–2023.

Park Name	Visitor Density (Visitors/km2)	Park Type
Brijuni	20,991.1	Coastal park
Krka	12,881.4	Diverse landscape park
Plitvice Lakes	11,502.2	Diverse landscape park
Medvednica	7251.0	Mountainous and forest park
Telašćica	4550.4	Coastal park
Učka	4413.9	Mountainous and forest park
Mljet	3639.4	Coastal park
Paklenica	3136.6	Diverse landscape park
Biokovo	2818.1	Mountainous and forest park
Lastovo Islands	2606.5	Coastal park
Kornati	2439.9	Coastal park
Risnjak	992.9	Mountainous and forest park
Northern Velebit	839.0	Mountainous and forest park
Papuk	665.2	Mountainous and forest park
Kopački Rit	572.4	Wetland and lowland park
Lonjsko Polje	158.9	Wetland and lowland park
Velebit	62.0	Mountainous and forest park

These variations in visitor density further contribute to the diverse patterns of illegal activities observed across the parks.

) highlight the disparity in human pressures faced by different park types. Coastal parks, such as Brijuni and Krka, experience much higher visitor densities compared to wetland and lowland parks like Lonjsko Polje and Kopački Rit.

3.1.1. Risk Identification in Coastal Parks

Croatian coastal national parks, such as Brijuni, Kornati, Mljet, Telašćica, and Lastovo Islands are defined by rugged shorelines, Mediterranean vegetation, and extensive marine areas. Popular tourist activities include boating, swimming, and sightseeing. These parks face significant pressures from maritime activities, particularly in summer, which leads to a range of illegal activities:

• Mooring vessels on maritime property can cause shoreline erosion and damage to coastal habitats. Coastal parks with attractive bays, such as Brijuni and Mljet, are more prone to illegal mooring, increasing the risk of habitat degradation. Shoreline change analysis using satellite imagery, vessel count surveys, and statistical analysis of mooring patterns are key tools in addressing this issue.
• Illegal fishing results in overfishing, disruption of aquatic ecosystems, and economic impacts on local fishing communities. Coastal parks attract a high density of both recreational and professional fishermen due to their proximity to rich marine ecosystems. Overfishing and illegal methods (e.g., using non-permitted nets or catching endangered species) increase the risk to marine biodiversity, which is highly sensitive to even slight changes in population balance. Marine parks like Brijuni, Mljet and Kornati are particularly vulnerable to illegal fishing due to their rich marine biodiversity. Fish stock assessments, acoustic surveys, and statistical modeling of fish populations are essential for monitoring and mitigating this risk.
• Capture of strictly protected marine animals (e.g., dolphins, sea turtles) disrupts the balance of marine ecosystems, threatens endangered species, and alters food chains. Coastal parks often harbor endemic and rare species, including marine life, coastal vegetation, and bird species, making them particularly vulnerable to illegal activities. The presence of biodiversity hotspots in these parks escalates the risk of disruption when such species are captured illegally. Wildlife population surveys, remote sensing, and statistical analysis of species abundance are critical for managing this activity.
• Illegal construction, particularly related to tourism infrastructure, can fragment habitats and erode shorelines. The attractive coastal location leads to the temptation for unauthorized development, especially illegal housing or tourist facilities, which damages fragile ecosystems like salt marshes, dune habitats, and coastal forests. Coastal erosion and habitat loss are common consequences. Coastal parks like Kornati, Mljet, and Telašćica face higher pressures from tourism-related construction, which threatens the natural aesthetic and ecological integrity. Satellite imagery analysis and land use classification can help monitor and control this activity.

3.1.2. Risk Identification in Mountainous and Forest Parks

The mountainous and forest parks, such as Northern Velebit, Paklenica, Risnjak, and Plitvice Lakes, are characterized by rugged terrain, dense forests, and remote areas. These parks attract tourists for hiking, camping, and wildlife observation. However, their remoteness also leads to several illegal activities that threaten forest and wildlife ecosystems:

• Causing fires and lighting fires outside designated areas increases the risk of uncontrolled wildfires, soil degradation, and human–wildlife conflicts. Forest fires are a major ecological threat in these parks, particularly in the summer. The vast forested areas combined with dry conditions make these regions highly susceptible to fires, often started by visitors who neglect fire safety rules. Fires can devastate large swathes of forests, destroy wildlife habitats, and increase soil erosion. Thermal imaging for fire detection and spatial analysis of fire patterns are effective preventive measures.
• Poaching, particularly of large mammals, disrupts predator–prey relationships and reduces game animal populations. Forest parks like Northern Velebit and Risnjak face higher pressures from poaching due to their large mammal populations. Anti-poaching patrol data, wildlife tracking, and machine learning for predictive poaching patterns are necessary tools for managing this risk.
• Illegal logging in forest parks leads to deforestation, habitat loss, and increased flood risks. Parks with valuable timber resources, like Risnjak and Velebit, are especially at risk of illegal logging. LiDAR surveys, satellite-based deforestation detection, and predictive logging models can help mitigate these impacts.
• Capture of strictly protected terrestrial animals, such as wolves or bears, poses risks of species population decline and ecosystem imbalance. Inland parks like Risnjak and Plitvice Lakes are particularly vulnerable to terrestrial animal capture. Wildlife surveys, camera traps, and statistical analysis of species population trends are vital for risk management.
• Camping and bivouacking outside designated areas can lead to vegetation trampling, increased fire risks, and human–wildlife conflicts. Remote parks like Northern Velebit, due to their isolation and scenic appeal, attract unauthorized camping. Night-time thermal imaging and spatial analysis of camping hotspots are essential for preventing these activities.
• Illegal extraction of mineral resources affects landscape integrity, causes water pollution, and destroys habitats. Mountainous areas are often rich in minerals and geological resources, leading to illegal quarrying or mining activities. Geological surveys and hyperspectral imaging are important methods for monitoring and preventing this activity.

3.1.3. Risk Identification in Wetland and Lowland Parks

The wetland and lowland parks like Kopački Rit and Lonjsko Polje are home to diverse ecosystems that support rich biodiversity. These parks attract visitors for birdwatching, boat tours, and hiking, but also face unique risks:

• Poaching and capturing protected species: The diverse ecosystems harbor many vulnerable species, leading to high risk scores for these activities.
• Dumping of large quantities of waste near wetland areas, particularly in parks near urban zones, leads to soil and water contamination, wildlife poisoning, and aesthetic degradation. Waste quantification surveys and GIS hotspot analysis help identify and control waste dumping.
• Littering, particularly near tourist hotspots, leads to microplastic pollution, wildlife ingestion of harmful materials, and the degradation of the visitor experience. Even small amounts of pollutants can spread through the water system, affecting large areas of the ecosystem.

3.1.4. Risk Identification in Diverse Landscape Parks

Diverse landscape parks, like Plitvice Lakes, Krka, and Paklenica, encompass a variety of ecosystems, including forests, lakes, rivers, and karst landscapes. These parks are characterized by high biodiversity and attract a large number of visitors year-round due to their scenic beauty and natural landmarks.

With high tourist volumes, especially at sites like Plitvice Lakes and Krka, improper waste management becomes a major issue. Littering not only damages scenic beauty but also disrupts aquatic ecosystems, particularly in lake areas where waste can accumulate and affect water quality.

Many of these parks feature iconic lakes and rivers, but swimming is prohibited in certain zones to protect fragile ecosystems. However, tourists often violate these rules, leading to ecological disturbance, particularly in sensitive zones such as waterfall pools or underground water systems.

Due to high visitor density, infrastructure like boardwalks, viewing platforms, and informational signs frequently get damaged, often unintentionally. This damage can limit access to key parts of the parks and increase the risk of visitors trampling sensitive vegetation or disturbing wildlife.

Though forested, many of these parks are susceptible to fires, especially during dry seasons. Visitors who neglect fire safety rules or engage in unauthorized camping or picnicking contribute to the heightened fire risk.

The diversity of these parks makes them home to many endangered species. Unauthorized collection of rare plants or the poaching of wildlife can severely disrupt the local ecosystems.

These parks are highly popular, experiencing heavy tourist traffic, which increases the pressure on ecosystems. Their geological diversity, including karst features and water bodies, makes them vulnerable to a wide range of illegal activities, particularly those related to water ecosystems and vegetation.

3.2. The Risk-Exposure Analysis of Illegal Activities in Croatian National Parks and Nature Parks

3.2.1. Regional Patterns in the Frequency and Types of Illegal Activities Across Croatian National Parks and Nature Parks

The top five illegal activities for each park type, ranked by descending risk exposure (RE), highlight distinct regional patterns influenced by ecological characteristics, visitor density, and accessibility (

Table 2. Regional patterns of illegal activities in Croatian parks.

Park Type	Top Five Illegal Activities	Key Impacts
Coastal parks	Mooring vessels Swimming in prohibited areas Illegal fishing Unauthorized construction Capturing protected species	Damage to marine ecosystems, and harm to protected species (e.g., Pinna nobilis).
Mountainous and forest parks	Causing fires Lighting fires, Unauthorized construction Illegal logging Poaching	Habitat destruction, wildfire risk, overexploitation of natural resources.
Wetland and lowland parks	Poaching Capturing protected species Illegal fishing Littering Waste disposal	Biodiversity loss, aquatic ecosystem degradation, pollution.
Diverse landscape parks	Littering Poaching Capturing protected species Swimming in prohibited areas Lighting fires	Visitor-related environmental degradation, and wildlife disturbances.

).

In coastal parks (Brijuni, Kornati, Mljet, Telašćica, Lastovo Islands), the highest risk exposure is due to mooring vessels on maritime property, swimming in prohibited areas, and illegal fishing (Table 2). These actions harm sensitive marine ecosystems, including Posidonia oceanica meadows and the habitats of endangered species like the Mediterranean monk seal. Unauthorized construction and waste disposal disrupt both terrestrial and marine environments while capturing protected species, such as the Pinna nobilis, poses a serious risk to biodiversity. Each park, including Kornati, Lastovo, and Mljet, is implementing targeted conservation measures, such as increased surveillance and habitat monitoring, to combat these activities.

Brijuni, Kornati, Mljet, Telašćica, and Lastovo Islands have tailored their strategies to protect their distinctive environments. Kornati and Lastovo focus on preserving marine biodiversity, particularly Posidonia meadows and coral reefs, while Brijuni emphasizes species monitoring and habitat restoration. Telašćica and Mljet concentrate on mitigating the impact of fishing and boating activities. Each park collaborates with environmental agencies, enhancing conservation policies and strengthening enforcement efforts to address these challenges, yet the need for continuous protection remains critical to safeguarding Croatia’s natural heritage.

In mountainous and forest parks, illegal activities such as unauthorized construction and illegal logging pose significant risks due to the relative isolation and vast areas of dense forests, which make it easier to conduct such activities undetected (

Table 3. The risk exposure for coastal, parks, mountainous and forest parks, wetland and lowland parks and diverse landscape parks for 2021–2023.

Illegal Activity	Coastal Parks	Mountainous and Forest Parks	Wetland and Lowland Parks	Diverse Landscape Parks
Unauthorized construction	21.6	29.2	16.0	21.3
Illegal fishing	22.8	0.2	32.0	5.9
Poaching	14.3	23.7	45.0	31.1
Capturing strictly protected plants and animals	22.2	23.1	45.0	31.1
Illegal logging	12.3	22.3	12.0	12.0
Illegal exploitation of mineral resources	0.0	23.5	15.8	7.7
Waste disposal outside designated areas	15.1	13.3	18.0	16.0
Littering outside designated areas	13.2	18.0	27.0	36.0
Causing fires	12.0	37.6	6.0	22.2
Lighting fires outside settlements and designated places	12.6	34.3	12.0	24.9
Driving and parking outside designated areas	7.9	23.3	18.0	10.0
Anchoring Vessels (in inland waters)	0.0	0.0	26.3	5.9
Mooring vessels (on maritime property)	24.3	0.0	0.0	0.0
Camping in prohibited areas	13.4	16.7	15.0	20.0
Swimming in prohibited areas	23	3.4	18.8	29.3
Damaging visitor infrastructure	7.7	10.3	9.0	20.0
Installing signs, advertisements, etc., without permission	8.6	14.6	4.5	6.2

, Figure 2). For example, the risk exposure for unauthorized construction is higher (29.2) in these regions due to the difficult terrain and the large areas, often with limited patrol coverage. Similarly, illegal logging (22.3) occurs due to the economic value of timber, especially in parks where forested areas are extensive. These parks also face poaching (23.7) threats due to the presence of large game like deer and boar, which attract hunters despite strict regulations.

Wetland and lowland parks like Kopački Rit and Lonjsko Polje face unique challenges due to their environmental composition. Illegal fishing (32.0) is particularly prevalent in these areas due to the rich aquatic ecosystems, and the dense network of rivers and wetlands makes enforcement difficult. For example, the vast floodplains of Kopački Rit are home to significant fish populations, attracting poachers despite efforts to regulate fishing activities. Poaching (45.0) is also a high-risk activity in these parks because of the abundant wildlife, including protected species like deer, birds, and other fauna that are highly sought after (Table 3, Figure 2).

The threat of illegal exploitation of mineral resources (15.8) is notable, as Lonjsko Polje and Kopački Rit possess peat bogs, which may be illegally harvested for use in various industries. Moreover, waste disposal outside designated areas (18.0) and littering (27.0) are common due to the wide distribution of visitor access points, and the intricate waterways, which can easily hide illegal waste disposal. Although less frequent, causing fires (6.0) and lighting fires outside designated areas (12.0) are still risks, primarily during drier seasons when visitors may use open flames in unauthorized areas.

Diverse landscape parks like Plitvice Lakes, Krka, and Paklenica are popular tourist destinations with high visitor density, which makes certain illegal activities more prevalent. Swimming in prohibited areas (29.3) is a frequent issue, particularly in Plitvice and Krka, where the park’s waterfalls and lakes attract large numbers of tourists despite regulations prohibiting swimming to protect fragile ecosystems. The complexity of the terrain in Paklenica also makes illegal fishing (5.9) and poaching (31.1) challenging to monitor due to its mountainous areas, despite these activities not being commonly reported.

Anchoring vessels (in inland waters) (5.9) is relevant in parks like Krka and Plitvice, where boat tours are part of the tourism infrastructure. Visitors often anchor illegally in certain sections of the rivers, threatening the ecosystems. Littering outside designated areas (36.0) is also common due to the sheer number of visitors. Unauthorized construction (21.3) and illegal logging (12.0) are more localized risks but are still present, especially in areas adjacent to park borders, where enforcement may be weaker.

Driving and parking outside designated areas (23.3) is a relatively common issue, especially in parks that attract tourists for hiking or other outdoor activities. The geographical remoteness often leads visitors to park in undesignated areas, causing environmental damage. Lighting fires outside settlements (34.3) is another serious concern, especially in the dry season, as it poses a high fire risk in these densely forested regions. Fires could have devastating consequences, particularly in Velebit and Biokovo, where the risk of wildfires is high due to the dry, Mediterranean climate (Table 3, Figure 2).

3.2.2. Differences in Risk-Exposure Levels Among Various Park Types in Croatia and Specific Challenges These Differences Present for Conservation Efforts

The one-way ANOVA results show a statistically significant difference between the groups (F(3, 59) = 47.22, p < 0.0001), indicating significant variations in the mean values among different park types (

Table 4. Statistical results of one-way ANOVA for risk exposure by park type.

Source of Variation	Sum of Squares (SS)	Degrees of Freedom (df)	Mean Square (MS)	F-Value	p-Value
Between Groups (SSB)	19,665.40	3	6555.13	47.224	<0.0001
Within Groups (SSW)	8189.69	59	138.81
Total	27,855.09	62

).

The null hypothesis (H₀) is strongly rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis (H₁), confirming that the frequency and types of illegal activities vary significantly across park types:

• Coastal parks exhibit high RE values for maritime-related activities, such as illegal fishing and mooring vessels, reflecting the unique pressures of tourism in marine ecosystems.
• Mountainous and forest parks show elevated RE for causing fires and lighting fires outside designated areas, associated with their dry climates and large, hard-to-monitor areas.
• Wetland and lowland parks have the highest RE for poaching and capturing protected species, due to their rich biodiversity and vast floodplains.

Diverse landscape parks face diverse risks, including littering and swimming in prohibited areas, stemming from high visitor density and complex ecosystems.

3.3. Sensitivity Analysis of Illegal Activities in Croatian National Parks and Nature Parks

While risk exposure gives a static view, sensitivity analysis provides insight into the dynamic nature of risk, showing how changes in behavior or environment might affect overall risk.

The sensitivity analysis reveals which illegal activities have the most significant impact on the Total Risk Exposure (TRE) (Figure 2) for each park type (

Table 5. The sensitivity analysis for coastal, parks, mountainous and forest parks, wetland and lowland parks and diverse landscape parks for 2021–2023.

Illegal Activity	Coastal Parks	Mountainous and Forest Parks	Wetland and Lowland Parks	Diverse Landscape Parks
Unauthorized construction	±1.87%	±1.99%	±1.00%	±1.42%
Illegal fishing	±1.97%	±0.01%	±2.00%	±0.39%
Poaching	±1.24%	±1.62%	±2.81%	±2.08%
Capturing strictly protected plants and animals	±1.92%	±1.57%	±2.81%	±2.08%
Illegal logging	±1.07%	±1.52%	±0.75%	±0.80%
Illegal exploitation of mineral resources	±0.00%	±1.60%	±0.99%	±0.51%
Waste disposal outside designated areas	±1.31%	±0.91%	±1.12%	±1.07%
Littering outside designated areas	±1.14%	±1.23%	±1.68%	±2.40%
Causing fires	±1.04%	±2.56%	±0.37%	±1.48%
Lighting fires outside settlements and designated places	±1.09%	±2.34%	±0.75%	±1.66%
Driving and parking outside designated areas	±0.68%	±1.59%	±1.12%	±0.67%
Anchoring Vessels (in inland waters)	±0.00%	±0.00%	±1.64%	±0.39%
Mooring vessels (on maritime property)	±2.10%	±0.00%	±0.00%	±0.00%
Camping in prohibited areas	±1.16%	±1.14%	±0.94%	±1.33%
Swimming in prohibited areas	±1.99%	±0.23%	±1.17%	±1.96%
Damaging visitor infrastructure	±0.67%	±0.70%	±0.56%	±1.33%
Installing signs, advertisements, etc., without permission	±0.74%	±1.00%	±0.28%	±0.41%

):

Coastal parks:

• Mooring vessels
• Swimming in prohibited areas
• Illegal fishing.

Mountainous and forest parks:

• Causing fires
• Lighting fires outside settlements and designated places
• Unauthorized construction.

Wetland and lowland parks:

• Poaching
• Capturing strictly protected plants and animals
• Illegal fishing.

Diverse Landscape Parks:

• Littering outside designated areas
• Poaching
• Capturing strictly protected plants and animals.

In mountainous and forest parks, both “Causing Fires” and “Lighting fires outside settlements and designated places” have high risk exposure (Table 4). The sensitivity analysis confirms that changes in fire-related activities have the most significant impact on overall risk in this park type. This suggests that fire prevention and management should be a high priority for immediate action and resource allocation in mountainous and forest parks.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that different park types have varying primary concerns (Table 4):

• In coastal parks, “Mooring vessels”, “Swimming in prohibited areas”, and “Illegal fishing” have the highest impact on TRE.
• For wetland and lowland parks, “Poaching” and “Capturing strictly protected plants and animals” show the highest sensitivity, followed by “Illegal fishing”.
• In diverse landscape parks, “Littering outside designated areas” has the most significant impact, followed by “Poaching” and “Capturing strictly protected plants and animals”. This suggests that while both issues are important, fire prevention and management might be a higher priority for immediate action or resource allocation.

This sensitivity analysis helps identify which activities, if addressed, could lead to the most significant reduction in overall risk exposure. By focusing resources on these high-impact areas, park management can potentially achieve the greatest improvements in park safety and conservation.

4. Discussion

4.1. Regional Patterns of Illegal Activities and Recommendations for Proactive Risk Management Updates

Illegal activities in Croatian national parks exhibit notable variation across regions, influenced by the unique ecosystems, geographical characteristics, and patterns of tourism in each area. The diversity of ecosystems—coastal, forested, mountainous, wetland, etc.—plays a key role in shaping the types and prevalence of illegal activities, as well as their impact on these protected areas. Despite these differences, certain risks are shared across multiple regions, while others are more specific to particular park types, such as coastal, wetland, or forested areas. Each park type presents unique challenges, requiring tailored management approaches that consider both environmental characteristics and visitor behavior.

While visitor numbers contribute to risk exposure, the physical configuration of each park type plays a significant role in shaping the risks faced. Coastal parks are pressured by development and marine-related activities, mountain and forest parks deal with the challenges of their expansive and diverse terrain, and wetland and lowland parks experience concentrated risks related to water-based activities.

The results of this study confirm that illegal activities, carried out by park visitors, vary significantly across different regions and park types in Croatia. Coastal parks, which attract large numbers of visitors due to their accessibility and tourism appeal, are particularly vulnerable to activities such as mooring vessels on maritime property, swimming in prohibited areas, and illegal fishing. Mountainous and forest parks, with their vast and difficult-to-monitor terrain, face heightened risks related to fires—both causing and lighting fires outside designated areas—and unauthorized construction. Wetland and lowland parks are especially prone to poaching, illegal fishing, and the capture of strictly protected species, all of which threaten these fragile ecosystems.

The variation in risk levels across different parks, and the persistent high-risk activities in some areas, highlight the need for more tailored, region-specific management strategies. Coastal parks may benefit from more stringent marine patrols to address mooring vessels and swimming in prohibited areas, while mountainous and forest parks could focus on improved fire-prevention and -detection systems. Wetland and lowland parks might prioritize anti-poaching measures and protection of species, while diverse landscape parks could emphasize litter control along with wildlife protection. This reinforces the conclusion that region-specific measures are essential to better mitigate environmental risks.

The current management strategies, while robust, must be proactively updated to address evolving challenges and incorporate new technologies and insights gained from recent patterns of illegal activities. Beyond addressing environmental and geographical factors, these updates should also consider the cultural and socio-economic context of each region. This study highlights the importance of continually refining and adapting these measures to better respond to the dynamic nature of threats in different park types.

To ensure the long-term sustainability and enhanced protection of Croatian national and nature parks, it is essential to regularly revisit and update the existing risk-management strategies.

The following proactive updates are recommended:

• Frequent risk monitoring updates: Existing risk registers should be updated more frequently to capture new and emerging risks [65] tied to visitor behavior. Regular reviews are essential to adjust for new trends in illegal activities.
• Adopting advanced monitoring technologies: While some technological measures may already be in place [66], strategies should incorporate more real-time data-gathering tools [67], such as advanced drone surveillance and satellite monitoring systems, to ensure that illegal activities are detected earlier and more efficiently, especially in remote areas.
• Enhancing community-based reporting systems: While community involvement exists, the development of more accessible platforms, such as mobile apps, could empower local communities and visitors to report illegal activities in real time, enabling faster intervention [68].
• Strengthening visitor education programs: As visitor numbers and illegal activities evolve, it is critical to periodically refresh educational campaigns to reflect current risks and conservation priorities [69]. New digital platforms, on-site interactive kiosks, and targeted awareness campaigns should be implemented to promote responsible behavior.
• Increasing interagency coordination: Existing collaboration between park management, law enforcement, and environmental agencies should be reinforced by formalizing more frequent joint action plans and rapid response protocols [70]. This will ensure that enforcement actions remain effective, particularly as illegal activities become more sophisticated.
• Reviewing and adjusting resource allocation: The effectiveness of enforcement and monitoring largely depends on the allocation of resources. Proactive budget planning should be incorporated into strategy updates to ensure adequate funding for necessary tools, personnel, and training in areas where risks are highest [23].

By regularly updating and refining these strategies, Croatian parks can stay ahead of the evolving risks posed by visitor activities.

It is important to note that all parks included in this study demonstrate excellent management of illegal activities according to their annual reports. However, risk management is an ongoing process that requires regular updates to ensure continued effectiveness in preserving the integrity of these ecosystems. The findings of this study are crucial in highlighting both the strengths of existing illegal activity-management systems and the areas that require further attention. These insights will aid in the refinement of risk-management strategies, ensuring that conservation efforts remain adaptive and responsive to the specific needs of each park.

4.2. Future Directions and Policy Implications

This study highlights the significant variation in illegal activities across different regions and park types in Croatia and underscores the importance of continuously refining management strategies to adapt to emerging threats. Beyond the well-known risks posed by illegal fishing, poaching, and unauthorized construction, broader environmental and societal factors need to be considered to develop more dynamic and future-oriented solutions [71,72].

One key area for further research is the impact of climate change on illegal activities in protected areas. As rising temperatures, shifting ecosystems, and changes in water availability alter the landscapes, parks might face new threats [12]. For example, in coastal areas, rising sea levels and increased storm activity could exacerbate the erosion of shorelines and prompt more illegal construction as visitors seek new recreation spots. Similarly, mountainous parks may experience shifts in vegetation zones and increased fire risks due to prolonged droughts.

Technological advancements should also play a greater role in monitoring illegal activities in real time. While current technologies like drones and satellite monitoring are valuable, the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to predict illegal activities [73] and improve real-time decision-making should be explored. AI-driven models could help park authorities better allocate resources and identify high-risk zones before illegal activities occur. For instance, AI systems are being used in conservation globally to track poaching patterns and forecast risks based on historical data.

In addition to technological improvements, policy integration and cross-border cooperation are essential [74]. Croatian parks, particularly those close to neighboring countries, may face challenges from cross-border illegal activities, such as poaching and logging. Harmonizing environmental policies with neighboring states and fostering stronger regional collaboration could create more unified strategies for dealing with these transnational environmental crimes [75].

Moreover, there is a need for stronger community engagement. Although community-based reporting systems are in place, a deeper integration of local populations into conservation efforts could prove beneficial. Research shows that engaging local communities as stewards of the land can significantly reduce illegal activities by building a shared sense of responsibility for protecting natural resources [76,77]. Programs that provide economic incentives for conservation, such as ecotourism or payment for ecosystem services, could further empower communities to actively participate in monitoring and preserving park environments [78].

Finally, an important consideration is visitor education. While current efforts focus on raising awareness of the risks and consequences of illegal activities, more targeted campaigns could be designed to address specific visitor demographics, particularly younger, tech-savvy tourists, who may respond better to interactive digital platforms [79]. In addition, partnering with travel agencies and tour operators to promote sustainable behavior before visitors even enter the parks could help mitigate risky behaviors.

Future studies should focus on assessing how these strategies perform over time, particularly as technological, environmental, and social conditions continue to evolve. Monitoring the long-term effectiveness of AI-based monitoring systems and community-based conservation efforts will be critical in adapting these strategies to the dynamic nature of environmental threats. Additionally, follow-up research may involve stakeholder analysis to gain diverse perspectives on the issues and solutions.

5. Conclusions

This study emphasizes the variability of illegal activities across different types of protected areas, each presenting unique environmental challenges that require region-specific management strategies. Coastal, mountainous, wetland and diverse landscape parks face distinct high-risk activities, necessitating tailored approaches to mitigate these threats effectively.

Mountainous and forest parks are particularly vulnerable to fire-related activities and unauthorized construction, highlighting the need for robust fire prevention and land-use monitoring. In contrast, coastal parks are more exposed to maritime activities, such as mooring vessels, illegal fishing, and swimming in restricted areas, which demand enhanced surveillance of marine zones. Wetland parks face heightened risks from poaching and the capture of protected species, requiring strict wildlife protection measures. Diverse landscape parks are most affected by littering and poaching, signaling broader challenges in managing visitor behavior and maintaining ecosystem integrity.

To address these risks, park-management strategies must prioritize different actions based on the specific needs of each environment. Effective risk management is crucial to the long-term conservation of protected areas. This process involves the continuous identification, analysis, and control of risks, supported by regular monitoring and adaptation to evolving threats. A comprehensive risk-management strategy must include clear risk responses, a well-defined risk register, and the assignment of risk ownership to ensure accountability. Furthermore, these strategies must be regularly updated and maintained to remain effective, particularly as environmental conditions, visitor patterns, and illegal activities change over time.

A dynamic, region-specific approach to risk management, involving regular reassessment of risks and the deployment of technology for enhanced monitoring, is essential. Only through proactive measures and continuous oversight can the preservation of these vital ecosystems be ensured, safeguarding them from the growing threats posed by illegal activities.

This study underscores the importance of tailored conservation strategies that address the unique challenges faced by different types of protected areas. By focusing on the most sensitive illegal activities for each park type, management can more effectively allocate resources and implement targeted measures to preserve these invaluable natural habitats for future generations.