prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2019 str. 45     <-- 45 -->        PDF

when the state does not have an adequate budget and PA financing sources, it must find transitional solutions and compromising variants, which is not always good for the protection of the basic PA natural values (Puzović 2008).
Research on the mechanisms of financing the PA management system in Serbia has not been done so far. There have been some studies on the financing of national parks (Šumarac 2009, Đorđević et al. 2013/a, Đorđević et al. 2013/b), but no research dealing with other categories of PA or the differences in the financing of individual PA managers.
In this paper, we aim to determine the mechanisms of financing the PA system within different MAs. The subject of the research includes the mechanisms for the PA management system financing in Serbia. The purpose of the research is to create the basis for more detailed research of the mechanisms for the PA management system financing. On the basis of such knowledge, existing financing mechanisms can be improved and more assumptions can be developed to improve the financing mechanisms.
A door-to-door survey was used in the data collection phase (Neumann 2014). This research technique was selected with an aim of maximizing the response rates and minimizing the problems that can arise when using the telephone or the email. The survey consisted of three sets of questions (basic characteristics, structural characteristics and financing mechanisms) and for this paper, the issues related to the mechanisms of PA financing were used. The statistical method was used for the primary data analysis (Šešić 1984) and the comparative method to determine the differences and similarities between the categories of PA managers.
The research was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the research population was defined on the basis of the PA Register (ZZP 2012), from which 63 PAs were selected. The following criteria were used in PA sampling: the existence of a PA manager[2], PA size (areas smaller than 10 ha were excluded) and PA categories (all PA categories were included in the sample, except for nature monuments[3] and protected habitats[4]). The basic characteristics of PA managers included the name of the PA, the date and place of the survey, the type of the legal status and the area in ha. Regarding the characteristics of financing mechanisms, data on types of financing mechanisms and amounts allocated to each type were collected. Based on the legal status of PA managers, MAs were formed and used to identify the differences in financing mechanisms. The results of the survey were then compared with the research results in the region.
The preparation of the questionnaire for data collection included some preparatory actions for the subsequent coding of the questionnaire. Each answer was given a code which was later used in the statistical analysis. (De Vaus 2002). Having been coded, data was entered into a single database. The collected data was entered into the software package for statistical processing SPSS (ver. 21) (Pallant 2011). In order to process the collected data, the following MAs were formed from the categories and subcategories of the PA managers:
1. PES – 27 responses;
2. PEV – 5 responses;
3. Public enterprise that manages a National Park (PENP) – 4 responses;
4. OPE – 12 responses;
5. OPS – 6 responses;
6. PrS[5] – 9 responses.
This was done in order to determine the differences between the existing managers in the most appropriate way, since the defined category of PA manager (“enterprise”) is too wide, i.e., the largest PA managers (PES, PEV and PENP) are one category, while there are only a few respondents in other categories. On the other hand, the subcategories are too simplified and there were no respondents’ answers in all cases.
In the second phase, the research sample was defined based on the examples of “good practice” of PA managers and representatives of the public administration and service, as well as organizations in the PA management system. Examples of “good practice” were selected on the basis of the “purposive sampling”, which is used to select cases that are particularly informative (Neuman 2014). The total sample included 18 respondents (Annex 1). PA managers (7 respondents) included representatives from different PEs and PrS, while the public administration and service (5 respondents) included representatives from the ministry responsible for PA, Institutes for Nature Conservation (republic and provincial) and the main offices of PES and PEV. Organizations in the PA management system (6 respondents) included representatives from different scientific-research