99Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.71.2.1 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 2022 (2) 99–115. Introduction Protected areas are the most important tools for the preservation of our natural heritage (Rodrigues, A.S.L. and Cazalis, V. 2020). In 1 Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Science, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, 1117 Budapest, Hungary. E-mails: laszlo.mari@ttk.elte.hu; zsofitabori@gmail.com; tamas.telbisz@ttk.elte.hu 2 Department of Geography, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Marulićev trg 19/II, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. E-mails: isulc@geog.pmf.hr; radeljak@geog.pmf.hr 3 Tara National Park, Hađi Milentija 3, 31250 Bajina Bašta, Serbia. E-mail: ranko.milanovic@nptara.rs 4 Institute of Geography, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Pavol Jozef Šafárik, Jesenná 5, 040 01 Košice, Slovakia. E-mail: alena.gessert@gmail.com 5 Department of Geography in Hungarian, Babeș-Bolyai University, 5–7 Clinicilor Street, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania. E-mails: zimecs@yahoo.com; bariczanetta@yahoo.com addition to natural settings, the extent and location of protected areas are strongly in- fluenced by historical, political and economic considerations as well (Frost, W. and Hall, C.M. 2015; Kőszegi, M. et al. 2019). Although The system and spatial distribution of protected areas in Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia and Croatia László MARI1, Zsófia TÁBORI1, Ivan ŠULC2, Petra RADELJAK KAUFMANN2, Ranko MILANOVIĆ3, Alena GESSERT4, Zoltán IMECS5, Anetta BARICZ5 and Tamás TELBISZ1 Abstract Protected areas play a key role in nature conservation but are also crucial for tourism. There are international recom- mendations in nature conservation (IUCN), and several international conservation conventions exist. Nevertheless, the protection categories are different in each country, and the proportion of protected areas also varies. Here we compare the nature conservation systems of some countries (Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia and Croatia) tak- ing into consideration their nature protection laws. The selection of countries is based on an international project dealing with “Karst and National Parks”. For the comparison, national data sources and an international database (WDPA) are used. Our results show that the protection categories of the studied countries are largely similar, but there are unique characteristics as well (such as “forest park”, “monument of park architecture” in Croatia; “nature conservation area” in Hungary or “protected landscape element” in Slovakia, etc.). On the other hand, the internal proportions of protection categories are more heterogeneous, like, for example, the proportion of national parks within all protected areas which is 57.0 percent in Hungary but 11 percent in Croatia. International protection categories (Natura 2000, Ramsar, UNESCO World Heritage natural sites, UNESCO MAB reserves) are more or less similarly present in the countries studied (except Serbia, where there are no Natura 2000 areas yet). If national categories and Natura 2000 sites are all taken into consideration (and the overlapping areas are counted only once), then Croatia has the highest proportion of protected areas (39.1%), Slovakia is in second place with 37.5 percent, while Romania (23.5%) and Hungary (22.0%) show a similar proportion, and with the lack of Natura 2000, Serbia has 9.1 percent at present. As for the reliability of the WDPA, we found that this varies from country to country, with significant deficiencies for certain countries (e.g. Serbia) and very good reliability for others (e.g. Hungary, Slovakia). However, the availability of WDPA is in many cases better than that of national data, and since it also pro- vides GIS data, it can be considered a useful tool for examining international trends and mapping protected areas. Keywords: protected area, WDPA, national park, karst, IUCN, nature park, World Heritage, Natura 2000 Received February 2022, accepted May 2022. Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115.100 the IUCN (International Union for Conserva- tion of Nature) formulates recommendations for protected area categories, the system of protected areas varies to some extent from country to country. Therefore, if we want to compare the protected areas of different countries, then we have to compare not only the territorial extent, but it is also important to compare the categories themselves. Thus, the number one aim of our article is to make a comparison of protected areas by areal ex- tent and category on a regional scale. The spatial framework of our study is pro- vided by an international project („Karst & National Parks”), in the framework of which we examine national parks established in karst areas. First of all, we highlight that na- tional parks are often set up in karsts because of their special hydrological, morphological, pedological and biological features (Mari, L. and Telbisz, T. 2018; Telbisz, T. and Mari, L. 2020). In the above mentioned project, we primarily study the relationships among the different actors of the national park, the local population and tourism (Nestorová Dická, J. et al. 2020; Telbisz, T. et al. 2020). With the help of historical demographic statistics, GIS analyses, interviews and questionnaires, we examine how the population and land use of the area and its surroundings have changed and how the protection of the area and the emergence of tourism have affected the lives and job opportunities of local residents (Telbisz, T. et al. 2020, 2021, 2022b). As a background of these relationships and processes, it is important to acquire knowledge on the system of protected areas in the studied countries and the role of na- tional parks within this. Countries included in the above project are Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Slovakia. Accordingly, our regional comparison in this paper also covers these countries, but naturally, this comparison can be extended to other coun- tries in the future. A comparison of these countries is also meaningful in the sense that they have many common features in their history, but they also differ remarkably from each other on certain points. It is, therefore interesting to examine the common and dif- ferent characteristics of their protected area systems. Other results of the research car- ried out in the framework of this project are presented in the further articles of this issue (Imecs, Z. et al. 2022; Kovačević-Majkić, J. et al. 2022; Kőszegi, M. et al. 2022; Telbisz,T. et al. 2022a). In addition, the presentation of ECOKARST project, which has a similar is- sue and spatial extent, but the focus is rather on ecosystem services was also included in this special issue (Gorjanc, S. et al. 2022). Data on protected areas bear important information for all stakeholders and are, in principle, publicly available. On the global scale, too, a number of studies have dealt with the questions of how different cat- egories of protected areas increased and what their spatial distribution is. In prac- tice, however, it is observed that reliable country-level data are not always easy to obtain. Fortunately, there is an interna- tional database, WDPA (World Database on Protected Areas, https://www.protect- edplanet.net/), which is the most widely ac- cepted, regularly updated database on this topic (Hockings, M. 2003; Bingham, H.C. et al. 2019; Rodrigues, A.S.L. and Cazalis, V. 2020). It contains not only aggregated data, but also free GIS files, so it is technically suitable for comparing protected areas of different countries. However, its reliability and accuracy need to be tested, so the second objective of our article is methodological: to compare the data downloaded from the WDPA site to data collected from national databases of the studied countries. Data and methods The protection categories of the studied countries were compared taking into account the nature conservation legislation of each country. The following laws and regulations were considered: – In Croatia: Nature Protection Act (Narodne novine/Official Gazette 80/2013, 15/2018, 14/19, 127/19); 101Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115. – In Hungary: Act 53 of 1996 on Nature Conservation in Hungary, 03.07.1996; – In Romania: Government Emergency Ordinance No. 57/2007 on the regime of protected natural areas, conservation of natural habitats, wild flora and fauna (20th June 2007, published in Official Monitor nr. 442 from 29th June 2007); – In Serbia: Law on Nature Protection (“Official Gazette of RS”, no. 36/2009, 88/2010, 91/2010, 14/2016 95/2018), Law on National Parks (“Official Gazette of RS”, no. 84/2015, 95/2018); – In Slovakia: Act on the Protection of Nature and Landscapes (2002). National data for the countries studied were obtained from several sources. Data about Hungarian protected areas were ac- quired from the Lechner Knowledge Centre (https://lechnerkozpont.hu/), the official website of Nature Conservation in Hungary (https://termeszetvedelem.hu/) and the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (https:// www.ksh.hu/stadat_files/kor/en/kor0015. html). The databases of protected areas in Croatia are from the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development (http://www. haop.hr/hr/tematska-podrucja/odrzivo- koristenje-prirodnih-dobara-i-ekoloska- mreza/ekoloska-mreza) and the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Energy (http:// haop.dev.perpetuum.hr/hr/tematska-pod- rucja/zasticena-podrucja/zasticena-podrucja/ zasticena-podrucja-u-rh, http://www.biopor- tal.hr/services). The vector files of the pro- tected areas in Romania are from the LEMN Controlat Information Platform on Forest Protection (https://lemncontrolat.ro/link-uri- si-documente-utile/fisiere-descarcabile/) as they are not available on the website of the Ministry or the State Nature Conservation. The data source for Serbia is the Department for Information System and Cartography Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia. Data for Slovakia are from the State Nature Protection of the Slovak Republic (http:// www.sopsr.sk/web/?cl=114) and the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (https://www.minzp.sk/spravy/2019/ april/100-rokov-statnej-ochrany-prirody- slovensku.html, https://www.minzp.sk/ ochrana-prirody/uzemna-ochrana/prehlad- chranenych-uzemi-slovenskej-republiky/). The WDPA database contains free data from 245 countries. They can be not only viewed online but downloaded in shapefile format by category, country, or other regional bases. The viewer of the database is called Protected Planet, which was created as a re- sult of the collaboration between IUCN and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The regularly updated database has been gradually expanding since 2010 with the help of government organizations and experts. One of the main goals of the interna- tional database is to provide a comprehensive image of all terrestrial and marine protected areas on a global platform, along with catego- ry classifications, spatial data, and mapping, to make it easy for everyone to understand and inform. It also intends to provide the best possible information to policymakers to raise awareness of the importance of protecting natural areas and their values. On the other hand, it also provides a basis for monitoring international environmental goals, the steps towards which can be easily documented on the basis of this database. In our study, the GIS data from different sources were converted into a unified projec- tion system, maps were made, and statistical calculations were performed. We have calcu- lated the proportion of protected areas within each country and the proportion of different categories within the protected areas for each country. Furthermore, the relative differences between the areal extent values in the WDPA and in the national databases were calculated as a percentage (the base of the percentage, i.e. 100%, was the value in the national database). There is often an overlap between differ- ent categories of protected areas. Among the national categories, the overlap is gener- ally small, but taking into consideration the international categories as well, such as the European Natura 2000 network, the overlaps are quite significant. In many cases, the in- ternational protected area categories are also Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115.102 mentioned in the laws on nature protection of the studied countries. Thus, we get a false picture of the extent of protected areas if we simply sum up the areas in each category. Therefore, we calculated the sum of the areas of the national categories by simple arith- metic summation (marked as “SUM – with overlaps”) first, but also calculated the total area after merging the shapes. The merg- ing and area calculations were performed in three steps: first, only for national categories (marked as “Real Area without Natura 2000”), second, only for Natura 2000 sites (marked as “Real Area of Natura 2000”), and third, for the merged area of both national categories and Natura 2000 territories (marked as “Real Area of All”). The merged area values therefore pro- vide a realistic value of how much proportion of each country is covered by protected areas. Results Short historical review The first serious steps towards nature con- servation in the studied countries were taken in the second half of the 19th century. At that time, most of the territory of the studied countries belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The first nature conservation in- stitution in Croatia was the Croatian Nature Society (founded in 1885), and the Laws on Bird protection (1893), Hunting (1893) and Caves (1900) were issued at that time (Sla- donja, B. et al. 2012). In Hungary, the Forest Act of 1879 was the first law to protect the forests of the high mountains. The scope of this law included the high mountains which now belong to Slovakia and Romania. It was also the period when the designation of ar- eas proposed for protection began, primarily with the help of tourist associations. The first protected area was declared in present-day Serbia in 1874 (Obedska pond), while in the other countries, protected areas appeared be- tween the two world wars. The first national parks of these countries were generally estab- lished after the Second World War (Croatia: 1949 – Paklenica and Plitvice Lakes; Hungary: 1973 – Hortobágy; Serbia: 1960 – Fruška Gora; Slovakia: 1949 – Tatra Mountains), except in Romania, where the Retezat Mountains Na- tional Park was established in 1935, although in fact the organizational framework was still very rudimentary at that time (Bleahu, M. 2019). The gradual increase in the number of national parks during the communist period was followed by a significant boom in Hun- gary and Romania in the 1990s. On the other hand, since the turn of the millennium only a few new national parks have been established in the studied countries (except Serbia, where two new national parks were set up in 2021). From the end of the Second World War to the 1990s, the communist regime prevailed in the region (albeit in different forms), which also had an impact on nature conservation, and the top-down approach prevailed in the foundation and operation of protected areas (Kőszegi, M. et al. 2019). After the change of political regime, or more precisely after the 2000s, the bottom-up approach gradually began to receive more emphasis (Nastran, M. 2015; Telbisz, T. et al. 2020). The first laws on nature protection were issued during the communist period, but these were later re- placed by newer laws after the change of re- gime (see “Data and methods” section; Tardy, J. et al. 2018). An interesting fact about the Slovak nature conservation system was that from 1919 to 1981 (then Czechoslovakia) na- ture conservation and monument protection worked together within the framework of a joint institution. As for the recent decades, it is true for all countries, but perhaps most for Croatia, that the pressure on natural resourc- es has significantly increased, mainly due to the rapid development of tourism, thus the establishment and proper management of protected areas have become particularly im- portant (Sladonja, B. et al. 2012; Koderman, M. and Opačić, V.T. 2020). An example which testifies the need for improving protected area management is the recent amendment to Slovakia’s law on nature protection (in 2021) that strengthens the ownership and legal per- sonality of national parks. 103Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115. Comparison of protected area categories Table 1 shows the protected area categories, which are defined in each country’s Nature Conservation Law, with brief descriptions us- ing keywords. The similar national categories were arranged in the same line and IUCN cate- gories were also added (https://www.iucn.org/ theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area- categories). There are three categories which are present in each country, and their content is broadly similar, these are the followings: “national park”, “natural monument” and “protected landscape”. The latter have slightly different names for each country, and in Ro- mania, for example, this is called a “natural park”. It is a bit misleading because there are “nature parks” in Croatia and Serbia as well, albeit, with a slightly different content, which means more intense social (tourist) utilization. Moreover, there are “nature parks” even in Hungary, but their legal background is not reg- ulated by the Nature Conservation Act, so this type is not added to the column of Hungary in Table 1. The description of the “national parks” is the most uniform throughout the countries, but it is an interesting fact that the concept of biodiversity is literally mentioned only in Hungarian and Croatian laws. The definition of “strict and special reserves” in Croatia, Ro- mania and Serbia is in line with international practice, while in Hungary and Slovakia, this category is missing. There are also specific categories in each country (see Table 1). An- other special feature of Slovakia is that the protection zones belonging to each protected area (i.e. buffers, which are subject to lighter regulations) are registered separately. Cor- respondence to IUCN categories is vague in several cases. For example, five of Hungary’s ten national parks can be classified as IUCN category II, whereas five as IUCN category V. Regarding karsts and caves, we note that in the case of Hungary, the caves are given great emphasis, and the law also mentions literally the sinkholes. These karstic phenomena (to- gether with other objects) are among the so- called “ex lege” protected sites, which means that they are automatically protected, i.e. there is no need for a special designation procedure to declare them protected. We can highlight from the Serbian law that the concept of “geo- diversity” is mentioned, which is partly due to the fact that Serbian nature protection law is among the most recent, but also to the fact that research on geodiversity plays a signifi- cant role in this country. The Serbian Law on Nature Protection also mentions “geoparks”. It is interesting because geoparks in most coun- tries were generally created on a completely different basis than other types of protected areas. However, it is noted that most countries have both national and global geoparks (Mari, L. and Telbisz, T. 2019; Telbisz, T. and Mari, L. 2020). A Croatian speciality is a concept of “cave park”, of which one exists in the country. As for the terrain types, one can observe that the protected natural areas of the stud- ied countries are mostly mountainous areas. Karst areas are common among protected areas (for example, in Croatia, all national parks are in karst terrains, in Slovakia, most of the national parks are karstic, while in Hungary, Romania and Serbia, about half of the national parks are in karsts (Mari, L. and Telbisz, T. 2018; Telbisz, T. and Mari, L. 2020). Besides, river deltas, floodplains, (saline) lakes, and lowlands with different features also occur among the protected ar- eas in these countries. International protected area categories In addition to national categories, there are also internationally designated protected ar- eas. The most important of these is Natura 2000, which is a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species and some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right. The aim of the network is to ensure the long-term sur- vival of Europe’s most valuable and threat- ened species and habitats. They have a very significant overlap with the national catego- ries but are much larger in scope in order to provide a closely connecting, ecological habi- tat for the wildlife. They have several catego- Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115.104 Ta bl e 1 . C at eg or ies o f n at io na l p ro te ct ed a re as in th e c ou nt rie s s tu di ed a nd th eir co rr es po nd en ce to IU CN ca te go rie s C ro at ia H un ga ry Ro m an ia Se rb ia Sl ov ak ia IU C N St ric t r es er ve – un m od if ie d or s lig ht ly m od ifi ed n at ur e – al l ec on om ic a nd o th er ac tiv iti es a re p ro hi bi te d Sc ien tifi c r es er ve – na tu ra l a re a – sc ie nt ifi c si gn ifi ca nc e – al l ec on om ic a nd o th er ac tiv iti es a re p ro hi bi te d St ric t n at ur e r es er ve – un al te re d an d re pr es en ta - tiv e na tu ra l e co sy st em – al l ec on om ic a nd o th er ac tiv iti es a re p ro hi bi te d Ia Sp ec ia l n at ur e r es er ve – un al te re d or s lig ht ly a l- te re d na tu re – co nt ro lle d vi si ts – pr es er va tio n of th e tr ad i- tio na l w ay o f l ife Ia N at io na l p ar k – la rg e un m od ifi ed a re a – m ul tip le n at ur al v al ue s – bi od iv er si ty – co ns er va tio n + sc ie nt ifi c, cu ltu ra l, ed uc at io na l, re c- re at io na l p ur po se N at io na l p ar k – la rg e un m od ifi ed a re a – m ul tip le n at ur al v al ue s – bi od iv er si ty – co ns er va tio n + sc ie nt ifi c, cu ltu ra l, ed uc at io na l, re c- re at io na l p ur po se N at io na l p ar k – la rg e un m od ifi ed a re a – m ul tip le n at ur al v al ue s – co ns er va tio n + sc ie nt ifi c, cu ltu ra l, ed uc at io na l, re c- re at io na l p ur po se N at io na l p ar k – di ve rs e na tu ra l ec os ys - te m s – m ul tip le n at ur al v al ue s – co ns er va tio n + sc ie nt ifi c, cu lt ur al , ed uc at io na l, sp ir itu al , h ea lth , r ec re a- tio na l p ur po se N at io na l p ar k – la rg e un m od ifi ed a re a – m ul tip le n at ur al v al ue s – na tu re p ro te ct io n is o f hi gh er p ri or ity th an o th er ac tiv iti es – vi si tin g ru le s es ta bl is he d II N at ur al m on um en t – in dv id ua l e co lo gi ca l, sc ie nt ifi c, a es th et ic , e du - ca tio na l v al ue – liv in g or n on -li vi ng N at ur al m on um en t – in di vi du al n at ur al fo rm a- tio n M on um en t o f n at ur e – pr ot ec tio n an d co ns er va - tio n of n at ur al e le m en ts – un iq ue ne ss , r ar ity M on um en t o f n at ur e – ra th er s m al l u na lte re d or pa rt ia lly a lte re d na tu ra l sp at ia l u ni t N at ur e m on um en t – po in t, l in ea r or o th er sm al le r e co sy st em s – ca ve s, n at ur al w at er fa lls II I Sp ec ia l r es er ve – un iq ue ne ss , r ar ity – sp ec ia l sc ie nt ifi c im po r- ta nc e – ac ti on s an d ac ti vi ti es on ly f or p re se rv at io n of th e ar ea N at ur e r es er ve – im po rt an t ha bi ta ts a nd na tu ra l s pe ci es N at ur e r es er ve – lo ca lit y – na tu ra l h ab ita ts IV 105Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115. Ta bl e 1 . co nt in ue d C ro at ia H un ga ry Ro m an ia Se rb ia Sl ov ak ia IU C N N at ur e p ar k – la rg e na tu ra l o r pa rt ia lly cu lti va te d ar ea w ith e co - lo gi ca l f ea tu re s – ac tiv iti es a nd a ct io ns a l- lo w ed t ha t do n ot d am - ag e its v al ue s N at ur e p ar k – co ns er ve d na tu ra l ec o- sy st em s – ac ti vi ti es ha rm on iz ed w ith t ra di tio na l w ay s of lif e V Re gi on al p ar k – ec ol og ic al f ea tu re s w ith la nd sc ap e va lu es V Fo re st p ar k – na tu ra l o r p la nt ed fo re st s – re st a nd re cr ea tio n M on um en t o f p ar k ar ch i- te ct ur e – ar tifi ci al ly fo rm ed a re a – gr ou p of tr ee s N at ur e c on se rv at io n ar ea – sm al le r, un ita ry a nd ch ar - ac te ri st ic te rr ito ri es Pr ot ec te d ha bi ta t – on e or m or e ty pe s of n at - ur al h ab ita ts – w ild lif e po pu la tio ns Pr ot ec te d sit e – na tu ra l h ab ita ts – na tu re c ul tiv at ed b y hu - m an a ct iv iti es IV Pr ot ec te d la nd sc ap e e lem en t – la nd sc ap e el em en t as a bi oc en tr e, a b io co rr id or Pr ot ec te d bi rd a re a – bi rd s pe ci es , m ig ra to ry bi rd s pe ci es IV Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115.106 ries (SPA: special protection area; SCI: sites of community importance; SAC: special areas of conservation), but these are presented in their merged form in the tables and figures of this paper. As Serbia is not yet a member of the EU, there are no Natura 2000 sites here, but Serbia has already started preparing for the designation of these sites (Filipović, D. 2017). Ramsar sites for wetland protection oc- cur in all countries, but in the largest number in Hungary. UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves are also present in each country, usually with 2–4 areas, including cross- border areas such as the “East Carpathians Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Poland / Slovakia / Ukraine)”. The UNESCO World Heritage List does not specifically include protected areas, instead, this title can be as- sessed rather as an award and a responsibil- ity. Nonetheless, the natural sites on the UN- ESCO World Heritage List are also worth to be mentioned, and they are also registered in the WDPA dataset. Among World Heritage natural sites, two are found in Croatia (with four locations altogether), two-two in Roma- nia and Slovakia, and one in Hungary. These numbers also include those sites, which ex- pand to several countries, such as the “Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst” or the “Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe”. The maps presenting the protected areas of each country (Figures 1–5) show the national categories, which cover more than 1 percent of the country. In addition, Natura 2000 sites are represented as polygons, and the Ramsar and UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which generally have a small areal extent are rep- resented by symbols. Since UNESCO MAB Biosphere reserves almost fully overlap with other categories, they are not shown on the maps to avoid double markings. Comparison of WDPA and national datasets Table 2 shows the number and areal extent of protected areas in each country by category. Further on, aggregate values calculated by simple summation and on the basis of merged shapes are also provided as mentioned in the “Data and methods” section. This table also contains the values calculated according to the national databases and the WDPA. In the case of Croatia, we found significant differences in four of the seven categories ex- amined. In the case of the “nature park”, the reason for the difference is that the Dinara Nature Park, established in 2021, is not yet included in the WDPA database. However, if we add the area of Dinara Nature Park (629 km2) to the area included in the WDPA, we get closer to the national data, but still, the area of this category is about 250 km2 smaller in the WDPA. As for the “important land- scape” category, there are six more units in the national database and an area 100 km2 larger. The number of national parks is the same, but the area value is 220 km2 higher in the national database. Within the “special reserve” category, the national database con- tains four more units and an area 110 km2 larger. Among the WDPA categories, there is the “horticultural monument”, which re- ally existed in Croatia but has already been abolished and merged into another category. In the case of Romania, the WDPA data- set includes one more object in the “natural park” category than the national dataset, but the size of the area is almost the same. There are numerical and minor areal differences between the WDPA and national datasets for the cases of “nature reserve”, “scientific reserve” and “natural reserve”. The largest differences between the two databases are in the case of Serbia. As Serbia does not acknowledge Kosovo as an in- dependent country, the protected areas in Kosovo are included in the national database, while they are missing from the WDPA data- set, thus, in order to make the comparison applicable, these were cut out of the national database. Nevertheless, there are still large differences. The main reason for the discrep- ancies is that the WDPA contains outdated and inaccurate data on Serbia. Obsolescence is not necessarily old, given that in 2021 several new protected areas were created or others 107Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115. Fig. 1. Protected areas in Croatia reclassified in Serbia that explains several dif- ferences. For example, in the “national park” category, there are six national parks in the national database, while only 4 in the WDPA database. The difference is due to the fact that two new national parks (Stara Planina and Kucaj-Beljanica) were established in 2021 by merging and expanding previously exist- ing protected areas. The largest differences in both number and area are found in the case of “outstanding natural landscape” category. Regarding the data of Hungary and Slovakia, there are no significant differences between the two databases. Comparison of proportions Finally, we got to the point where we can compare the countries based on the propor- tion of protected areas (Figure 6). Based on the above evaluation, we use data from national Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115.108 Fig. 3. Protected areas in Romania Fig. 2. Protected areas in Hungary 109Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115. Fig. 4. Protected areas in Serbia databases to make the comparison. Taking into consideration the percentage of protected ar- eas related to the total area of each country, we can observe significant differences among the countries studied. 23.5 percent of the ter- ritory of Slovakia, 14.6 percent of the territory of Croatia, 10.5 percent of the territory of Ser- bia, 9.1 percent of the territory of Hungary and only 5.4 percent of the territory of Romania are protected by law according to the national cat- egories. However, adding the non-overlapping part of Natura 2000 sites to the nationally pro- tected areas will significantly increase the pro- portion of protected areas and even change the order of the countries according to this param- eter. Calculating in this way, Croatia has the highest proportion of protected areas (39.1%), Slovakia is in second place with 37.5 percent, while Romania (23.5%) and Hungary (22.0%) show a similar proportion. Finally, this aggre- gate parameter is the lowest in Serbia that is due to the fact that there are no Natura 2000 sites in this country yet. However, according to the estimations, the area of ecological networks will cover about 20 percent of the territory of the Republic of Serbia (Filipović, D. 2017). Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115.110 Fig. 5. Protected areas in Slovakia Fig. 6. Percentage of protected areas in relation to the area of each country It is interesting to observe how different the distribution of the protected area cate- gories is in each country (Figure 7). “Nature parks” are in the absolute majority in Croatia and Romania, while in Hungary, “national parks” provide more than half of the pro- tected areas. In contrast, the situation is more balanced in Serbia and Slovakia. In Serbia, the “national park” is also the category with the highest proportion (but not an absolute majority), while in Slovakia this is also the case if the buffer zones are added to the area of the national parks. Croatia has the most diverse category system. Conclusions Overall, we can state that the nature conser- vation systems of the studied countries are fairly similar, partly as a result of analogous historical developments. However, in addi- tion to similarities, there are also differences in their systems, such as the lack of “strict reserves” in Hungary and Slovakia, or the ex- istence of certain specific categories in almost all countries (e.g. “forest park”, “monument of park architecture” in Croatia; “nature conservation area” in Hungary, “protected landscape element” in Slovakia, etc.). Despite the similarity of the systems, we can find re- markable differences in the relative propor- tions of the categories among the countries, with Hungary (57%) and Croatia (11%) being the two extremes in terms of the proportion of national parks. The demand for tourism utilization is increasing in each country, and 111Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115. Ta bl e 2 . P ro te ct ed a re as b y ca te go ry a nd co un tr y as ca lc ul at ed fr om th e n at io na l d at as et a nd th e W D PA C ou nt ry C at eg or y N um be r A re a, k m 2 Pe rc en ta ge of p ro te ct ed ar ea s Pe rc en ta ge of th e co un tr y Re l. di ff. to W D PA , % W D PA nu m be r W D PA a re a, km 2 CROATIA N at ur e pa rk Im po rt an t l an ds ca pe Re gi on al p ar k N at io na l p ar k Sp ec ia l r es er ve Fo re st p ar k St ri ct re se rv e M on um en t o f p ar k ar ch ite ct ur e SU M (w ith o ve rl ap s) Re al a re a w ith ou t N at ur a 20 00 Re al a re a of N at ur a 20 00 Re al a re a of a ll 12 84 2 8 80 27 2 11 5 33 0 – – – 4, 95 0 1, 37 9 1, 02 6 98 0 40 8 29 24 12 8, 80 7 8, 28 4 20 ,6 21 22 ,1 01 56 .2 15 .7 11 .6 11 .1 4. 6 0. 3 0. 3 0. 1 10 0. 0 – – – 8. 7 2. 4 1. 8 1. 7 0. 7 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 15 .6 14 .6 36 .4 39 .1 17 .6 7. 3 0. 3 23 .1 29 .1 1. 1 0. 0 0. 6 14 .9 15 .9 – – 11 78 2 8 76 26 2 11 3 42 8 – – – 4, 07 8 1, 27 8 1, 02 2 75 3 28 9 28 24 12 7, 49 7 6, 96 6 – – HUNGARY N at io na l p ar k La nd sc ap e pr ot ec tio n ar ea N at ur e co ns er va tio n ar ea N at ur al m on um en t SU M (w ith o ve rl ap s) Re al a re a w ith ou t N at ur a 20 00 Re al a re a of N at ur a 20 00 Re al a re a of a ll 10 39 17 0 88 30 7 – – – 4, 81 2 3, 36 5 31 3 1 8, 49 2 8, 49 2 19 ,6 82 20 ,4 71 56 .7 39 .6 3. 7 0. 0 10 0. 0 – – – 5. 2 3. 6 0. 3 0. 0 9. 1 9. 1 21 .2 22 .0 0. 4 0. 0 -1 .4 -5 .6 0. 2 0. 0 – – 10 39 17 4 10 0 32 3 – – – 4, 79 3 3, 36 4 31 7 1 8, 47 6 8, 49 6 – – ROMANIA N at ur al p ar k N at io na l p ar k N at ur e re se rv e Sc ie nt ifi c re se rv e N at ur al m on um en t SU M (w ith o ve rl ap s) Re al a re a w ith ou t N at ur a 20 00 Re al a re a of N at ur a 20 00 Re al a re a of a ll 15 13 72 3 32 16 1 94 4 – – – 7, 69 8 3, 17 4 2, 88 3 16 7 13 0 14 ,0 52 12 ,8 76 54 ,4 49 56 ,0 32 54 .8 22 .6 20 .5 1. 2 0. 9 10 0. 0 – – – 3. 2 1. 3 1. 2 0. 1 0. 1 5. 9 5. 4 22 .8 23 .5 0. 0 0. 0 4. 4 -7 1. 1 -5 .3 0. 0 0. 0 – – 16 13 66 7 45 20 3 94 4 – – – 7, 69 9 3, 17 4 2, 75 7 28 5 13 7 14 ,0 51 12 ,8 80 – – Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115.112 Ta bl e 2 . c on tin ue d C ou nt ry C at eg or y N um be r A re a, k m 2 Pe rc en ta ge of p ro te ct ed ar ea s Pe rc en ta ge of th e co un tr y Re l. di ff. to W D PA , % W D PA nu m be r W D PA a re a, km 2 SERBIA N at io na l P ar k N at ur e pa rk O ut st an di ng n at ur al la nd sc ap e N at ur e re se rv e M on um en t o f n at ur e Pr ot ec te d ha bi ta t Fo re st p ar k (fo rm er ) N at ur al a re as s ur ro un di ng c ul tu ra l s ite s SU M (w ith o ve rl ap s) Re al a re a of a ll 6 19 33 66 10 6 9 10 8 25 7 – 2, 93 6 2, 00 8 1, 63 1 1, 55 6 64 35 13 1 8, 24 4 8, 14 4 35 .6 24 .4 19 .8 18 .9 0. 8 0. 4 0. 2 0. 0 10 0. 0 – 3. 8 2. 6 2. 1 2. 0 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 10 .6 10 .5 56 .9 -4 7. 7 64 .6 6. 0 4. 3 22 .6 10 0. 0 -3 66 .8 22 .8 21 .9 4 16 19 63 23 7 6 0 27 37 4 – 1, 26 5 2, 96 5 57 7 1, 46 3 61 27 0 6 6, 36 5 6, 36 1 SLOVAKIA Pr ot ec te d la nd sc ap e ar ea N at io na l p ar k Bu ffe r o f n at io na l p ar k N at io na l n at ur e re se rv e N at ur e re se rv e Pr ot ec te d si te Bu ffe r o f n at ur e re se rv e, m on um en t Bu ffe r o f p ro te ct ed s ite N at ur e m on um en t N at io na l n at ur e m on um en t Pr ot ec te d la nd sc ap e el em en t SU M (w ith o ve rl ap s) Re al a re a w ith ou t N at ur a 20 00 Re al a re a of N at ur a 20 00 Re al a re a of a ll 14 9 9 20 2 37 6 18 1 – – 26 9 60 1 1, 12 1 – – – 5, 22 6 3, 17 5 2, 62 6 80 3 16 3 11 7 64 24 15 1 0 12 ,2 15 11 ,5 12 14 ,6 64 18 ,3 91 42 .8 26 .0 21 .5 6. 6 1. 3 1. 0 0. 5 0. 2 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 10 0. 0 – – – 10 .7 6. 5 5. 4 1. 6 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 24 .9 23 .5 29 .9 37 .5 -2 .3 -1 .5 1. 5 -3 .6 13 .4 0. 5 1. 0 -4 .8 -1 1. 2 0. 0 15 .7 -1 .1 – – – 14 9 9 20 8 37 2 18 2 59 6 26 5 60 1 1, 18 5 – – – 5, 34 8 3, 22 2 2, 58 5 83 2 14 1 11 6 63 25 17 1 0 12 ,3 51 – – – N ot es : „ SU M (w ith o ve rl ap )” is c al cu la te d as th e ar ith m et ic s um o f n at io na l p ro te ct ed a re a ca te go ri es . „ Re al A re as ” ar e ca lc ul at ed fr om th e m er ge d da ta (i .e . n o do ub le c ou nt in g) . „ A ll” in cl ud es n at io na l c at eg or ie s an d N at ur a 20 00 a re as to ge th er . F or fu rt he r e xp la na tio n, s ee te xt . 113Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115. Fig. 7. Percentage distribution of protected area categories within all nationally protected areas. Only catego- ries with a total area of more than 1 percent of each country are presented, the others are shown as “other”. Landscape1 means “Important Landscape” in Croatia, “Landscape Protection Area” in Hungary”, “Outstanding Natural Landscape” in Serbia and “Protected Landscape” in Slovakia. Reserve2 means “Special Reserve” in Croatia, “Nature Conservation Area” in Hungary, “Nature Reserve” in Romania and Serbia and “National Nature Reserve” in Slovakia. CRO = Croatia; HUN = Hungary; ROM = Romania; SRB = Serbia; SLO = Slovakia. the distribution of protection categories may also affect this issue. For example, the title of “national park” has a stronger marketing value, but the associated restrictions are also stricter than in the case of a “nature park”. International protection categories and ti- tles (Natura 2000, Ramsar, UNESCO World Heritage, UNESCO MAB reserves) are more or less similarly present in the countries studied (except Serbia, where there are as yet no Natura 2000 areas). If we take into account the international categories, we can observe that several areas enjoy multiple, sometimes even five- or six-fold protection. The number of protection categories for a given area may also play an important role in financing the conservation measures of that area. Besides the growing role of tourism, the socio-eco- nomic needs of the local population are also increasingly emphasized (Mose, I. 2007), but it is important to emphasize that these aims should be in line with conservation goals. Among the elements of the geoheritage, caves are literally mentioned in the nature protection laws of most countries, but they have a varying emphasis. As for the concept of “geodiversity”, it is literally mentioned only in Serbian law. As far as the WDPA is concerned, we have found that the accuracy of this database var- ies from country to country. Where there have been no major changes in recent years and the protected area system is stable, the WDPA con- tains data of acceptable accuracy, but in certain cases (mainly for Serbia in the present study) we found significant differences. Therefore, we can state that the database is only partially suit- able for international comparisons and track- ing global changes, and before using it for a detailed analysis, the checking of the country data included in the analysis is necessary. However, as WDPA provides GIS files avail- able free of charge, we highly recommend it as an easily accessible database if one wants to create maps about protected areas. Acknowledgements: This research was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office Hungary (NKFIH) K124497 project. Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115.114 REFERENCES Bingham, H.C., Bignoli, D.J., Lewis, E., Macsharry, B., Burgess, N.D., Visconti, P., Deguignet, M., Misrachi, M., Walpole, M. and Stewart, J.L. 2019. Sixty years of tracking conservation progress using the World Database on Protected Areas. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3. (5): 737–743. Available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0869-3 Bleahu, M. 2019. Ariile Protejate și Protecția Naturii (Protected areas and conservation of nature). București, Paideia. Filipović, D. 2017. The treatment of protected natural areas in the planning documentation in Serbia. In Tourism in Protected Areas of Nature in Serbia and Slovenia. Eds.: Filipović, D., Gosar, A., Koderman, M. and Đurđić, S., Belgrade, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Geography, 27–42. Frost, W. and Hall, C.M. 2015. Tourism and National Parks: International Perspectives on Development, Histories and Change. London, Routledge. Gorjanc, S., Simončič, T., Poljanec, A., Kuslits, B., Arany, I., Tanács, E., Vári, Á., Aszalós, R. et al. 2022. A new ecosystem services approach to enable identification of pro-biodiversity businesses of protected karst areas in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (2): 181–195. Hockings, M. 2003. Systems for assessing the ef- fectiveness of management in protected areas. BioScience 53. (9): 823–832. Available at https://doi. org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0823:SFATEO]2.0 .CO;2 Imecs, Z., Máthé, A. and Kohán, B. 2022. Attitudes of local people towards Apuseni Nature Park, Romania. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (2): 133–148. Koderman, M. and Opačić, V.T. (eds.) 2020. Challenges of Tourism Development in Protected Areas of Croatia and Slovenia. Koper, University of Primorska Press and Croatian Geographical Society. Kovačević-Majkić, J., Ćalić, J., Micić, J., Brankov, J., Milanović, R. and Telbisz, T. 2022. Public knowledge on karst and protected areas: A case study of Tara National Park, Serbia. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (2): 163–179. Kőszegi, M., Bottlik, Zs., Telbisz, T. and Mari, L. 2019. A „nemzeti park” koncepció tér- és időbeli változásai (Spatial and temporal changes in the concept of “na- tional park”). Földrajzi Közlemények 143. (4): 308–323. Available at https://doi.org/10.32643/fk.143.4.2. Kőszegi, M., Gessert, A., Nestorová-Dická, J., Gruber, P. and Bottlik, Zs. 2022. Social assessment of na- tional parks through the example of the Aggtelek National Park. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (2): 149–162. Mari, L. and Telbisz, T. 2018. Karsztvidékek az európai nemzeti parkokban (European national parks with karst landscapes). Karsztfejlődés 23. 207–217. Mari, L. and Telbisz, T. 2019. Karsztos területek az európai geoparkokban (European geoparks with karst landscapes). Karsztfejlődés 24. 79–92. Mose, I. 2007. Protected Areas and Regional Development in Europe: Towards a New Model for the 21st Century. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Nastran, M. 2015. Why does nobody ask us? Impacts on local perception of a protected area in designa- tion, Slovenia. Land Use Policy 46. 38–49. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.001. Nestorová Dická, J., Gessert, A., Bryndzová, L. and Telbisz, T. 2020. Behavioural survey of local inhabitants’ views and attitudes about Slovak Karst National Park in Slovakia. Sustainability 12. (23): 10029. Available at https://doi.org/10.3390/ su122310029. Rodrigues, A.S.L. and Cazalis, V. 2020. The mul- tifaceted challenge of evaluating protected area effectiveness. Nature Communications 11. (1): 5147. Available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020- 18989-2. Sladonja, B., Brščić, K., Poljuha, D., Fanuko, N. and Grgurev, M. 2012. Introduction of participatory conservation in Croatia, residents’ perceptions: a case study from the Istrian peninsula. Environmental Management 49. 1115–1129. Available at https://doi. org/10.1007/s00267-012-9851-4 Tardy, J., Schmidt, A., Csepregi, I. and Zsembery, Z. 2018. Nature conservation. In National Atlas of Hungary Vol 2. Natural Environment. Ed.-in-chief: Kocsis, K., Budapest, MTA CSFK Geographical Institute, 144–155. Telbisz, T., Gruber, P., Mari, L., Kőszegi, M., Bottlik, Zs. and Standovár, T. 2020. Geological heritage, geotourism and local development in Aggtelek National Park (NE Hungary). Geoheritage 12. (1): 5. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020- 00438-7. Telbisz, T., Ćalić, J., Kovačević-Majkić, J., Milanović, R., Brankov, J. and Micić, J. 2021. Karst geoheritage of Tara National Park (Serbia) and its geotouristic potential. Geoheritage 13. (4): 88. Available at https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00612-5. Telbisz, T., Šulc, I., Mari, L. and Radeljak-Kaufmann, P. 2022a. Attitudes and preferences of visitors of Krka National Park, Croatia. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (2): 117–132. Telbisz, T., Radeljak Kaufmann, P. and Bočić, N. 2022b. Inland-coastal demographic transformations in a karst area: a case study of the surroundings of Krka National Park (Croatia). Journal of Mountain Science 19. (2): 305–321. Available at https://doi. org/10.1007/s11629-021-7032-8 Telbisz, T. and Mari, L. 2020. The significance of karst areas in European national parks and geop- arks. Open Geosciences 12. (1): 117–132. Available at https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2020-0008. 115Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115. Internet references (Accessed between 23 December 2021 and 20 January 2022): https://www.protectedplanet.net/ http://www.bioportal.hr/services http://www.haop.hr/hr/tematska-podrucja/odrzivo- koristenje-prirodnih-dobara-i-ekoloska-mreza/ ekoloska-mreza http://haop.dev.perpetuum.hr/hr/tematska-podrucja/ zasticena-podrucja/zasticena-podrucja/zasticena- podrucja-u-rh https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_files/kor/en/kor0015.html https://lechnerkozpont.hu/ https://termeszetvedelem.hu/ https://lemncontrolat.ro/link-uri-si-documente-utile/ fisiere-descarcabile/ https://www.minzp.sk/spravy/2019/april/100-rokov- statnej-ochrany-prirody-slovensku.html https://www.minzp.sk/ochrana-prirody/uzemna- ochrana/prehlad-chranenych-uzemi-slovenskej- republiky/ https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/ protected-area-categories http://www.sopsr.sk/web/?cl=114 Mari, L. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 99–115.116