Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 725–743 | Cite as

Networks of hiking tourist trails in the Krkonoše (Czech Republic) and Peneda-Gerês (Portugal) national parks — comparative analysis

  • Krzysztof KołodziejczykEmail author


Tourist trails as a linear form of tourist infrastructure fulfill various functions (i.e. recreational, ecological, economic, social, ensuring safety). They are especially important in national parks, where in selected areas tourist penetration is allowed only along specially designed, official routes. A well-planned layout of tourist trails with appropriate facilities can help to limit the negative consequences of tourist pressure on protected natural areas. The aim of the article is a comparison of offers for active tourists in two mountain national parks (the Krkonoše National Park in the Czech Republic and the Peneda-Gerês National Park in Portugal), taking into consideration the marked hiking trails — the most frequently used type of tourist trails. As a result the level of area coverage by the networks of hiking trails was assessed, as well as their adequateness towards the needs of tourists. The descriptive analysis was based on author’s personal observations. In the examination of hiking trails as part of a system, some elements of the graph theory were used, especially coefficients for topologic analysis of spatial structure. This method enables simplification of a network, comparison of various areas and making some assumptions concerning tourist infrastructure, which is a crucial factor while analyzing trails from a tourists’ point of view. In both analyzed national parks the relief is quite similar, as well as their locations near national borders, what justifies the choice of the areas scrutinized in the paper. What differ them are patterns of tourism development and the current ways of undertaking active tourism. Not similarities but the two latter factors resulted in a distinct character of the two compared networks of trails and facilities connected with them. The system of hiking trails and tourist infrastructure seem better developed in the Krkonoše National Park, what can be explained by historical and social conditions, especially the adopted model of hiking. In the article some disadvantages of tourist infrastructure in both protected areas were presented, as well as some suggestions in terms of its development, resulting from the analysis of networks of hiking trails.


Hiking tourist trails Tourist infrastructure Mountains National parks Network Graph analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The study was funded by the University of Wroclaw.


  1. Adamski P, Ciapała S, Gmyrek K, et al. (2014) Negative consequences of overcrowding tourist trails in the Pieniny National Park and nature reserve Homole Gorge. Folia Turistica 31: 147–164. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  2. Adamski P, Kolasińska A, Witkowski Z (2013) Illegal dispersion of tourists in the Pieniny National Park as an example of research conducted in the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Physical Education in Kraków. In: Pawlusiński R. (ed.), Modern Conditions and Problems of Tourism Development, Cracow: Jagiellonian University, Institute of Geography and Spatial Management. pp 413–422. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  3. Arcuset L (2009) Possible paths towards sustainable tourism development in a high-mountain resort. Journal of Alpine Research/Revue de Géographie Alpine 97(3): 1–13. Google Scholar
  4. Ballantyne M, Pickering CM (2015) The impacts of trail infrastructure on vegetation and soils: current literature and future directions. Journal of Environmental Management 164: 53–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayfield N (1973) Use and deterioration of some Scottish hill paths. Journal of Applied Ecology 10: 635–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley R (2012) Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research 39(2): 528–546. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler R (1999) Sustainable tourism: a state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies 1(1): 7–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardoso J, Melo I, Tellería MT (1992) Aphyllophorales of Peneda-Gerês National Park (Portugal). Cryptogamic Botany 2: 395–404.Google Scholar
  9. Ceballos-Lascuráin H (ed.) (1996) Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas: the State of Nature-based Tourism around the World and Guidelines for its Development. IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Ares. Gland-Cambridge: IUCN, The World Conservation Union, IUCN Protected Areas Programme.Google Scholar
  10. Chen X, Shi X (2018) Geoscience landscape division and tourism zonation in the mid-southern section of the Hengduan Mountains, eastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Journal of Mountain Science 15(4): 894–917. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cole DN (1995) Experimental trampling of vegetation: I. Relationship between trampling intensity and vegetation response. Journal of Applied Ecology 32(1): 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole DN (2004) Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation. In: Buckley R. (eds.), Environmental impacts of ecotourism. CABI Publishing, New York, pp 41–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Discovering the Peneda-Gerês National Park (n.d.). Available on: (Accessed on 21 August 2018)
  14. Dudek T (2017) Recreational potential as an indicator of accessibility control in protected mountain forest areas. Journal of Mountain Science 14(7): 1419–1427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dvořák J, Jirásko F, Stursa J (1996) Krkonoše Mountains: Tourist Guide. Jilemnice: Gentiana Jilemnice. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  16. Dzioban K (2007) Analysis of the network of tourist trails in the Tatra National Park. In: Pociask-Karteczka J, Matuszyk A, Skawiński P (eds.), The Condition and Prospects of Tourism Development in the Tatra National Park, Cracow — Zakopane: Bronisław Czech Academy of Physical Education in Cracow, Tatra National Park. pp 191–197. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  17. Ferreira LA, Harmse AC (1999) The social carrying capacity of Kruger National Park, South Africa: policy and practice. Tourism Geographies 1(3): 325–342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forman RTT, Gordon M (1986) Landscape Ecology. New York: Wiley&Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Geneletti D, Dawa D (2009) Environmental impact assessment of mountain tourism in developing regions: A study in Ladakh, Indian Himalaya. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29(4): 229–242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gittins JW (1973) Conservation and capacity: a case study of the Snowdonia National Park. The Geographical Journal 139(3): 482–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gordon A, Drożdżyński L (2007) Polish Tourist Country-Lovers Society in relation to tourism space and trails. In: Kuleczka P (ed.) Tourist Trails and Tourism Space. Warsaw: Main Administration of PTTK. pp 15–28. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  22. Guo T, Smith J, Leung Y, Seekamp E, et al. (2015) Determinants of responsible hiking behavior: Results from a stated choice experiment. Environmental Management 56(3): 765–776. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henriques PC et al. (2013) Parque Nacional da Peneda-Gerês (Peneda-Gerês National Park). Terras de Bouro: Institute of Nature Conservation and Forestry, Peneda-Gerês National Park. (In Portuguese)Google Scholar
  24. Hrnčiarová T, Kenderessy P, Špulerová J, et al. (2018) Status and outlook of the hiking trails in the central part of the Low Tatra Mountains in Slovakia between 1980–1981 and 2013–2014. Journal of Mountain Science 15(8): 1615–1632. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hunter C (1997) Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research 24(4): 850–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaczmarek J, Stasiak A, Włodarczyk B (2010) Tourist Product. Idea — Organization — Management, Warsaw: State Economic Publishing House. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  27. Kociánová M, Flousek J, Št’astná P, et al. (2009) Why not outdoor sports in the first zone of the national park. Krkonoše — Jizerské Hory 42(5): 14–15. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  28. Kolasińska A (2010) Access rules for tourism in national parks as the boundaries of human interference. Pridnik. Works and Materials of prof. Władysław Szafert Museum 20: 253–264. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  29. Kolasińska A, Adamski P, Ciapała S, et al. (2015) Trail management, off-trail walking and visitors impact in the Pieniny Mts National Park (Polish Carpathians). Eco.mont — Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research and Management 7(1): 26–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kołodziejczyk K (2014a) Development of a network of tourist trails along the Polish-Czech border in the Sudetes in the years 1945–2013. Prace Geograficzne 136: 81–101. (In Polish). Google Scholar
  31. Kołodziejczyk K (2014b) Offer of tourist bus lines transporting bikes in the Czech Republic. City and Regional Transport 11/2014: 27–34. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  32. Kołodziejczyk K (2015) Standards for Infrastructure on Tourist Trails in the Middle Height Mountains on Selected European Examples. Wroclaw: Institute of Geography and Regional Development, University of Wroclaw. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  33. Kołodziejczyk K (2018) Network of hiking trails in the Jizera Mountains Landscape Park in the northern Czech Republic. Prace Geograficzne 152: 83–104. (In Polish). Google Scholar
  34. Kowalczyk A (2003) Wine routes — a new form of tourist activation of rural areas. Prace i Studia Geograficzne 32: 69–98. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  35. Kowalczyk A (2009) Tourist infrastructure on protected areas (an example of South Africa). Prace i Studia Geograficzne 42: 15–58. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  36. Kowalczyk A, Derek M (2010) Tourist infrastructure, Warsaw: Scientific Publishing House PWN (In Polish)Google Scholar
  37. Krakowiak B (1997) Tourist infrastructure in the Carpathian national parks. Turyzm 7(2): 25–44. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  38. Krkonoše: Tourist Map 1:40 000 (2017). Vizovice: Shocart. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  39. Leung Y-F, Marion JL (2000) Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: a state-of-knowldege review. In: Cole DN, McCool S, Borrie W, O’Loughlin J (eds.), Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference — Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp 23–48.Google Scholar
  40. Liddle M (1997) Recreation Ecology: the Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation and Ecotourism. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Lokvenc T (2006) Romantic beginnings of tourism. Krkonoše — Jizerské hory 39(6): 22–24. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  42. López I, Pardo M (2018) Tourism versus nature conservation: reconciliation of common interests and objectives — an analysis through Picos de Europa National Park. Journal of Mountain Science 15(11): 2505–2516. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lourenço JM, Quental N, Barros F (2009) Naturbanization and sustainability at Peneda-Gerès National Park. In: Prados MJ (ed.) Naturbanization New Identities and Processes for Rural-natural Areas. London: Taylor and Francis. pp 45–73.Google Scholar
  44. Magyari-Sáska Z, Dombay S (2008) Tourist trails analysis at St. Ana Lake region using GIS methodology. Geographia Technica 1: 40–45.Google Scholar
  45. Manderson AK (2006) A system based framework to examine the multi-contextual application of the sustainability concept. Environment, Development and Sustainability 8(1): 85–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mapy (Maps) (n.d.). Available on: (Accessed on 27 March 2018).
  47. Marion JL, Leung Y-F (2004) Environmentally sustainable trail management. In: Buckley R (ed.), Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing. pp 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marking System of the Tourist Trails in the Czech Republic: Marked Rambling Trails, Marked Ski Trails, Marked Cycling Trails (n.d.). Prague: Klub českých turistů.Google Scholar
  49. McCool SF (1994) Planning for sustainable nature dependent tourism development: the limits of acceptable change system. Tourism Recreation Research 19(2): 51–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mielnicka B (1992) Tourism in the Babia Góra National Park. Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą 48(1): 18–26. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  51. Mika M (2003) Environmental impact of tourism development in reception areas in Poland and methods of controlling them. Prace Geograficzne 111: 129–141.Google Scholar
  52. Mikos von Rohrscheidt A (2010) Regional Thematic Routes. Idea, Potential, Organization. Cracow: Proksenia. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  53. Moyle B (2013) Managing outdoor recreation: case studies in the national park. Annals of Tourism Research 41: 244–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Neto F (2003) A new approach to sustainable tourism development: Moving beyond environmental protection. Natural Resource Forum 27: 212–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. On Nature’s Trail: a Guide to the Future of Colorado’s Statewide Trail System (2000) Denver: Colorado State Parks.Google Scholar
  56. Peneda-Gerês National Park 1:50 000 (2017) Covilhã: Adventure Maps. (In Portuguese)Google Scholar
  57. Peatbogs in the Krkonoše Mountains (2006). Vrchlabí: Správa KRNAP. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  58. Pickering CM, Hill W (2007) Impacts of recreation and tourism on plant biodiversity and vegetation in protected areas in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 85(4): 791–800. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pickering CM, Hill W, Newsome D, et al. (2010) Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America. Journal of Environmental Management 91(3): 551–562. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pilous V (2016) Krkonoše Mountains: A Case Study of Polygenetic Relief. In: Pánek T, Hradecký J (eds.), Landscapes and Landforms of the Czech Republic. Dordrecht: Springer. pp 177–193. Google Scholar
  61. Potocki J (2004) Development of Tourist Infrastructure in Sudetes from mid-19th Century to the Second World War. Jelenia Góra: Tourist Publishing House “Plan”. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  62. Potocki J (2005) Transformations of a network of high-mountain huts in the Giant Mountains. Gospodarka Przestrzenna, VIII: 115–123. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  63. Potocki J (2010) Pressure on natural environment in major tourist locations of the Karkonosze Mts. in light of demographic trends and expansion of the tourist function of the region. Opera Corcontica 47 (Suppl. 1): 277–282.Google Scholar
  64. Potrykowski M, Taylor Z (1982) Geography of Transportation: Basic Problems, Models and Analytic Methods. Warsaw: PWN. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  65. Price MF (1992) Patterns of the development of tourism in mountain environments. Geojournal 27(1): 87–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rodgers HB (1973) The demand for recreation. The Geographical Journal 139(3): 467–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rodrigues A and Regalo H (2002) Geira: Via Romana XVIII. Terras de Bouro: Peneda-Gerês National Park, Town Hall of Terras de Bouro. (In Portuguese)Google Scholar
  68. Rogowski M (2010) The use of GIS tools in assessing the tourist attractiveness of hiking trails. In: Młynarczyk Z, Zajadacz A, Słowik M (eds.), Conditions and Plans for Tourism Development. Volume V — Nature Aspects of Tourism Development. Poznan: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe. pp 111–121.Google Scholar
  69. Schwarz O (1997) Reconstruction of Forest Ecosystems of the Krkonoše Mountains. Vrchlabí: Authorities of the Krkonoše National Park. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  70. Sewerniak J (1980) The method of creating hiking trails in the coastal zone, taking into account their capacity. In: Geographical Basis of the Tourist Use of the Coastal Zone, Warsaw: Tourism Institute. pp 120–153. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  71. Sewerniak J (1982) Problems of the program and spatial development of hiking trails. Problemy Turystyki 4(18): 30–54. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  72. Shelby B, Heberlein TA (1986) Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis: Oregon State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  73. Sołtysik M, Toczek-Werner S (2010) Biophysiological aspects of tourism. In: Wyrzykowski J, Marak J (eds.), Tourism in an Interdisciplinary View. Wroclaw: Higher Trade School in Wroclaw. pp 43–90. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  74. Stasiak A (1997) Tourism in national parks — conflict areas. Turyzm 7(2): 5–24. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  75. Stasiak A (2006) Tourist product — trail. Tourism and Hospitality 10: 9–40. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  76. Stasiak A (2007) Tourist trails — facility, attraction or tourist product?. In: Kuleczka P (ed.), Tourist Trails and Tourist Space. Warsaw: Main Administration of PTTK. pp 45–53. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  77. Stastna P (2006) The Current Problems with the Historical Existence of Chalets in the Core Zone of the Krkonose Mts. National Park, Czech Republic. In: Siegrist D, Clivaz C, Hunziker M, Iten S (eds.), Exploring the Nature of Management. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. Rapperswil: University of Applied Sciences. pp 478–480.Google Scholar
  78. Styperek J (2001) Hiking tourist trails in Polish national parks. Turyzm 11(1): 25–37. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  79. Styperek J (2002) Linear Systems of Recreational Penetration. Poznan: Bogucki Scientific Publishing House. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  80. Suchodolski J (2005) Architecture of Mountain Hostels in the Sudetes. Wroclaw: Publishing House of the Wrocław University of Technology. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  81. Sundriyal S, Shridhar V, Madhwal S, et al. (2018) Impacts of tourism development on the physical environment of Mussoorie, a hill station in the lower Himalayan range of India. Journal of Mountain Science 15(10): 2276–2291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Swarbrooke J (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford: CABI Publ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Swatowska A (1996) Nature and tourism in the Karkonosze National Park. Śląski Labirynt Krajoznawczy 8: 23–36. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  84. Swatowska A (1998) Problems of tourist movement regulation in the Karkonosze National Park. In Spatial Planning 1. Wroclaw: University of Economics in Wroclaw, Publishing House of the Wroclaw Branch of PTTK “Sudety”. pp 60–72. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  85. Šilhavý I (1991) Development of erosion in the Krkonoše National Park in 1986–1989 in the context of skidding of wood. Opera Corcontica 28: 27–46. (In Czech)Google Scholar
  86. Taafee EJ, Gauthier HL (1973) Geography of Transportation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  87. Taczanowska K, Gonzalez LM, Garcia-Masso X, et al. (2014) Evaluating the structure and use of hiking trails in recreational areas using a mixed GPS tracking and graph theory approach. Applied Geography 55: 184–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tomczyk A, Ewertowski M (2013) Planning of recreational trails in protected areas: application of regression tree analysis and geographic information systems. Applied Geography 40: 129–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Trail Design Guidelines for Portland’s Park System. Regional Trails, Natural Areas and Developed Parks (2009). Portland: Portland Parks & Recreation.Google Scholar
  90. Trails For All Americans: The Report of the National Trails Agenda Project submitted by American Trails to the National Park Service (1990). U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.Google Scholar
  91. Vystoupil J, Šauer M (2012) Geography of tourism of the Czech Republic. In: Wyrzykowski J, Widawski K (eds.), Geography of Tourism of Central and Eastern Europe Countries. Wroclaw: Institute of Geography and Regional Development, University of Wroclaw. pp 103–139.Google Scholar
  92. Wall G, Mathieson A (2006) Tourism: Change, Impacts and Opportunities. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  93. Wight P (1998) Tools for sustainability analysis in planning and managing tourism and recreation in the destination. In: Hall CM, Lew AA (eds.), Sustainable Tourism. A Geographical Perspective. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. pp 75–91.Google Scholar
  94. Williams S (2000) Tourism Geography, Routledge Contemporary Human Geography Series. London — New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  95. Woźniak A (2010) Graphs and Networks in Decision-making Techniques. Cracow: Technical Committee for Rural Infrastructure, Polish Academy of Sciences, Department in Krakow. (In Polish)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Regional Geography and Tourism, Institute of Geography and Regional DevelopmentUniversity of WroclawWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations