Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 14, Issue 7, pp 1419–1427 | Cite as

Recreational potential as an indicator of accessibility control in protected mountain forest areas

  • Tomasz Dudek


The article presents research findings related to recreational use of forests located in protected mountainous areas with forestage of over 80%. The study was designed to identify recreational potential of the Carpathian national parks (Bieszczady National Park, Babia Góra National Park, Gorce National Park and Magura National Park; southern Poland) and to compare these findings with the actual number of visitors. The information received on the recreational potential of parks is important from the point of view of protection of natural resources and the financial situation of the parks. The calculated ratio may be an effective tool of management for park administration, that allows to reconcile statutory social and protective functions of national parks. The study determined the recreational potential of the forests with the use of recreational valorisation method designed for areas with varied terrain, and the evaluated factors included the stands of trees with their habitat and land relief. The permissible number of national park visitors, expressed as manhour/ ha/year ranges from 19.31 in Bieszczady National Park (BG: 19º 35' E, 49º 35' N) to 32.06 in in Bieszczady National Park (B: 22º 40' E, 49º 10' N). In 3 out of 4 investigated parks, Magura National Park (M: 21°25' E, 49º 30' N), Gorce National Park (G: 20º 10' E, 49º 35' N), B) recreation carrying capacity was not exceeded, whether or not the strictly protected area is taken into account. Only in BG was the recreation carrying capacity exceeded by nearly 24%, or by 85% if the strictly protected area is excluded from tourism-related exploitation. The presented procedure for monitoring access to mountain forests in national parks, from the viewpoint of natural resources conservation, can be applied in other mountainous areas covered with forests and exposed to tourist and recreational traffic, and in forests facing particular risk of recreational damage, e.g. in urban and suburban forests growing in areas with varied orography.


Forest recreation Recreational capacity Protected areas Mountain forests the Carpathians 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



I would like to express my gratitude to the authorities and staff of Bieszczady, Babia Góra, Gorce, and Magura National Parks, for their kind cooperation and for granting permission for the research to be conducted in the Parks. The study was funded by the University of Rzeszów.


  1. Bartczak A, Lindhejm H, Navrud S, et al. (2008) Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland. Forest Policy and Economics 10(7-8): 467–472. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell S (2008) Design for outdoor recreation. Taylor & Francis, New York, p 231.Google Scholar
  3. Bell S, Simpson M, Tyrväinen L, et al. (2009) European Forest Recreation and Tourism: A Handbook. Taylor & Francis, London, p 237.Google Scholar
  4. Bernard F, de Groot RS, Campos JJ (2009) Valuation of tropical forest services and mechanisms to finance their conservation and sustainable use: A case study of Tapantí National Park, Costa Rica. Forest Policy and Economics 11(3): 174–183. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckley R (2000) Neat trends: Current issues in nature, ecoand adventure tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 2: 437–444. DOI: 10.1002/1522-1970(200011/12)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Central Statistical Office (2014) Environment. Statistical Publishing Establishment, Warsaw, Poland, p 593.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Coles RW, Bussey SC (2000) UK -progressing the social agenda. Landscape and Urban Planning 52(2-3): 181–188. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00 132-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Croitoru L (2007) How much are Mediterranean forests worth. Forest Policy and Economics 9(5): 536–545. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cubbage F, Harou P, Sills E (2007) Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 9(7): 833–851. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006. 03.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Destan S, Bekiroglu S (2011) Evaluation of the territorial system of forest recreation by natural indicators: Belgrade forest example. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6 (1): 212–223. DOI: 10.5897/AJAR10.789Google Scholar
  12. Dudek T (2013) Assessment of recreational potential of forests in areas with diverse orography: Czarnorzecko-Strzyzowski Landscape Park case study. Sylwan 157(10): 775–779. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  13. Dudek T (2014) Recreational potential of the Magurski National Park versus the actual number of visitors. Sylwan 158(11): 875–879. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  14. Dudek T (2016a) Needs of the local population related to development of forests for recreational purposes: example of south-eastern Poland. Journal of Forest Science 62: 35–40. DOI: 10.17221/99/2015-JFSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dudek T (2016b) Recreational potential of Rzeszów suburban forests versus the demand for spending leisure time in forests among the residents of the Podkarpackie Province. Sylwan 160(2): 169–176. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  16. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graja-Zwolinska S (2009) Role of tourismabsorption rate in shaping touristareas of national parks. Studia i Materialy Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Lesnej 23(4): 187–192. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  18. Gundersen VS, Frivold LH (2008) Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7(4): 241–258. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heyman E, Gunnarsson B, Stenseke M, et al. (2011) Openness as a key-variable for analysis of management trade-offs in urban woodlands. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10(4): 281–293. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heyman E (2012) Analysing recrational values and management effects in an urban forest with the visitor -employed photography method. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11(3): 267–277. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karjalainen E, Sarjala T, Raitio H (2010) Promoting human health through forests: overview and major challenges. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 15: 1–8. DOI: 10.1007/s12199-008-0069-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kikulski J (2010) Recreational use of the forest -declared awareness and social reference to the applied restrictions. Studia i Materialy Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Lesnej 24(1): 128–137. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  23. Knight J (2000) From Timber to Tourism: Recommoditizing the Japanese Forest. Development and Change 31: 341–359. DOI: 10.1111/1467-7660.00157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee ChK, Han SY (2002) Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks’ tourism resource using a contingent valuation method. Tourism Management 23(5): 531–540. DOI: 10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00010-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ma XL, Ryan Ch, Bao JG (2009) Chinese national parks: Differences, resource use and tourism product portfolios. Tourism Management 30(1): 21–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malmivaara M, Löfström I, Vanha-Majamaa I (2002) Anthropogenic effects on understorey vegetation in Myrtillus type urban forests in southern Finland. Silva Fennica 36(1): 367–381. DOI: 10.14214/sf.568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marzano M, Dandy N (2012) Recreational use of forests and disturbance of wildlife. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, p 42.Google Scholar
  28. MCPFE Report (2007) State of Europe’s Forests 2007. The MCPFE report on sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe Liaison Unit Warsaw, Warsaw, pp 247. (, accessed on 2015-12-03)Google Scholar
  29. Moyle B (2013) Managing outdoor recreation: case studies in the national park. Annals of Tourism Research 41: 244–266. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2013.02.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Myga-Piatek U, Jankowski G (2009) Tourism impact on the natural environment and cultural landscape. Analysis of chosen examples of highlands. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu XXV: 27–38. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  31. Nepal SK (2000) Tourism in protected areas: the Nepalese Himalaya. Annals of Tourism Research 27(3): 661–681. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00105-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Notaro S, Paletto A, Piffer M (2012) Tourism innovation in the forestry sector: comparative analysis between Auckland Region (New Zealand) and Trentino (Italy). iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry 5: 262–271. DOI: 10.3832/ifor0631-005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Obua J (1997) Environmental Impact of Ecotourism in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(3): 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Park BJ, Tsunetsugu Y, Kasetani T, et al. (2009) Physiological effects of forest recreation in a young conifer forest in Hinokage Town, Japan. Silva Fennica 43(2): 291–301. DOI: 10.14214/sf.213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Partyka J (2010) Availability of poland’s national parks for tourism and the landscape. Prace Komisji Krajobrazu Kulturowego 14: 252–263. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  36. Paschalis-Jakubowicz P (2009) Forestry and forests tourism and recreation. Studia i Materialy Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Lesnej 23(4): 29–35. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  37. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riikka P (2008) Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks. Fennia 186(1): 47–58.Google Scholar
  39. Sklodowski J, Golos P (2015) Preferred type of forest stand and factors deciding about the tourist attractiveness of the forest. Sylwan 159(9): 747–756. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  40. Sohrabi Saraj B, Yachkaschi A, Oladi D, et al. (2009) The recreational valuation of a natural forest park using travel cost method in Iran. iForest 2: 85–92. DOI: 10.3832/ifor 0497-002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Symmonds MC, Hammitt WE, Quisenberry VL (2000) Managing recreational trail environments for mountain bike user preferences. Environmental Management 25(5): 549–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tracz H (2004) Ecological consequences in reducing biological activity of soils under tourist-recreational pressure. Sylwan 148(6): 38–43. (In Polish)Google Scholar
  43. Zandersen M, Tol RSJ (2009) A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. Journal of Forest Economics 15(1-2): 109–130. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2008.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zieliński K (2010) Lexicon of Podkarpacie wildlife. Resprint, Rzeszów, p 160. (In Polish)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AgroecologyUniversity of RzeszówRzeszówPoland

Personalised recommendations