Open Geosci. 2019; 11:1046–1060 Research Article Krzysztof Widawski* and Zdzisław Jary Mass tourism in protected areas – underestimated threat? Polish National Parks case study https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2019-0081 Received Apr 11, 2019; accepted Nov 25, 2019 1 Introduction Abstract: The article considers the tourist traffic as pos- Protection of nature, and especially of valuable natural sible to elements of inanimate nature in protected areas. areas in the context of tourism development has been The highest form of protection in Poland - national parks, present in the literature for decades. Every year, the pop- has been taken into account. The main goal is to diagnose ularity of Nature-based tourism in the world increases, the situation based on the analysis of official documents which translates into a greater contact of tourists with elaborated by the national park authorities. One of the im- the natural environment and practicing in this environ- portant elements is to diagnose the threat to nature and ment many forms of active tourism [1–5]. The increase of indicate ways to neutralize it. At the beginning, the geo- the interest in the natural environment also influences touristic potential of these parks was presented, where this the diversification of the approach to its use. This isac- type of resources is considered important from the point companied by the growing awareness among tourists of of view of tourism. The tourist function of the most impor- the need to protect the environment as a whole. The ba- tant attractions in Poland was indicated. In the top ten sis of this approach has become the idea of geoconserva- there are as many as 4 national parks, including Tatrza- tion. It is expressed in the appropriate management of geo- ński which takes first place. The size of tourist traffic in logical heritage resources of exceptional educational and all 23 parks was analyzed. As a result, it was shown that tourist value, which also includes aesthetic value [6]. As the most popular, where tourist flow is of mass character, Burek and Prosser [7] point out, geoconservation is not include mountain parks with significant geotouristic po- only about caring for the preservation of heritage for fear of tential. Next, the current protection plans for them were destruction by tourists, but also for properly directed pro- analyzed: Tatrzański, Karkonoski, Table Mountains and motion of elements of the geological and geomorphologi- Pieniński, where the annual tourist flow varies between cal environment. The need for geoconservation comes di- 0.5 million and almost 4 million visitors per year. Threats rectly from geodiversity, which Gray [8] defines as a broad were assigned to 4 groups: existing internal threats, poten- set of natural elements: tial internal threats, existing external threats and potential – geological as rocks, minerals or fossils, external threats. In each of the types of threats special at- – geomorphological as landform or physical pro- tention was paid to those related to inanimate nature. It cesses, also indicated the ways in which park managers want to – soil. influence the change of negative trends. The basic conclu- sion was indicated, which boils down to the postulate of a Geoheritage refers to geodiversity functioning in a specific balanced approach to the protection of both types of na- place where is adequately protected from destruction [9]. ture: animate and inanimate. In the case of animate na- Georesources are used in geotourism. Hose’s [10–14] ture, threats and suggestions for improving the situation first and subsequent attempts to define the phenomenon seem to be much better diagnosed than in the case of inan- referred to the interpretation of geosites and geomor- imate nature. phosites, but also museums, etc. He pointed to the geolog- ical aspect of tourism. Keywords: Threats to inanimate nature, national parks, tourism, geotouristic potential, nature protection Regional Development, University of Wrocław, Poland; Email: [email protected] Zdzisław Jary: Department of Physical Geography, Institute of *Corresponding Author: Krzysztof Widawski: Department of Geography and Regional Development, University of Wrocław, Regional Geography and Tourism, Institute of Geography and Poland Open Access. © 2019 K. Widawski and Z. Jary, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License Mass tourism in protected areas – underestimated threat? Polish National Parks case study Ë 1047 In the publication from [15] Hose and Vasiljević pro- presentation of geography of tourism in Poland by Lijew- posed definition of modern geotourism poiting at: the pro- ski, Mikułowski, Wyrzykowski [43, 44] proposes quite de- vision of interpretative and service facilities for geosites tailed division concerning the specifics of country poten- and geomorphosites and their encompassing topography tial. Among the resources the main groups are proposed: together with their associated in situ and ex situ artifacts, 1. Leisure tourist resources constituency-build for their conservation by generating 2. Sightseeing tourist resources appreciation, learning and research by and for current and 3. Qualified tourist resources [44] future generations. The most common place to implement the develop- Although there are three groups in the division their poten- ment of such activity is adapted to this area, among which tial is based on two kinds of values: nature and civilization Henriques et al. [6] list nature reserves, natural parks, or ones. This view places the leisure and qualified tourist re- above all - national parks. The importance of protected sources in the group of nature values and divides sightsee- areas for the development of geotourism is indicated by ing resources into two main groups: many authors [16]. – natural sightseeing resources, The broadly understood nature-based tourism can – cultural sightseeing resources [43]. also have a negative impact on the environment. The lit- Only this division indicates the importance of inanimate erature on the subject points to the threats of nature an- and animate elements of the natural environment in the imate in protected areas, especially plants, which is indi- development of tourism. Furthermore concerning just the cated by many studies [17–22]. Various types of threats are nature the inanimate elements are important and more of- mentioned. Usually, trampling, collecting, changes in soil ten present in the tourist offer in rural area. structure, erosion and changes in vegetation structure are The inanimate values are the most commonly used in emphasized [17, 23–28]. Among the mentioned elements the process of creating a tourist product. of animate and inanimate nature attention is paid to the If such potential resources are to be treated as real risks associated with tourist infrastructure, for example ones certain conditions must be met: damages made along hiking trails [24, 29–33]. As geoconservation plays a significant role in edu- – to be visible in the landscape, cation, science, and in the development of geotourism, – to arouse the tourist interest, there is a postulate of the need to protect natural heritage, – to be resistant to the tourist traffic, which should be included even in land-use plannig poli- – to be properly adapted to the tourist reception [43, p. cies [6, 34]. It is also necessary to properly manage geosites, 74]. which should be expressed in an appropriate geoconserva- In order to better understand the diversity of natural tion strategy, as indicated by many authors [35–38]. resources they were divided into additional categories ac- It is worth looking at how valuable natural areas with cording to the level of human intervention in the process of the status of a national park - the highest form of nature their creation. The first group are the resources on which protection in Poland - refer to the postulate of the protec- the activity of a human being did not have any influence. tion of inanimate nature heritage, also threatened by the Among them there are: development of mass tourism in their areas. – waterfalls, springs, – caves and grottos, – rocks and groups of rocks, 2 Types of tourist resources – gorges, valleys, and watershed, – erratic rocks, Polish literature divides the tourist resources differently. – the group of rocks, Actually no matter the source all the resources are divided – other geological sites, into two main groups: – the curiosities of fauna and flora. – resources based on the nature, The second group includes values heavily influenced by – resources based on the cultural activity of mankind. human activity. There are four main values of this kind: Such approach can be found in early 1970s Rogalewski [39] – museums of nature, or Warszyńska and Jackowski [40] and is practically con- – monumental parks, tinued until present [41, 42]. The position dedicated to the – botanical gardens, 1048 Ë K. Widawski and Z. Jary Source: own elaboration Map 1: Location of National Parks in Poland – zoological gardens. In Poland each national park is established on the ba- sis of a separate legal act. The basis is the amended Act - – The third group includes values that originate from hu- National Protection Act – of 16 April 2004, no 92. The docu- man intervention, but the intervention itself does not af- ment defines National Park as an area distinguished by its fect their nature and significance. Many examples can be natural, scientific, social, cultural and educational values mentioned here but certainly the most important are the of the surface of at least 1000 hectares and where all the resources of the surface nature like: landscape parks, for- nature and landscape values are protected. The National est preserves, various sanctuaries and above all national Park is created “to preserve the biodiversity, resources, the parks. components of inanimate nature and landscape values and to restore the proper state of the resources and com- ponents of nature...” [45]. Nowadays there are 23 national 3 National Parks and tourism in parks located in the different landscape zones (Map 1).