Open Geosci. 2019; 11:1046–1060

Research Article

Krzysztof Widawski* and Zdzisław Jary Mass 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 - 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 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 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, 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 , 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). Poland – potential and The table below shows the potential of this kind of re- sources in Poland. consequences

No matter the character of the nature protected within the specific area the national parks are the highest form ofna- 4 Aims and methodology ture protection in the Polish legal system. Practically al- The main assumption of this article is to point to possi- ways both animate and inanimate resources form the basis ble threats to the nature elements, especially inanimate, for the establishing a national park. Mass tourism in protected areas – underestimated threat? Polish National Parks case study Ë 1049

Table 1:

Name Year Total surface [ha] Strict protection [ha] Region 1 Białowieski 1947 10502 4747 Podlaskie 2 Świętokrzyski 1950 7632 1731 Świętokrzyskie 3 Babiogórski 1954 3392 1062 Małopolskie 4 Pieniński 1954 2346 777 Małopolskie 5 Tatrzański 1954 21164 11514 Małopolskie 6 Ojcowski 1956 2146 251 Małopolskie 7 Wielkopolski 1957 7584 260 Wielkopolskie 8 Kampinoski 1959 38544 4638 Mazowieckie 9 Karkonoski 1959 5575 1718 Dolnośląskie 10 Woliński 1960 10937 225 Zachodniopomorskie 11 Słowiński 1967 18618 5619 Pomorskie 12 Bieszczadzki 1973 29202 18425 Podkarpackie 13 Roztoczański 1974 8482 806 Lubelskie 14 Gorczański 1981 7030 2850 Małopolskie 15 Wigierski 1989 15086 380 Podlaskie 16 Drawieński 1990 11341 368 Lubuskie, ZachPom. Wlkp. 17 Poleski 1990 9762 428 Lubelskie 18 Biebrzański 1993 59223 3936 Podlaskie 19 Gór Stołowych 1993 6340 376 Dolnośląskie 20 Magurski 1995 19962 Podkarpackie 21 Bory Tucholskie 1996 4798 Pomorskie 22 Narwiański 1996 7350 Podlaskie 23 Ujście Warty 2001 7956 Lubuskie Source: [46, ED 14.03.2019] which may be caused by the presence of tourism in areas of tourism development policy in the protected area. of natural value. Thus attention was paid to the highest The way of presenting the resources is also interest- form of nature protection in Poland - national parks. The ing although for this article such information was main method implemented in this paper would be the desk less important hence it was not taken into account in research method, where the main task is to analyze the the analysis. In the case of national parks of a mass existing data, collected to indicate, on the one hand, the tourist movement, if necessary, local authorities’ of- tourism potential and, on the other hand, the risks associ- ficial websites were also analyzed. ated with tourist use. – the list of the most important natural or geotouris- To achieve the goal, the geotouristic potential of na- tic sightseeing resources, taking into account their tional parks in Poland was first presented. The information rank. Only those values that are at least supra- about the aforementioned potential was developed based regional were included. For this purpose three lead- on two types of sources: ing summaries widely quoted in the Polish literature on the subject were used: Geography of Tourism of – official websites of all 23 national parks and theweb- Poland by Lijewski, Mikułowski, Wyrzykowski - an site of the Union of National Park Employers man- important publication of eight editions now first is- aged by the president Andrzej Raj - director of the sued in 1988 - and two Geotourist Resources Cata- . It is assumed these nat- logs developed by a research team from AGH Uni- ural tourist values for which information was pro- versity of Science and Technology led by Słomka vided on official websites are promoted by the Park [47, 48] as noteworthy. They should also constitute, accord- ing to the park’s authorities, the basis for creating and promoting a specific tourist product. Therefore, the selection of resources is an indirect expression 1050 Ë K. Widawski and Z. Jary caves "Rocky Saddle", "Chicken Foot", "Labyrinth", "Tunnel", "Great Hall" they form the north-western edge of the Table Mountains in the main part from metamorphic rocks called hornfels between Wielki Szyszak (1509 m a. s. l.) and Łabski Peak (1472 mof a. 27 s. l.) m. The upper edge reaches 1325 m a. s. l., while its bottom is at an altitude of 1130-1150 m a. s. l. of the shoreline is 756 m. turesque rock groups: Końskie Łby and Trzy Świnki. “Sitter","Mammoth","Camel","Princes Emilka’s Head"," Elephant "and" Pulpit " Szrenica dominating over Szklarska Poręba peak (1362 m a. s. l.). On the slopes of Szrenica there are pic- Łomniczka Stream with cascades called Łomniczka waterfalls Pielgrzymy three rock formations, exceeding the surrounding area at 25 m Rock Pillars White Rocks A group of rocks on the Edge of Narożnik Errant Rocks Area of 22 ha. A complex of rock formations 6 - 11 m high, labyrinth among rocks. Most popular: Small Pound post-glacial lake located at an altitude of 1183 m a. s. l. Its largest depth is 7.3 m and the length Śnieżne Kotły are two twin post-glacial cauldrons in the northern slope of the main ridge of the Karkonosze Czarny Kocioł Mroczna Cave In the Kornuty reserve. The total length of the corridors - 175 m. Zapusty Slope Created from carbonate rocks Jagniątkowski Diabli Kamień Group of rocks - a natural monument in the Kornuty reserve Łężyckie Rocks extensive mountain meadow. There are rare scattered rocks and single spruces The Peatbog Úpy the peatbog is located at an altitude of 1400-1425 m a. s. l. Rocks Mushrooms a group of originally shaped rock forms with shapes of mushrooms, bastions, gates, etc. Waterfall Szklarka the second largest waterfall in the Polish Karkonosze - its height is 13 m Waterfalls of Pośna The area of 3.89 ha of strict protection in the Pośna stream valley Waterfall Kamieńczyk the highest waterfall of the Polish . The water falls here with three cascades from a height Radkowskie Rocks and Łysica, Agata Łysa Góra The highest peaks of mountains formed from Paleozoic rocks Geotourist resources of National Parks according to oflcial websites national of parks Świętokrzyski National Park Boulder Fields The rocks on the slopes were created 500 million years ago. Total area - about 20 ha. Magurski National Park Kornuty Reserve In the area of 11.9 ha there are scattered boulders with a height of up to 10 m. There are fractured Table Mountains National Park Szczeliniec Wielki the highest peak of the Table Mountains (919 m a. s. l.) with a labyrinth with fantastic rock forms: ParkKarkonoski National Park Śnieżka The highest peak of the Karkonosze and Sudety Resource Mountains – 1602 m.a.s.l. The rock cone is built Description Table 2: Mass tourism in protected areas – underestimated threat? Polish National Parks case study Ë 1051 , contains the most geotouristic attractions 2 and has a length of about 10 km.; Kościeliska Valley 2 . There are ponds there: Wielki, Zadni, Mały, Przedni, Czarny; Cho- 2 A part of a larger structure. There is a 37 km section in the park underground corridors and chambers, with a total length of 209 m Breakthrough, Tatry Mountains ing) Kościeliska Valley), Mylna in Kościeliska Valley, Raptawicka in Kościeliska Valley, ObłazkowaKościeliska Valley. Only in the Mroźna Cave is illuminated and an additionalthere. entrance fee The is cave charged is open from Aprila 26 flashlight. to October 30. To visit the remaining caves, you must have Polish Ponds; Valley of Five Polishkm Ponds and - an area An of alpine,chołowska 6.5 post-glacial - km valley t covers with an a area of length over of 35 km 4.0 in the Tatras; iewicza - created from three larger and several smaller cascades on the RoztokaPolish stream Pounds (1894 m. n.p.m.) with numerous meanders Western Tatras. It was visited already in the first half of the century 19th - It is about 9 km long, with an area of about 35 km Esker Peaks (2499 m. n.p.m.), Kasprowy Wierch (1987 m. n.p.m.), Kościelec (2155 m. n.p.m.), Giewont Pounds Morskie Oko, Czarny Staw pod Rysami, Czarny Staw Gąsienicowy, Pounds of the Valley of Five Waterfalls Wielka Siklawa - the highest waterfall in the Tatras and Poland 65-70 m; Wodogrzmoty Mick- Three Crowns The highest peak of the built of limestone (982 m a. s. l.), a viewpoint at the Kraków Gorge n the Kościeliska Valley, Gorge is considered to be the most beautiful rock gorge in the Polish parabolic dune A large form located in the vicinity of Echo ponds Six tourist caves Whole in the w ku Dziurze Valley, Mroźna in Kościeliska Valley, Smocza Jama in Kraków Gorge (in Łokietko’s Grotto is the largest of all known caves in the Park. Its length is 320 m Leśników Boulder An erratic boulder which is a natural monument Valleys of tourist interest Roztoki Valley - Picturesque U-shaped valley in the , extension of the Valley of Five Peat bogs of Międzyrzeka A complex of unique peat bogs, a strict reserve with an area of 103.94 ha with bog marsh ...continued Wielkopolski National Park Bukowsko – Mosiński Ojcowski National Park Ciemna CaveRoztoczański National Park One of the most valuable archaeologicalTatrzański sites National in Park Poland. It is a fragment of Wepping Stone the former system of A rock built of limestone Karst springs Chochołowskie (Chochołowska Valley), Lodowe, (Kościeliska Valley), Olczyskie (Olczyska Clear- ParkPieniński National Park Dunajec Breakthrough A picturesque breakthrough with an antecedent character in the Pieniny Mountains, 8 km Resource long Description Table 2: 1052 Ë K. Widawski and Z. Jary Sand dunes in the belt of dunes of the Łeba spit It is a natural waterfall, onem of the highest in the whole Beskidy Mountains. It has a heightKiczora of 1282 8 m a.s.l., Gorc Porębski 1230 m a.s.l., Kopieniec 1080 m a.s.l. Stream Diablak The highest peak of the massif – 1725 m.a.s.l – viewpoint or cones Gosań Hill It is the highest elevation of the Polish coast (93 m above sea level) in the cliff Sand Mountain viewpoint - located on the slope of a steep, sandy-chalk cliff Zbójecka Grotto The largest cave in the Park Erratic Boulders Wydrzy Głaz – 8,1 m circuit; Mieszko I – 8 m., Boulder nr 1 – 8,1 m; Boulder nr 2 – 8,3 m Czołpińska Dune Diabelski Kamień Erratic boulder Rock walls and outcrops Czubaty Groń, Kudłoński Baca, Białe Skały ...continued Gorczański National Park Tops in the shape of domes Woliński National ParkSłowiński National Park Kawcza GóraBabiogórski National Park Łącka viewpoint Mountain, - 61 m high elevation, first in cliffs the Waterfall of Mosorny Source: [49–62, ED 17.03.2019] Park Resource Description Table 2: Mass tourism in protected areas – underestimated threat? Polish National Parks case study Ë 1053

The next step was to analyze tourist flow in national presents the routes running through the park area parks in order to illustrate the scale of the phenomenon or, and its intensity in the last decade. Finally, official docu- – presents them as natural values in the more or less ments developed for the purposes of nature conservation detailed way in a larger group of tourist attractions in parks were analyzed, as well as the opinions presented or separated as the most important attractions of the on official websites insofar as they referred to the subject park (in this category only the values of inanimate of the article, pointing to the threat of inanimate nature as- nature are presented). This is the case for two parks: sociated with the development of tourism. Karkonoski and Table Mountains - both located in Lower Silesia. The first one has also the status ofthe geopark. 5 Results and Discussion 5.2 Tourist function of national parks in 5.1 Tourist potential of national parks Poland The tourist values of national parks are presented in var- National parks play an important role in the development ious ways. The vast majority of 23 national parks provide of tourism in non-urbanized areas in Poland. They belong information on the subject under the headings of tourism, (apart of landscape parks) to the most attractive natural tourist attractions, nature (sometimes adding further links values of surface character. In practice, they are treated as of animate nature and of inanimate nature) or pointing to a collection of many tourist values of a point nature or as specific types of resources such as caves or water. an important set of recreational values where the nature The above list of values indicates that out of twenty- of the landscape, microclimate prevailing in its area, wa- three Polish national parks only thirteen in any way ter relations and fauna and flora characteristic for the re- present its geotouristic potential. This does not mean that gion are important. This form of nature protection which they give up the promotion of their natural values at all occupies just over 1% of the country’s area is able to gen- but more often they focus on the animated nature. This erate mass tourist flow. It this does not apply to all parks happens even if the size and importance of values asso- however. The size of tourist flow depends on many factors: ciated with the abiotic environment is equally important and sometimes even more important for nature conserva- – attractiveness of the landscape, tion in their area. – the range and number of tourist natural values, Certainly, the poor representation of some parks lo- – the environmental conditions for practicing differ- cated in mountainous and upland areas - areas whose geo- ent active forms of tourism, emphasizing the skiing, touristic potential is almost always significant - may be – the level of the tourist infrastructure development surprising. This is the case of the Bieszczadzki National accompanying specific forms of tourism with partic- Park whose official website does not indicate any values ular emphasis on the accommodation base in the of inanimate nature at all. In the case of such parks as vicinity of the park, Świętokrzyski, Pieniński, Gorczański or Magurski such in- – accessibility. formation is just a part of wider descriptions not directly Taking into consideration the above elements it is not related to the values. surprising the top ten most visited tourist attractions in The parks’ authorities responsible for maintaining of- Poland in 2014: ficial websites show different approaches to the presenta- tion of tourist values located in the park. There is clearly 1. Tatrzański National Park an uneven approach to tourist values in general including 2. Wilanów Palace those of a natural character. Only some of the twenty-three 3. Łazienki Palace parks draw attention to their inanimate nature values. It is 4. Karkonoski National Park prepared in three ways: 5. Auschwitz – Birkenau Concentration Camp 6. Woliński National Park – presents them as part of a broader commentary on 7. Wieliczka Salt Mine the geology or geomorphology of the area where it 8. occurs or, 9. Wielkopolski National Park – presents them as part of the description of particular 10. Kopernik Science Center thematic, didactic and educational routes, or simply 1054 Ë K. Widawski and Z. Jary

Source: [64–71] Source: [64–71]

Figure 1: Number of tourists in national parks 2010 – 2017 Figure 3: Tourist movement in selected mountainous national parks between 2010 and 2017

the number of visitors to upland parks is added, the to- tal number increases to 8705000 people, which is 65% of all tourist movement associated with national parks in Poland. This value alone indicates a potential threat from the tourist movement for the natural values of mountain and upland national parks which take on much more pres- sure from tourists. In this group, due to its attractiveness for tourists, four national parks stand out: (Figure 3). Source: [71] These were the most visited mountain national parks Figure 2: Number of tourists in national parks in 2017 in 2017. Invariably for years in this group the leader is the Tatrzański National Park where the traffic in the analyzed period has almost doubled from 2 to 4 million tourists. The As Kruczek points out [63] there are as many as four na- dynamics of this process can effect the inanimate nature tional parks in the list: two of a mountain nature, one of the Park. The situation in the Karkonoski National Park of seaside and one lake. The highest rank belongs to the is surprisingly stable where the volume of tourist traffic in Tatrzański National Park where inanimate nature plays a the last eight years has remained at a stable level of 2 mil- significant role. The Karkonoski National Park was right lion visitors which is 336 people per hectare of the Park behind the podium. For both of the parks the size of tourist which rises a threat of anthropopressure. traffic exceeds one million tourists. Variable growth is noted by Pieniński National Park The analysis of tourist traffic in national parks in re- the third in classification visited last year by almost cent years indicates a steady upward trend. 900000 tourists. In the examined relatively short period In the last decade tourist traffic in national parks in- the popularity of the Park increased by 30%. The last of creased from 10464400 to 13290600 visitors in 2017 with the analyzed parks is the Table Mountains National Park the exception of 2013. In practice tourist traffic increase of which also increased tourist traffic from 319000 in 2010 to 30% in national parks was observed which impacted both over half a million tourists in 2017. animated and inanimate nature. It is worth taking a look at the record year 2017. The most visited park with almost four million tourists is the Tatrzański National Park. The next places are occu- 5.3 Threats to inanimate nature resulting pied by the Karkonoski National Park with two million vis- from the presence of tourist flow in the itors, Woliński (1.5 million tourists) and Wielkopolski (1.2 national parks million tourists). The group of parks with a million entries or over is completed by the Kampinoski National Park . It is The size of tourist flow in valuable natural areas affects the worth paying attention to one important element: 8072000 quality and conservation status of nature. This is a kind tourists visit national parks located in mountain areas. If of paradox - the more valuable and attractive natural area in the opinion of tourists, the greater the tourist flow is Mass tourism in protected areas – underestimated threat? Polish National Parks case study Ë 1055 observed, which translates into a greater threat to the na- The Ojcowski National Park also points to tourist flow ture in the protected area. In the literature the whole set as the main source of threats addressing the pressure of of threats is repeatedly pointed out of which managers in settlement in both the Park and its immediate vicinity re- the protected area are aware of. Noise, pollution or anthro- sulting in the disappearance of rare and endangered plant popressure is indicated [63]. Partyka [72] draws attention species. The Park’s almost 700 caves are also endangered. to the excessive attendance of visitors and the increase of An example is the cave infiltrations of Jaskinia Ciemna number of tourist trails in the most popular places, tram- whose impoverished state is the result of its excessive ex- pling wild paths, damaging root systems, trees, destroy- ploitation from the 19th century [53]. ing vegetation and soil, noise, disturbing animals, caus- The Pieniński National Park also indicates the in- ing fires, littering, changes in landscape and microclimate, crease of tourist flow as one of the main threats to nature and synanthropization of flora and fauna and changes in and the integrity of its ecosystems. Another serious prob- the structure of biocenoses. Similarly, Baraniec [73] points lem is the dense development of buildings within the park to anthropogenic denudation, destruction in vegetation or area which reduces the ecological corridors connecting the littering, which diminishes the aesthetic values of the Park park with neighboring mountain ranges [54]. and has a negative impact on the animal world. Wieni- The Roztoczański National Park protects the inani- awska [74] emphasizes the threat related to the develop- mate nature threatened as well by the tourist movement by ment of infrastructure, especially skiing. The most popular undertaking activities eliminating erosion resulted from in summer in mountains - hiking - destroys nature on the anthropopressure, water protection and reducing runoff tourist trails. Tourists could destroy the vegetation cover, with drainage ditches and preventing overgrowing of ex- create short cuts between paths, destroy the surface of the posed areas and outcrops [55]. paths, cause loose material movement, etc. [75]. However, more important than the declarations are The overwhelming majority of literature on the subject specific actions taken by national parks. As an unit subor- points to the threats of animated nature, assuming that el- dinated to the Ministry of the Environment each of the na- ements of inanimate nature as more resistant to the envi- tional parks should develop and then implement conser- ronment are less threatened [73, 75]. It is worth confronting vation tasks recorded in the Journal of Laws. It is a nature this position with the opinion of institutions that are re- conservation plan in the national park. One of the essen- sponsible for the management of protected areas, in this tial mandatory elements included in the plan are threats case national parks. to nature resulting from various reasons. According to the regulations each protection plan should identify the char- acteristic of a particular park: 5.4 Analysis of inanimate nature threats – existing internal threats; according to documents – potential internal threats; – existing external threats; The need to protect nature, also inanimate, against the – external potential threats. pressure of mass tourist traffic is already expressed in the The purpose of such a threat structure was to define declarations of managers of some national parks on their specific actions to be taken to avoid these threats. Tak- official websites. The declaration usually appears inthe ing into account the tourist attractiveness of mountain na- introductory word where the Park presents the main as- tional parks, expressed in the size of tourist flow through- sumptions of nature conservation in its area and the main out the year, it is worth looking at the plans to protect four threats that require specific actions. It also indicates the Parks: main threats to nature from tourism - threats that can be called general but also those that are specific to a particu- – Karkonoski NP [76], lar national park. – Table Mountains NP [77], As far as inanimate nature is concerned the Table – Tatrzański NP [78], Mountains National Park indicates a significant share of – Pieniński NP [79]. tourism in accelerating the linear erosion process which takes place on over-exploited paths. Usually these are the main tourist routes where there are a number of initial de- pressions which erodes faster due to the large number of tourists [50]. 1056 Ë K. Widawski and Z. Jary

Table 3: Threats defined by the selected national parks

National existing internal threats potential internal threats existing external external Parks threats potential threats Karkonoski erosion of soils, unauthorized afraid of the pressure to excessive tourist loss of NP use of national park resources, expand the tourist traflc landscape uncontrolled penetration by infrastructure values tourists Table erosion of soils, unauthorized Concentration of tourist flow pollution of: air, Mountains NP use of national park resources, on Szczeliniec Wielki and water and soils on uncontrolled penetration by Błędne Skały, natural mass the tourist trails tourists movements of rocks Tatrzański NP erosion of soils, unauthorized increase in anthropogenic excessive increase use of national park resources, pressure related to the in the number of uncontrolled penetration by accessibility of the park’s people using its area tourists area, Pieniński NP erosion of soils, unauthorized use of national park resources, uncontrolled penetration by tourists, destruction of caves and rocky deposits caused by tourists Source: [76–79]

Protective tasks relate to many issues. For understand- And it is basically a set that most fully indicates ways able reasons, the focus was only on those that combine to solve the problem. The Tatrzański National Park also tourist flow and inanimate nature. In the case of basically indicates the need to renovate tourist routes and inter- all analyzed parks, the main existing identified threat is nal roads, fencing areas particularly susceptible to erosion the erosion of soils. The Karkonoski National Park puts and the introduction of anti-erosion structure of erosion this threat in this category as the most important, which gutters of anthropogenic origin. The Table Mountains Na- is reflected in the number one position in this group. In tional Park is much more laconic, which as a solution to the case of other parks, this is also a significant problem, the problem indicates the introduction of the anti-erosion although the Table Mountains National Park places this structure. The Pieniński National Park adds to the above problem in the third position, Tatrzański National Park in set the need to protect roads against falling rock debris and the sixth, while among the main threats defined by the to limit the movement of motor vehicles. Pieniński National Park this problem occupies 26th posi- Another threat, common for all parks, can be reduced tion. Ideas for eliminating threats and their consequences to a common definition: unauthorized use of national are similar. The Karkonoski National Park suggests five park resources and uncontrolled penetration of its area main activities: by tourist flow. The Tatrzański National Park at this point at the position number 3 indicates problem that unau- 1. Hardening of the surface of tourist routes and inter- thorized persons are entering unauthorized places. In the nal roads. Karkonoski National Park it is the position No. 7, where 2. Securing the sides of tourist trails and internal roads there is talk of local and periodic exceedances of the per- against trampling. missible number of people who can stay on a given sec- 3. Securing of slopes and ski routes as well as lifts be- tion of the tourist route. The Table Mountains National fore erosion. Park speaks broadly about the uncontrolled penetration of 4. Anti-erosion space in places where erosion has the TMNP area consisting of: staying of tourists in places caused human activity not available (areas in TMNP that are not made available 5. Temporary exclusion of fragments of trails and inter- to tourists to visit) and using motor vehicles (motorcycles, nal roads from use. Mass tourism in protected areas – underestimated threat? Polish National Parks case study Ë 1057 quads) – a point indicated by the Pieniński National Park neighborhood are located. The idea for solving the prob- in the section of the threat of soil erosion. lem is the development of collective and alternative trans- As a matter of fact, the ways to fight these threats are port in the area of the Park, properly prepared spatial very similar: monitoring the impact on natural resources, development directions, and finally environmental educa- limiting entry to the park’s endangered area, or infrastruc- tion of local communities. ture maintenance as appropriate marking, repairing hik- The last category are external potential threats. For the ing, biking and didactic paths. An important, especially Karkonoski National Park, the loss of landscape values is for the Table Mountains National Park is the improve- a serious threat. To avoid this, the authorities believe that ment of tourist flow and limiting the number of tourists on measures should be taken to limit the construction of new Szczeliniec Wielki and Błędne Skały through the creation tourist, recreational and sports infrastructure in the imme- of tourist routes and the introduction of fees for entering diate vicinity of the Park. In addition to this, it is neces- the routes. It also emphasizes the need to prevent tourists sary to ensure that landscape protection policy is included from staying outside of shared places. in local spatial development plans and regional develop- The threat indicated only by the Pieniński National ment strategies. The Table Mountains National Park does Park is, recorded in the position 29, the destruction of not define such threats in the context of inanimate nature caves and rocky deposits caused by the tourist movement. in connection with the development of tourism. As a way of solving the problem, it was proposed: protec- However, the Tatrzański National Park in this group tion of entrances to the most valuable caves located in the indicates an excessive increase in the number of people Park. using its area. Once again, the way to solve the problem, Potential internal threats are variously defined. The according to the Park, is monitoring the number of these Karkonoski National Park is afraid of the pressure to ex- people, introducing periodic and permanent restrictions pand the infrastructure serving tourism. The remedy for on access to places subjected to the greatest pressure, and this should be studying the conditions and directions of supporting the idea of developing tourist attractions out- spatial development of the communes of the Park, in side the Park, in order to minimize and spread the exces- which appropriate restrictions would be introduced. sive number of tourists. There are two factors that threaten, in this category, for the Table Mountains National Park: Concentration of tourist flow on Szczeliniec Wielki and Błędne Skały, aswell 6 Conclusions as natural mass movements of rocks, posing a threat to tourist flow. In the first case, the solution is the introduc- National parks are one of the most important tourist values tion of one-way traffic on tourist routes, in the second - in Poland as indicated by the statistics quoted earlier [63]. mass monitoring of rock traffic and safety measures on Their main asset is nature whose resources are able to gen- tourist routes. erate tourist flow of millions of visitors. As it hasbeen The Tatrzański National Park indicates a further in- shown, this can be a real threat to the values that make the crease in anthropogenic pressure related to the accessibil- park attractive to tourists. Thus the question arises: how ity of the TNP area. The remedy for this is to monitor the should this type of resources be made available, so that number of tourists in the Park and maintain restrictions in on the one hand the tourist would be satisfied and on the using it. Properly developed strategy for sharing the Park, other hand the nature would not be harmed. This problem finally initiating and supporting the creation of tourist at- is perfectly understood by the institutions managing the tractions outside the Park. parks on behalf of the government. The question remains In the group of existing external threats Karkonoski whether one can talk about a comprehensive approach – National Park pointed to what is an existing internal threat the one that takes into account the need to protect both to the Tatrzański National Park. This is excessive tourist types of nature: animate and inanimate. The threat of inan- traffic. Overcoming this problem should be based onthe imate nature from tourism and the awareness of this prob- temporary closure of tourist routes, regulation of tourist lem among those who decide about the protection of na- traffic intensity and setting up the information and educa- tional park resources are important. tional infrastructure. The nature conservation is the basis of the park’s op- The Table Mountains National Park indicates the pol- eration, however it primarily concerns the animate nature. lution of: air, water and, what is important from the point Most of the 23 national parks located in Poland detail the of inanimate nature, soils on the tourist trails of the Park resources of fauna and flora which are protected in the and in the places where recreational centers and their 1058 Ë K. Widawski and Z. Jary park along with forest complexes indicating the protection References period. There are also areas of strict protection but in most cases it concerns the animated nature. It is different in the [1] Kuenzi, C., McNeely, J., Nature-based tourism. In: Renn, O., case of inanimate nature. The demands of its protection Walker, K.D. (Eds.), Global Risk Governance. IUCN Publishing, along with specific proposals appear less frequently and Gland, Switzerland, 2008, pp. 155-178 are general in nature. The situation looks different depend- [2] Balmford, A., Beresford, J., Green, J., Naidoo, R., Walpole, M., ing on the park. The parks located in the lowland, lake Manica, A., A global perspective of trends in nature-based tourism. PLoS Biology, 2009, 7, 1-6. or coastal landscape practically do not pay attention to [3] Buckley, R., Ecotourism: Principles and Practises. CABI Publish- threats related to inanimate nature. The situation is better ing, Wallingford, UK, 2009 in national parks located in upland or mountain areas as [4] Newsome, D., Moore, S.A., Dowling, R.K., Natural Area Tourism: exemplified by four parks, whose analysis of activities was Ecology, Impacts and Management e2nd Edition. Channel View undertaken in this article. It seems, however, that more Publications, Bristol, UK, 2013, p. 457 can be done. It is worth undertaking joint activities to min- [5] Eagles, P.F.J., Research priorities in park tourism, Journal of Sus- tainable Tourism, 2014, 22, 528-549 imize the risks associated with the tourist movement. [6] Henriques M. H., Pena dos Reis R., Brilha J., Mota T., Geoconser- Depending on the gravity, the risks can be assigned to vation as an Emerging Geoscience, Geoheritage, 2011, 3, 117-128 two basic groups: [7] Burek, C.V., Prosser, C.D., The history of geoconservation: an in- troduction. In: Geological Society, London, Special Publications, – microscale threats, 2008, vol. 300(1), pp. 1-5 – macroscale threats. [8] Gray, M., Geodiversity and geoconservation: what, why, and The first group should include threats for the values of how? In: Santucci, V.L. (Ed.), Papers Presented at the George Wright Forum, 2005, pp. 4-12 the point character such as dying caves caused by uncon- [9] Gray, M., Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. trolled number of visitors, which causes the permanent John Wiley & Sons, Chichester U.K, 2004, p. 434. change of their microclimate and thus their sculptures [10] Hose, T.A., Telling the story of stone – assessing the client base. raised by Pieniński or Tatrzański National Parks. Here, Geological and Landscape Conservation. London, 1994 too, would be a danger of erosion along the tourist routes, [11] Hose, T. A., Geotourism – selling the Earth to Europe. Engineering Geology and the Environment. Rotterdam, 1997 whose operation is significantly accelerated due to thou- [12] Hose, T. A., Is it any fossicking good? Or behind the signs – a sands and even millions of people visiting the parks every critique of current geotourism interpretative media unpublished year. paper delivered to the tourism in geological landscapes confer- The second group includes activities related to tourists ence. Belfast, 1998 activity which results in changes in the region. Here the [13] Hose, T. A., European Geotourism – Geological Interpretation and landscape would be the most endangered as it results in Geoconservation Promotion for Tourists. Geological Heritage: Its Conservation and Management. Madrid, 2000 physical processes it is at risk even at the aesthetic level. [14] Hose, T. A., Towards a history of geotourism: definitions, an- Mass construction in the immediate vicinity of the pro- tecedents and the future. London, 2008b tected area destroys the natural landscape transforming [15] Hose, T.A., Vasiljević, Dj.A., Defining the Nature and Purpose it into a landscape that is at least disharmonious or sim- of Modern Geotourism with Particular Reference to the United ply urbanized. The consequences of human interference Kingdom and South-East Europe. Geoheritage, 2012, 4/1-2, 25- 43 resulting in mass movements which may be caused by in- [16] Santangelo N., Romano P.,Santo A., Geo-itineraries in the Cilento frastructure, including tourism, built in the wrong place Vallo di Diano Geopark: A Tool for Tourism Development in South- are also worth mentioning. ern Italy, Geoheritage, 2015, 7, pp. 319-335 In conclusion, it should be emphasized that mass [17] Liddle, M. J., Recreation ecology: The ecological impact of out- tourism which is often a mass phenomenon in valuable door recreation and ecotourism. London: Chapman and Hall, natural areas can have and has a devastating effect on 1997 [18] Newsome, D., Moore, S.A., Dowling, R.K., Natural Area Tourism: inanimate nature. However, the managers of these areas Ecology, Impacts and Management. Channel View Publications, do not fully emphasize it in the documents dedicated to Sydney, 2002a the protection of national parks and consequently also [19] Buckley, R., Impacts positive and negative: links between eco- in their activities. Therefore, it is necessary to appeal to tourism and environment. In: Buckley, R. (Ed.), Environmental decision-makers about a sustainable approach in the mat- Impacts of Ecotourism. CABI Publishing, New York, 2004a, pp. 1–14 ter of protection of both elements of nature, animate and [20] Cole, D.N., Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegeta- inanimate, similarly endangered by the massive develop- tion: a review. In: Buckley, R. (Ed.), Environmental Impacts of ment of tourism in their area. Ecotourism. CABI Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2004, pp. 41-60 Mass tourism in protected areas – underestimated threat? Polish National Parks case study Ë 1059

[21] Newsome, D., Cole, D.N., Marion, J., Environmental impacts as- [39] Rogalewski O., Zagospodarowanie turystyczne. WSiP, Warszawa, sociated with recreational horse-riding. In: Buckley, R. (Ed.), En- 1979 vironmental Impacts of Ecotourism. CABI Publishing, New York, [40] Warszyńska J., Jackowski A., Podstawy geografii turyzmu. PWN, 2004, pp. 61–82 Warszawa, 1978 [22] Buckley, R., Recreation ecology research effort: an international [41] Kowalczyk A., Geografia turyzmu. PWN, Warszawa, 2001 comparison. Tourism Recreation Research, 2005, 30, 99–101 [42] Kruczek Z., Atrakcje turystyczne, Metody oceny ich odbioru – [23] Kelly, C.L., Pickering, C.M., Buckley, R.C., Impacts of tourism on interpretacja, Folia Turistica, 2002, 13, 37-61 threatened plant taxa and communities in Australia. Ecological [43] Lijewski T., Mikułowski B., Wyrzykowski J., Geografia turystyki Management & Restoration, 2003, 4, 37-44 Polski, PWE, Warszawa, 2002 [24] Pickering, C.M., Hill, W., Impacts of recreation and tourism on [44] Wyrzykowski, Lijewski, Mikułowski, Geografia turystyczna Pol- plant biodiversity and vegetation in protected areas in Australia. ski, PWE, V-th edition, Warszawa, 2008 Journal of Environmental Management, 2007, 85, 791-800 [45] Ustawa o ochronie przyrody Dz.U. z 2009 r. Nr 151, poz.1220, Nr [25] Ballantyne, M., Gudes, O., Pickering, C.M., Visitor trails are an 157, poz. 1241 www.nid.pl/upload/iblock/54c/54c7bc915f570 important cause of fragmentation in endangered urban forests. 27c5434c0622ee4c09b.pdf Landscape Urban Planning, 2014, 130, 112-124 [46] www.msw-pttk.org [26] Godefroid, S., Koedam, N., The impact of forest paths upon ad- [47] www.researchgate.net/profile/Piotr_Strzebonski/publication/2 jacent vegetation: effects of the path surfacing material onthe 73895816_KATALOG_OBIEKTOW_GEOTURYSTYCZNYCH_W_POLS species composition and soil compaction. Biological Conserva- CE_obejmuje_wybrane_geologiczne_stanowiska_dokumentacyj tion, 2004, 119, 405-419 ne/links/550ffb7f0cf21287416c8efl/KATALOG-OBIEKTOW-GEO [27] Hill, W., Pickering, C.M., Vegetation associated with different TURYSTYCZNYCH-W-POLSCE-obejmuje-wybrane-geologiczne-st walking track types in the Kosciuszko alpine area, Australia. Jour- anowiska-dokumentacyjne.pdf nal of Environmental Management, 2006, 78, 24-34 [48] http://www.kgos.agh.edu.pl/download/Katalog_Obiekow_Geot [28] Wimpey, J., Marion, J.L., The influence of use, environmental and urystycznych_2012.pdf managerial factors on the width of recreational trails. Journal of [49] www.kpnmab.pl Environmental Management, 2010, 91, 2028-2037 [50] www.pngs.com.pl [29] Kutiel, P., Zhevelev, H., Harrison, R., The effect of recreational [51] www.magurskipn.pl impacts on soil and vegetation of stabilised Coastal Dunes in [52] www.swietokrzyskipn.org.pl the Sharon Park, Israel. Ocean Coastal Management, 1999, 42, [53] www.ojcowskiparknarodowy.pl 1041-1060. [54] www.pieninypn.pl [30] Marion, J.L., Leung, Y.F., Trail resource impacts and an exam- [55] www.roztoczanskipn.pl ination of alternative assessment techniques. Journal of Park [56] www.tpn.pl Recreation Administration, 2001, 19, 17-37 [57] www.wielkopolskipn.pl [31] Monz, C.A., Cole, D.N., Leung, Y.F., Marion, J.L., Sustaining vis- [58] www.wolinpn.pl itor use in protected areas: future opportunities in recreation [59] www.slowinski.parknarodowy.com ecology research based on the USA experience. Environmental [60] www.bgpn.pl Management, 2010, 45, 551-562. [61] www.gorczanskipark.pl [32] Marion, J.L., Wimpey, J.F., Park, L.O., The science of trail surveys: [62] www.zpppn.pl recreation ecology provides new tools for managing wilderness [63] Kruczek Z., Frekwencja w polskich atrakcjach turystycznych. trails. Park Science, 2011, 28, 60-65. Problemy oceny liczby odwiedzających, Ekonomiczne Problemy [33] Fenu, G., Cagoni, D., Ulian, T., Bacchetta, G., The impact of human Turystyki, 3/2016 (35), pp. 25 – 35 trampling on a threatened coastal Mediterranean plant: the case [64] Ochrona środowiska 2011, Główny Urząd Statystyczny https: of Anchusa littorea Moris (Boraginaceae). Flora, 2013, 208, 104- //stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/se_ochrona_srodowiska_2011. 110 pdf [34] Gray, M., Other nature: Geodiversity and geosystem services. [65] Ochrona środowiska 2012, Główny Urząd Statystyczny https: Environmental Conservation, 2011, 38(3), 271–27 //stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/se_ochrona_srodowiska_2012. [35] Serrano, E., González-Trueba, J.J., Assessment of geomor- pdf phosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa Na- [66] Ochrona środowiska 2013, Główny Urząd Statystyczny https: tional Park (Spain). Géomorphologie. Formes, processus, envi- //stat.gov.pl/files/gfx/portalinformacyjny/pl/defaultaktualnosci ronnement, vol. 3, 2005, pp. 197-208. /5484/1/14/1/se_ochrona_srodowiska_2013.pdf [36] Lima, F., Brilha, J., Salamun, E., Inventorying geological heritage [67] Ochrona środowiska 2014, Główny Urząd Statystyczny https://s in large territories: a methodological proposal applied to Brazil. tat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/srodowisko-energia/srodowis Geoheritage 2, 2010, pp. 91–99 ko/ochrona-srodowiska-2014,1,15.html [37] Fassoulas, C., Mouriki, D., Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P., Iliopoulos, G., [68] Ochrona środowiska 2015, Główny Urząd Statystyczny https://s Quantitative Assessment of Geotopes as an Effective Tool for tat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/srodowisko-energia/srodowis Geoheritage Management. Geoheritage, 2012, 4, pp 177–193 ko/ochrona-srodowiska-2015,1,16.html [38] Božić, S., Tomić, N., Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism [69] Ochrona środowiska 2016, Główny Urząd Statystyczny https:// destinations in Serbia: comparative analysis from two different stat.gov.pl/files/gfx/portalinformacyjny/pl/defaultaktualnosci/ perspectives – general tourists’ and geotourists’. Open Geo- 5484/1/17/1/ochrona_srodowiska_2016.pdf sciences, 2015, 7 (1), 531-546. [70] Ochrona środowiska 2017, Główny Urząd Statystyczny https:// stat.gov.pl/files/gfx/portalinformacyjny/pl/defaultaktualnosci/ 1060 Ë K. Widawski and Z. Jary

5484/1/18/1/ochrona_srodowiska_2017.pdf [76] Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment, item 14, from [71] Ochrona środowiska 2018, Główny Urząd Statystyczny https://s January 18, 2018 on protective tasks for the Karkonoski tat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/srodowisko-energia/srodowis National Park https://bip.kpnmab.pl/public/get_file_contents. ko/ochrona-srodowiska-2018,1,19.html php?id=186605 [72] Partyka J., Ruch turystyczny w polskich parkach narodowych, [77] Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment, January 5, 2017 Folia Turistica, 2010, 22, s. 9–23 on protective tasks for the Table Mountains National Park [73] Baraniec A., Turystyka w Babiogórskim Parku Narodowym In: http://bip.pngs.com.pl/content.php?cms_id=47 J. Partyka, (Ed.), Użytkowanie turystyczne parków narodowych, [78] Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment, January 9, 2017 Wydawnictwo Ojcowski Park Narodowy, Ojców, 2002 on protective tasks for the Tatrzański National Park https:// [74] Wieniawska B., Turystyka a ochrona przyrody w Karkonoskim tpn.pl/upload/filemanager/plan%20ochrony/projekt%20planu Parku Narodowym, In: J. Partyka, (Ed.), Użytkowanie turystyczne %20ochrony%20TPN%2020160330.pdf parków narodowych, Wydawnictwo Ojcowski Park Narodowy, [79] Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment, item 1010, from Ojców, 2002 July 31, 2014 on protective tasks for the Pieniński National Park [75] Fidelus J., Turystyka piesza i jej wpływ na przemiany rzeźby https://www.pieninypn.pl/files/fck/File/Plan_Ochrony_Pieninsk terenu w otoczeniu hal Gąsienicowej i Kondratowej w Tatrach, iego_Parku_Narodowego.pdf In: J. Pociask-Karteczka i in., (Eds.), Stan i perspektywy rozwoju turystyki w Tatrzańskim Parku Narodowym, Studia i Monografie AWF, nr 46, AWF – TPN, Kraków – , 2007