10.2478/sggw-2018-0020

Annals of University of Life Sciences – SGGW Land Reclamation No 50 (3), 2018: 251–262 (Ann. Warsaw Univ. of Life Sci. – SGGW, Land Reclam. 50 (3), 2018)

Landscape valuation for planning ecotourism trails – case study BEATA FORNAL-PIENIAK1, ANDRZEJ DŁUGOŃSKI2 1 Faculty of Horticulture, Biotechnology and Landscape Architecture, Warsaw University of Life Sci- ences – SGGW, 2 Faculty of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University, Poland

Abstract: Landscape valuation for planning eco- cording to the International Ecotourism tourism trails – case study. Ecotourism is a type Society, ecotourism is responsible travel of tourism strictly connected with natural and cul- to natural areas that preserves and pro- tural landscape values. This kind of idea of “green travel” is perfect option for people who want to tects the environment and improves the relax and sightseeing rural municipalities. It is re- living conditions of local residents (Mc- ally important to design eco-tourism trails, which Combes et al. 2015). The beginnings of are very usefulness for tourists in this area. The ecotourism date back to the 1970s (Jones paper is presented natural and cultural values of and Spadafora 2017). Until recently, this municipality. It was done landscape valorization, which are included natural and cul- form of travel was not known to a wider tural elements of this area. The purpose was to public. It is a starting point to find that distinguished the areas with the high natural and environmentally-friendly travel can cultural landscape values for eco-tourism trail de- contribute to its protection. This thesis sign. It was used bonitation points to assessment is also confirmed by the statements in- in scale from 1 point to 5 points. The results were presented on maps, including areas with high, cluded in the Declaration on Ecotour- medium, low and very low landscape values. It ism 2002 including, among others, the was distinguished areas with minimum 50% of increase in interest in travel in natural the maximum number of points were considered areas, ecotourism is actively contribut- attractive for design eco-tourism trails. ing to the protection of natural resources and the integrity of local communities, Key words: ecotoursism trails, landscape valoriza- as well as to raising awareness all trave- tion, Piaseczno municipality lers on the preservation of natural and cultural heritage, ecotourism can have INTRODUCTION a positive economic dimension for the local population, its culture and future Ecotourism as a form of eco-friendly generations, and can be the main source travel. “Green tourism” is also popular of income for protected areas (Fancy in Poland. It directly contributes to the 2002). Ecotourism is one of the fastest protection of the natural and cultural en- developing tourist markets in the world vironment of these regions, and its par- and is growing at a rate of 20–34% per ticipants are people with high ecologi- annum (Jones and Spadafora 2017). cal awareness and sensitivity (Aldous This kind of idea of “green travel” and 2013, Gibson 2014, Zaręba 2015). Ac- untouched nature is possible only due to 252 B. Fornal-Pieniak, A. Długoński the appropriate planning and controlling MATERIAL AND METHODS of the ecotourism product (Hawkes and Williams 1993, Zainoren et al. 2016). Characteristic of Piaseczno This management should include: con- municipality trol of tourist traffic in time and space, Piaseczno municipality is located in the determination of zones serving different central part of the Mazowieckie Voivode- types of tourist penetration, tourism de- ship, nearby Warsaw. The surface of mu- velopment adapted to the needs of the nicipality is 12,823 ha. Piaseczno munic- protected area. Because of unplanned ipality is one of the most forested areas and uncontrolled tourism largely de- in the Warsaw agglomeration. stroys the environment, an eco-route scheme is proposed to protect the natu- Methods ral and cultural environment. The route directs the tourist traffic to the most Landscape valorization is a usefulness natural and culturally sensitive areas of method for analysis of landscape values the municipality and at the same time (Żarska 2001, Kil and Kowalczyk 2011, protects the area against devastation Łukowiak et al. 2017). There are many while fulfilling ecotourism principles. landscape valorization methods as: Ja- From the above indications for planning necki’s straight lines method (Janecki eco-trails for landscape protection, it is 1981), Wojciechowski method (1986), clear that the activities of municipalities Gacka-Grześkiewicz et al. method for ecotourism development and related (1994), Żarska method (2001), Wolski environmental protection should not be method (1992). It is necessary to collect- limited only to the delineation of trails ed many information about natural and and management of their infrastructures cultural elements before the landscape (McCoy et al. 1995). A huge role in the evaluation (Litwin et al. 2009). Land- success of ecotourism and at the same scapes are very diversified, so sometimes time protecting the landscape plays the is needed to do modification of two, or development of the infrastructure of three valorization methods. After that it “green tourism” including eco-trails. is possible to achieved good results with That is why many municipal actions valuable information about values of must focus on supporting in a variety studded area (Litwin et al. 2009). Most of of ways – financial, promotional – local valorization methods are based on boni- communities (IUCN-WCPA 2000, Es- tation point consisting in assigning point hoo et al. 2018, Lee and Jan 2018). values to individual elements. However, The authors of the paper assumed the the most important criterions for choos- hypothesis that Piaseczno municipality ing a particular method of landscape has got high natural and cultural land- valorization is the aim of this assessment scape values as potential for eco-tourism (Bajerowski 2007, Myga-Piątek 2007, trails design. Therefore the aim of this Żarska 2011, Mazurski 2012, Ziembla work was to perform the landscape val- 2012). After analyzing many valoriza- orization of the Piaseczno municipality tion methods for tourism, a method de- for eco-tourism trail design. veloped by Kulczyk and Lewandowski Landscape valuation for planning ecotourism trails... 253

TABLE 1. Types of spatial-landscape units Unit Unit Type of spatial-landscape unit Name of special-landscape unit number number 1 build up areas 38 build up areas areas with cultivations, wasteland and 2 39 areas with cultivations railway 3 build up areas 40 areas with grasses vegetation areas with grasses vegetation and 4 41 areas with cultivations cultivations areas with grasses vegetation and 5 42 build up areas cultivations 6 build up areas 43 forest areas 7 forest areas 44 forest areas 8 forest areas 45 forest areas 9 forest areas 46 forest areas 10 forest areas 47 areas with cultivations 11 forest areas 48 forest areas 12 forest areas 49 build up areas with cultivations 13 build up areas 50 borest areas 14 forest areas 51 areas with cultivations 15 areas with grasses vegetation 52 forest areas 16 build up areas with cultivations 53 build up areas with greenery 17 forest areas 54 areas with cultivations 18 forest areas 55 build up areas 19 forest areas 56 build up areas 20 build up areas with grasses vegetation 57 areas with surface waters and plantings 21 forest areas 58 build up areas with cultivations 22 forest areas 59 build up areas 23 surface water 60 forest areas 24 areas with grasses vegetation 61 forest areas 25 build up areas 62 areas with cultivations areas with cultivations and grasses 26 63 areas with cultivations and forests vegetation areas with grasses vegetation and 27 64 build up areas with grasses vegetation surface waters 28 build up areas 65 build up areas areas with cultivations and grasses 29 areas with cultivations 66 vegetation 30 areas with cultivations 67 greenery areas 31 build up areas 68 surface waters 32 forest areas 69 build up areas with cultivations 33 build up areas 70 forest areas 34 forest areas 71 build up areas with cultivations 35 forest areas 72 build up areas with cultivations 36 forest areas 73 forest areas 37 forest areas 74 service areas 254 B. Fornal-Pieniak, A. Długoński

(2006) was used in Piaseczno municipal- points. For the needs of the Piaseczno ity valorization. This method is focused municipality valorization the criteria more on the attractiveness of nature than of assessment were adjusted, giving up on other parameters such as tourist in- the element – geological structure be- frastructure. The reason is that the natu- cause the area under development does ral environment has the high impact on not have a large diversity of geological the quality of ecotourism development. forms such as rock forms. Criterias as The authors of the chosen method pro- landscape uniqueness and viewpoints posed in their work bonitation points for were also abandoned, and the following assessment of eight elements as: land criteria were introduced: vegetation with use, nature of the sculpture, geological two sub-criterias – naturalness of plant structure, landscape, fauna, forms of communities, recreational usefulness of nature protection, anthropogenic values forest communities, surface water and and the presence and quality of view- ecotourism infrastructure occurring. Ac-

TABLE 2. Valorization of the Piaseczno municipality for ecotourism with assessment scale Main criteria 53 2 1 and subcriteria mosaic of Land use – big medium small land use forest – natural naturalness non-forest – natu- – and semi-natu- – of vegetation ral vegetation ral Vegeta- usefulness tion large recre- medium recre- of forest – ational value of ational value of – vegetation forest forest for recreation Terrain sculpture –– typical forms single forms natural water stream or semi-natural regulated or Surface water watercourse –– artificial water or natural reservoir reservoir large opportuni- opportunities Fauna – fauna refuge ties to meet and to meet and fauna fauna observation observation Forms of nature nature reserve, areas of protected – regional park protection Natura 2000 landscape well preserved historical objects high-value his- of great value single valuable Cultural values – torical objects in municipality cultural elements in the region scale accommoda- Ecotourism infrastructure – tion and food trails – services Landscape valuation for planning ecotourism trails... 255 cording to the authors, the adopted cri- ing landscape objects. Small areas of teria will allow a more complete assess- forests are located between built-up and ment of the Piaseczno municipality. open areas, too. They are fragments of The first stage of valorization was small, tree-lined patches suitable for rec- the division of the study area into spa- reation isolated from each other. tial-landscape units. It was used here two Non-forest communities are repre- main criteria/factors: landform and land sented by natural and semi-natural veg- use. It was distinguished 74 spatial-land- etation in the study area. Wet meadows scape units (Table 1) based on land use with alder parts are located in Jeziorka of Piaseczno municipality. river valleys. Smaller wetland areas are It was used criteria of assessment as: typical for agricultural areas in the vicin- naturalness of vegetation, usefulness of ity of Siedliska, Jastrzębie, Pilawa and forest vegetation for recreation, surface Orzeszyn, Chojnów, Pęchery, Bogatka, water, terrain sculpture, land use, fauna, Złotokłos, Wola Gołkowska, Antoninów. forms of nature protection, cultural val- Synantropical plants are mostly connect- ues, ecotourism infrastructure. The eval- ed with settelments, orchardes, gardens, uation criteria with the assessment scale roads and cultivated areas. The most di- from 1 point to 3 points are presented in versified fauna occurs in the Chojnowski Table 2. Occurrence of a natural or semi- Regional Park. There are foxes, badgers, natural watercourse or natural reservoir martens, weasels, cowards and small achieved extra 5 points, because of their animals like raccoon dogs, hedgehogs, unique values on this area. Each study ar- moles and shrews. About 100 bird spe- eas could have a maximum of 28 points. cies nest as sparrow hawk, buzzard, taw- ny owl, eagle owl and long-eared owl are in the Chojnowskie Forests. There are RESULTS also mute swan, black and white stork, gray heron, crane and harriers on water and wetlands habitats. Numerous pheas- Natural landscape ants, wild ducks and 20 fish species are The variety of forest habitats are about in the Jeziorka lake. Among the reptiles 30% of the whole Piaseczno municipal- and amphibians, are occurring numer- ity area. The most forests are located in ous viviparous lizard, lizard and several the south-eastern part of the municipality species of frogs. Protected areas are cov- and belong to the Chojnowski Regional ered 40% of the Piaseczno municipality Park. Smaller forest areas are located area. There are represented by 5 nature in the southern and western part of the reserves, 1 landscape park, 1 protected study area. Mixed moist forest and alder landscape area, 72 natural monuments, occupy areas along Jeziorka river. These 1 ecological site, 1 nature and landscape are areas with naturally high retention complex and Natura 2000 areas (ac- capabilities, hardly accessible, however, cording to Study of conditions of spatial fulfilling important ecological and water development of Piaseczno municipality protection functions. They are not suit- and gmin of 2014 and field researches able for recreation, but they are interest- – Fig. 1). 256 B. Fornal-Pieniak, A. Długoński

FIGURE 1. Natural landscape (own research)

Cultural landscape monuments, the main trail of the Choj- nowskie Forests, the South Route and There are memorial sites, archaeologi- the Magdalenka Trail–Zalesie Górne, cal sites, cemeteries and manor parks. bicycle routes and educational paths1. It was located only five accommoda- There are also equestrian centers and tion and catering facilities for ecotour- recreational shelters as well as another ism purposes in Piaseczno municipality. cultural objects (e.g. memorial plac- There are also hiking trails here, among es, historical churches, old buildings) others Chojnowski trail of natural showing the history of the site (Fig. 2).

1 http://www.krainajeziorki.pl/index.php/szlaki [accessed: 14.03.2018], http://piaseczno.eu/index. php?mnu = 29 [accessed: 16.03.2018]. Landscape valuation for planning ecotourism trails... 257

FIGURE 2. Cultural landscape (own study)

Landscape valorization − areas with low landscape values (from It was done valorization using nine 5 to 9 points) – 13 units; criteria to assessment of Piaseczno − areas with very low landscape values municipality landscape. Piaseczno mu- (from 0 point to 4 points) – 5 units. nicipality landscape is very diversified. The spatial-landscape units with It was distinguished four types of areas minimum 50% of the maximum number (Table 3): of points (min. 15 points), were consid- ered attractive for ecotourism aspect. − areas with high landscape values (from 15 to 22 points) – 33 units; The results of the valorization and dis- tribution of the spatial landscape units − areas with medium landscape values (from 10 to 14 points) – 22 units; with high landscape values (from 15 to 22 points) are presented in Figure 3. 258 B. Fornal-Pieniak, A. Długoński

TABLE 3. Landscape valorization results

Landscape valorization Vegetation Number of spatial landscape units Naturalness of vegetation Usefulness of forest vegetation for recreation Land use sculpture Terrain Surface waters Fauna Forms of nature protection Cultural values Ecotourism infrastructure Sum of bonitation points 125 7 22 13 32251313 433251317 52 2 1 27 62 2 5 11314 733 33 214 833 33331322 933 33 214 1033 3 331218 1133 35221221 1233 22 212 13 2 1 3 1433 5231219 15 3 3 3 2 2 2 15 16 2 2 5 3 3 2 17 17 3 3 5 2 2 2 17 1833222214 1933 22 212 203322522 221 21332333219 2233222214 23331 5331221 242 225212 16 252 225 23319 262 225211217 272 225223220 28 2 2 2 5 1 12 292 2 221 9 30 2 2 2 2 8 Landscape valuation for planning ecotourism trails... 259

TABLE 3, cont.

31 2 1 5 2 2 2 14 3233 522 15 33152311 3433 522 217 35 3 3 2 2 2 12 3633 522 217 37 31 522 16 382151211 39 3 2 5 402312522 17 41 2 2 2 6 42 2 3 1 2 2 10 4333 523 218 4433 522 217 4533 25231221 46251 8 47 2 2 5 2 2 2 15 48 252211 49 2 1 2 2 7 50 2 3 5 2 12 51 2 2 5 1 3 2 15 52 1 2 3 5323225213222 54 2 1 5 1 1 2 12 55 2 2 56232 1 8 5723225111 17 583 22511 14 592 22522 15 6033 25113220 61 3 3 1 1 3 11 62 2 1 2 2 7 63 2 2 2 2 2 10 64 2 2 5 2 1 2 14 65232 3113217 6621508 67 1 1 2 682251212 69 2 2 2 5 1 1 2 15 703322511 219 7123225113 19 72 2 2 1 1 6 73 2 1 3 74 2 2 1 5 260 B. Fornal-Pieniak, A. Długoński

FIGURE 3. Spatial-landscape units with high landscape values for ecotourism aspect (own elaboration based on Kulczyk and Lewandowski (2006) method (own research)

CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

The presented valorization method was ALDOUS D.E. 2013: Green Tourism on used for indicates the areas of natural and Sustainable Development. Int. Soc. Hor- cultural values of the Piaseczno munici- tic. Sci. 999: 171–178. pality for the purpose of designing the BAJEROWSKI T., BIŁOZOR A., CIEŚLAK ecotourism path. The application of this I., SENETRA A., SZCZEPAŃSKA A. method may be the basis for determining 2007: Ocena i wycena krajobrazu. Edu- the valuable natural resources of the oth- caterra, Olsztyn. ers municipalities, e.g. agglomerations ESHOO P.F., JOHNSON A., DUANGDALA S., HANSEL T. 2018: Design, monitor- of big cities like Łódź, Poznań, Kraków. ing and evaluation of a direct payments Application of this valorization method approach for an ecotourism strategy to may be helpful in defining future direc- reduce illegal hunting and trade of wild- tions of development ecosystem services life in Lao PDR. PLoS ONE 13 (2). DOI of urban-rural municipalities, as well as 10.1371/journai.pone.0186133 being a determinant of a new trend in FANCY S. 2002: Monitoring natural re- spatial landscape planning. sources in our national parks. National Landscape valuation for planning ecotourism trails... 261

Park Service. Retrieved from: www.na- ŁUKOWIAK M., SZOPIŃSKA E., KURI- ture.nps.gov/im/monitor/textindex.htm. ATA Z. 2017: Managing suburban area GACKA-GRZEŚKIEWICZ E., WILAND using landscape. Evaluation and Valori- M., CICHOCKI Z., CIEŚLAK M., zation Methods. Econ. Environ. Stud. 17 ŻARSKA B. 1994: Ocena przyrody i (4): 923–934. krajobrazu w planowaniu przestrzennym McCOMBES L., VanCLAY F., EVERS Y. gmin. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Ochrony 2015: Putting social impact assessment Środowiska, Warszawa. to the test as a method for implementing GIBSON D. 2014: Green tourism alleviat- responsible tourism practice. Environ. ing poverty community-based ecotour- Impact Assess. Rev. 55: 156–168. ism in Fiji. In: M. Jiang, T. Delacy, G. McCOY K.L., KRUMPE E.E., ALLEN S. Lipman, S. Vorster, R. Hawkins (Eds.). 1995: Limits of acceptable change: eval- Green growth and travelism – The aca- uating implementation by the U.S. Forest demic viewpoint. Routledge, London: Service. IJW 1 (2): 18–22. 159–173. MAZURSKI K. 2012: Pojęcie krajobrazu i HAWKES S., WILLIAMS P. (Eds.). 1993: jego ocena. Proksena, Kraków. The Greening of Tourism From Prin- MYGA-PIĄTEK U. 2007: Kryteria i metody ciples to Practice: A Casebook of Best oceny krajobrazu kulturowego w proce- Environmental Practice in Tourism. Cen- sie planowania przestrzennego na tle tre for Tourism Policy Research, Simon obowiązujących procedur prawnych. In: Fraser University Barnaby, BC. M. Kistowski et al. (Eds.). Waloryzacja IUCN-WCPA 2000: Protected Areas: Ben- środowiska przyrodniczego w planowa- efits beyond Boundaries – WCPA in Ac- niu przestrzennym. Polska Asocjacja tion. International Union for Conserva- Ekologii Krajobrazu, Gdańsk – Warsza- tion of Nature, Gland. JANECKI J. 1978: Linia prosta w ocenie wa: 101–110. wartości krajobrazu. Problemy 10. RICHLING A. 1992: Podstawy metodyczne JONES G., SPADAFORA A. 2017: Ecotour- oceny wizualnej atrakcyjności krajobra- ism in Costa Rica, 1970–2000. Enter- zu. In: Metody oceny środowiska przy- prise and Society 18 (1): 146–183. DOI rodniczego. Gea 2: 9–18. 10.1017/eso.2016.50 Urząd Miasta i Gminy Piaseczno 2014: KIL J., KOWALCZYK C. 2011: Landscape Studium uwarunkowań i zagospoda- Valorization Methods and Sustainable rowania przestrzennego miasta i gminy Development. Contemporary Problems Piaseczno [Study of conditions of spatial of Management and Environmental Pro- development of Piaseczno municipality tection Issues of Landscape Conservation and ]. Skala 1 : 10 000. Uchwała and Water Management in Rural Areas 7: nr 1589 LII 2014 z dnia 29 października 17–25. 2014 r. w sprawie zmiany Studium KULCZYK S., LEWANDOWSKI W. 2006: Uwarunkowań i Kierunków Zagospoda- Ocena przydatności krajobrazu dla eko- rowania Przestrzennego Miasta i Gminy turystyki na przykładzie okolic Chrobrza. Piaseczno. Piaseczno. Prob. Ekol. Kraj. 40: 191–199. UNEP-WTO 2002. Declaration on Ecotour- LEE T.H., JAN F.H. 2018: Development and ism 2002. Québec. validation of the ecotourism behavior WOJCIECHOWSKI K.H. 1986: Problemy scale. Int. J. Tour. Res. 20 (2): 191–203. percepcji i oceny estetycznej krajobrazu. DOI 10.1002/jtr.2172 Wydawnictwo UMCS, Lublin. LITWIN U., BACIOR S., PIECH J. 2009: WOLSKI P. 1992: O znaczeniu percepcji Metody waloryzacji i oceny krajobrazu. krajobrazu. In: Metody oceny środowiska Geod. Kartogr. Fotogr. 71: 14–25. przyrodniczego. Gea 2. Wydawnic- 262 B. Fornal-Pieniak, A. Długoński

two WGiSR UW, Warszawa – Płock jest projektowanie szlaków ekoturystycznych, – Murzynowo: 5–10. które są przydatne dla celów rozwoju ekoturysty- ZAINOREN A., ABDURAHMAN A., ALI ki. W artykule przedstawiono wartości przyrodni- J., K., YUSRINA L., KHEDIF B., BO- cze i kulturowe gminy Piaseczno oraz wykonano HARI Z., ADLIN J., SILVERINA A., waloryzację krajobrazu w celu zwartościowania KIBAT A. 2016: Ecotourism Product At- elementów środowiska naturalnego i kulturowego tributes and Tourist Attractions: UiTM tego regionu. Teren opracowania podzielono na Undergraduate Studies. Proc. Social. jednostki krajobrazowo-przestrzenne, a następnie Behav. Sci. 15 (224): 360–367. DOI sformułowano kryteria ich oceny. W ocenie zasto- 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.388 sowano bonitację punktową w skali od 1 punktu do 5 punktów. Na podstawie otrzymanej walory- ZARĘBA D. 2015: Rozwój ekoturystyki zacji wyróżniono obszary w czterech kategoriach: w Polsce – przykłady dobrych praktyk jednostki (obszary) o wysokich, średnich, niskich [Ecotourism development in Poland i bardzo niskich walorach krajobrazowych. Wyni- – best practices]. In: T. Włoszczowski ki te umożliwiły wyznaczenie cennych obszarów (Ed.). Ekoturystyka wobec globalnych gminy Piaseczno dla potrzeb zaprojektowania wyzwań. Idee, trendy, dobre praktyki. ścieżek ekoturystycznych. Badania dotyczące Wydawnictwo Społecznego Instytutu oceny krajobrazu są bardzo ważne dla planowania Ekologicznego, Warszawa: 12–22. przestrzennego gmin w kontekście rozwoju m.in. ZIEMBLA K. 2012: Metoda JARK-WAK ekoturystyki. w ocenie krajobrazu kulturowego na przykładzie krajobrazu wsi Cyganek. Sztuka Ogrodu. Sztuka Krajobrazu 3: Słowa kluczowe: szlaki ekoturystyczne, waloryza- 17–26. cja krajobrazu, ŻARSKA B. 2001: Study of landscape pro- tection – methodic of working out for various areas. Ann. Warsaw Agricult. MS received 04.04.2018 Univ. – SGGW, Horticult. Landsc. Archi- MS accepted 16.07.2018 tect. 22: 111–122. Authors’ address: Beata Fornal-Pieniak Streszczenie: Ocena krajobrazu w celu zapro- Katedra Ochrony Środowiska jektowania szlaków ekoturystycznych – studium Wydział Ogrodnictwa, Biotechnologii przypadku. Ekoturystyka jest rodzajem turystyki i Architektury Krajobrazu ściśle związanej z walorami przyrodniczymi i kul- Szkoła Główna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego turowymi danego regionu. Ten rodzaj turystyki w Warszawie jest idealną opcją dla osób, które chcą się zrelak- ul. Nowoursynowska 159, 02-787 Warszawa sować i zwiedzić obszary pozamiejskie o wyso- Poland kich walorach krajobrazowych. Bardzo ważne e-mail: [email protected]