A Model of the Sustainable Management of the Natural Environment in National Parks—A Case Study of National Parks in Poland

Abstract

This paper aimed to present a model of natural environment management in national parks in Poland in the context of increased tourist traffic. The research area comprised Polish national parks as they are characterized by barely altered nature, little human impact, and undisturbed natural phenomena. The methods involved the observational method, literature analysis and criticism, and the in-depth interview method employed in November 2019. The respondents included national park management staff. The questions were prepared in accordance with the Berlin Declaration principles of sustainable tourism development and were extended with the authors’ own items. The questionnaire contained 17 questions, grouped in four parts: science and documentation; tourism; cooperation and education; environmental threats. The results indicate that in order for actions to prove efficient in a park, a conservation plan should be carefully developed. Its correctness requires monitoring the state of the environment, tourist traffic size and trends, and tourists’ impact on the environment. An important condition for effective tourism management in parks is to increase the competences of the administering bodies and knowledge regarding individuals’ responsibilities. Boards should be able to evaluate and modify conservation plans, spatial development plans, municipality development strategies, and projects for investments within the parks.

Full text

sustainability
Article
A Model of the Sustainable Management of the
Natural Environment in National Parks—A Case
Study of National Parks in Poland
Piotr Ole´sniewicz 1, Sławomir Pytel 2, * , Julita Markiewicz-Patkowska 3, Adam R. Szromek 4
and So ˇna Jandová5
1Faculty of Physical Education, University School of Physical Education in Wrocław, al. Ignacego Jana
Paderewskiego 35, 51-612 Wrocław, Poland; piotr.olesniewicz@awf.wroc.pl
2Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Silesia in Katowice, ul. B˛edzi ´nska 60, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland
3Faculty of Finance and Management, WSB University in Wrocław, ul. Fabryczna 29–31, 53-609 Wrocław,
Poland; jmarkiewicz@op.pl
4Faculty of Organization and Management, Silesian University of Technology, ul. Roosevelta 26,
41-800 Zabrze, Poland; innowator@o2.pl
5Technical University of Liberec, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Applied Mechanics
Studentská2, 461 17 Liberec, Czech Republic; sona.jandova@tul.cz
*Correspondence: slawomir.pytel@us.edu.pl; Tel.: +48-323-689-213
Received: 30 January 2020; Accepted: 27 March 2020; Published: 30 March 2020


Abstract:
This paper aimed to present a model of natural environment management in national parks
in Poland in the context of increased tourist traffic. The research area comprised Polish national parks
as they are characterized by barely altered nature, little human impact, and undisturbed natural
phenomena. The methods involved the observational method, literature analysis and criticism,
and the in-depth interview method employed in November 2019. The respondents included national
park management staff. The questions were prepared in accordance with the Berlin Declaration
principles of sustainable tourism development and were extended with the authors’ own items.
The questionnaire contained 17 questions, grouped in four parts: science and documentation; tourism;
cooperation and education; environmental threats. The results indicate that in order for actions to
prove efficient in a park, a conservation plan should be carefully developed. Its correctness requires
monitoring the state of the environment, tourist traffic size and trends, and tourists’ impact on the
environment. An important condition for effective tourism management in parks is to increase the
competences of the administering bodies and knowledge regarding individuals’ responsibilities.
Boards should be able to evaluate and modify conservation plans, spatial development plans,
municipality development strategies, and projects for investments within the parks.
Keywords: sustainability; national park; management; tourism
1. Introduction
One of the basic contemporary problems is to maintain balance between tourism development
and the need to preserve the valuable natural heritage. The only way to achieve the compromise is
sustainable development, the principles of which are embedded in the strategies of all fields of the
economy, including tourism. However, the low social awareness of threats, as well as the incomes from
tourism for the inhabitants of regions attractive to tourists, significantly complicates the management
of valuable natural areas.
The best known form of nature conservation, embracing areas of the most valuable nature and
landscape, are national parks. Their idea dates back to the second half of the 19th century, when the first
Sustainability 2020,12, 2704; doi:10.3390/su12072704 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 2 of 28
national park in the world, Yellowstone National Park, was established in 1872. Some researchers claim
that this form of nature conservation should actually be treated as an investment for future generations [
1
].
Therefore, proper management of a national park is important and should consist in proper planning,
organizing, supervising, and controlling its activities [
2
]. Modern tourism is often oriented towards
short-term income and thus contributes to the destruction of what it was originally supposed to profit
from. This is caused by excessive concentration of tourist traffic, an improperly located tourist base, often in
places of highest natural value, inappropriate forms of organizing recreation, and a lack of tourist culture.
The introduction of pro-environmental measures in tourism may contribute to increasing the number of
new jobs, while reducing the consumption of non-renewable resources. Planning actions for the sustainable
development of human–nature systems requires integrated management and thinking. Two important
elements in the management of the relationship between nature and the community are ecosystem services
and community livelihoods [
3
]. Natural protected areas face the challenge of reconciling natural attractions
with the satisfaction of different stakeholders without compromising their own resources. Appropriate
management and marketing can play an important role in sustainable activities [
4
]. In terms of management,
natural beauty can be a double-edged sword for a given area. Beautiful scenery is a magnet that attracts
not only visitors but also second home owners. The latter can make a significant contribution to the local
economy; a high demand for moving can increase the prices of local products and real assets, which in
turn may affect the quality of life of local residents. On the other hand, the development of real assets may
threaten the integrity of natural resources in the area. Therefore, a sustainable approach should be adopted
in regions attractive in terms of their natural environment to prevent overtourism [5].
According to the World Commission on Protected Areas, the management of protected
areas is now understood as the main element of the legal, political, institutional, and practical
framework of conservation worldwide. The concept and its application remain a challenge for most
countries. Countries are obliged to promote management diversity and to strengthen the relevant
policies, practices, and capacities. The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has also
prepared technical tools, such as the best practice guidelines for the management of protected areas.
The Commission’s objective is to increase the capacity, effectiveness, and efficiency of protected area
managers, both decision makers and others, in relation to sustainable tourism, by learning, exchanging,
and developing information and guidance. The presented article is an attempt to engage in the
recommendations of the World Commission on Protected Areas.
According to Myga-Pi ˛atek and Jankowski [
6
], tourism is becoming a global social phenomenon,
with a considerable anthropogenic impact on the environment. The development of mass commercial
tourism, its penetration into all types of landscape, and its impact on various geosystem components
are beginning to cause losses and destruction in natural systems, as well as modifications to the
socio-cultural environment. The most radical transformations are observed in mountain ecosystems
owing to, among others, year-round tourist traffic loads and the orographic specificity. Krupa [
7
]
indicates that the process of tourism management should be holistic, which means that tourism
development must be integrated with the development of other economic areas in the region or
country. Managing the development of all forms of sustainable tourism, especially in areas of high
environmental value, is to consist mainly in properly controlling tourist traffic in time and space,
creating zones for different types of tourist penetration, and planning the necessary infrastructure
adapted to the individual conditions of the protected area.
On the basis of the above, it was established that it was essential to create a model of natural
environment management in national parks in Poland in the context of increased tourist traffic.
This became the purpose of the presented paper.
There are many instruments of environmental management in Poland. As indicated by
Mizgajski [
8
], management can be divided into ongoing and programmed environmental protection.
The most important groups of current control instruments include legal and administrative procedures
and solutions, financial and economic instruments, and sanctions. In the first group, the author
enumerates administrative decisions of regulatory nature, administrative proceedings conducted

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 3 of 28
with public participation. The financial and economic instruments of environmental management
involve, among others, charges for the use of the environment and administrative financial penalties,
together with a mechanism for deferring and remitting them when investments are carried out,
which eliminate exceeding the permissible levels of pollutant emissions, as well as public funding
support for environmental conservation projects. There are also so-called soft instruments related to
the market-based approach to environmental conservation by promoting environmentally friendly
products. Mizgajski [
8
] also discusses the second vast sphere of environmental management,
namely environmental conservation planning. It covers the whole range of issues related to preparing
and evaluating programme documents, including those of a strategic character. All of them must
begin with an environmental diagnosis involving an assessment of the state of the environment,
anthropogenic impact, as well as the corrective actions taken. On its basis, future changes are projected
and the scope of the programme implementation is defined.
However, the literature lacks descriptions of sustainable and comprehensive management.
Therefore, it is justified to address the issue of model natural environment management in a sustainable
manner, which can be completed by effective, sustainable, and comprehensive management.
2. Literature Review
Investigating the relationship between the natural environment and man is of interest to many
scientific disciplines. In addition to the biological and geographical sciences that traditionally refer to
it, the following should be mentioned: sociology, economics, spatial planning, landscape architecture,
urban planning, political science, and law sciences. The scientific discourse is conducted on the basis
of the assumptions of the sustainable development concept around the relationships among natural,
cultural, and socio-economic values. Such a wide range of research into the relationship between
nature and man has yielded a rich literature output.
Human–environment relations are an important research issue of physical and socio-economic
geography and regional geography. Here, one can point at works on research methods and relationships
between man and nature [
9
–
12
]. Moreover, the impact of the park and social dilemmas have been
analysed [
13
–
16
], as well as major problems and trends in the relationship between the environment
and man [
17
,
18
]. Regional geography has been discussed as a discipline and subject of research and
teaching [
19
–
23
]. Human activity changes our natural environment and, in extreme cases, even leads to
the exhaustion of biodiversity. Chemini and Rizzoli [
24
] have paid special attention to this, pointing out
that biodiversity not only has ethical and cultural value but also plays a role in the functioning
of ecosystems.
There is also a wealth of theoretical output in the field of research methods and the assessment of the
human–environment relationship. A research methodology has been described [
25
–
28
], and modelling
sustainable development by constructing theories and typologies has been dealt with [
29
–
32
]. Butler [
33
]
reviewed the term ‘sustainable tourism,’ starting with a discussion on the confusion arising from
imprecise and contradictory definitions of the concept and the need to distinguish between sustainable
tourism and tourism development based on sustainable development principles.
Numerous studies have focused on quantitative methods and emphasized the economic aspects.
The economic benefits of national parks were described [
34
,
35
], as well as park management and the
costs and advantages of parks. Abel and Blaikie [
36
] present new ideas for wildlife conservation in
Africa, indicating that they are inappropriate. A high proportion of the ideas do not address problems
related to social conflicts. It is precisely these historical conflicts that can reveal much about the sources
of contemporary ecological problems. The case study of the Luangwa Valley in Zambia demonstrates
a method to remedy these weaknesses. In the first part of the article, the authors examine the role of
Luangwa national parks in the context of the Zambian political economy and identify social groups
competing for park resources. They then follow the historical origins of contemporary ecological
changes. These analyses lead to a model of parks and their relationships with the national economy.
Clough and Meister [
37
] point out that since resources are limited, there is greater pressure on those

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 4 of 28
who manage them to share them in a way allowing to maximise the benefits to the society. In this
study, an attempt was made to do this for the Whakapapa ski field and a village in Tongariro National
Park. The aim of the research was to provide information that would allow us to estimate the economic
value of the Whakapapa ski field, both for the region and for the whole country. This entails the use of
appropriate economic techniques which, although well known abroad, had been relatively rarely used
in New Zealand. Trakolis [
38
] presented the local residents’ perception of planning and management
issues, as investigated in a national park in north-western Greece. The conflicts caused by the lack of the
local community participation in the designation procedure and then in the decision-making process
required research. The author verified the knowledge about the park and its objectives, the necessity
of works and the quality of infrastructure, attitudes towards certain decisions, and the management
pattern and effectiveness. Ferraro [
39
] focused on the fact that the long-term integrity of protected areas
in low-income countries depended on the support of the neighbouring rural communities. He pointed
out the need to understand the alternative costs of nature conservation, which are borne by the rural
communities neighbouring the protected areas. The author stated that there were few analyses of
the effects of establishing protected areas. Cihar and Stankova [
40
] collected opinions and attitudes
towards nature conservation and tourism in the territory of a Czech national park that had been closed
to the public for 40 years because of the Iron Curtain. The authors conducted a survey among visitors,
residents, and representatives of local self-governments.
An important issue raised in the literature was the awareness of the need to involve local
communities in the processes of managing natural resources and protected areas. The researchers
pointed out that the condition of the coexistence of nature and people living in protected areas was
proper social communication.
Another issue was the impact of the community on national parks. Jarvis [
41
] points out that
land protection in parks is often perceived as a cost for the economic development of rural areas.
However, the debate on the development of the Canyon Forest Village on the southern edge of the
Grand Canyon suggested the opposite. It indicated that natural systems could be extremely valuable to
rural economies and that national parks and rural area development could go hand in hand. According
to Kideghesho et al. [
42
], attitude research is increasingly recognized as a tool for assessing public
understanding and acceptance for protection. The results of the study were useful in guiding political
interventions. The investigators found that attitudes were positively or negatively influenced by many
factors. Factors triggering positive attitudes reinforce protection objectives, while those generating
negative attitudes may adversely affect the objectives.
There is also research on social conflicts in national parks. Fortin and Gagnon [
43
] indicate
that many national parks have been established around the world to protect nature, but not without
consequences for the neighbouring communities. As the social and economic development of the
population living around the park is increasingly recognized as essential to achieve protection objectives,
the quality of park–community relationships has become a key issue. Burger [
44
] emphasizes the
importance of the position of local people in the case of investments that may affect their lives. He claims
that the participation of the local community in the course of park construction should be a significant
element of the decision-making process. Kr
ó
likowska [
45
], points to the so-called British concept of
the relationship between the local population and the protected area, where people are perceived as
an integral part of the landscape. The system of managing protected areas is as a rule focused more
on sustainable development than on strict protection. This approach allows for the promotion of
agricultural, forestry, or fishing activities within protected areas. Hibszer [
46
] referred to a key issue
of the relationship between man and environment. The problem addressed in the study concerned
the relationship between the national park and the local community. Its essence was to answer the
question of how the population living in national parks or their vicinity perceived their relationship
with their closest national park. The awareness of the need to maintain balance between the protection
of natural and landscape values and the social and economic development of park communes, as
declared by the authorities, is an important premise for verifying the relationships between this form

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 5 of 28
of protected areas and local communities in Poland. According to Barker [
47
], further development of
mass tourism in the Alps burdens the landscape and the local communities. However, various forms of
the development are observed. In the western Alps, ski resorts develop at high altitudes, outside local
communities. In the eastern Alps, tourist facilities are concentrated around traditional communities.
Congestion and pollution are obvious. Local and regional planning strategies adopted in response to
changes in tourism in the Alps provide relevant experiences for other mountain regions.
Other social conflicts have also been described. Beltran [
16
], presented an interesting way of
resolving conflicts between a national park and the population on the example of Sagarmatha National
Park. The government of Nepal responded to international concerns about the environmental crisis by
establishing Sagarmatha National Park. In many parts of the world, the formation of national parks
displaced indigenous people and imposed a strict nature conservation policy to create ‘wilderness’.
Sagarmatha National Park, on the other hand, was a pioneering example of a new type of protected
area, which recognized the rights of indigenous people to settle and provide for themselves. Bauer [
48
],
on the example of Waza National Park in Cameron, indicated complex interactions between the park
and the surrounding population. The adopted management plan allowed for human cooperation, with
a limited use of natural resources. In order to determine which resources were desirable and which
represented commitments, interviews were conducted with people from the park vicinity. In their
study, Boj
ó
rquez-Tapia et al. [
49
] recognize nature reserves as a category of land use that competes
with other land uses. Therefore, one of the basic objectives of conservation planning is to design
reserves that protect the most valuable areas. However, the complexity of conservation issues, as well
as the urgent need to protect the key elements of biodiversity and a lack of data, forced planners to
rely on expertise and public participation when developing projects. According to Colchester [
50
],
nature protection through establishing ‘national parks’ in the USA violated the rights of indigenous
people, causing their impoverishment and social problems. After many efforts, international rules
finally acknowledge the rights of indigenous people, and the new protection policy allows them to
own and manage protected areas. Nevertheless, field studies show that these new rules are not yet
widely applied. Stern [
51
] presents a model based on empirical research explaining local objections to
neighbouring protected areas. Analyses of data from 420 interviews with local residents and almost
a year’s observation of three national parks revealed that the assumptions concerning local residents
motivated primarily by rational economic stimuli were at best incomplete.
Some research pointed at ways to resolve conflicts through appropriate resource management [
52
–
55
].
The tourist traffic in national parks has also been studied and described on numerous occasions.
Many studies have been devoted to the sustainable development of tourism [
56
–
60
]. Debates on
sustainable tourism were conducted, among others, by Hunter [
61
]. Paunovi´c and Jovanovi´c [
62
] tried
to answer the question of what lay behind the efforts for sustainable tourism in the German Alps and
what views on these processes were represented by various stakeholders in the tourism industry.
The issue of modern tourism business in local development was discussed by Mortensen et al. [
63
]
and Mika [
64
]. Elmi and Perlik [
65
] decided to investigate the reappearance of residents in the Alps.
Research carried out in previous years highlighted the depopulation of these areas, and now the
authors have observed the phenomenon of a renewed influx of inhabitants. There are also theoretical
references to the man–nature tourism impacts [
66
–
69
]. The benefits of tourism for natural resource
management in parks have been described [
70
–
75
]. Gios et al. [
76
] measured the benefits of natural
resources for tourism. They pointed out that measuring certain advantages made it possible to create
appropriate development strategies. The researchers presented possible solutions for sustainable
tourism in environmentally valuable areas.
Among the investigations on the attitude of local communities to national parks, the studies of
many researchers stand out. They point to the objection of local communities to delimiting protected
areas. Kaltenborn et al. [
77
] indicated that the community-based management of protected areas had
become a strong political objective worldwide. Many African countries responded to this challenge,
although with variable results. Tanzania, known for its abundant wildlife population in national parks,

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 6 of 28
developed several projects aimed at improving the relationship between the park and people. So far,
however, there is little evidence that community-based programs have had any significant impact
on management strategies, benefit distribution, or poverty alleviation. Von Ruschkowski [
78
] claims
that the designation of protected areas (e.g., national parks) often leads to conflicts between local
communities and the area administration. This phenomenon occurs all over the world and is probably
as old as the very idea of a national park. These conflicts often affect both the protected areas and the
local communities, as tense relationships entail the risk of disruption to park planning, conservation
objectives, or regional economic development.
Researchers also determine the factors influencing acceptance. Raval [
79
] discussed investigations
carried out to understand resource use and management issues, as perceived by the people living in the park
vicinity. The study was conducted in the form of in-depth interviews, mainly with cattle breeders living in
Gir National Park in India. Fiallo and Jacobson [
80
] pointed out that the economic and social problems
faced by many developing countries threatened the existence of such parks. Similarly, other authors [
81
–
83
].
2.1. Sustainable Development
According to Piontek [
84
], more than 40 definitions of sustainable development are mentioned
in the literature. They all draw attention to the different manifestations of the use, application,
and understanding of these words. The notion of sustainable development was first publicly applied
during the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Stockholm in 1972.
The first definition, in turn, appeared at the United Nations Environment Programme management
body session in 1975 and described sustainable development as a course of inevitable and desirable
economic development that did not significantly or irreversibly disturb the human environment,
did not lead to biosphere degradation, and reconciled the laws of nature, economics, and culture. For
the purposes of this study, the definition of sustainable development was adopted as the right to satisfy
the development aspirations of the current generation without limiting the rights of future generations
to satisfy their development needs [
85
]. This definition indicates that sustainable development does
not constitute environmental conservation in its conventional meaning. Through the harmony of
economic, natural, and social aspects, this development is safe and beneficial for man, the environment,
and the economy. It does not hinder development but even stimulates it, it does not take place at the
cost of destroying the environment, for the benefit of future generations, who will also have the right
to develop. Weaver, D.B., and Lawton, L.J. [
86
] identify a deepening crisis of protected areas, which is
affected by four factors. Firstly, relatively undisturbed natural habitats around the world continue to be
destroyed and converted to serve other purposes as human populations increase, prosperity develops,
and more natural resources are used. Secondly, the reduced government funding worldwide decreases
their ability to fulfil key environmental functions. Thirdly, revenues are visitor-based and, as a result,
a large part of them is spent on visitor satisfaction and not on environmental management. The fourth
factor is the increasing demand for rural outdoor and nature-based recreation in the increasingly
urbanized societies.
Leung, Y.F. [
87
] points out that protected area managers need a wide range of skills and expertise
to manage the complexity of protected area systems. The IUCN best practice guidelines are designed to
meet these needs, including the sharing of good practice experience around the world. Many protected
areas are managed for tourism and visits as part of their objective, involving a wide range of stakeholders
and the private sector. The rapidly growing demand for the development of tourism related to protected
areas emphasizes the need to provide clear guidance that will contribute to sustainable tourism in
line with the fundamental objectives of protecting valuable areas. From a conservation point of view,
tourism and sightseeing represent a complex set of challenges. Protected area managers around the
world are expected to make most of the areas accessible to visitors. Protected areas are a crucial element
of any global conservation strategy. Tourism acts as an important way of connecting visitors and
valuable protected areas.

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 7 of 28
Eagles, P.F., Bowman, M.E., and Tao, C.H. [
88
] elaborated on the ideas discussed above primarily
for the planners and managers of parks and protected areas. It was designed to help park managers
think about the inflow of tourists into protected areas and to encourage them to consciously plan
the management of the interaction between tourists and the environment. Effective planning allows
different interest groups to maximize the potential positive effects of tourism while minimizing the
negative ones. The document is an important and requested material for protected tourism in East
Asia. It constitutes a valuable resource for park managers and other decision makers involved in park
planning, supplementing current practices and theories applied by park authorities. The document
contains information on best practices, guest management, education, stakeholder involvement,
and other issues related to the protected area.
Mandi´c, A. [
89
] indicates that protected natural areas are often considered as areas of high
recreational value; therefore, many of them are increasingly threatened by the development of tourism.
The research was conducted in a socio-economic context to address the complexity of this global
problem. The study is based on an inductive approach to highlight the need for eco-thinking. The paper
provides an analysis of global and local factors that drive change. It concludes that the durability of
nature-based tourism and the resilience of protected areas are not possible in the absence of a multi-level
management system, monitoring, education, and community consent.
Mandi´c, A., and Petri´c, L. [
90
] presented a study that analysed the economic effects of creating
protected areas and indicated the implications for the public and private sectors. To this end,
they applied the hedonic pricing method in order to take into account changes in hotel prices in relation
to their location. The research results revealed a relationship between the unique environmental
attributes of a site and hotel prices. Hotels located near the territory of a national park charge higher
fees, while increasing the distance from the park territory reduces prices. The researchers found
that protected areas were components of an integrated tourist product, influencing the prices of
complementary tourist services, visitors’ satisfaction, and the competitiveness of destinations.
2.2. Tourism in the Aspect of Sustainable Development
New needs and expectations of tourists are the basis for creating tourist products that are consistent
with the principles of sustainable development. These principles are so crucial that the concept of
sustainable tourism has developed, as defined in the Charter for Sustainable Tourism. The concept is
the result of seeking dependencies and links between the economic, environmental, and social factors
determining development with a balance among them [
91
]. Any attempt to introduce the concept of
sustainable tourism development involves the need to relate it to a specific area with a specific tourism
potential. In this case, these are national parks, where the values of the natural environment, the existing
development, as well as tourist traffic and its consequences must be studied. This leads to a concept
of sustainable tourism management in the region. Gał ˛azka [
91
] implies that, in accordance with the
definition presented by the European Federation of Natural and National Parks, sustainable tourism
should be considered to be any form of development of tourist traffic, tourist activity, and management
that maintains the ecological, social, and economic integrity of territories and preserves their natural
and cultural resources for future generations. According to Para [
92
], the definition of sustainable
tourism should acknowledge the environmental durability, relate to the economy concerned, and be
socially and ethically adapted to the standards of the given community. These conditions can be met
if all parties involved in tourism respect one another and cooperate. Sustainable tourism has been
addressed by many researchers, who presented the understanding of and challenges for sustainable
tourism development and the roles of stakeholders [
93
–
96
], as well as the problems of tourist indicators,
sustainable development, environmental management, and measuring satisfaction with sustainable
tourism [
97
–
99
]. An important role of research into new ways of describing sustainable tourism
has been explored by McCool, S.F., and Bosak, K. (Eds.) [
100
]. Their investigation indicated that
tourism is only one of many human activities that affects host communities. Their paper includes
engaging case studies with realistic applications. The references contained in the book, as well as

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 8 of 28
tools and techniques useful for tourism practitioners, suggest an innovative approach to marketing,
management, and community development. The authors point out that sustainable development is
becoming a top priority, as tourist destinations try to maintain and increase their attractiveness to
tourists. However, tourism is now an economic activity and an engine of global capitalism. For this
reason, there is a tension between tourism and sustainable development. The researchers conduct
an important discussion on how sustainable tourism can be reformulated with the use of the indicated
set of tools.
2.3. The Essence of National Park Management
Environmental management is mainly the management of conservation and environment
formation. It is based on the so-called Deming circle, in which the actions taken are grouped
into planning, implementing the plan, checking (assessing the effectiveness of the actions),
correcting shortcomings, and adapting the plan to the new circumstances. Therefore, the system of
environmental management is grounded in cyclical activities aimed at continuous improvement [
101
].
As indicated in Article 8b Item 1 of the act on nature conservation [
102
], the responsibilities of
national parks include in particular:
1.
Carrying out conservation activities in the national park ecosystems, aimed at achieving the
objectives referred to in Article 8 Item 2;
2.
Providing access to the national park area in accordance with the principles set out in the
conservation plan referred to in Article 18 or in the conservation responsibilities referred to in
Article 22 and in the ordinances of the national park director;
3. Conducting activities related to nature education.
The management of a national park should be performed in at least three categories:
•The management of nature conservation;
•The management of a business entity;
•The management of a public institution.
Nature conservation and the negative effects of tourist traffic in national parks are enumerated
both in the act on nature conservation [
102
] and in the ordinances of the national park director. In order
to counteract these effects, the national park director determines, among others, the number of people
who can stay in a given place at the same time or the amount of admission fees. An important role is
also ascribed to conducting educational activity, aimed primarily at teaching the society how to use
natural resources [100].
National parks are also business entities. Kunasz [
103
] specifies that the resources of national
parks include:
•
Tangible resources, such as natural resources, land, buildings, means of transport, machinery,
and equipment;
•Human and organizational resources: national parks have their own organizational structures;
•
Financial resources, understood as the possibility of obtaining the income characteristic of national
parks, including special purpose grants, revenues related to providing access to the national park,
and conducting educational activity, as well as income from timber sales.
National parks cannot be managed by economic instruments alone. These may only be used to
supplement administrative and legal instruments. That is why the organizational and legal status of
the park plays an important role in its management. As indicated by Ru´skowski and Salachna [
104
],
a national park is a state legal entity; therefore, it can be a subject of civil law relations and can
take credits and loans (up to 60% of the amount of income or 60% of costs), and the property of
a national park entirely constitutes state property. In turn, the Act on public finance [
105
] in Article
9 Item 14 specifies that a national park is a public finance sector unit, managed by the park director,

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 9 of 28
but supervised by the Minister of Environment. And it is the Minister of Environment who controls
the operation of national parks.
Wasiuk [100] presented two main factors in national park management:
1.
The factor distinguishing a national park from other entities: the legal regulations governing the
activities of national parks, the management of a particular type of resources in national parks,
and the dependence of the decisions taken on the needs of nature;
2.
The factor differentiating national parks: the attractiveness of the national park for visitors,
the significance of the park’s nature for the society, the location and size of the park and its assets,
budget size (including the amount of state funding and of so-called own revenues), and the
number of employees.
The European Charter for Sustainable Tourism provides an important management model. It is
an initiative of EUROPARC, which has long recognized the need to care for both the land and the people
who live and work there. National parks are not only facing challenges and pressures arising from the
visits to and misuse of the land that they manage; they also have the opportunity and potential to act
as catalysts for change in sustainable development and lifestyle at the local, regional, and even national
level. The European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas is a practical management
tool that enables sustainable tourism development in protected areas. A key element of the charter is
a common strategy for sustainable tourism and an action plan based on an in-depth analysis of the
situation. The aim of all projects and actions of the charter is to protect the natural and cultural heritage
and to continuously improve tourism in protected areas in terms of the environment, local people,
and businesses, as well as visitors. Over 20 years of experience have shown that the charter is a useful
and important tool that provides social, environmental, and economic benefits.
3. Material and Methods
The research involved 23 national parks owing to the prominence of the natural heritage that
they have and make available to tourists. National parks are a sanctuary of wildlife, a place where
protection is provided for entire ecosystems, i.e., all living organisms linked by interrelationships and
inanimate elements of the environment in which they exist.
For this reason, the management of a national park is extremely difficult and requires model
solutions to protect what is most valuable and at the same time to make it available to tourists.
3.1. Research Area
The research area comprised Polish national parks as they are characterized by barely altered
nature, little human impact, and undisturbed natural processes and phenomena. Here, there is the last
natural forest of the European Plain, the location of many unique and endangered species of fauna and
flora, and the most famous bison habitat in the world.
In Poland, 23 national parks were created (Figure 1), which cover 1% of the country area. The parks
operate on the basis of the act of April 16, 2004, on nature conservation. In accordance with Article
8 Item 1 of the act, a national park covers an area distinguished by specific natural, scientific, social,
cultural, and educational values, with an area of not less than 1000 ha, where all nature and landscape
values are subject to conservation. The internal organization, mode of operation, and manner of
granting powers of attorney have been modified; since January 1, 2012, there is a regulation in force
according to which the minister in charge of the environment, by way of an ordinance, grants a national
park its statute, considering the need to ensure its efficient operation. A national park is managed
by a director, appointed by the Minister of Environment, for a period of five years, from among the
candidates selected by a competition.

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 10 of 28
Sustainability 2020, 01, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 28
Figure 1. National parks in Poland against the background of Europe [106].
3.2. Research Methods
In the paper, the following research methods were used: the observational method, the method of
analysis and criticism of literature, and the method of in-depth interviews. The observation method
played a major role. Observation is among the oldest research methods, allowing to put forward a
hypothesis, collect data, verify and select materials, clarify issues, formulate a thesis, establish contacts
with the studied group. Its characteristic feature is cyclicality. Observation as a method must assume a
selection of observations under predefined conditions. It must adopt an appropriate selection, the
criterion being determined by the purpose of the observation. Observation is a research method when
it considers all stages of research activities. As a method, it determines how to prepare and implement
the research technique and tools, consolidate observations, compile observation protocols, and develop
research results and scientific generalizations. The most characteristic feature of observation is its cyclic
nature: it starts with facts and ends with them, and the facts ending one cycle begin the subsequent one
[94].
Another method was that of literature analysis and criticism. With this method, one can determine
what is known and what is not known, and what exists in the literature and what is not there yet. One
can establish whether the problem addressed is original, different from the discoveries known so far.
The method allows to demonstrate differences, similarities, relationships, dependencies, and substantial
features in the existing theories. The results of studies based on this method lead to important
discoveries concerning activities and creative works. This method is widely used in humanities but also
in economic sciences. Its aim is also to establish relationships between products of creative activity. It is
usually about determining the impact of one solution on another, for example, one work on another,
one theory on another. Since comparison is among the basic mental activities, it is an important
component of most research methods [94].
An important role was played by the in-depth interview method. It consists in a conversation
between a researcher and a respondent. The objective is to obtain detailed opinions and information
from specific individuals who meet the sampling criteria defined by the investigator. The technique is
also applied to explain the nature of the phenomenon under investigation, to get to the essence, and to
obtain information that would be difficult to achieve with other methods. In a regular questionnaire,
the respondent is usually confronted with a list of available answers to questions. In an in-depth
Figure 1. National parks in Poland against the background of Europe [106].
An important feature of the tourist traffic in national parks is the seasonality of visits, limiting the
tourist traffic peak to 2–3 months. In most national parks, the tourist traffic is seasonal in nature, and the
dependence on this factor has different significance in individual parks. Coast parks are burdened with
a large number of visitors only during the holiday period. Mountain parks, where winter tourism is
also practised, have more balanced numbers of visits. The number of days offfrom work (the so-called
long weekends) also affects the increase in the number of park visitors: there are more individual trips
and several-hour visits with own transport.
3.2. Research Methods
In the paper, the following research methods were used: the observational method, the method of
analysis and criticism of literature, and the method of in-depth interviews. The observation method played
a major role. Observation is among the oldest research methods, allowing to put forward a hypothesis,
collect data, verify and select materials, clarify issues, formulate a thesis, establish contacts with the
studied group. Its characteristic feature is cyclicality. Observation as a method must assume a selection
of observations under predefined conditions. It must adopt an appropriate selection, the criterion being
determined by the purpose of the observation. Observation is a research method when it considers all stages
of research activities. As a method, it determines how to prepare and implement the research technique and
tools, consolidate observations, compile observation protocols, and develop research results and scientific
generalizations. The most characteristic feature of observation is its cyclic nature: it starts with facts and
ends with them, and the facts ending one cycle begin the subsequent one [94].
Another method was that of literature analysis and criticism. With this method, one can determine
what is known and what is not known, and what exists in the literature and what is not there
yet. One can establish whether the problem addressed is original, different from the discoveries
known so far. The method allows to demonstrate differences, similarities, relationships, dependencies,
and substantial features in the existing theories. The results of studies based on this method lead
to important discoveries concerning activities and creative works. This method is widely used in
humanities but also in economic sciences. Its aim is also to establish relationships between products of
creative activity. It is usually about determining the impact of one solution on another, for example,

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 11 of 28
one work on another, one theory on another. Since comparison is among the basic mental activities,
it is an important component of most research methods [94].
An important role was played by the in-depth interview method. It consists in a conversation between
a researcher and a respondent. The objective is to obtain detailed opinions and information from specific
individuals who meet the sampling criteria defined by the investigator. The technique is also applied to
explain the nature of the phenomenon under investigation, to get to the essence, and to obtain information
that would be difficult to achieve with other methods. In a regular questionnaire, the respondent is usually
confronted with a list of available answers to questions. In an in-depth interview, the emphasis is on freedom
of expression. The interviewer directs the conversation in such a way that all topics are covered, but allows
full freedom of expression on the part of the respondent. For this reason, the interview usually takes about 1
hour. In-depth interviews should be chosen when one wants to get to know the independent opinions of
experts, discover the opinions of hardly accessible people, raise difficult issues. In-depth interviews allow us
to well understand the opinions and attitudes of the interlocutors, describe the motives of actions, check the
level of comprehension of ideas and materials, explore a brand image, determine the characteristics of
a potential user, describe attitudes towards social phenomena, and determine the optimal level of changes
proposed in the environment [94].
The research was conducted in November 2019 and followed the steps presented in Figure 2.
Sustainability 2020, 01, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 28
interview, the emphasis is on freedom of expression. The interviewer directs the conversation in such a
way that all topics are covered, but allows full freedom of expression on the part of the respondent. For
this reason, the interview usually takes about 1 hour. In-depth interviews should be chosen when one
wants to get to know the independent opinions of experts, discover the opinions of hardly accessible
people, raise difficult issues. In-depth interviews allow us to well understand the opinions and attitudes
of the interlocutors, describe the motives of actions, check the level of comprehension of ideas and
materials, explore a brand image, determine the characteristics of a potential user, describe attitudes
towards social phenomena, and determine the optimal level of changes proposed in the environment
[94].
The research was conducted in November 2019 and followed the steps presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The study flowchart (source: own research).
In the initial phase, the authors gathered numerous literature references and, after exploring them,
identified the research problem. The proposed problem was to provide strategic advice to the
authorities of protected areas, the tourism industry, and other stakeholders on an optimal approach to
planning, developing, managing, and monitoring tourism in protected areas. Further on, in accordance
with the Berlin Declaration [107], the authors developed a research tool in the form of a questionnaire,
which contained 17 questions and consisted of four parts. The next step was research conduction. For
this purpose, all national parks in Poland were contacted and the management staff represented by
directors, their deputies, or indicated persons were interviewed. After the results were obtained, their
statistical processing was started, which consisted of elaborating the primary data into an acceptance
index. In the last part, the authors analysed the obtained results and drew conclusions.
The respondents included national park management staff, such as directors, their deputies, or
heads of departments. The questions were prepared in accordance with the Berlin Declaration [107]
principles of sustainable tourism development and were extended with authors’ own items. The
questionnaire contained 17 questions and consisted of four parts: science and documentation, tourism,
cooperation and education, and environmental threats.
The statistical analysis consisted in processing the obtained primary data into an acceptance index
(AI) ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 indicated full conformity with the analysed requirements. The answers
were analysed with reference to all parks together and with the consideration of a distinction into two
criteria. The first one was the park qualification as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) biosphere reserve or not, the other one constituted a division into five groups
resulting from the park type (coast, lake district, lowland, upland, and mountain).
The national park managers were asked the following questions:
1. Does the park have a nature conservation plan?
Conclusions and recommendations
Analysis of the obtained results
Conducting and transcribing the interview
Development of the research tool and the in-depth
interview scenario
Critical analysis of the literature and research problem
identification
Figure 2. The study flowchart (source: own research).
In the initial phase, the authors gathered numerous literature references and, after exploring
them, identified the research problem. The proposed problem was to provide strategic advice
to the authorities of protected areas, the tourism industry, and other stakeholders on an optimal
approach to planning, developing, managing, and monitoring tourism in protected areas. Further on,
in accordance with the Berlin Declaration [
107
], the authors developed a research tool in the form of
a questionnaire, which contained 17 questions and consisted of four parts. The next step was research
conduction. For this purpose, all national parks in Poland were contacted and the management staff
represented by directors, their deputies, or indicated persons were interviewed. After the results were
obtained, their statistical processing was started, which consisted of elaborating the primary data into
an acceptance index. In the last part, the authors analysed the obtained results and drew conclusions.
The respondents included national park management staff, such as directors, their deputies,
or heads of departments. The questions were prepared in accordance with the Berlin Declaration [
107
]
principles of sustainable tourism development and were extended with authors’ own items.

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 12 of 28
The questionnaire contained 17 questions and consisted of four parts: science and documentation,
tourism, cooperation and education, and environmental threats.
The statistical analysis consisted in processing the obtained primary data into an acceptance index
(AI) ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 indicated full conformity with the analysed requirements. The answers
were analysed with reference to all parks together and with the consideration of a distinction into
two criteria. The first one was the park qualification as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) biosphere reserve or not, the other one constituted a division into
five groups resulting from the park type (coast, lake district, lowland, upland, and mountain).
The national park managers were asked the following questions:
1. Does the park have a nature conservation plan?
2. Are environmentally friendly forms of tourist activity promoted?
3. Are there any limits on the number of visitors and people walking on the trails?
4. Are there any specified places where one can put up a tent?
5. Has tourism been identified as an existing or potential threat to the nature of the park?
6. Are environmental indicators for sustainable tourism planning taken into account?
7. Is the development of tourism restricted in areas that have been under greatest impact so far?
8. Is there a monitoring of the existing tourist traffic?
9. Is the environmental impact of tourism monitored?
10.
Have the changes in the environmental impact of tourism development been assessed before?
11.
Is the existing tourist infrastructure being modernized instead of building a new one?
12.
Is ecological education run?
13.
Have educational pathways been established?
14.
Is there cooperation with local government units?
15.
Have regulations been developed concerning the specific way of making the park available?
16.
Is admission fee income received?
17.
Does the director have a scientific council?
On the basis of a broad source base, an analysis of the current development of tourism in parks
and plans in this respect was made. The Local Data Bank of Statistics Poland [
108
] and websites of
parks and tourist organizations served to establish the number of park visitors. As a measure of tourist
traffic in national parks, the indicator of tourist traffic intensity was applied, which is the quotient
of the number of tourists (thousands) and the length of tourist trails (kilometres). The study also
employed the Defert index, providing information on the number of tourists per 1 km
2
of a tourist
area, which allows one to assess the population density in the studied area [109,110].
4. Results
4.1. Results of Secondary Sources Research
The main measure of the tourist function of a given area is the tourist traffic, defined as the
movement of people for tourist purposes in the area. More than half of the total tourist traffic in Poland
is generated by mountain parks; however, most of the tourist traffic is seasonal in nature. The exceptions
are mountain parks, such as Karkonosze National Park and Tatra National Park, where winter tourism
is also practised. Polish national parks are very popular among tourists, as evidenced by their high
attendance. The creation of each new national park is associated with an influx of tourists. In the
first half of the 1960s, when there were only 10 national parks in Poland, the number of visitors was
between 4 and over 5 million per year, with a clear tendency to increase. Such high attendance involved
company visits, school excursions, and individual tourism. In the 1970s, the number of visitors
increased to over 11 million per year. At present, the attendance of visitors to particular national parks
varies from 13 thousand people in Drawa National Park to over 3.7 million in Tatra National Park.

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 13 of 28
In nine parks, the annual number of tourists does not exceed 100 thousand (Table 1). In the following
seven, it does not exceed 1 million. The attendance exceeded 1 million in only five parks.
Table 1. Number of tourists visiting Polish national parks in 2009–2017.
Park Name Number of Tourists (in thousands)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Tatra National Park
2195 2002 2234 2947 2764 3092 3310 3683 3779
Karkonosze National Park
2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
Wolin National Park
1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
Wielkopolski National Park
1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200
Kampinoski National Park
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Pieniny National Park 838 603 710 770 734 719 815 931 898
Stołowe Mountains National Park
366 319 335 350 347 367 480 286 515
Bieszczady National Park 350 280 330 297 332 355 388 487 513
Ojców National Park 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 428 430
Słowi´nski National Park 386 311 317 312 309 304 319 323 317
Białowie˙za National Park 190 170 134 121 119 120 133 163 249
Roztocze National Park 100 100 100 120 120 120 134 187 203
´
Swi˛etokrzyski National Park 183 145 193 162 148 135 132 144 144
Wigry National Park 120 110 110 110 110 115 110 125 125
Gorce National Park 70 60 65 70 70 80 80 80 90
Babia Góra National Park 67 54 75 63 81 76 81 114 83
Magura National Park 50 50 45 40 50 40 40 50 50
Polesie National Park 25 24 24 28 28 28 41 44 49
Biebrza National Park 39 31 27 33 28 32 39 41 47
Uj´scie Warty National Park 20 10 20 57 54 51 52 43 34
Bory Tucholskie National Park 60 60 60 60 33 33 33 35 32
Narew National Park 11 13 10 12 15 15 15 20 19
Drawa National Park 24 22 48 26 19 18 22 16 13
Source: own elaboration based on Statistics Poland [108].
Changes in attendance were most marked in Roztocze National Park and Polesie National Park,
where the number of visitors increased by 100% in the examined period of 2009–2017. The most
unfavourable situation was observed in Bory Tucholskie National Park and Drawa National Park,
where the number decreased by a half (Table 1).
An important role is played by the length of the designated tourist trails, as it determines the
possibility of dispersing tourists around the park area and not exerting excessive environmental impact
by tourists. The length of trails is significantly varied and ranges between 16.7 km in Uj´scie Warty
National Park to 550 km in Kampinoski National Park. There are over 200 km of trails in seven parks
and over 100 km in five (Table 2).
In order to determine the tourist traffic impact on the nature of the park, in addition to the total
number of visitors, it is important to establish their ‘density’ in the park area and along the tourist
trails. Taking into account the number of tourists and the size of the park, one can more precisely
estimate the impact and compare the parks.
Excessive concentration of tourist traffic or incorrectly located tourist base, as well as inappropriate
forms of recreation management and a lack of tourist culture are the main reasons for threats.
The development of tourism in protected areas is therefore highly limited. Any actions taken must be
consistent with the principles of sustainable development, and the number of tourists visiting a park
should be adjusted to the park area. The calculated Defert index implies that the highest density,
3.7 people per km2, is in Pieniny National Park. Equally high density occurs in Karkonosze National
Park. Tourists will find the most space in Biebrza National Park and Narew National Park (Table 3).

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 14 of 28
Table 2. Length of tourist trails in Polish national parks in 2009–2017.
Park Name Tourist Trails (in kilometres)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Kampinoski National Park 560 560 560 550 550 550 550 550 550
Biebrza National Park 474 464 464 493 498 498 524 499 499
Bieszczady National Park 245 140 465 465 465 465 465 465 465
Tatra National Park 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275
Wigry National Park 245 245 245 245 273 273 273 273 273
Drawa National Park 160 170 164 170 170 241 241 241 241
Wielkopolski National Park 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 233
Gorce National Park 155 155 155 155 155 169 169 169 169
Słowi´nski National Park 144 144 144 144 144 150 150 166 166
Polesie National Park 76 136 136 136 114 114 114 114 127
Karkonosze National Park 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 121 126
Stołowe Mountains National
Park 107 164 196 109 109 109 109 109 109
Magura National Park 85 98 85 85 94 94 94 94 94
Bory Tucholskie National Park 75 75 76 92 92 93 93 93 93
Babia Góra National Park 53 53 55 55 55 55 55 49 55
Narew National Park 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 54
Wolin National Park 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Białowie˙za National Park 44 44 42 44 44 44 44 44 44
´
Swi˛etokrzyski National Park 41 38 38 38 38 41 41 41 41
Ojców National Park 40 40 40 37 37 37 37 37 37
Pieniny National Park 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Roztocze National Park 61 31 31 29 29 29 29 29 29
Uj´scie Warty National Park 13 13 13 13 13 17 17 17 17
Source: own elaboration based on Statistics Poland [108].
Table 3. Number of tourists visiting Polish national parks in 2009–2017 per 1 km2
Park Name Number of Tourists (per 1 km2)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Pieniny National Park
3.570 2.570 3.030 3.246 3.090 3.030 3.440 3.930 3.790
Karkonosze National Park
3.580 3.580 3.580 3.584 3.580 3.580 3.580 3.360 3.360
Ojców National Park
1.864 1.864 1.864 1.864 1.864 1.864 1.864 1.995 1.995
Tatra National Park
1.030 0.080 1.050 1.390 1.300 1.459 1.561 1.740 1.780
Wielkopolski National Park
1.582 1.582 1.580 1.582 1.580 1.580 1.580 1.580 1.580
Wolin National Park
1.370 1.370 1.370 1.374 1.370 1.370 1.370 1.370 1.370
Stołowe Mountains National Park
0.580 0.500 0.530 0.552 0.550 0.580 0.760 0.460 0.820
Kampinoski National Park
0.260 0.260 0.260 0.259 0.259 0.259 0.259 0.295 0.295
Babia Góra National Park
0.170 0.160 0.220 0.186 0.239 0.190 0.240 0.340 0.245
Roztocze National Park
0.118 0.118 0.118 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.160 0.220 0.240
Białowie˙za National Park
0.180 0.170 0.127 0.115 0.110 0.110 0.129 0.156 0.237
´
Swi˛etokrzyski National Park
0.240 0.190 0.254 0.212 0.195 0.177 0.173 0.189 0.189
Bieszczady National Park
0.012 0.096 0.113 0.102 0.114 0.122 0.133 0.167 0.175
Słowi´nski National Park
0.179 0.144 0.147 0.145 0.143 0.141 0.148 0.150 0.147
Gorce National Park
0.100 0.086 0.092 0.100 0.100 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.129
Wigry National Park
0.080 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.076 0.073 0.083 0.083
Bory Tucholskie National Park
0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.075 0.069
Polesie National Park
0.025 0.025 0.024 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.042 0.045 0.050
Uj´scie Warty National Park
0.025 0.012 0.025 0.070 0.067 0.063 0.065 0.053 0.043
Magura National Park
0.026 0.026 0.023 0.021 0.026 0.020 0.020 0.026 0.026
Drawa National Park
0.021 0.019 0.042 0.022 0.017 0.016 0.019 0.014 0.011
Biebrza National Park
0.007 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Narew National Park
0.010 0.017 0.014 0.016 0.005 0.021 0.020 0.003 0.004
Source: own elaboration based on Statistics Poland [108].

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 15 of 28
It should be emphasized that the tourist utilization of the parks is strongly determined by their
degree of development, which allows for a legal penetration of the area along tourist trails. The analysis
of the tourist traffic intensity on the trails reveals that the greatest number of tourists per trail kilometre
is observed in Wolin National Park, where there are almost 30 thousand people per trail kilometre each
year. There are over 25 thousand on the trails of Pieniny National Park and 15 thousand in Karkonosze
National Park. The lowest tourist traffic intensity is reported for Biebrza National Park and Drawa
National Park (0.1 thousand each) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Number of tourists visiting Polish national parks in 2006–2017 in thousands per trail kilometre.
Park Name Tourist Traffic Intensity (in thousands per 1 km of trail)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Wolin National Park
31.9 31.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9
Pieniny National Park
22.0 23.0 21.5 23.8 17.2 20.3 22.0 21.0 20.5 23.3 26.6 25.7
Karkonosze National Park
17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.5 15.9
Tatra National Park 9.7 8.1 7.6 8.0 7.3 8.1
10.7 10.1 11.2 12.0 13.4 13.7
Ojców National Park
17.4
8.6 9.8
10.1 10.1 10.1 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 11.4 11.5
Roztocze National Park 1.7 1.6 2.0 1.6 3.3 3.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.6 6.4 6.9
Białowie˙za National Park 6.2 3.7 2.1 4.3 3.9 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.7 5.6
Wielkopolski National Park 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.2
Stołowe Mountains National Park 1.8 2.1 2.0 3.4 1.9 1.7 3.2 3.2 3.4 4.4 2.6 4.7
´
Swi˛etokrzyski National Park 5.0 4.3 5.1 4.5 3.9 5.2 4.3 4.0 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.5
Uj´scie Warty National Park 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 0.8 1.5 4.3 4.0 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.1
Słowi´nski National Park 2.5 1.9 1.9 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9
Kampinoski National Park 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
Babia Góra National Park 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.5 2.3 1.5
Bieszczady National Park 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.4 2.0 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1
Gorce National Park 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Magura National Park 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
Wigry National Park 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
Polesie National Park 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4
Narew National Park 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
Bory Tucholskie National Park 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3
Biebrza National Park 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Drawa National Park 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Source: own elaboration based on Statistics Poland [108].
4.2. Primary Research
The research conducted in national parks indicates that park management is carried out in
a conscious and responsible manner, with full respect for sustainable development principles.
The directors of all the studied parks issued ordinances specifically regulating the way and scope of
making the park available, as well as visitor limits, and seven parks had a conservation plan. In all
parks, sightseeing was allowed on marked tourist trails, educational or walking paths, public roads,
and other accessible areas. Everywhere, educational activity was carried out and educational pathways
were established. In addition, regulations were developed concerning the specific way of making the
park available.
4.2.1. Science and Documentation
A very important document for the proper operation and management of a park is the conservation
plan. In accordance with Article 18 Item 2 of the act on nature conservation [
102
], a conservation plan
for a national park should be created within five years after the park’s establishment. Unfortunately,
only seven parks have such a plan. Some of them have submitted drafts of the conservation plans
to the Minister, while others are in the process of inventorying the natural resources and developing
surveys. They are currently working on conservation tasks. In order to limit the negative effects
of tourist traffic in national parks, the lists of restrictions to be observed by visitors are indicated.
Moreover, park directors issue ordinances through which they shape the individual policy of making

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 16 of 28
the national park available. The ordinances determine, among others, the number of people who can
stay in a given place at the same time or the amount of admission fees. In all parks, sightseeing was
allowed on marked tourist trails, educational or walking paths, public roads, and other accessible areas.
In addition, regulations were developed concerning the specific way of making the park available and
use of particular places and facilities of the park.
In all parks, a scientific council was established, whose tasks included assessing the state of
resources, formations, and components of nature, providing opinions on conservation plan and
conservation task projects, assessing the conservation plan implementation, and providing opinions
on research and scientific programmes in the field of nature conservation.
4.2.2. Tourist Issues
All the investigated parks promote environmentally friendly forms of tourist activity. The sites
that may be made available and the maximum number of people who may simultaneously stay at
these sites were defined in the conservation plan or, in the case of some parks, until the plan was
developed, in the conservation tasks. Making a national park accessible is associated with ensuring
safety for nature and visitors; therefore, visitor limits are introduced. The number of people visiting
the park is usually estimated by the park employees on the basis of the number of sold tickets, maps,
and publications about the park, by direct counting tourists crossing the park entrances, as well as
with electronic sensors for monitoring tourist traffic.
In 21 parks, tourist traffic was monitored, the impact of tourism on the park nature condition
was analysed and assessed, and, if necessary, measures were taken to minimize the traffic. All parks
modernized their tourist infrastructure. However, not all parks introduced visitor limits, and the
directors claimed that the traffic should not be restricted but educational activities should be undertaken
to raise the culture of sightseeing. Camping was only allowed in 10 parks. In order to protect the
most valuable resources from excessive tourist traffic, the trails were led in a way that avoided these
places. Entry fees were collected in 16 parks. To reduce the impact of tourism on the environment,
channelling and zoning principles were introduced, which mean that tourists can only move along
established trails and stay in selected places. The zoning principle denotes the adjustment of tourist
traffic intensity to the natural value of the area.
4.2.3. Educational Issues
As indicated in Article 8b Item 1 Points 2 and 3 of the act on nature conservation [
102
], making
the park accessible and conducting activities related to nature education are among the tasks of
national parks. These should be carried out in accordance with the rules set out in the conservation
plan, conservation tasks, and the ordinances of the national park director, and only in a way that
will not adversely affect the nature of the park (Article 12 Item 1). National park tasks also involve
providing information on and promoting nature conservation, including running a nature museum,
information and education centres, and publishing information and promotion materials. All parks
implemented ecological education, established educational pathways, and cooperated with local
government units. Educational activities were conducted in the form of field lessons, workshops,
and lectures. The basic objectives of education were to shape appropriate attitudes to nature in children,
youth, and all park visitors, to broaden the knowledge related to nature conservation, and to familiarize
people with the principles of park accessibility.
4.2.4. Environmental Threats
The research carried out and the provisions included in the conservation tasks established by the
Minister of Environment indicate that certain aspects of tourism in the parks have been identified as
factors threatening or potentially threatening the parks’ nature. However, in general, tourism itself
is not a threat if it is well managed and when counter-measures are taken. The parks analyse the
environmental impact of tourism in various ways. They implement projects, perform research, monitor

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 17 of 28
changes in the natural environment. Students and academics often conduct research as part of their
master theses and scientific articles. On the basis of the analyses of threats related to the anthropogenic
impact on the environment, water erosion, as well as the distribution and intensity of tourist traffic,
the limits of people who can stay in a given place at a given time are defined. The conducted analyses
of the impact of tourist traffic on the parks’ nature often result in excluding routes from tourist traffic
because of trampling plants by tourists.
Among the various types of research on the flora and fauna of the parks, the most common are
the following:
•Soil condition monitoring;
•Monitoring the condition, quantity, and quality of surface water and groundwater;
•Meteorological monitoring;
•Monitoring at selected water stations;
•Monitoring of selected species or groups of plants and animals.
The analysis of the obtained results reveals the highest conformity in all investigated national
parks in the following areas: creating regulations on making the park accessible, the presence of
the park scientific council, undertaking promotion activities in the field of friendly forms of tourist
activity, the modernization of the existing tourist infrastructure, ecological education, introducing
educational pathways, cooperation with local government units, monitoring the impact of tourism on
the environment, and assessing the impact of tourism on the environment.
All these issues have been identified as crucial in the implementation of strategic objectives for
the conservation and development of parks (AI =1.0) (Table 5).
The lowest AI was obtained in the field of natural environment conservation plan development
(AI =0.30) and tourism as a potential threat to parks’ nature (AI =0.39). The designation of camping
areas was also rarely considered (AI =0.43).
The division of the investigated parks into those that were UNESCO biosphere reserves and those
that were not classified in this category allowed us to state that UNESCO biosphere reserves more
often charged entrance fees (
∆
AI =0.32), more often developed natural environment conservation
plans (
∆
AI =0.23), and more often considered tourism as an existing or potential threat for park nature
(
∆
AI =0.27). Managers of UNESCO biosphere reserves less frequently introduced tourist traffic limits
(∆AI =–0.13) and less frequently designated camping areas (∆AI =–0.17).
The differences observed in terms of the division of the investigated parks into coast, lake district,
lowland, upland, and mountain ones revealed that nature conservation plans were more often
developed in mountain parks (AI =0.50). Similarly, revenues from admission fees were most often
reported in mountain parks (AI =0.88), and least frequently in coast parks (AI =0.50). Camping areas
were more often introduced in lake district parks (AI =0.80), less frequently in mountain (
AI =0.38
) and
lowland parks (AI =0.40). These restrictions were not applied in coast parks (AI =0.00). Tourist traffic
limits were more often noted in lake district (AI =0.80) and upland parks (AI =0.67) than in mountain
parks (AI =0.38). No tourist traffic limits were reported in coast parks (AI =0.0).

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 18 of 28
Table 5. Acceptance index: research results.
Acceptance Index
Total
UNESCO
Biosphere
Reserve
Park Type
Yes No
Coast
Lake District
Lowland
Upland
Mountain
1. Natural environment conservation plan 0.30 0.44 0.21 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.50
2. Regulations on making the park accessible 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3. Scientific council 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
4. Promoting friendly forms of tourist activity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
5. Tourist traffic limits 0.52 0.44 0.57 0.00 0.80 0.60 0.67 0.38
6. Restrictions on tourism development in areas
under impact 0.65 0.67 0.64 0.50 0.60 0.80 0.67 0.63
7. Designated camping areas 0.43 0.33 0.50 0.00 0.80 0.40 0.33 0.38
8. Tourist traffic monitoring 0.91 0.89 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.67 1.00
9. Modernization of the existing tourist
infrastructure 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10. Revenues from admission fees 0.70 0.89 0.57 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.67 0.88
11. Ecological education 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
12. Educational pathways 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
13. Cooperation with local government units 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
14. Tourism as an existing or potential threat 0.39 0.56 0.29 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.67 0.63
15. Indicators for sustainable tourism planning 0.65 0.67 0.64 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.33 0.63
16. Monitoring the impact of tourism on the
environment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
17. Assessing the impact of tourism on the
environment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Source: own elaboration.
5. Model of Environmental Management System
The study results allow us to create a model system of managing the natural environment
in the park. It includes diagnosis, planning, responsibility allocation, documentation, monitoring,
and measurement. Such management addresses environmental concerns. The system is a set of tools
that allow us to apply environmental policy, which leads to minimizing the harmful impact on the
environment in a way that is beneficial to both tourists and the environment (Figure 3).

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 19 of 28
Sustainability 2020, 01, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 28
Figure 3. Model system of managing the natural environment in a national park; (source: own
elaboration).
Review of management adequacy, internal audit, and corrective actions
Monitoring, measurement, conformity assessment
Is there a monitoring of the existing tourist traffic? Is the environmental impact of tourism monitored?
Assigning the park staff scope of responsibilities and establishing the communication process
What is the park director and deputy
director responsible for?
What are the particuar heads of
departments responsible for?
What are the particuar emploees
responsible for?
Preparation of relevant documents
Does the park have a nature conservation plan? Have regulations been developed concerning the specific
way of making the park available?
Setting environmental conservation priorities
Is the development of tourism
restricted in areas that have been
under greatest impact so far?
Are there any limits on the number of
visitors and people walking on the
trails?
Are there any specified places where
one can put up a tent?
Preparation of environmental objectives, tasks, and programmes
Does the director have a
scientific council?
Has tourism been identified
as an existing or potential
threat to the nature of the
park?
Are environmental
indicators for sustainable
tourism planning taken
into account?
Have the changes in the
environmental impact of
tourism development been
assessed before?
Establishing environmental policy and strategy for action
Is admission fee income
received? Is ecological education run? Have educational pathways
been established?
Is there cooperation with
local government units?
Diagnosis of the environment condition
Are environmentally friendly forms of tourist activity
promoted?
Is the existing tourist infrastructure being modernized
instead of building a new one?
Figure 3.
Model system of managing the natural environment in a national park; (source: own elaboration).
The model proposed by the authors consists of seven main parts:
1.
The diagnosis of the environment condition. The most important issue is to diagnose the condition
of the environment, i.e., to determine the environmental impact of any element that may threaten
it. It is necessary to identify the environmental problems. This should be performed by means

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 20 of 28
of appropriate tools, such as questionnaire surveys, in-depth interviews, direct inspections and
measurements, and random checks.
2.
Establishing environmental policy and a strategy for action. The next step is to establish
an appropriate policy, i.e., all intentions and ways of operating with regard to environmental
activities. Environmental policy provides a framework for action and setting environmental
objectives and tasks.
3.
The preparation of environmental objectives, tasks, and programmes. The environmental objective
should be measurable and consistent with the environmental policy. In turn, environmental
tasks are detailed requirements for activity effects, resulting from the environmental objectives.
Environmental objectives may, for example, include commitments to minimize all significant
negative environmental impacts or to promote environmental awareness among young people
and the local community.
4.
Setting environmental conservation priorities. These are actions aimed at identifying priorities
for action and quickly minimizing negative environmental impacts. They consist of managing
key processes in the park related to important environmental aspects.
5.
The preparation of relevant documents. The documentation should include environmental policy,
objectives and tasks, the responsibilities and duties of employees, information on environmental
aspects, records of monitoring the effects of environmental conservation activities, and the
organization of training courses.
6.
Assigning the park staffscope of responsibilities and establishing the communication
process. This denotes indicating the park employees’ tasks for which they will be
responsible. The responsibilities may include, among others, the implementation, maintenance,
and improvement of environmental conservation measures, coordination of teamwork,
supervision of the identification and assessment of environmental aspects, ensuring monitoring,
ensuring compliance with legal requirements, ensuring continuous improvement.
7.
Monitoring, measurement, and conformity assessment. Inconsistencies may relate to the failure to
meet the legal provisions on environmental conservation, deviations from environmental policy,
and related environmental objectives and tasks, failure to meet the adopted criteria for particular
activities and processes as revealed in the course of monitoring.
6. Discussion on the New Paradigm of National Park Management
National parks are characterized by high natural values, which make them attractive areas of
tourist use. Therefore, the question is whether sustainable natural environment management can be
carried out in national parks. Examples should be sought in similar environmentally valuable areas not
only in Europe, but also in the world. Out of the 220 national parks in Europe, almost half are mountain
parks; they are most numerous in the Scandinavian Mountains and the Carpathians. The tourist traffic
in European mountain national parks is highly diversified; in Scandinavian parks, it is small, in contrast
to Alpine parks where, owing to good transport accessibility and tourist infrastructure, visitors are
numerous. The results obtained by the authors are in line with many foreign studies related to similar
issues, although in other areas. The impact of human activity on our natural environment is remarkable.
The environmental threats analysed by the authors are monitored in many countries. These problems
were specifically referred to by Chemini and Rizzoli [
24
]. They conducted their research in the Alps;
they pointed out that a large part of these mountains biodiversity was linked to the interaction
between the natural environment and traditional human activity. Today, land-use transformations
and other environmental and socio-economic processes, such as urbanization, tourism, or pollution,
are significant forces for environmental change. The researchers indicated that mowing and the
grazing of livestock were major factors inhibiting tree succession in many regions of the Alps. In turn,
abandoning mountain fields and meadows causes the expansion of shrubs and forests and reduces
the number of grass species. The environmental threats also result from the urbanization of the areas
around the parks. Elmi and Perlik [
65
] performed research in the Alps too. They decided to investigate

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 21 of 28
the reappearance of residents in the mountainous parts of the Alps. They asked whether this influx
was more than just a selective development of urban areas, and whether this could also be confirmed
for peripheral areas. They also sought answers to the question about the driving forces behind this
migration. The explanations are complex, as they need the consideration of the relationships between
the permanent population and second home owners. On the basis of empirical data collected at the
municipality level in five different provinces in the eastern Alps, the mentioned authors implied that
the consistent settlement of new residents was only selective. This trend is focused on areas that can
count on good transport accessibility, located mainly in urban and suburban municipalities. Similarly,
Barker [
47
] raised the important issue of mass tourism expansion in various mountain regions of the
world. He pointed at ski resorts and the emerging conflicts between environmental conservation and
the desire to expand the resorts. In the USA, the effects were stronger than in Europe, where successful
investments in tourism do not currently burden the landscape so much. The author investigated mass
tourism, and the findings indicate solutions valuable for other mountain regions.
The presented paper is focused on tourism issues. The respondents indicated benefits and
threats for the park resulting from tourism. They also highlighted investments in infrastructure
and security. The advantages of natural resources for tourism were also studied by Gios et al. [
111
].
They specified that, in several Alpine regions, the transition to a tourism economy was due to major
capital investment. However, the management of an environmentally valuable area does not allow
for a high level of investment in hotels or guesthouses that would guarantee income from the use of
natural resources; the only possible tourism is one compatible with maintaining high-quality natural
environments. Unfortunately, this type of tourism has few benefits for local communities. In fact,
tourists only degrade the land and infrastructure on which tourism itself is based. Car traffic damages
unpaved roads, mountain bikes destroy paths and meadows, and infrastructure maintenance becomes
a burden on the local community. Therefore, researchers are asking how to manage such an area,
indicating that it is not an easy duty. However, an opportunity should be seen in the development
of projects based on European Union programmes. A solution can also be to impose admission
fees for visitors. At present, this seems impractical, even if it could be implemented in the future.
In addition to the technical difficulties involved in collecting entrance fees, the sensitivity of tourists
does not yet seem mature enough to accept payment. Another solution could be to create a network
of lightweight infrastructure that would enable rational use of natural resources and attract tourists,
and thus create jobs in the vicinity. Moreover, Gios et al. [
111
] pointed at interesting solutions for
sustainable tourism that are possible to apply in Polish national parks. They also confirmed that
a high level of investment in hotels or guesthouses, similar to in Poland, was not possible in such
valuable natural areas. A similar subject was raised in relation to the German Alps by Paunovi´c and
Jovanovi´c [
62
]. Their research focused on threats to sustainable development, tourism, as well as
cross-border cooperation and stakeholder involvement. The findings imply that only a comprehensive
approach to disseminating knowledge about sustainable development can be the basis for mountain
tourism development. The implementation should focus on specific sustainable tourism flagship
products. Cross-border cooperation and stakeholder involvement turned out to be crucial.
An important issue is the management process in the development of a tourist centre. The authors
of the present study devoted a lot of attention to this matter. A similar subject was referred to by
Bonzanigo et al. [
112
]. Their article presents the development and application of a management process
for the local development of an Alpine tourist resort. The researchers pointed out that an efficient
combination of modelling, decision making, and participatory processes could significantly improve
decisions regarding sustainable development. They showed that such a combination of methods and
tools allowed to manage the involvement of local actors and stimulate local debates on adaptation to
climate changes and possible consequences for winter tourism. They also recommended encouraging
creativity and mitigating potential conflicts. This contributed to the development of alternative
sustainable tourism planning strategies. Moreover, various management methods are indicated that
can be used in Polish national parks.

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 22 of 28
The aim of the article was to create a universal model of national park management, to develop
a sustainable way of reconciling the increasing tourist traffic and nature conservation. A similar
challenge was taken up by Coban and Yildiz [
113
]. The proposed model aims to make Cappadocia
tourism more sustainable and competitive. The researchers implied that destination management
organizations increased cooperation and coordination among stakeholders and contributed to the
destination competitiveness. The authors interviewed stakeholders to identify problems in Cappadocia
tourism and to suggest solutions. The main challenges were related to infrastructure, accessibility,
human resources, sustainable development, and the environment. A well-prepared management
system can help the region become more competitive, at the same time minimizing current problems.
Cooperation and coordination were identified as key functions owing to the presence of several tourism
management institutions in Cappadocia. The research provides a powerful input in the debate on
a model approach to sustainable and competitive tourism. Directors of Polish national parks can take
advantage of the recommendations presented in the study.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
Managing the use, conservation, and formation of the natural environment is a very complex
process. The principal objective is to ensure conservation and gain certainty that resources will remain
available for future generations, as well as to improve the adverse effects of human activity and the
overall state of the natural environment.
The purpose of the paper was to attempt to present a model of natural environment management
in national parks in Poland in the context of increased tourist traffic. The assumed goal was achieved
owing to in-depth interviews with the management staffof the parks. Their indications allowed us to
create a comprehensive system of both nature conservation and making nature available to tourists.
Three issues are particularly important from the point of view of a national park activity. The first
one is the competence of the management bodies, as they have the best knowledge of the problems
occurring in the park and should be able to directly influence them. The second issue is the legal
obligation of parks to provide environmental education, so important in the modern world. The third
issue is a good environmental management system, essential for sustainable management. The obtained
results can be grouped into the following three categories:
1.
Administrative and management bodies In order for the activities to have an impact on the
park area, a carefully developed conservation plan should be developed. The research indicates
that only seven parks actually had such a plan; some have submitted draft conservation plans
to the Minister, while others were in the process of inventorying the natural resources and
developing surveys. Its correctness requires research monitoring the state of the environment,
the size and trends of the tourist traffic, and tourists’ impact on the environment. An important
condition for a more effective tourism management in parks is to increase the competences of the
administering bodies and the knowledge regarding individual responsibilities. Boards should be
able to analyse, evaluate, and modify not only conservation plans, but also spatial development
plans, municipality development strategies, and projects for investments planned within the
parks. The sustainable development of tourism in parks is not possible without the involvement of
local communities and their taking real advantages of tourism. From this point of view, the most
favourable is the development of agritourism, which provides employment for the residents;
therefore, cooperation with local governments plays a significant role.
2.
Education The research reveals that all parks implemented ecological education, established
educational pathways, and cooperated with local government units. These actions, however,
are insufficient. More attention should be paid to education and the promotion of ecological
behaviour among tourists and local communities. This is due to the diversified level of their
culture and identification with the park area, which depends on the history of development
and traditions of these communities. A widespread lack of awareness of the negative impact of
human activity on the environment usually leads to the degradation of natural and landscape

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 23 of 28
values, which determine the attractiveness of the area. Economic instruments have the greatest
contribution to the effective management of environmental resources, as they can influence or
force reasonable actions for the natural environment.
3.
Management system The research results obtained in Polish national parks indicate that their
management is carried out in a non-accidental and reliable manner in relation to sustainable
development principles. It was revealed that certain aspects of tourism in the parks were
considered to be factors threatening or potentially threatening the nature of the park. However,
in general, tourism itself is not a threat if it is well managed and if preventive measures are
taken. The directors of the investigated parks try to include selected elements of the proposed
model in the management process. However, only their comprehensive application can bring
success. The proposed model of the system of natural environment management in a park may be
implemented as a good practice in other state parks around the world. The modern management
of the natural environment in such valuable areas as national parks can reconcile two very difficult
issues, namely nature conservation and its simultaneous availability to tourists. In a national
park, natural resources, i.e., ecosystems and their appropriate conservation, are always in the
front line; however, wisely conducted tourism does not have to produce negative effects. In the
future, the proposed concept of the park management system may also find wide application in
other institutions and companies that prioritize environmental conservation.
The model proposed by the authors has been verified in state-run national parks and is addressed
to them. Unfortunately, in private national parks, the model would have to be modified and adjusted to
the needs of the park owner. Among the first owners of private national parks are Douglas Tompkins,
Ted Turner, and Roxanne Quimby. Creating their policy of managing national parks, they have become
leaders in the struggle to save the Earth for future generations.
Author Contributions:
P.O. prepared the following elements of the article: the methodology, conclusions; S.P.
prepared the following elements of the article: the methodology, conduct of research, developed the final
contents of the article and proofread and revised it. J.M.-P. prepared the following elements of the article: the
methodology, introduction, review of the literature. A.R.S. prepared the following elements of the article: the
methodology, introduction and conclusions, conduct of research, calculations. S.J.—review and editing, data
correction. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research received funding by the National Science Center in Poland. The funders had no role in the
design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the
decision to publish the results.
Acknowledgments:
This paper was published as part of the research project ‘A business model for health resort
enterprises’ No. 2017/25/B/HS4/00301, supervised and financed by the National Science Center in Poland and as
part of statutory research No. BK-235/ROZ-1/2020 (13/010/BK_20/0042) at the Silesian University of Technology,
Faculty of Organization and Management.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Burchard-Dziubi´nska, M.; Rze ´nca, A.; Drzazga, D. Zr
ó
wnowa˙zony Rozw
ó
j: Naturalny Wyb
ó
r;
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego: Lodz, Poland, 2014.
2.
Michalski, E. Zarz ˛adzanie Przedsi˛ebiorstwem: Podr˛ecznik Akademicki; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warsaw,
Poland, 2013.
3.
Wei, Y.; He, S.; Li, G.; Chen, X.; Shi, L.; Lei, G.; Su, Y. Identifying nature–community nexuses for sustainably
managing social and ecological systems: A case study of the Qianjiangyuan National Park pilot area.
Sustainability 2019,11, 6182. [CrossRef]
4.
Luque-Mart
í
nez, T.; Faraoni, N.; Doña-Toledo, L. Auditing the marketing and social media communication
of natural protected areas. How marketing can contribute to the sustainability of tourism. Sustainability
2019
,
11, 4014. [CrossRef]
5.
Deng, J.; Li, J. Segmentation of nature-based tourists in a rural area (2008–2009): A single-item approach.
Sustainability 2019,11, 2052. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 24 of 28
6.
Myga-Pi ˛atek, U.; Jankowski, G. Wpływ turystyki na ´srodowisko przyrodnicze i krajobraz kulturowy—Analiza
wybranych przykładów obszarów górskich. Probl. Ekol. Krajobr. 2009,25, 27–38.
7.
Krupa, J. Działania proekologiczne w turystyce szans ˛a na jej zr
ó
wnowa˙zony rozw
ó
j. Zesz. Nauk. Tur. Rekr.
2014,1, 5–23.
8.
Mizgajski, A. Zarz ˛adzanie ´srodowiskiem i jego pozycja w badaniach geograficznych. Przegl. Geogr.
2008
,80,
23–37.
9. Ackerman, E. Where is a research frontier? Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1963,53, 429–440. [CrossRef]
10.
Hagerstrand, T. Geografia i badania zale˙zno´sci pomi ˛edzy natur ˛a a społecze´nstwem. Przegl. Zagr. Lit. Geogr.
1979,4, 35–46.
11. Bartkowski, T. Zastosowania Geografii Fizycznej; PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 1986.
12. Barbag, J. Przedmiot i zadania geografii regionalnej. Przegl. Geogr. 1959,31, 495–515.
13.
Zube, E.H. Local and extra-local perceptions of national parks and protected areas. Landsc. Urban Plan.
1986
,
13, 11–17. [CrossRef]
14.
Zube, E.H.; Busch, M.L. Park—People relationship: An international review. Landsc. Urban Plan.
1990
,19,
117–131. [CrossRef]
15.
West, P.C.; Brechin, S.R. (Eds.) Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International
Conservation; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 1991.
16.
Beltran, J. (Ed.) Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies;
Best Practice Protected Areas Guildelines Series, No 4; WWF/IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2000.
17. Macgill, S.M. Environmental questions and human geography. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 1986,38, 357–375.
18.
Kantowicz, E.; Skotnicki, M. Gł
ó
wne problemy i tendencje w geografii regionalnej. In Podstawowe Problemy
Metodologiczne Polskiej Geografii; Chojnicki, Z., Ed.; Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM: Poznan, Poland, 1991;
pp. 229–243.
19. Dumanowski, B. Geografia regionalna jako dyscyplina badawcza. Przegl. Geogr. 1981,53, 87–94.
20.
Kostrzewski, A. (Ed.) Geografia Regionalna Jako Przedmiot Bada´n i Nauczania; Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe:
Poznan, Poland, 2006.
21.
Gocłowski, A.; Kałuski, S.; Kantowicz, E.; Walewski, A. Geografia regionalna. In Historia Geografii Polskiej;
Jackowski, A., Liszewski, S., Richling, A., Eds.; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 2008;
pp. 248–260.
22.
Fraser, I.; Chisholm, T. Conservation or cultural heritage? Cattle grazing in the Victoria Alpine National
Park. Ecol. Econ. 2000,33, 63–75. [CrossRef]
23.
West, P.; Igoe, J.; Brockington, D. Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Ann. Rev. Anthropol.
2006,35, 251–277. [CrossRef]
24.
Chemini, C.; Rizzoli, A. Land use change and biodiversity conservation in the Alps. J. Mt. Ecol.
2003
,7, 1–7.
25. Doma ´nski, R. Metody badania zbie ˙zno´sci układów przestrzennych. Przegl. Geogr. 1969,41, 79–92.
26.
Walewski, A. Badanie relacji mi˛edzy zmiennymi o warto´sciach grupowanych. Propozycja metodyczna.
Pr. Stud. Geogr. 1997,19, 49–54.
27. Walewski, A. Metody badania relacji przyroda-człowiek. Pr. Stud. Geogr. 2004,34, 75–85.
28.
Walewski, A.; Kantowicz, E. The relations between man and the natural environment as the methodological
basis for delimitation of regions. Misc. Geogr. 2010,14, 295–301. [CrossRef]
29. Doma ´nski, R. Konstruowanie teorii w geografii ekonomicznej. Przegl. Geogr. 1967,1, 85–102.
30.
Doma ´nski, R. Systemy Ekologiczno-Ekonomiczne. Modelowanie Wsp
ó
łzale˙zno´sci i Rozwoju; PAN: Warsaw, Poland,
1992.
31.
Kistowski, M. Regionalny Model Zr
ó
wnowa˙zonego Rozwoju i Ochrony ´
Srodowiska Polski a Strategie Rozwoju
Województw; Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Gdansk/Poznan, Poland, 2003.

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 25 of 28
32.
Kistowski, M. Pr
ó
ba typologii sytuacji konfliktowych w relacjach „zagospodarowanie
przestrzenne—´srodowisko przyrodnicze” na obszarze park
ó
w krajobrazowych nad Zatok ˛a Gda´nsk ˛a.
In Mi˛edzy Ochron ˛a Przyrody a Gospodark ˛a—Bli˙zej Ochrony. Konflikty Człowiek-Przyroda W Obszarach Prawnie
Chronionych w Polsce; Hibszer, A., Partyka, J., Eds.; PTG Oddział Katowicki: Sosnowiec, Poland, 2005;
pp. 18–31.
33. Butler, R.W. Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tour. Geogr. 1999,1, 7–25. [CrossRef]
34.
Pearce, D.G. Westland National Park: Economic Impact Study; University of Canterbury: Christchurch,
New Zealand, 1982.
35.
Kerr, G.N.; Sharp, B.H.; Gough, J.D. Economic Benefits of Mt. Cook National Park; University of Canterbury and
Lincoln College: Christchurch, New Zealand, 1986.
36.
Abel, N.; Blaikie, P. Elephants, people, parks and development: The case of the Luangwa Valley, Zambia.
Environ. Manag. 1986,10, 735–754. [CrossRef]
37.
Clough, P.W.J.; Meister, A.D. Benefit Assessment of Recreation Land: The Whakapapa Area, Tongariro National
Park; Massey University: Palmerston North, New Zealand, 1989.
38.
Trakolis, D. Local people’s perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park,
Greece. J. Environ. Manag. 2001,61, 227–241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Ferraro, P.J. The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National
Park, Madagascar. Ecol. Econ. 2002,43, 261–275. [CrossRef]
40.
Cihar, M.; Stankova, J. Attitudes of stakeholders towards the Podyji/Thaya River Basin National Park in the
Czech Republic. J. Environ. Manag. 2006,81, 273–285. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
Jarvis, T.D. The Responsibility of National Parks in Rural Development. In National Parks and Rural
Development; Machlis, G., Field, D., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 219–229.
42.
Kideghesho, J.R.; Roskaft, E.; Kaltenborn, B.P. Factors influencing conservation attitudes of local people in
western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007,16, 2213–2230. [CrossRef]
43.
Fortin, M.-J.; Gagnon, C. An assessment of social impacts of national parks on communities in Quebec,
Canada. Environ. Conserv. 1999,26, 200–211. [CrossRef]
44.
Burger, T. Konflikt i wsp
ó
łdziałanie. ´
Swiadomo´s´c ekologiczna i postawy społecze ´nstwa. In ´
Swiadomo´s´c
Ekologiczna i Społeczne Ruchy „Zielonych” w Polsce; Mirowski, W., Ed.; IFiS PAN: Warsaw, Poland, 1999;
pp. 35–55.
45.
Kr
ó
likowska, K. Mi˛edzy ochron ˛a przyrody a rozwojem na obszarach g
ó
rskich—konflikty i rozwi ˛azania.
Czas. Geogr. 2002,73, 187–214.
46.
Hibszer, A. Parki Narodowe w ´
Swiadomo´sci i Działaniach Społeczno´sci Lokalnych; Uniwersytet ´
Sl ˛aski: Katowice,
Poland, 2013.
47. Barker, M.L. Traditional landscape and mass tourism in the Alps. Geogr. Rev. 1982,72, 395–415. [CrossRef]
48.
Bauer, H. Local perception of Waza National Park, northern Cameron. Environ. Conserv.
2003
,30, 175–181.
[CrossRef]
49.
Boj
ó
rquez-Tapia, L.A.; de la Cueva, H.; Diaz, S.; Melgarejo, D.; Alcantar, G.; Solares, M.J.; Grobet, G.;
Cruz-Bello, G. Environmental conflicts and nature reserves: Redesigning Sierra San Pedro Martir National
Park, Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 2004,117, 111–126. [CrossRef]
50.
Colchester, M. Conservation policy and indigenous people. Environ. Sci. Policy
2004
,7, 145–153. [CrossRef]
51.
Stern, M. The power of trust: Toward a theory of local opposition to neighboring protected areas. Soc. Nat.
Resour. 2008,21, 859–875. [CrossRef]
52.
Heinen, J.T. Park-people relations in Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: A socio-economic analysis.
Environ. Conserv. 1993,20, 25–34. [CrossRef]
53. Lewis, C. Managing Conflicts in Protected Areas; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 1996.
54.
Odrow ˛a ˙z-Pieni ˛a ˙zek, I.; Wo ´zniak, J. Negocjacje jako strategia rozwi ˛azywania konflikt
ó
w w sporach pomi˛edzy
parkami narodowymi a samorz ˛adami. Człow. ´
Srod. 1997,21, 87–95.
55.
Nepal, S.K. Linking parks and people: Nepal’s experience in resolving conflicts in parks and protected areas.
Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 2002,9, 75–90. [CrossRef]
56.
Hunter, C.; Green, H. Tourism and the Environment: A Sustainable Relationship? Routledge: London, UK, 1995.
57. Hunter, C. Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997,24, 850–867. [CrossRef]
58.
Draper, D. Toward sustainable mountain communities: Balancing tourism development and environmental
protection in Banffand BanffNational Park, Canada. Ambio 2000,29, 408–415. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 26 of 28
59.
Sharpley, R. Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. J. Sustain. Tour.
2000
,8,
1–19. [CrossRef]
60. Saarinen, J. Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006,33, 1121–1140. [CrossRef]
61.
Hunter, C. Sustainable tourism and the touristic ecological footprint. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
2002
,4, 7–20.
[CrossRef]
62.
Paunovi´c, I.; Jovanovi´c, V. Implementation of sustainable tourism in the German Alps: A case study.
Sustainability 2017,9, 226. [CrossRef]
63.
Mortensen, T.L.; Leistritz, F.L.; Leitch, J.A.; Coon, R.C.; Ekstrom, B.L. Socioeconomic impact of the conservation
reserve program in North Dakota. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1990,3, 53–61. [CrossRef]
64.
Mika, M. Zało˙zenia i Determinanty Podtrzymywalno´sci Lokalnego Rozwoju Turystyki; Instytut Geografii i
Gospodarki Przestrzennej Uniwersytetu Jagiello´nskiego: Krakow, Poland, 2014.
65.
Elmi, M.; Perlik, M. From tourism to multilocal residence? Unequal transformation processes in the Dolomites
area. J. Alp. Res. 2014,102. [CrossRef]
66.
Pawlaczyk, P. Modele oddziaływa ´n człowiek-przyroda jako podstawa okre´slenia pojemno´sci
turystycznej parku narodowego. In U˙zytkowanie Turystyczne Park
ó
w Narodowych. Ruch
Turystyczny—Zagospodarowanie—Konflikty—Zagro˙zenia; Partyka, J., Ed.; Instytut Ochrony Przyrody PAN,
Ojcowski Park Narodowy: Ojcow, Poland, 2002; pp. 23–36.
67.
Wnuk, Z.; Ziaja, M. (Eds.) Turystyka w Obszarach Natura 2000; Uniwersytet Rzeszowski: Rzeszow, Poland,
2007.
68.
Liszewski, S. Przestrze ´n turystyczna park
ó
w narodowych w Polsce. In Gospodarka i Przestrze´n; Doma ´nski, B.,
Kurek, W., Eds.; Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej UJ: Krakow, Poland, 2009; pp. 187–201.
69.
Zajadacz, A. Koncepcja rozwoju rozwoju turystyki. In Uwarunkowania i Plany Rozwoju Turystyki. Walory i
Atrakcje Turystyczne. Potencjał Turystyczny. Plany Rozwoju Turystyki; Seria Turystyka i Rekreacja—Studia i
Prace; Naukowe UAM, Ed.; Adam Mickiewicz University: Pozna´n, Poland, 2009; Volume 3, pp. 93–130.
70.
Butler, R.W. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources.
Can. Geogr. 1980,24, 5–12. [CrossRef]
71.
Brechin, S.R.; West, P.C.; Harmon, D.; Kutay, K. Resident Peoples and Protected Areas: A Framework for
Inquiry. In Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation;
West, P.C., Brechin, S.R., Eds.; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 1991; pp. 5–30.
72.
Eagles, P.; McCool, S.F. Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and Management; CABI: New
York, NY, USA, 2002.
73.
Pytel, S. Atrakcyjno´s´c turystyczna miejsc migracji senior
ó
w z wojew
ó
dztwa ´sl ˛askiego. Ekon. Probl. Tur.
2014
,
1, 327–340.
74.
Markiewicz-Patkowska, J.; Pytel, S.; Widawski, K.; Ole´sniewicz, P. Turystyka senioralna w kontek´scie sytuacji
materialnej polskich emerytów. Ekon. Probl. Tur. 2018,2, 99–106.
75.
Pytel, S.; Rahmonov, O. Migration processes and the underlying reasons: A study on pensioner migrants in
Poland. Popul. Space Place 2019,25, e2197. [CrossRef]
76.
Stoll-Kleemann, S. Reconciling opposition to protected areas management in Europe: The German experience.
Environ. Sci. Policy Sust. Dev. 2001,43, 32–44. [CrossRef]
77.
Kaltenborn, B.P.; Nyahongo, J.W.; Kidegesho, J.R.; Haaland, H. Serengeti National Park and its
neighbours—Do they interact? J. Nat. Conserv. 2008,16, 96–108. [CrossRef]
78.
Von Ruschkowski, E. Causes and Potential Solutions for Conflicts Between Protected Area Management and
Local People in Germany. In Rethinking Protected Areas in a Changing World: Proceedings of the 2009 George
Wright Society Biennial Conference on Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites in Portland, Oregon; Weber, S., Ed.;
George Wright Society: Hancock, MI, USA, 2010; pp. 200–244.
79.
Raval, S.R. Wheel of life: Perceptions and concerns of the resident peoples for Gir National Park in India.
Soc. Nat. Resour. 1994,7, 305–320. [CrossRef]
80.
Fiallo, E.A.; Jacobson, S.K. Local communities and protected areas: Attitudes of rural residents towards
conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environ. Conserv. 1995,22, 241–249. [CrossRef]
81.
Brandon, L.; Redford, K.H.; Sanderson, S.E. (Eds.) Parks in Peril: People, Politics and Protected Areas; Island Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
82.
Allendorf, T.D. A framework for the park-people relationship: Insights from protected areas in Nepal and
Myanmar. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 2010,17, 417–422. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 27 of 28
83. Caldecott, J. Designing Conservation Project; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995.
84.
Piontek, F. Kontrowersje i Dylematy Wok
ó
ł Rozwoju Zr
ó
wnowa˙zonego i Trwałego. Ekonomia a Rozw
ó
j Zr
ó
wnowa˙zony;
Wydawnictwo Ekonomia i ´
Srodowisko: Bialystok, Poland, 2001.
85.
Toru´nski, J. Aspekty ´srodowiskowe zr
ó
wnowa˙zonego rozwoju obszar
ó
w prawnie chronionych. Zesz. Nauk.
Akad. Podl. Siedl. 2010,84, 21–32.
86.
Weaver, D.B.; Lawton, L.J. A new visitation paradigm for protected areas. Tour. Manag.
2017
,60, 140–146.
[CrossRef]
87.
Leung, Y.F. Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability; Spenceley, A.,
Hvenegaard, G., Buckley, R., Groves, C., Eds.; IUCN: Gland, Poland, 2018.
88.
Eagles, P.F.; Bowman, M.E.; Tao, C.H. Guidelines for Tourism in Parks and Protected Areas of East Asia; IUCN:
Gland, Poland, 2001.
89.
Mandi´c, A. Structuring challenges of sustainable tourism development in protected natural areas with
driving force–pressure–state–impact–response (DPSIR) framework. Environ. Syst. Decisions
2020
, 1–17.
[CrossRef]
90.
Mandi´c, A.; Petri ´c, L. The impacts of location and attributes of protected natural areas on hotel prices:
Implications for sustainable tourism development. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 1–31. [CrossRef]
91.
Gał ˛azka, M. Turystyka zr
ó
wnowa˙zona w parkach narodowych w opinii turyst
ó
w. Stud. Mat. Cent. Eduk.
Przyr. Le´sn. 2009,11, 123–130.
92.
Para, A.K. Zasady zr
ó
wnowa ˙zonego rozwoju turystyki—Bariery i szanse dla bran ˙zy turystycznej. Zesz. Nauk.
Tur. Rekr. 2013,1. [CrossRef]
93. McMinn, S. The challenge of sustainable tourism. Environmentalist 1997,17, 135–141. [CrossRef]
94.
Apanowicz, J. Zarys Metodologii Prac Dyplomowych i Magisterskich z Organizacji i Zarz ˛adzania; Wy˙zsza Szkoła
Administracji i Biznesu: Gdynia, Poland, 1997.
95.
Byrd, E.T. Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: Applying stakeholder theory to
sustainable tourism development. Tour. Rev. 2007,62, 6–13. [CrossRef]
96.
Liburd, J.J.; Edwards, D. (Eds.) Understanding the Sustainable Development of Tourism; Goodfellow: Oxford,
UK, 2010.
97.
Mihaliˇc, T. Environmental management of a tourist destination: A factor of tourism competitiveness.
Tour. Manag. 2000,21, 65–78. [CrossRef]
98.
Ceron, J.P.; Dubois, G. Tourism and sustainable development indicators: The gap between theoretical
demands and practical achievements. Curr. Issues Tour. 2003,6, 54–75. [CrossRef]
99.
Huete-Alcocer, N.; L
ó
pez-Ruiz, V.R.; Grigorescu, A. Measurement of satisfaction in sustainable tourism:
A cultural heritage site in Spain. Sustainability 2019,11, 6774. [CrossRef]
100. McCool, S.F.; Bosak, K. (Eds.) Reframing Sustainable Tourism; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016.
101.
Wasiuk, A. Rachunkowo´s´c w zarz ˛adzaniu parkiem narodowym. Fin. Ryn. Fin. Ubezp.
2016
,80, 207–214.
[CrossRef]
102.
Ustawa z Dnia 16 Kwietnia 2004 r. o Ochronie Przyrody, Dz.U. 2004 nr 92 poz. 880. Available
online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20040920880/O/D20040880.pdf (accessed on
12 November 2019).
103. Kunasz, M. Zasoby przedsi ˛ebiorstwa w teorii ekonomii. Gosp. Nar. 2006,211, 33–48. [CrossRef]
104. Ru´skowski, E.; Salachna, J.M. Finanse Publiczne. Komentarz Praktyczny; ODDK: Gdansk, Poland, 2014.
105.
Government Republic of Poland. The Act on Public Finance; Government Republic of Poland: Warsaw, Poland,
2013.
106.
Nasza Krajoznawczo G
ó
rska Przygoda. Available online: https://www.naszakgp.pl/(accessed on 12
November 2019).
107.
Berlin Declaration. Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism. In Proceedings of the International Conference of
the Ministers of the Environment, Berlin, Germany, 6–8 March 1997.
108. Local Data Bank of Statistics Poland. Available online: www.stat.gov.pl (accessed on 12 November 2019).
109.
Szromek, A.R. Wska´zniki Funkcji Turystycznej. Koncepcja Wska´znika Funkcji Turystycznej i Uzdrowiskowej;
Wydawnictwo Politechniki ´
Sl ˛askiej: Gliwice, Poland, 2012.
110.
Szromek, A.R. Pomiar funkcji turystycznej obszar
ó
w za pomoc ˛a wska´znik
ó
w funkcji turystycznej na
przykładzie obszarów pa´nstw europejskich. Stud. Ekon. 2013,132, 91–103.

Sustainability 2020,12, 2704 28 of 28
111.
Gios, G.; Goio, I.; Notaro, S.; Raffaelli, R. The value of natural resources for tourism: a case study of the
Italian Alps. Int J Tour Res 2006,8, 77–85. [CrossRef]
112.
Bonzanigo, L.; Giupponi, C.; Balbi, S. Sustainable tourism planning and climate change adaptation in the
Alps: A case study of winter tourism in mountain communities in the Dolomites. J. Sustain. Tour.
2016
,24,
637–652. [CrossRef]
113.
Coban, G.; Yildiz, O.S. Developing a destination management model: Case of Cappadocia. Tour. Manag.
Perspect. 2019,30, 117–128. [CrossRef]
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).