Nature-Based Tourism in National and Natural Parks in Europe: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Nature-Based Tourism: Concept and Forms
2.1. The Concept of Nature-Based Tourism
2.2. Forms of Nature-Based Tourism
- -
- Ecotourism/Eco-tourism/Ecological tourism—While one of the most popular and widely studied forms of tourism of the century, there is still a wide plethora of definitions to describe it. For example, Fredman and Tyrväinen [14] identified 42 recognised definitions mentioned in one paper alone.
- -
- Wildlife tourism is a form of nature-based tourism “that includes, as a principle aim, the consumptive and non-consumptive use of wild animals in natural areas”. [25] (p. 3).
- -
- Geotourism is an abiotic nature-based tourism that, according to some definitions, is “a form of natural area tourism that specifically focuses on geology and landscape. It promotes tourism to geosites and the conservation of geodiversity and an understanding of earth sciences through appreciation and learning”. [26].
- -
- Rural tourism is ”a type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s experience is related to a wide range of products generally linked to nature-based activities, agriculture, rural lifestyle/culture, angling and sightseeing”, according to UNWTO [27].
3. Methodology
4. Results
4.1. Description of Research Papers Focusing on Tourists
4.2. Description of Research Papers Focusing on Local Communities and Other Stakeholders
Nr. Crt. | Year and Reference | Country | Method | Main Instrument of Data Collection | Objectives * | Applicability | Funding |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2020 * [138] | Finland | Qualitative | Thematic interview (n = 10 respondents) | Analyse the balance between tourism and nature conservation from a historical perspective | Management implications—improving the sustainable management of NPs | No |
2 | 2021 [139] | Hungary | Mixed | In-depth interview (n = 76 respondents) | Analyse the balance between tourism and nature conservation in NPs | Management implications—improving cross-sector collaboration for managing and developing NPs | No |
3 | 2021 [140] | Germany | Quantitative | Interview; secondary data | Estimate visitation data using a standardised methodology | Management implications—improving the sustainable management of PAs, with consideration for the carrying capacity | Yes |
4 | 2021 [141] | Serbia | Mixed | Interview (n = 4) | Present the methodology for NP management decision-making | Management implications—improving decision-making processes in NP administration | Yes |
5 | 2021 [142] | Serbia | Mixed | Survey | Prioritise management strategies for NP administration | Management implications—improving decision-making processes for the development of NPs | No |
6 | 2021 [143] | Russia | Mixed | Survey; secondary data | Determine the economic value of PAs—case study on an NP | Management implications—balancing between the maximisation of the ecological and economic value of PAs | No |
7 | 2021 [144] | Hungary | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 146 respondents); semi-structured interview (n = 36 respondents); roundtable discussion (n = 40 respondents); focus group (n = 15 respondents); desktop study | Analyse the results of adaptive co-management | Management implications—stimulating adaptive co-management of PAs | Yes |
8 | 2021 [145] | Turkey | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 366 respondents) | Analyse the involvement of local women in ecotourism activities—case study on an NP | Management/local community implications—understanding the role of women in the development of ecotourism for improving local people’s quality of life and the protection of NPs | No |
9 | 2020 [146] | Spain | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 363 respondents); interview (n = 95 respondents) | Analyse the effects of conservation and rural development policies on the offer of touristic services—case study on an NP | Management implications—improving environmental policies considering the benefit of local communities | Yes |
10 | 2020 [147] | Italy | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 78 respondents) | Analyse the effects of ecotourism implementation—case study on an NP | Service provider implications—improving awareness of conservation issues and adapting economic practices accordingly | Yes |
11 | 2020 [148] | France | Qualitative | Interview (n = 45 respondents); participant observation; logbooks; secondary data | Analyse cross-sector contributions to sustainable mountain tourism development | Management/service provider/local community implications—improving the sustainable management of NPs | No |
12 | 2020 [149] | Poland | Quantitative | Quantifying the volume of waste per tourist | Analyse the amount of waste on tourist trails in a popular PA | Management implications—improving the sustainable management of PAs | No |
13 | 2020 [150] | Poland-Slovakia-Ukraine | Quantitative | Questionnaire (for demographic data and tax revenues); secondary data | Analyse the development of ecotourism in relation to the demography, land use, and revenue of local stakeholders | Institution/service provider/local community implications—improving the development of ecotourism | Yes |
14 | 2020 [151] | Italy | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 62 respondents) | Analyse the local people’s attitude towards sustainable ecotourism development in PAs | Management/service provider/local community implications—developing eco-sustainable goods and services through ecotourism | No |
15 | 2020 [152] | Spain | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 75 respondents) | Analyse local people’s perceptions of the sustainability of tourism and the public exploitation of NPs | Management/institution/service provider/local community implications—improving coordination in the usage of resources in PAs | Yes |
16 | 2020 [153] | Serbia | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 115 respondents) | Determine the tourism potential, the degree of utilisation of PA resources, and the level of awareness of the local population on this matter | Service provider/local community implications—improving the tourism offer in PAs | No |
17 | 2019 [154] | Spain | Mixed | Semi-structured interview (n = 3 respondents); secondary data (e.g., census on local people) | Demonstrate the sustainability of the coexistence of a sports tourism event and a historical and cultural one | Management implications—improving the sustainable management of NPs | Yes |
18 | 2019 [155] | Italy | Mixed | Interview (n = 17 respondents) | Analyse stakeholders’ points of view on tourism development | Management/service provider implications—developing integrated tourism offers in PAs | Yes |
19 | 2019 [156] | Finland | Mixed | Semi-structured interview (n = 11 respondents); visitor survey (n = 756 respondents); PPGIS survey (n = 170 respondents) | Analyse the potential of PPGIS use for visitor use planning—case study on an NP | Management/research implications—integrating PPGIS tools into planning processes and management of NPs | No |
20 | 2019 [157] | Iceland | Qualitative | Workshop (n = 14 respondents in 3 groups) | Analyse the use of participatory scenario planning for adaptation planning in glacial mountain tourism | Management implications—reducing uncertainty for long-term planning and decision-making in PAs | Yes |
21 | 2019 [158] | Germany | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 12 respondents); semi-structured interview (n = 16 respondents) | Analyse the balance between tourism and nature conservation in the context of public participation—case study on an NP | Management implications—balancing between increasing tourism demand and biodiversity conservation | Yes |
22 | 2019 [159] | Poland, Slovakia | Qualitative | Interview (n1 = 14 Polish respondents, n2 = 8 Slovak respondents) | Analyse NP authorities’ attitude towards the organisation of mass sports events in PAs—case study on an NP | Management/service provider implications—developing and managing sports events in NPs | No |
23 | 2019 [160] | Spain | Quantitative | Interview (n = 15 respondents) | Propose PA categories corresponding to the IUCN framework based on a participatory approach | Management implications—improving the management of PAs | Yes |
24 | 2019 [161] | Turkey | Mixed | Interview | Analyse touristic value by highlighting cultural, historical, and natural viewpoints—case study on an NP | Management/research implications—applying visibility analysis and landscape assessment for NP tourism management | Yes |
25 | 2019 [162] | Serbia | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 112 respondents) | Analyse the local population’s opinion on the sustainability of tourism development and its contribution to rural development in PAs | Management/local community implications—improving sustainable development strategies for tourism in PAs | Yes |
26 | 2019 [163] | Spain | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 384 respondents); interview | Analyse the social demand for sustainable management of a PA | Management/local community implications—estimating the optimal distribution of the annual budget of PAs according to social demand | Yes |
27 | 2018 [164] | Spain | Mixed | In-depth, semi-structured interview (n = 7 respondents); focus group (n = 13 respondents in 3 groups); secondary data | Analyse the conflict between tourism, nature conservation, and local economic development in NPs | Management implications—improving tourism management in PAs in the context of conflicting interests | Yes |
28 | 2018 [165] | Serbia | Mixed | Workshops and meetings with local action groups (LAGs); brainstorming | Create and analyse scenarios for the future development of PAs—case study on an NP | Management implications—improving the decision-making process for environmental management in NPs | No |
29 | 2018 [166] | Turkey | Mixed | Questionnaires (n = 9 respondents) | Determine suitable ecotourism activities in PAs—case study on a natural park | Management/service provider implications—improving the development of ecotourism | Yes |
30 | 2017 [167] | Serbia | Mixed | Interview; secondary data | Develop and present the methodology for NP management decision-making | Management/service provider implications—improving the development of ecotourism | No |
31 | 2017 [168] | Alps—examples in NPs included, different countries | Qualitative | Workshop (n = 45 respondents) | Analyse management strategies for winter mountain tourism in relation to biodiversity conservation | Management implications—administering visitors in PAs | No |
32 | 2017 [169] | Spain | Quantitative | Interview (n = 194 respondents) | Analyse relations between local stakeholders in two historically touristic areas—a NP focused on ecotourism and a snow-tourism region | Service provider/local community implications—improving the collaboration between local stockmen in the area of NPs | Yes |
33 | 2017 [170] | Turkey | Quantitative | Semi-structured interview (n = 31 respondents) | Analyse the local guiding activity and its effects on the sustainable management of PAs | Management implications—improving the sustainable management of NPs | No |
34 | 2017 [171] | Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia | Quantitative | Consultation with administrations; secondary data | Analyse differences in tourism development in NPs based on the existing touristic offer | Management/service provider implications—developing the nature-based tourist offer in PAs; creating mutual tourist services through inter-park cooperation | No |
35 | 2016 [172] | Turkey | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 59 respondents); in-depth interview (n = 5 respondents) | Analyse and define the ethical aspects of ecotourism activities | Management/local community implications—applying global ethical certification systems for the development of ecotourism | Yes |
36 | 2016 [173] | Turkey | Quantitative | Survey (n = 959 respondents) | Analyse local people’s opinions regarding wildlife and its management, as well as the designation of PAs | Management/local community implications—improving the development of ecotourism | Yes |
37 | 2016 [174] | Turkey | Qualitative | Secondary data from a previous study | Analyse the current state of the PA and make proposals for its sustainable development | Management implications—improving the sustainable development of rafting tourism and management in the PA | No |
38 | 2016 [175] | Slovakia | Quantitative | Secondary data | Determine stakeholders’ socio-economic interactions, considering demography, land use, and revenues in relation to the PA | Management/local community implications—improving cooperation between population and nature conservation bodies and developing sustainable nature-based tourism | Yes |
39 | 2015 [176] | Spain | Quantitative | Workshop (n = 29 respondents) | Analyse “differences in the perception of the spatial distribution of ecosystem services supply and demand between different stakeholders through collaborative mapping” | Management/service provider/local community implications—improving decision-making processes in PA administration | Yes |
40 | 2015 [177] | Greece | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 170 respondents); interview (n = 1 respondent) | Analyse the local people’s attitude towards tourism development and their engagement in participatory opportunities | Management/local community implications—improving participatory approaches in PA management | No |
41 | 2014 [178] | Sweden | Quantitative | Secondary data on employment | Compare the influence on the labour market between local communities around NPs and nature reserves | Management/local community implications—assessing the impact of nature protection on tourism labour market development | No |
42 | 2014 [179] | Germany | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 197 respondents); interview (n = 25 respondents) | Present a complete cost–benefit analysis | Management implications—improving decision-making processes; analysing nature-based tourism benefits in NPs | Yes |
43 | 2012 [180] | Czech Republic | Quantitative | Survey (n1 = 181 respondents, n2 = 200 respondents) | Analyse local people’s perception of the success of NP management policies | Management/local community implications—improving PA management policies | Yes |
44 | 2011 [181] | Finland | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 185 respondents) | Analyse the attitudes of tourism service providers and decision-makers regarding tourism development—case study on an NP | Management/service provider implications—improving collaboration between service providers and decision-makers for tourism development in NPs | No |
45 | 2011 [182] | Turkey | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 500 respondents) | Analyse the carrying capacity of an NP with consideration for its natural and cultural resources | Management implications—improving the sustainable development of NPs with consideration for the carrying capacity | Yes |
46 | 2011 [183] | Estonia | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 273 respondents) | Present the impact of tourism on local communities | Management/local community implications—improving the communication between authorities of NPs and local communities | Yes |
47 | 2010 [184] | Slovenia | Qualitative | Interview (n = 4 respondents); secondary data | Create a decision model for infrastructure development in NPs | Management implications—improving the sustainable development of ecotourism | Yes |
48 | 2009 [185] | Finland | Qualitative | Semi-structured interview (n = 40 respondents) | Analyse the perceptions of stakeholders on the sociocultural sustainability of tourism—case study on an NP | Management/local community implications—improving the sustainable development of tourism in NPs | Yes |
49 | 2008 [186] | Greece | Quantitative | Paper articles (n = 100 articles) | Analyse the representation of three main topics of environment policy in the local press—ecotourism, forest management, and environmental awareness | Management/institution implications—promoting and sustainably developing ecotourism in PAs | No |
50 | 2007 [187] | Greece | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 276 respondents) | Analyse stakeholders’ points of view on environmental policy for PA management | Management/institution/research implications—measuring the environmental policy beliefs of stakeholders involved in PA management; supporting participatory approaches | Yes |
51 | 2006 [188] | Greece | Qualitative | In-depth interview (n = 23 respondents) | Determine the local people’s perception and interpretation of “nature”, “wildlife”, and “landscape” in the context of a PA | Management/local community implications—improving participatory approaches in PA management, environmental conservation awareness, and quality of life in local communities | No |
52 | 2000 [189] | Turkey | Quantitative | Survey (n = 15 respondents) | Create an ecosystem zoning procedure to determine its suitability for human activities | Management implications—improving the sustainable development of NPs | No |
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). IUCN Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions: A User-Friendly Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling up of NbS, 1st ed.; IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-2-8317-2058-6. [Google Scholar]
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Policy Brief on Nature-Based Solutions in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Targets; International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Convention on Biological Diversity. Fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Part Two). December, 2022. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-cbd-press-release-final-19dec2022 (accessed on 15 January 2023).
- Elmahdy, Y.M.; Haukeland, J.V.; Fredman, P. Tourism Megatrends: A Literature Review Focused on Nature-Based Tourism; (MINA Fagrapport 42); Norwegian University of Sciences: Trondheim, Norway, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Neto, F. A New Approach to Sustainable Tourism Development: Moving beyond Environmental Protection. Nat. Resour. Forum 2003, 27, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, W.-T. Tourism in Emerging Economies: The Way We Green, Sustainable, and Healthy; Springer: Singapore, 2020; ISBN 9789811524622. [Google Scholar]
- Loureiro, S.M.C.; Nascimento, J. Shaping a View on the Influence of Technologies on Sustainable Tourism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cater, C.; Garrod, B.; Low, T. The Encyclopedia of Sustainable Tourism; CABI: Boston, MA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-78064-143-0. [Google Scholar]
- Metin, T.C. Nature-Based Tourism, Nature Based Tourism Destinations’ Attributes and Nature Based Tourists’ Motivations. In Travel Motivations: A Systematic Analysis of Travel Motivations in Different Tourism Context; Çakır, O., Ed.; Lambert Academic Publishing: Istanbul, Turkey, 2019; Volume 7, pp. 174–200. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 (RES/70/1); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
- Valentine, P. Review: Nature-Based Tourism; Belhaven Press: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Björnsdóttir, A.L. Nature Based Tourism Trends: An Analysis of Drivers, Challenges and Opportunities. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, As, Norway, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Fredman, P.; Margaryan, L. 20 Years of Nordic Nature-Based Tourism Research: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2021, 21, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredman, P.; Tyrväinen, L. Frontiers in Nature-based Tourism. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2010, 10, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padma, P.; Ramakrishna, S.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M. Nature-Based Solutions in Tourism: A Review of the Literature and Conceptualization. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2022, 46, 442–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukoseviciute, G.; Pereira, L.; Panagopoulos, T. The Economic Impact of Recreational Trails: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Ecotourism 2022, 21, 366–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations; World Tourism Organization. International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008; Studies in Methods, Series M; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-92-1-161521-0. [Google Scholar]
- Wolf, I.D.; Croft, D.B.; Green, R.J. Nature Conservation and Nature-Based Tourism: A Paradox? Environments 2019, 6, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fossgard, K.; Fredman, P. Dimensions in the Nature-Based Tourism Experiencescape: An Explorative Analysis. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2019, 28, 100219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Tools and Resources for Nature-Based Tourism; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/e51e4a32-2749-5918-8da6-c7b44b67a31f (accessed on 20 February 2022).
- Leung, Y.-F.; Spenceley, A.; Hvenegaard, G.; Buckley, R. Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability, 1st ed.; IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 978-2-8317-1898-9. [Google Scholar]
- Fredman, P.; Margaryan, L. The Supply of Nature Based Tourism in Sweden. A National Inventory of Service Providers; Mid-Sweden University: Östersund, Sweden, 2014; ETOUR, report 2014:1. [Google Scholar]
- The International Ecotourism Society. What Is Ecotourism? 2015. Available online: https://ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism/ (accessed on 15 February 2022).
- World Tourism Organization. The British Ecotourism Market; Special Report; World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 2001; ISBN 978-92-844-0486-5. [Google Scholar]
- Roe, D.; Leader-Williams, N.; Dalal-Clayton, B. Take Only Photographs, Leave Only Footprints: The Environmental Importance; IIED: London, UK, 1997; ISBN 978-1-904035-24-4. [Google Scholar]
- Newsome, D.; Dowling, R.K. Setting an agenda for geotourism. In Geotourism: The Tourism of Geology and Landscape; Newsome, D., Dowling, R., Eds.; Goodfellow Publishers Limited: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- UNWTO. Rural Tourism. 2021. Available online: https://www.unwto.org/rural-tourism (accessed on 15 February 2022).
- Félix, F.; Hurtado, M. Participative Management and Local Institutional Strengthening: The Successful Case of Mangrove Social-Ecological Systems in Ecuador. In Social-Ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and Challenges; Delgado, L.E., Marín, V.H., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 261–281. ISBN 978-3-030-28451-0. [Google Scholar]
- European Nature-Based Solutions. Nature-Based Solutions in Europe. Available online: https://www.iucn.org/our-work/region/europe/our-work/european-nature-based-solutions (accessed on 20 February 2022).
- James, B.; Connolly, M.; MacKay, T. Systematic Review and Meta Analysis. Educ. Child Psychol. 2016, 33, 76–91. [Google Scholar]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fälton, E. The Romantic Tourist Gaze on Swedish National Parks: Tracing Ways of Seeing the Non-Human World through Representations in Tourists’ Instagram Posts. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pintassilgo, P.; Pinto, P.; Costa, A.; Matias, A.; Guimarães, M.H. Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour of Birdwatchers: A Missing Link. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2023, 48, 399–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamczyk, J.; Wałdykowski, P. Planning for Sustainable Developmen of Tourism in the Tatra National Park Buffer Zone Using the MCDA Approach. Misc. Geogr. 2022, 26, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvache-Franco, M.; Carrascosa-López, C.; Carvache-Franco, W. The Perceived Value and Future Behavioral Intentions in Ecotourism: A Study in the Mediterranean Natural Parks from Spain. Land 2021, 10, 1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivaldi, A.; Whitehead, M. Re-Thinking the Nature of Decision Making in Outdoor Extreme Situations: Lessons from Britain’s National Three Peaks Challenge. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021, 35, 100403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janeczko, E.; Łukowski, A.; Bielinis, E.; Woźnicka, M.; Janeczko, K.; Korcz, N. “Not Just a Hobby, but a Lifestyle”: Characteristics, Preferences and Self-Perception of Individuals with Different Levels of Involvement in Birdwatching. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0255359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrascosa-López, C.; Carvache-Franco, M.; Carvache-Franco, W. Perceived Value and Its Predictive Relationship with Satisfaction and Loyalty in Ecotourism: A Study in the Posets-Maladeta Natural Park in Spain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lupp, G.; Kantelberg, V.; Förster, B.; Honert, C.; Naumann, J.; Markmann, T.; Pauleit, S. Visitor Counting and Monitoring in Forests Using Camera Traps: A Case Study from Bavaria (Southern Germany). Land 2021, 10, 736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumitras, D.E.; Mihai, V.C.; Jitea, I.M.; Donici, D.; Muresan, I.C. Adventure Tourism: Insight from Experienced Visitors of Romanian National and Natural Parks. Societies 2021, 11, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrascosa-López, C.; Carvache-Franco, M.; Mondéjar-Jiménez, J.; Carvache-Franco, W. Understanding Motivations and Segmentation in Ecotourism Destinations. Application to Natural Parks in Spanish Mediterranean Area. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, M.S.; Arvidsen, J.; Elmose-Østerlund, K.; Iversen, E.B. Motives for Shelter Camping. A Survey-Study on Motivational Differences across Group Composition and Experience Level. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021, 33, 100333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dybsand, H.N.H.; Stensland, S. Centrality to Life and the Theory of Planned Behavior: The Case of Musk Ox Safaris in Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella National Park, Norway. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2022, 27, 32–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cozma, A.-C.; Coroș, M.-M.; Pop, C. Mountain Tourism in the Perception of Romanian Tourists: A Case Study of the Rodna Mountains National Park. Information 2021, 12, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandić, A.; Petrić, L. The Impacts of Location and Attributes of Protected Natural Areas on Hotel Prices: Implications for Sustainable Tourism Development. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 833–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melnychenko, S.V.; Mykhaylichenko, H.I.; Zabaldina, Y.B.; Kravtsov, S.S.; Skakovska, S.S. The Protected Area as a Tourism Eco-Brand. J. Geol. Geogr. Geoecology 2021, 30, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turgut, H.; Ozalp, A.Y.; Akinci, H. Introducing the Hiking Suitability Index to Evaluate Mountain Forest Roads as Potential Hiking Routes—A Case Study in Hatila Valley National Park, Turkey. Ecomont 2020, 13, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dybsand, H.N.H.; Fredman, P. The Wildlife Watching Experiencescape: The Case of Musk Ox Safaris at Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella National Park, Norway. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2021, 21, 148–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinclair, M.; Mayer, M.; Woltering, M.; Ghermandi, A. Valuing Nature-Based Recreation Using a Crowdsourced Travel Cost Method: A Comparison to Onsite Survey Data and Value Transfer. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 45, 101165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Høyem, J. Outdoor Recreation and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2020, 31, 100317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welling, J.; Árnason, Þ.; Ólafsdóttir, R. Implications of Climate Change on Nature-Based Tourism Demand: A Segmentation Analysis of Glacier Site Visitors in Southeast Iceland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dell’Eva, M.; Nava, C.R.; Osti, L. Perceptions and Satisfaction of Human–Animal Encounters in Protected Areas. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2020, 12, 441–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wartmann, F.M.; Mackaness, W.A. Describing and Mapping Where People Experience Tranquillity. An Exploration Based on Interviews and Flickr Photographs. Landsc. Res. 2020, 45, 662–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conti, E.; Lexhagen, M. Instagramming Nature-Based Tourism Experiences: A Netnographic Study of Online Photography and Value Creation. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 34, 100650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pouwels, R.; Van Eupen, M.; Walvoort, D.J.J.; Jochem, R. Using GPS Tracking to Understand the Impact of Management Interventions on Visitor Densities and Bird Populations. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 116, 102154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swait, J.; Franceschinis, C.; Thiene, M. Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2020, 75, 243–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selvaag, S.K.; Aas, Ø.; Gundersen, V. Linking Visitors’ Spatial Preferences to Sustainable Visitor Management in a Norwegian National Park. Ecomont 2020, 12, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barros, C.; Moya-Gómez, B.; Gutiérrez, J. Using Geotagged Photographs and GPS Tracks from Social Networks to Analyse Visitor Behaviour in National Parks. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1291–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gundersen, V.; Vistad, O.I.; Panzacchi, M.; Strand, O.; Van Moorter, B. Large-Scale Segregation of Tourists and Wild Reindeer in Three Norwegian National Parks: Management Implications. Tour. Manag. 2019, 75, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiene, M.; Franceschinis, C.; Scarpa, R. Congestion Management in Protected Areas: Accounting for Respondents’ Inattention and Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Data. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2019, 46, 834–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czeszczewik, D.; Ginter, A.; Mikusiński, G.; Pawłowska, A.; Kałuża, H.; Smithers, R.J.; Walankiewicz, W. Birdwatching, Logging and the Local Economy in the Białowieża Forest, Poland. Biodivers. Conserv. 2019, 28, 2967–2975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molina, J.R.; González-Cabán, A.; y Silva, F.R. Wildfires Impact on the Economic Susceptibility of Recreation Activities: Application in a Mediterranean Protected Area. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 245, 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Svobodova, K.; Monteiro, L.; Vojar, J.; Gdulova, K. Can Trail Characteristics Influence Visitor Numbers in Natural Protected Areas? A Quantitative Approach to Trail Choice Assessment. Environ. Socio-Econ. Stud. 2019, 7, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz, L.; Hausner, V.H.; Monz, C.A. Advantages and Limitations of Using Mobile Apps for Protected Area Monitoring and Management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2019, 32, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hornoiu, R.I.; Padurean, M.; Nica, A.M.; Felicetti, G. The Young Romanian Tourists’ Preferences Analysis Regarding the Demand of Tourism Eco-Sustainable Goods and Services in the Retezat National Park. Qual. –Access Success 2019, 20, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
- Muñoz, L.; Hausner, V.; Brown, G.; Runge, C.; Fauchald, P. Identifying Spatial Overlap in the Values of Locals, Domestic- and International Tourists to Protected Areas. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Llorca, R.A.; García-Morales, V.J.; Lloréns-Montes, J.F.; Ramos-Ridao, Á.F.; Alcaraz-Segura, D.; Navarrete, M.J. A Co-Designed Method to Guide Decision-Making in Protected Area Visitor Centres. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 586–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taczanowska, K.; González, L.-M.; García-Massó, X.; Zięba, A.; Brandenburg, C.; Muhar, A.; Pellicer-Chenoll, M.; Toca-Herrera, J.-L. Nature-Based Tourism or Mass Tourism in Nature? Segmentation of Mountain Protected Area Visitors Using Self-Organizing Maps (SOM). Sustainability 2019, 11, 1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinis, A.; Kabassi, K.; Karris, G.; Minotou, C. Unveiling the Profile of Tourists in Islands with Protected Areas to Promote Sustainable Tourism. In Smart Tourism as a Driver for Culture and Sustainability; Katsoni, V., Segarra-Oña, M., Eds.; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 261–274. ISBN 978-3-030-03909-7. [Google Scholar]
- Tepavcevic, J.; Miljanic, U.; Bradic, M.; Janicevic, S. Impact of London Residents’ Sociodemographic Characteristics on the Motives for Visiting National Parks. J. Geogr. Inst. “Jovan Cvijić” 2019, 69, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mancini, F.; Coghill, G.M.; Lusseau, D. Using Social Media to Quantify Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Nature-Based Recreational Activities. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0200565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnberger, A.; Eder, R.; Allex, B.; Preisel, H.; Ebenberger, M.; Husslein, M. Trade-Offs between Wind Energy, Recreational, and Bark-Beetle Impacts on Visual Preferences of National Park Visitors. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bielański, M.; Taczanowska, K.; Muhar, A.; Adamski, P.; González, L.-M.; Witkowski, Z. Application of GPS Tracking for Monitoring Spatially Unconstrained Outdoor Recreational Activities in Protected Areas—A Case Study of Ski Touring in the Tatra National Park, Poland. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 96, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setola, N.; Marzi, L.; Torricelli, M.C. Accessibility Indicator for a Trails Network in a Nature Park as Part of the Environmental Assessment Framework. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018, 69, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredman, P.; Wikström, D. Income Elasticity of Demand for Tourism at Fulufjället National Park. Tour. Econ. 2018, 24, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çetinkaya, G.; Yıldız, M.; Özçelik, M.A. Why Do So Few Local People Visit National Parks? Examining Constraints to Antalya’s National Parks, Turkey. Adv. Hosp. Tour. Res. (AHTR) 2018, 6, 92–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrin-Malterre, C.; Chanteloup, L. Ski Touring and Snowshoeing in the Hautes–Bauges (Savoie, France): A Study of Various Sports Practices and Ways of Experiencing Nature. Rga 2018, 106–4, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sever, I.; Verbič, M. Providing Information to Respondents in Complex Choice Studies: A Survey on Recreational Trail Preferences in an Urban Nature Park. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 169, 160–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surat, H. Evaluation of Recreational Preferences of Visitors in National Park, Turkey. Int. J. Ecosyst. Ecol. Sci. 2018, 8, 153–164. [Google Scholar]
- Švajda, J.; Masný, M.; Koróny, S.; Mezei, A.; Machar, I.; Taczanowska, K. Visitor Profiling Using Characteristics of Socio-Demographic and Spatial Behavior as Tools to Support the Management of Protected Mountain Areas. Geografie 2018, 123, 461–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kortoci, Y.; Kortoci (Kellezi), M. The Assessment of the Rural Tourism Development in the Valbona Valley National Park. Tour. Econ. 2017, 23, 1662–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taczanowska, K.; Bielański, M.; González, L.-M.; Garcia-Massó, X.; Toca-Herrera, J. Analyzing Spatial Behavior of Backcountry Skiers in Mountain Protected Areas Combining GPS Tracking and Graph Theory. Symmetry 2017, 9, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumitras, D.; Muresan, I.; Jitea, I.; Mihai, V.; Balazs, S.; Iancu, T. Assessing Tourists’ Preferences for Recreational Trips in National and Natural Parks as a Premise for Long-Term Sustainable Management Plans. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frontuto, V.; Dalmazzone, S.; Vallino, E.; Giaccaria, S. Earmarking Conservation: Further Inquiry on Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods Applied to Nature-Based Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hornoiu, R.I. Analysis of the Romanian Students Studying Tourism Preferences Regarding the Goods and Services Eco-Sustainable Offered by an Ecotourism Destination. Qual. Access Success 2017, 18, 103–107. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, D.; Lee, J.-H. A Structural Relationship between Place Attachment and Intention to Conserve Landscapes—A Case Study of Harz National Park in Germany. J. Mt. Sci. 2017, 14, 998–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butzmann, E.; Job, H. Developing a Typology of Sustainable Protected Area Tourism Products. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 1736–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, C.; Reis, E.; Menezes, J.; Salgueiro, M.D.F. Modelling Preferences for Nature-Based Recreation Activities. Leis. Stud. 2017, 36, 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milman, A.; Zehrer, A.; Tasci, A.D.A. Measuring the Components of Visitor Experience on a Mountain Attraction: The Case of the Nordkette, Tyrol, Austria. Tour. Rev. 2017, 72, 429–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietilä, M. Do Visitor Experiences Differ Across Recreation Settings? Using Geographical Information Systems to Study the Setting-Experience Relationship. Visit. Stud. 2017, 20, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puhakka, R.; Pitkänen, K.; Siikamäki, P. The Health and Well-Being Impacts of Protected Areas in Finland. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 1830–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schamel, J. A Demographic Perspective on the Spatial Behaviour of Hikers in Mountain Areas: The Example of Berchtesgaden. Ecomont 2017, 9, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiene, M.; Swait, J.; Scarpa, R. Choice Set Formation for Outdoor Destinations: The Role of Motivations and Preference Discrimination in Site Selection for the Management of Public Expenditures on Protected Areas. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2017, 81, 152–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietilä, M.; Fagerholm, N. Visitors’ Place-Based Evaluations of Unacceptable Tourism Impacts in Oulanka National Park, Finland. Tour. Geogr. 2016, 18, 258–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirselimoğlu Batman, Z.; Demirel, Ö.; Kurdoğlu, B.Ç. Ecology-Based Tourism Potential of Altindere Valley (Trabzon-Turkey) in Regards to the Natural, Historical and Cultural Factors. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2016, 23, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaprová, K.; Melichar, J. Recreation Demand for Large Natural Areas in the Czech Republic; Public Recreation and Landscape Protection—With Nature Hand in Hand: Krtiny, Czech Republic, 2016; pp. 183–188. [Google Scholar]
- Petrovic, J.; Tomicevic-Dubljevic, J. Understanding Summer Visitors and Their Attitudes to the Kopaonik National Park, Serbia. Balt. For. 2016, 22, 315–326. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, K.M. Leave Only Footprints? How Traces of Movement Shape the Appropriation of Space. Cult. Geogr. 2015, 22, 659–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muresianu, M. Ecotourism in Rodna Mountains National Park, Between Wishfulness and Reality. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2015, 9, 1135–1140. [Google Scholar]
- Siikamäki, P.; Kangas, K.; Paasivaara, A.; Schroderus, S. Biodiversity Attracts Visitors to National Parks. Biodivers. Conserv. 2015, 24, 2521–2534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirselimoğlu Batman, Z.; Demirel, Ö. Ecology-Based Tourism Potential with Regard to Alternative Tourism Activities in Altındere Valley (Trabzon—Maçka). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2014, 22, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Štemberk, J. Guided Tours to the Wilderness in the Sumava National Park; Pts 1 And 2; Public Recreation And Landscape Protection—With Man Hand In Hand!: Krtiny, Czech Republic, 2015; pp. 75–79. [Google Scholar]
- Streberová, E.; Jusková, L. Standards of Quality for Outdoor Recreation in Tatra National Park: A Contribution to Integrated Visitor Monitoring and Management. Ecomont 2015, 7, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taczanowska, K.; González, L.-M.; Garcia-Massó, X.; Muhar, A.; Brandenburg, C.; Toca-Herrera, J.-L. Evaluating the Structure and Use of Hiking Trails in Recreational Areas Using a Mixed GPS Tracking and Graph Theory Approach. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 55, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veisten, K.; Lindberg, K.; Grue, B.; Haukeland, J.V. The Role of Psychographic Factors in Nature-Based Tourist Expenditure. Tour. Econ. 2014, 20, 301–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azabağaoğlu, M.Ö.; Çakır, G. Research on Visitors Attitudes and Behaviours Regarding Ecotourism on Igneada Deep Spot in a Sea Forest Natural Park; Information Engineering Research Institute: Texas, DE, USA, 2014; Volume 51, pp. 13–19. [Google Scholar]
- Pröbstl-Haider, U.; Haider, W. The Role of Protected Areas in Destination Choice in the European Alps. Z. Wirtsch. 2014, 58, 144–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitz, M.F.; Ruiz-Labourdette, D.; Sañudo, P.F.; Montes, C.; Pineda, F.D. Participation of Visitors in the Management Design of Protected Natural Areas. In WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering; Schmitz, M.F., Ed.; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2013; Volume 1, pp. 61–70. ISBN 978-1-84564-810-7. [Google Scholar]
- Schamel, J.; Job, H. Crowding in Germany’s National Parks: The Case of the Low Mountain Range Saxon Switzerland National Park. Eco Mont-J. Prot. Mt. Areas Res. 2013, 5, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haukeland, J.V.; Veisten, K.; Grue, B.; Vistad, O.I. Visitors’ Acceptance of Negative Ecological Impacts in National Parks: Comparing the Explanatory Power of Psychographic Scales in a Norwegian Mountain Setting. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 291–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garavaglia, V.; Diolaiuti, G.; Smiraglia, C.; Pasquale, V.; Pelfini, M. Evaluating Tourist Perception of Environmental Changes as a Contribution to Managing Natural Resources in Glacierized Areas: A Case Study of the Forni Glacier (Stelvio National Park, Italian Alps). Environ. Manag. 2012, 50, 1125–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spanou, S.; Tsegenidi, K.; Georgiadis, T. Perception of Visitors’ Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism: A Case Study in the Valley of Butterflies Protected Area, Rhodes Island, Greece. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2012, 6, 245–258. [Google Scholar]
- Pirselimoğlu, Z.; Demirel, Ö. A Study of an Ecologically Based Recreation and Tourism Planning Approach: A Case Study on Trabzon Çalköy High Plateau in Turkey. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012, 19, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, N.; Iosifides, T.; Evangelinos, K.I.; Florokapi, I.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. Investigating Knowledge and Perceptions of Citizens of the National Park of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Greece. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012, 19, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendes, I.; Proença, I. Measuring the Social Recreation Per-Day Net Benefit of the Wildlife Amenities of a National Park: A Count-Data Travel-Cost Approach. Environ. Manag. 2011, 48, 920–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Mosquera, N.; Sánchez, M. The Influence of Personal Values in the Economic-Use Valuation of Peri-Urban Green Spaces: An Application of the Means-End Chain Theory. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 875–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrian, G.; Stanojlović, A. The Role of the UNESCO Designated Sites in Fostering Sustainable Tourism in South-East Europe; University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management: Opatija, Croatia, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Puhakka, R. Environmental Concern and Responsibility among Nature Tourists in Oulanka PAN Park, Finland. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2011, 11, 76–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sievänen, T.; Neuvonen, M.; Pouta, E. National Park Visitor Segments and Their Interest in Rural Tourism Services and Intention to Revisit. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2011, 11, 54–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neuvonen, M.; Pouta, E.; Puustinen, J.; Sievänen, T. Visits to National Parks: Effects of Park Characteristics and Spatial Demand. J. Nat. Conserv. 2010, 18, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayan, S.; Karagüzel, O. Problems of Outdoor Recreation: The Effect of Visitors’ Demographics on the Perceptions of Termessos National Park, Turkey. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 1257–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sterl, P.; Eder, R.; Arnberger, A. Exploring Factors in Influencing the Attitude of on-Site Ski Mountaineers towards the Ski Touring Management Measures of the Gesäuse National Park. Ecomont 2010, 2, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arabatzis, G.; Grigoroudis, E. Visitors’ Satisfaction, Perceptions and Gap Analysis: The Case of Dadia–Lefkimi–Souflion National Park. For. Policy Econ. 2010, 12, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haukeland, J.V.; Grue, B.; Veisten, K. Turning National Parks into Tourist Attractions: Nature Orientation and Quest for Facilities. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2010, 10, 248–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sæþórsdóttir, A.D. Planning Nature Tourism in Iceland Based on Tourist Attitudes. Tour. Geogr. 2010, 12, 25–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynisdottir, M.; Song, H.; Agrusa, J. Willingness to Pay Entrance Fees to Natural Attractions: An Icelandic Case Study. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 1076–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Job, H. Estimating the Regional Economic Impact of Tourism to National Parks: Two Case Studies from Germany. GAIA–Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2008, 17, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnberger, A.; Brandenburg, C. Past On-Site Experience, Crowding Perceptions, and Use Displacement of Visitor Groups to a Peri-Urban National Park. Environ. Manag. 2007, 40, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitz, M.F.; Ruiz-Labourdette, D.; Sañudo, P.F.; Montes, C.; Pineda, F.D. Participation of Visitors in the Management Design of Protected Natural Areas. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Tourism II, Bologna, Italy, 23 August 2006; Volume 1, pp. 139–148. [Google Scholar]
- Machairas, I.; Hovardas, T. Determining Visitors’ Dispositions Toward the Designation of a Greek National Park. Environ. Manag. 2005, 36, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torbidoni, E.I.F.; Grau, H.R.; Camps, A. Trail Preferences and Visitor Characteristics in Aigüestortes I Estany de Sant Maurici National Park, Spain. Mt. Res. Dev. 2005, 25, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huhtala, A. What Price Recreation in Finland?—A Contingent Valuation Study of Non-Market Benefits of Public Outdoor Recreation Areas. J. Leis. Res. 2004, 36, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stamou, A.G.; Paraskevopoulos, S. Ecotourism Experiences in Visitors’ Books of a Greek Reserve: A Critical Discourse Analysis Perspective. Sociol. Rural. 2003, 43, 34–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickinson, G. The Use of the Loch Lomond Area for Recreation. Scott. Geogr. J. 2000, 116, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miočić, B.K.; Razović, M.; Klarin, T. Management of Sustainable Tourism Destination through Stakeholder Cooperation. Manag. J. Contemp. Manag. Issues 2016, 21, 99–120. [Google Scholar]
- Roxas, F.M.Y.; Rivera, J.P.R.; Gutierrez, E.L.M. Mapping Stakeholders’ Roles in Governing Sustainable Tourism Destinations. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karhu, J.; Lähteenmäki, M.; Ilmolahti, O.; Osipov, A. From Threat to Opportunity: Sustainability and Tourism in Koli National Park. Tour. Geogr. 2022, 24, 859–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kovács, A.D.; Gulyás, P.; Farkas, J.Z. Tourism Perspectives in National Parks—A Hungarian Case Study from the Aspects of Rural Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Job, H.; Majewski, L.; Engelbauer, M.; Bittlingmaier, S.; Woltering, M. Establishing a Standard for Park Visitation Analyses: Insights from Germany. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021, 35, 100404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakicevic, M.D.; Reynolds, K.M.; Gawryszewska, B.J. An Integrated Application of AHP and PROMETHEE in Decision Making for Landscape Management. Austrian J. For. Sci. 2021, 138, 167–182. [Google Scholar]
- Cvetković, M.; Šljivović, M. Prioritization of Strategies for Developmentof Ecotourism by Means of Ahp-Swoton the Example of Kopaonik, Serbia. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2021, 30, 4933–4943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirillov, S.; Vorobyevskaya, E.; Slpenchuk, M.; Zhuravlev, V. Sustainable Development and Protected Natural Areas: The Case of Tunkinsky National Park in Russia. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 10, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kovács, E.; Mile, O.; Fabók, V.; Margóczi, K.; Kalóczkai, Á.; Kasza, V.; Nagyné Grecs, A.; Bankovics, A.; Mihók, B. Fostering Adaptive Co-Management with Stakeholder Participation in the Surroundings of Soda Pans in Kiskunság, Hungary—An Assessment. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 104894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altunel, T.A. Socio-Economic Analysis of Ecotourism Activities of Women in Turkey. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 58, 1099–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno, M.L.G.; Barquero, L.M.R. Tourism, Development and Protected Areas: Deconstructing the Myth. Eur. Countrys. 2020, 12, 568–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poponi, S.; Palli, J.; Ferrari, S.; Filibeck, G.; Forte, T.G.W.; Franceschini, C.; Ruggieri, A.; Piovesan, G. Toward the Development of Sustainable Ecotourism in Italian National Parks of the Apennines: Insights from Hiking Guides. E&S 2020, 25, art46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barthod-Prothade, M.; Leroux, E. Sustainable Tourism in the Corsican Mountains: The Mare to Mares Trail. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2020, 12, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Religa, P.; Adach, S. The Problem of Solid Waste on the Tourist Trails of Tatra National Park, Poland. Ecomont 2020, 12, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solár, J.; Janiga, M. World Heritage Beech Forests and RegionalSocio-Economic PolicyIe Slovak-Ukrainian Border. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2020, 29, 1869–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stanciulescu, G.C.; Felicetti, G. Researching the Intent and Attitude of Local Communities from Protected Areas Regarding the Development of Eco-Sustainable Goods and Services through Ecotourism. The Case of National Park of Sibillini Mountains. Qual.-Access Success 2020, 21, 126–130. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-Calderón, E.; Prieto-Ballester, J.M.; Miguel-Barrado, V.; Milanés-Montero, P. Perception of Sustainability of Spanish National Parks: Public Use, Tourism and Rural Development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garabinović, D.; Kostić, M.; Lakićević, M. Potentials for Tourism Development Based on Protected Natural Resources in Moravica Administrative District Territory: Opinion of the City of Čačak Residents. Ekon. Poljopr. 2020, 67, 1249–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botella-Carrubi, D.; Currás Móstoles, R.; Escrivá-Beltrán, M. Penyagolosa Trails: From Ancestral Roads to Sustainable Ultra-Trail Race, between Spirituality, Nature, and Sports. A Case of Study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duglio, S.; Bonadonna, A.; Letey, M.; Peira, G.; Zavattaro, L.; Lombardi, G. Tourism Development in Inner Mountain Areas—The Local Stakeholders’ Point of View through a Mixed Method Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietilä, M.; Fagerholm, N. A Management Perspective to Using Public Participation GIS in Planning for Visitor Use in National Parks. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 1133–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welling, J.; Ólafsdóttir, R.; Árnason, Þ.; Guðmundsson, S. Participatory Planning Under Scenarios of Glacier Retreat and Tourism Growth in Southeast Iceland. Mt. Res. Dev. 2019, 39, D1–D13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupke, C.; Dormann, C.F.; Heurich, M. Does Public Participation Shift German National Park Priorities Away from Nature Conservation? Environ. Conserv. 2019, 46, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malchrowicz-Mośko, E.; Botiková, Z.; Poczta, J. “Because We Don’t Want to Run in Smog”: Problems with the Sustainable Management of Sport Event Tourism in Protected Areas (A Case Study of National Parks in Poland and Slovakia). Sustainability 2019, 11, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro-Pardo, M.D.; Pérez-Rodríguez, F.; Azevedo, J.C.; Urios, V. Looking for Consensual Protection Categories to Reduce Conservation Conflicts in Protected Áreas. Cienc. Rural 2019, 49, e20190555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demir, S. Determining Suitable Ecotourism Areas in Protected Watershed Area through Visibility Analysis. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2019, 20, 214–223. [Google Scholar]
- Ristić, D.; Vukoičić, D.; Milinčić, M. Tourism and Sustainable Development of Rural Settlements in Protected –reas—Example NP Kopaonik (Serbia). Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcon, F.; Albaladejo-García, J.A.; Zabala, J.A.; Marín-Miñano, C.; Martínez-Paz, J.M. Understanding Social Demand for Sustainable Nature Conservation. The Case of a Protected Natural Space in South-Eastern Spain. J. Nat. Conserv. 2019, 51, 125722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, I.; Pardo, M. Tourism versus Nature Conservation: Reconciliation of Common Interests and Objectives—An Analysis through Picos de Europa National Park. J. Mt. Sci. 2018, 15, 2505–2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arsić, S.; Nikolić, D.; Mihajlović, I.; Fedajev, A.; Živković, Ž. A New Approach Within ANP-SWOT Framework for Prioritization of Ecosystem Management and Case Study of National Park Djerdap, Serbia. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 146, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çelik, D. Determination of the Most Suitable Ecotourism Activities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Case Study of Balamba Natural Park, Turkey. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018, 16, 4329–4355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arsić, S.; Nikolić, D.; Živković, Ž. Hybrid–SWOT—ANP—FANP Model for Prioritization Strategies of Sustainable Development of Ecotourism in National Park Djerdap, Serbia. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 80, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cremer-Schulte, D.; Rehnus, M.; Duparc, A.; Perrin-Malterre, C.; Arneodo, L. Wildlife Disturbance and Winter Recreational Activities in Alpine Protected Areas: Recommendations for Successful Management. Ecomont 2017, 9, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saiz, H.; Gartzia, M.; Errea, P.; Fillat, F.; Alados, C.L. Structure of Stockmen Collaboration Networks Under Two Contrasting Touristic Regimes in the Spanish Central Pyrenees. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 2017, 70, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akyol, A. Contributions of Local Guidance Practices to the Natural Environment, Protected Areas and Local People. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2017, 15, 1079–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suta, N.; Hrnjic, A.; Banda, A. Natural Resources Management in Tourism: Dimensions and Impact of Tourist Offer in the Southeastern Europe National Parks. In Financial Environment and Business Development; Bilgin, M.H., Danis, H., Demir, E., Can, U., Eds.; Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 4, pp. 537–562. ISBN 978-3-319-39918-8. [Google Scholar]
- Aciksoz, S.; Bollukcu, P.; Çelik, D. Ecotourism and Ethics in Protected Areas: Bartin-Sogutlu Village. Oxid. Commun. 2016, 39, 3621–3636. [Google Scholar]
- Chynoweth, M.W.; Çoban, E.; Altin, Ç.; Şekercioğlu, Ç.H. Human–Wildlife Conflict as a Barrier to Large Carnivore Management and Conservation in Turkey. Turk. J. Zool. 2016, 40, 972–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polat, E.; Keles, E.; Uzun, F.; Gul, A. Sustainable Rafting Tourism Planning and Management. An Example of Antalya-Koprucay Rafting Area. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2016, 17, 789–795. [Google Scholar]
- Solár, J.; Janiga, M.; Markuljaková, K. The Socioeconomic and Environmental Effects of Sustainable Development in the Eastern Carpathians, and Protecting Its Environment. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2016, 25, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Nieto, A.P.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Montes, C.; Martín-López, B. Collaborative Mapping of Ecosystem Services: The Role of Stakeholders׳ Profiles. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sdrali, D.; Goussia-Rizou, M.; Kiourtidou, P. Residents’ Perception of Tourism Development as a Vital Step for Participatory Tourism Plan: A Research in a Greek Protected Area. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2015, 17, 923–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byström, J.; Müller, D.K. Tourism Labor Market Impacts of National Parks: The Case of Swedish Lapland. Z. Wirtsch. 2014, 58, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, M. Can Nature-Based Tourism Benefits Compensate for the Costs of National Parks? A Study of the Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 561–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorner, T.; Najmanova, K.; Cihar, M. Changes in Local People’s Perceptions of the Sumava National Park in the Czech Republic over a Ten Year Period (1998–2008). Sustainability 2012, 4, 1354–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selby, A.; Petäjistö, L.; Huhtala, M. The Realisation of Tourism Business Opportunities Adjacent to Three National Parks in Southern Finland: Entrepreneurs and Local Decision-Makers Matter. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 446–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayan, M.S.; Atik, M. Recreation Carrying Capacity Estimates for Protected Areas: A Study of Termessos National Park. Ekoloji 2011, 20, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reimann, M.; Lamp, M.-L.; Palang, H. Tourism Impacts and Local Communities in Estonian National Parks. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2011, 11, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stubelj Ars, M.; Bohanec, M. Towards the Ecotourism: A Decision Support Model for the Assessment of Sustainability of Mountain Huts in the Alps. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 2554–2564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Puhakka, R.; Sarkki, S.; Cottrell, S.P.; Siikamäki, P. Local Discourses and International Initiatives: Sociocultural Sustainability of Tourism in Oulanka National Park, Finland. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 529–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hovardas, T.; Korfiatis, K.J. Framing Environmental Policy by the Local Press: Case Study from the Dadia Forest Reserve, Greece. For. Policy Econ. 2008, 10, 316–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hovardas, T.; Poirazidis, K. Environmental Policy Beliefs of Stakeholders in Protected Area Management. Environ. Manag. 2007, 39, 515–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hovardas, T.; Stamou, G.P. Structural and Narrative Reconstruction of Rural Residents’ Representations of ‘Nature’, ‘Wildlife’, and ‘Landscape’. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hepcan, Ş. A Methodological Approach for Designating Management Zones in Mount Spil National Park, Turkey. Environ. Manag. 2000, 26, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chon, K.S.; Pizam, A.; Mansfeld, Y. Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism; Taylor and Francis: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-136-38264-2. [Google Scholar]
- Mandić, A.; McCool, S.F. A Critical Review and Assessment of the Last 15 Years of Experience Design Research in a Nature-Based Tourism Context. J. Ecotourism 2023, 22, 208–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredman, P.; Tyrväinen, L. Frontiers in Nature-Based Tourism: Lessons from Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden; Taylor and Francis: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-317-98492-4. [Google Scholar]
- Thapa, K.; King, D.; Banhalmi-Zakar, Z.; Diedrich, A. Nature-Based Tourism in Protected Areas: A Systematic Review of Socio-Economic Benefits and Costs to Local People. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2022, 29, 625–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nr. Crt. | Year and Reference | Country | Method | Main Instrument of Data Collection | Objectives | Applicability | Funding |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2021 [32] | Sweden | Qualitative | Instagram (n = 360 posts from 30 national parks (NPs)) | Determine tourists’ perception of nature and their perceived value of the human–nature relationship | Management implications—understanding tourists’ attitudes towards NP development | No |
2 | 2021 * [33] | Portugal | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 185); observation; interview with park managers for assessing facilities | Understand tourists’ attitudes and behaviour towards the natural environment and assess these attitudes and the link to behavioural intentions | Research implications—understanding tourists’ attitudes; Management implications—understanding tourists’ willingness to pay (WTP) | Yes |
3 | 2021 * [34] | Poland | Mixed | - | Develop practice guidelines promoting sustainable tourism planning for NPs | Management implications—guidelines for planning tourism in PAs; Community collaboration | No |
4 | 2021 [35] | Spain | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 349 respondents) | Determine the perceived value of ecotourism; analyse the predictive relationships between the perceived value and the satisfaction and loyalty of ecotourists | Management implications—understanding tourists’ perceived value for natural park development | No |
5 | 2021 [36] | United Kingdom | Qualitative | Interview (n = 11 respondents) | Understand tourists’ decision-making process | Management/service provider implications—understanding tourists’ decision-making process; justifying the need for professional guides in NPs | Yes |
6 | 2021 [37] | Poland | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 357 respondents) | Determine tourists’ preferences and opinions | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for NP development | No |
7 | 2021 [38] | Spain | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 341 respondents) | Determine tourists’ perceived value; analyse dimensions that predict satisfaction and ecotourists’ intentions to return or recommend a destination | Management/institution/service provider implications—guidelines for planning tourism in PAs and developing products according to tourists’ perceived value | No |
8 | 2021 [39] | Germany | Mixed | Photographs | Test the applicability of camera traps for visitor monitoring | Management implications—monitoring visitors and understanding tourists’ behaviour | Yes |
9 | 2021 [40] | Romania | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 137 respondents) | Determine tourists’ preferences, understand their motivation, and determine their level of satisfaction regarding the quality of facilities and services | Management/service provider implications—developing adventure tourism and addressing tourists’ level of experience and expectations | No |
10 | 2021 [41] | Spain | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 349 respondents) | Examine demand segmentation and motivations in ecotourism | Institution/service provider implications—assisting the improvement of tourism service offers and an efficient marketing plan | Yes |
11 | 2021 [42] | Denmark | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 719 respondents) | Identify tourists’ motivations and segmentation based on experience | Management implications—targeting tourists’ level of experience for campsite development | Yes |
12 | 2021 * [43] | Norway | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 487 respondents, of which 219 follow-up) | Understand wildlife-related behaviours based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) | Management implications—deciding what wildlife watching tourism (WWT) activities to allow in NPs and PAs | No |
13 | 2021 [44] | Romania | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 131 respondents) | Identify opinions and suggestions regarding tourism in PAs and the impact of the tourist flows on the surrounding communities | Management/community implications—considering an integrated approach (natural and cultural resources) for NP development | No |
14 | 2021 [45] | Croatia | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 277 respondents) | Analyse the contribution of the attributes of a PA to the prices of hotel services and visitors’ satisfaction; analyse the economic effects of the PA | Service provider implications—designing pricing systems; Institution implications—developing governance, fiscal policies, and marketing strategies for tourism destinations | No |
15 | 2021 [46] | Ukraine | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 87 respondents); interview (n = 8 experts) | Analyse components of NP brands, their market positioning, and the development of proposals for eco-brand formation of the NP | Management/institution/service provider implications—measuring the brand positioning of NPs (framework of the eco-brand concept) | No |
16 | 2021 [47] | Turkey | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 30 respondents); interview (n = 20 experts) | Determine the potential of forest roads as hiking routes | Management implications—assessing infrastructure suitability for recreational activities, ensuring sustainable use of NPs and PAs | No |
17 | 2021 [48] | Norway | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 487 respondents, of which 219 follow-up); on-site observations on 14 safaris; interview (n = 49 respondents) | Understand the relationships between tourists’ experiences, product delivery, and the setting | Research implications—contributing to the WWT literature; Service providers—understanding tourists’ experiences; Management—developing PAs that feature wildlife as an attraction | Yes |
18 | 2020 [49] | Germany | Mixed | The photo sharing site Flickr (Application Programming Interface (API) for research) (n = 15,993 Flickr photo-user-days (PUDs)) | Evaluate the crowd-sourced travel cost method (CTCM) using geotagged photographs as an alternative data source to primary surveys; calculate the correlation between the results | Management/research implications—understanding tourists’ perceived value; offering a complement to the present suite of evaluation options (either monetary or not) | Yes |
19 | 2020 [50] | Norway | Qualitative | Questionnaire; interview (n = 13 respondents) | Understand tourists’ attitudes and behaviour towards the natural environment | Management implications—understanding tourists’ behaviours for sustainable development of PAs | No |
20 | 2020 [51] | Iceland | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 565 respondents) | Assess climate effects on visitation demand and examine the heterogeneity of tourists’ responses to these implications for visitation | Management implications—understanding tourist segmentation for sustainable development of PAs | Yes |
21 | 2020 [52] | Italy | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 532 respondents) | Assess the role of animals in creating a satisfactory experience at a NP | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for the development of PAs | No |
22 | 2020 [53] | Scotland | Mixed | Interview (n = 100 respondents); Flickr (API) | Explore how and where people who visit a NP experience tranquillity | Management implications—understanding tourists’ perceptions of landscape management in PAs | Yes |
23 | 2020 [54] | Sweden | Qualitative | Instagram; interview (n = 12 respondents) | Explore the role of online photography in creating experience value in nature-based tourism and what types of experience value are conveyed | Management/service provider implications—understanding tourists’ perceived value | Yes |
24 | 2020 [55] | UK | Quantitative | Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking (n = 1563 tracks) | Develop a methodology to estimate the impact of management actions on visitor densities | Management implications—understanding tourists’ behaviour and preferences for the sustainable development of PAs | Yes |
25 | 2020 [56] | Italy | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 1452 respondents) | Propose a framework to analyse how goal pursuit influences choices and if the important goals make individuals less sensitive to distance | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences and perceived value for developing effective policies | Yes |
26 | 2020 [57] | Norway | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 498 respondents); interviews with visitors, managers, and tourist operators in the area | Determine tourists’ motivations and spatial preferences | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for regulating their behaviour | Yes |
27 | 2020 [58] | Spain | Mixed | Flickr (n = 12,949 records); GPS tracking (n = 5064 tracks); secondary statistical data on visitor numbers | Explore the potential of geotagged data from social networks to analyse tourists’ behaviour in NPs | Management implications—understanding tourists’ behaviour for the development of new facilities (e.g., information stands) in PAs | Yes |
28 | 2019 [59] | Norway | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 13434 respondents) | Analyse tourists’ preferences and develop a methodology to quantify their behaviour in the NP territory | Management implications—understanding tourists’ profile for balancing between nature conservation and tourism development in NPs | Yes |
29 | 2019 [60] | Italy | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 432 respondents) | Determine tourists’ preferences; predict congestion levels in NPs; explore the advantages of adopting choice experiment models | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for regulating their behaviour (overcrowding) | Yes |
30 | 2019 [61] | Poland | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 165 respondents) | Compare birdwatching-related revenues with revenues from other tourists visiting a NP to analyse the economic justification for logging | Management implications—accounting tourism revenues for justifying sustainable development of PAs | Yes |
31 | 2019 [62] | Spain | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 493 respondents); focus group and test responses to validate it | Develop a tool to assess the recreation susceptibility of PAs to fire by integrating economic valuation, vegetation resilience, and potential fire behaviour | Management/institution implications—evaluating investments for fire protection based on a dynamic cost–benefit framework | Yes |
32 | 2019 [63] | Czech Republic | Mixed | Interview with managers; GPS tracking (n = 22 tracks) | Identify the effect of trail attributes on visitor numbers in NPs | Management implications—assessing trail characteristics; understanding tourists’ preferences | Yes |
33 | 2019 [64] | Norway | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 123 respondents, n = 25 completed the last step); GPS function similar to the Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS) | Evaluate previous attempts to use applications for monitoring recreation and tourism in PAs as an alternative to other methods, and present a pilot study | Management implications—monitoring tourists in PAs | Yes |
34 | 2019 [65] | Romania | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 188 respondents) | Analyse tourists’ preferences regarding the demand for eco-sustainable goods and services in tourism | Management/service provider implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for sustainable development of PAs | No |
35 | 2019 [66] | Norway | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 377 respondents); PPGIS mapping | Identify areas highly valued by locals and domestic and international visitors to assess the potential management challenges of attracting tourists to PAs | Management implications—understanding tourists’ perceived value to minimise intergroup conflict | Yes |
36 | 2019 [67] | Spain | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 470 respondents) | Develop a method to assess tourists’ perceptions of recreational activities and how they depend on the type of visitor | Management/research implications—understanding tourists’ perceptions; validating other measurement instruments | Yes |
37 | 2019 [68] | Poland | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 2120 respondents) | Identify the profiles of tourists at a heavily used destination | Management/research implications—profiling tourists for addressing mass tourism in PAs; highlighting the Self-Organising Map (SOM) technique as a valuable tool | Yes |
38 | 2019 [69] | Greece | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 2981 respondents) | Understand the profiles of tourists that visit islands with PAs, such as NPs or Natura 2000 areas | Management/institution implications—understanding tourists’ perceptions for strategic planning of PAs | No |
39 | 2019 [70] | United Kingdom | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 107 respondents) | Identify the motives and constraints for visiting NPs in relation to age, education level, and employment status | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for the development of NPs | Yes |
40 | 2018 [71] | Scotland | Mixed | Flickr (API) (n = 29,336 photographs from 933 users = 4699 visitor days) | Validate the use of data from Flickr as an indicator of nature-based tourism on a national scale and at several regional spatial and temporal resolutions | Management/research implications—validating the use of Flickr data as a research method | Yes |
41 | 2018 [72] | Germany | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 514 respondents) | Determine tourists’ perceptions and preferences | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for the development of NPs | Yes |
42 | 2018 [73] | Poland | Mixed | GPS tracking (n = 427 tracks) | Use GPS tracking to monitor a spatially independent recreational activity; focus on tourists’ behaviour concerning management measures in the NP | Management implications—understanding tourists’ behaviour for NP development | Yes |
43 | 2018 [74] | Italy | Qualitative | Survey—data collection sheets | Analyse the impact of a natural park on accessibility and usability; propose an indicator: “environmental accessibility of the pedestrian network” | Management/research implications—evaluating the social impact of a natural park in terms of accessibility and usability | Yes |
44 | 2018 [75] | Sweden | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 1425 respondents) | Analyse income elasticities among visitors to see if the analysed tourism product is a luxury or not | Management implications—understanding tourists’ income elasticity for NP development | Yes |
45 | 2018 [76] | Turkey | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 2637 respondents); interviews (n = 100 respondents) | Identify the constraints regarding local people’s use of NPs and investigate the effects of demographic features on these constraints | Management/community/institution implications—understanding local people as tourists for developing NP strategies | Yes |
46 | 2018 [77] | France | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 174 respondents); follow-up interviews (n = 23 respondents) | Define the outdoor recreation profiles of users of the areas | Management implications—profiling tourists for the development of PAs | Yes |
47 | 2018 [78] | Croatia | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 514 respondents) | Examine the recreational trail preferences of tourists | Management/service provider implications—understanding tourists’ preferences to prioritise activities and maximise their experience | No |
48 | 2018 [79] | Turkey | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 150 respondents) | Investigate user characteristics, participation level in activities, and recreational demands | Management/service provider implications—profiling tourists for urban development plans | No |
49 | 2018 [80] | Slovakia | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 190 respondents); GPS tracking; post-trip interviews | Determine tourists’ profiles based on the characteristics of socio-demographic and spatial behaviour | Management implications—understanding tourists’ behaviour for the development of PAs and the management of cable car destinations | Yes |
50 | 2017 [81] | Albania | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 136 respondents); participant observation | Support the development of sustainable rural tourism in mountainous areas | Management implications—considering the sustainable development of PAs | No |
51 | 2017 [82] | Poland | Quantitative | GPS tracking (n = 609 tracks) | Evaluate the structure and use of designated zones in PAs by combining GPS tracking and analytical methods based on graph theory | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for planning tourist infrastructure | Yes |
52 | 2017 [83] | Romania | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 756 respondents) | Explore tourists’ behaviour in national and natural parks by understanding the tradeoff between benefits and costs as perceived by tourists | Management implications—understanding tourists’ perceived value for national and natural park development | Yes |
53 | 2017 [84] | Italy | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 790 respondents) | Analyse tourists’ willingness to pay for conservation policies | Management/institution implications—understanding tourists’ WTP for developing sustainable strategies | Yes |
54 | 2017 [85] | Romania | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 100 respondents) | Analyse tourists’ preferences regarding eco-sustainable goods and services | Management/service provider/research implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for sustainable development | No |
55 | 2017 [86] | Germany | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 207 respondents) | Explore tourists’ intentions to conserve natural landscapes based on their attachment to NP landscapes | Management implications—understanding tourists’ perceptions and attitudes towards increasing visiting satisfaction and NP sustainable development | Yes |
56 | 2017 [87] | Germany | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 1092 respondents) | Develop and empirically apply a conceptual framework for tourism products—the Product-based Typology for Nature-based Tourism (PTNT) | Management implications—discussing an adaptation of the NP for sustainable PA tourism products | Yes |
57 | 2017 [88] | Portugal | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 779 respondents) | Propose an integrated model based on an expectancy–value theory and a decision-process framework for outdoor recreation | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences and behaviour in NPs and PAs | No |
58 | 2017 [89] | Austria | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 145 respondents); observation; photography | Examine the tangible and intangible visitor experience by exploring the applicability of an existing experiential consumption model | Management/research implications—understanding tourists’ behaviour for the development of PAs | No |
59 | 2017 [90] | Finland | Quantitative | PPGIS survey (n = 170 respondents) | Pilot new geographically explicit methods to study how visitor experiences are connected to certain setting types | Management implications—considering tourists’ experience for the development of PAs | No |
60 | 2017 [91] | Finland | Quantitative | Questionnaire on-site (n = 3152 respondents); internet survey (n = 1054 respondents) | Examine the health and well-being benefits perceived by tourists | Management/institutions implications—planning for sustainable development in NPs and PAs (infrastructure, accommodation) | Yes |
61 | 2017 [92] | Germany | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 481 respondents); GPS tracking (n = 481 tracks); interview (n = 9460 respondents) | Investigate the spatial behaviour of demographic age groups and the potential effects of demographic change on the use of the area | Management implications—anticipating demographic change for NP development | Yes |
62 | 2017 [93] | Italy | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 1452 respondents) | Show that choice set formation is behaviourally relevant, even after controlling for preference discrimination | Management implications—understanding tourists’ behaviour for analysing the impact of policies in PAs | Yes |
63 | 2016 [94] | Finland | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 736 respondents); PPGIS survey (n = 170) | Integrate a geographical approach to producing evaluative information on the negative impacts of tourism in NPs | Management implications—evaluating negative tourism impacts for the sustainable development of PAs | No |
64 | 2016 [95] | Turkey | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 390 respondents) | Correlate ecological-based tourism potential with concepts of intactness, conservation-use balance, and sustainability | Management implications—considering ecology-based recreation and approaches for tourism planning in PAs | No |
65 | 2016 [96] | Czech Republic | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 857 respondents); GIS analysis | Analyse touristic demand and preferences; assess differences among components of the total travel costs | Research implications—studying travel–cost measurements | Yes |
66 | 2016 [97] | Serbia | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 123 respondents); | Understand tourists’ attitudes towards the management of the natural and recreational resources of the PA | Management implications—considering the sustainable development of PAs | Yes |
67 | 2015 [98] | Scotland | Qualitative | “go-along interview” audio (n = 10 respondents) and video (n = 34 respondents) | Determine the “more-than-verbal” dimensions of tourists’ attitudes; identify themes emerging from the verbal and gesture manifestations of participants | Management implications—regulating tourists’ behaviour; managing the territory and accessibility within NPs and PAs | Yes |
68 | 2015 [99] | Romania | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 850 respondents) | Emphasise the contrast between the preference for intense tourism and the reality of relatively reduced tourist influxes | Management implications—improving touristic activity in PAs | No |
69 | 2015 [100] | Finland | Quantitative | Secondary data on visitor numbers and behaviour | Provide evidence on the direct linkage between biodiversity protection and the provisioning of ecosystem services in PAs | Management implications—improving touristic activity in NPs | Yes |
70 | 2015 [101] | Turkey | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 390 respondents) | Determine the use potential of priority areas for tourism with consideration for sustainability | Management implications—considering ecology-based recreation and approaches for tourism planning in PAs | No |
71 | 2015 [102] | Czech Republic | Mixed | Data provided by guides | Understand the beneficial role of professional guides within the NP | Management implications—improving touristic activity in NPs | No |
72 | 2015 [103] | Slovakia | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 211 respondents) | Determine standards of quality for outdoor recreation in NPs | Management implications—regulating tourists’ behaviour | Yes |
73 | 2014 [104] | Austria | Qualitative | GPS tracking (n = 482 tracks) | Provide a new methodology to evaluate hiking trails by combining GPS tracking and analytical methods based on graph theory | Management/research implications—assessing trail characteristics; understanding tourists’ preferences | No |
74 | 2014 [105] | Norway | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 1038 respondents) | Analyse the correlation between tourists’ expenditure in a NP region and their typology and behaviour | Management implications—understanding tourists’ behaviour and profile for NP development | Yes |
75 | 2014 [106] | Turkey | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 192 respondents) | Determine tourists’ profiles to provide views and attitudes on the existing potential for ecotourism | Management/community implications—involving local communities in the touristic development of natural parks | No |
76 | 2014 [107] | European Alps | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 1135 respondents) | Study the role of a PA for travellers selecting an alpine vacation destination | Management implications—understanding tourists’ motivations | No |
77 | 2014 [108] | Spain | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 878 respondents) | Analyse the current value of each sector into which the NP can be divided to establish the territory’s carrying capacity | Management implications—zoning in NPs considering tourists’ demands | No |
78 | 2013 [109] | Germany | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 312 respondents) | Provide insights into different aspects of crowding; analyse the factors that influence the perception of crowding in a high-use, low-mountain range | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for regulating their behaviour (crowding) | No |
79 | 2013 [110] | Norway | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n1 = 760 respondents, n2 = 280 respondents) | Determine tourists’ tolerance of potential negative ecological impacts from tourism activities and facilities in a NP context | Management implications—considering the sustainable development of PAs | Yes |
80 | 2012 [111] | Italy | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 163 respondents) | Determine tourists’ profile and perception and their ability to recognise climate change impacts and evidence | Management implications—offering more accurate materials for tourists | Yes |
81 | 2012 [112] | Greece | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 322 respondents) | Identify and evaluate the multiple dimensions of perceived value for tourism and analyse how they influence satisfaction | Management/institution implications—developing the PA considering educating visitors, infrastructure, and pricing | No |
82 | 2012 [113] | Turkey | Mixed | Interview (n = 30; visitors, locals, and stakeholders) | Determine how to approach the problems and solutions arising from plateau tourism and rural recreation | Management implications—considering ecology-based recreation and approaches for tourism planning in PAs | No |
83 | 2012 [114] | Greece | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 114; visitors, locals, and stakeholders) | Investigate the current state of knowledge and perceptions of residents and tourists concerning the NP | Management implications—showing the importance of implementing participatory management in PAs | No |
84 | 2011 [115] | Portugal | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 243 respondents) | Estimate the average consumer surplus (CS) for each day of visit | Management/institution implications—improving NP strategies and management; promoting nature-based tourism | Yes |
85 | 2011 [116] | Spain | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 180 respondents); laddering interview (n = 110 respondents) | Apply means–end chain methodology to reveal the cognitive structure of the decision-making process for the use and evaluation of the environmental good | Research implication—understanding tourists’ motivations and decision-making process | No |
86 | 2011 [117] | Serbia, Croatia | Quantitative | Secondary data on visitor numbers | Analyse the general framework of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) site designation; determine the effects of designations on tourists’ presence | Management implications—demonstrating UNESCO designation benefits to tourism development in NPs | No |
87 | 2011 [118] | Finland | Mixed | Interview (n = 30 respondents) | Examine the role of nature tourists in developing sustainable tourism | Management/service provider implications—developing sustainability in tourist destinations and companies | Yes |
88 | 2011 [119] | Finland | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 736 respondents) | Understand NP tourists’ interests in using tourism services | Management/institution/service provider implications—understanding tourists’ needs in PAs | No |
89 | 2010 [120] | Finland | Quantitative | Secondary data on visitor numbers | Examine which factors of a NP are associated with the number of visits | Management implication—increasing visitor numbers in NPs | No |
90 | 2010 [121] | Turkey | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 455 respondents) | Investigate tourists’ profiles, preferences, and perceptions of crowding; evaluate tourists’ suggestions for improvements | Management implications—understanding tourists’ perceptions for improving touristic services (marking of trails, crowding) | Yes |
91 | 2010 [122] | Austria | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 550 respondents) | Investigate factors influencing the attitude of on-site ski tourists towards ski tourism management measures | Management implications—understanding tourists’ perceptions of management strategies | Yes |
92 | 2010 [123] | Greece | Mixed | Questionnaire (n = 230 respondents) | Analyse tourists’ behaviour through a gap analysis approach | Management implications—understanding tourists’ satisfaction level for NP development | No |
93 | 2010 [124] | Norway | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 762 respondents) | Examine the quest for facilities in association with visitation in NPs | Management/service provider implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for developing strategies and policies in NPs and PAs | Yes |
94 | 2010 [125] | Iceland | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 3160 respondents) | Find target groups according to the locations and show how more information and research can be used for managing nature destinations | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences for the development of PAs | No |
95 | 2008 [126] | Iceland | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 252 respondents) | Measure tourists’ willingness to pay fees in areas where no such measurement has previously been undertaken | Management/institution implications—understanding tourists’ WTP for fee implementation | No |
96 | 2008 [127] | Germany | Quantitative | Interview (n1 = 1666 respondents, n2 = 3505 respondents) | Present the financial benefits derived from nature-based tourism in and around two NPs based on the value-added technique | Management/institution/community implications—implementing socio-economic monitoring; improving acceptance of NPs | Yes |
97 | 2007 [128] | Austria | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 383 respondents) | Determine if tourists’ level of experience influences their perceptions of crowding and their behaviour | Management implications—considering the sustainable development of PAs | Yes |
98 | 2006 [129] | Czech Republic | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 646 respondents total; 523 tourists and 123 locals and administration representatives) | Obtain stakeholders’ opinions and attitudes towards nature conservation, the NP, and tourism within the territory | Management implications—considering the sustainable development of PAs | No |
99 | 2006 [130] | Spain | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 878 respondents) | Analyse tourists’ attitudes towards the declaration, demarcation, and internal sectoring of the future NP | Management implications—considering sustainable NP development | No |
100 | 2005 [131] | Greece | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 516 respondents) | Define predictors of visitors’ awareness and attitude towards park designation and their willingness to pay a conditional entrance fee | Management/institution implications—understanding tourists’ attitudes and WTP (fee implementation); educating the NP users | No |
101 | 2005 [132] | Spain | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 796 respondents) | Analyse the recreational supply (trails) and demand (tourists’ characteristics) | Management implications—considering the sustainable development of PAs | No |
102 | 2004 [133] | Finland | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 1871 respondents) | Determine tourists’ willingness to pay for services in parks to obtain an estimate of the value of outdoor recreation in monetary terms | Management implications—understanding tourists’ WTP for fee implementation | No |
103 | 2003 [134] | Greece | Mixed | Analysis of texts produced in the visitors’ books | Analyse tourists’ experiences and perceptions | Management/research implications—understanding tourists’ experiences | No |
104 | 2000 [135] | Scotland | Quantitative | Questionnaire (n = 300 respondents) | Analyse tourists’ behaviour and preferences for recreation and attitudes towards environmental issues and management | Management implications—understanding tourists’ preferences and behaviour for NP sustainable development strategy | No |
Nr. Crt. | Web of Science Categories | No. of Articles |
---|---|---|
1. | Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, and Tourism | 35 |
2. | Environmental Studies | 28 |
3. | Environmental Sciences | 24 |
4. | Ecology | 15 |
5. | Green and Sustainable Science and Technology | 14 |
6. | Geography | 13 |
7. | Biodiversity Conservation | 10 |
8. | Sociology | 9 |
9. | Economics | 8 |
10. | Management | 8 |
Rank | Journal Title | % of Published Articles | 5-Year Impact Factor (2020) | WoS Quartile |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Sustainability | 7% | 3.473 | Q2, Q3 |
2 | Land | 7% | 3.235 | Q2 |
3 | Eco Mont-Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research | 6% | 0.766 | Q4 |
4 | Environmental Management | 5% | 3.372 | Q2 |
5 | Tourism Management | 5% | 13.134 | Q1 |
6 | Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism | 4% | 4.924 | Q1, Q2 |
7 | International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology | 4% | 3.855 | Q2, Q3 |
8 | Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism-Research Planning and Management | 3% | 3.473 | Q3 |
9 | Journal of Environmental Management | 3% | 6.914 | Q1 |
10 | Tourism Economics | 3% | 3.099 | Q1, Q2 |
11 | Journal of Sustainable Tourism | 3% | 7.857 | Q1 |
12 | Applied Geography | 3% | 5.402 | Q1 |
Rank | Year and Reference | Article Title | Times Cited, WoS Core * |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2008 [126] | Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study | 120 |
2 | 2010 [123] | Visitors’ satisfaction, perceptions and gap analysis: The case of Dadia-Lefkimi-Souflion National Park | 82 |
3 | 2007 [128] | Past on-site experience, crowding perceptions, and use displacement of visitor groups to a peri-urban National Park | 74 |
4 | 2011 [116] | The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: An application of the means-end chain theory | 59 |
5 | 2010 [120] | Visits to national parks: Effects of park characteristics and spatial demand | 58 |
6 | 2010 [125] | Planning Nature Tourism in Iceland based on Tourist Attitudes | 51 |
7 | 2015 [100] | Biodiversity attracts visitors to national parks | 47 |
8 | 2010 [124] | Turning National Parks into Tourist Attractions: Nature Orientation and Quest for Facilities | 46 |
9 | 2014 [104] | Evaluating the structure and use of hiking trails in recreational areas using a mixed GPS tracking and graph theory approach | 45 |
10 | 2006 [129] | Attitudes of stakeholders towards the Podyji/Thaya River Basin National Park in the Czech Republic | 41 |
Nr. Crt. | Web of Science Categories | No. of Articles |
---|---|---|
1. | Environmental Sciences | 25 |
2. | Environmental Studies | 14 |
3. | Ecology | 11 |
4. | Green and Sustainable Science and Technology | 9 |
5. | Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, and Tourism | 6 |
6. | Economics | 6 |
7. | Biodiversity Conservation | 5 |
8. | Forestry | 4 |
9. | Geography | 2 |
10. | Management | 2 |
Rank | Journal Title | % of Published Articles | 5-Year Impact Factor (2020) | WoS Quartile |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Sustainability | 12% | 4.089 | Q2, Q3, Q4 |
2 | Polish Journal of Environmental Studies | 6% | 1.845 | Q4 |
3 | Forest Policy and Economics | 6% | 3.954 | Q1. Q2 |
4 | Land Use Policy | 4% | 6.158 | Q1 |
5 | Eco Mont-Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research | 4% | 0.84 | Q4 |
6 | Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology | 4% | 0.538 | Q4 |
7 | Applied Ecology and Environmental Research | 4% | 0.897 | Q4 |
8 | Journal of Sustainable Tourism | 4% | 8.952 | Q1 |
9 | Environmental Management | 4% | 3.924 | Q3 |
Rank | Year and Reference | Article Title | Times Cited, WoS Core * |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2015 [176] | Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: The role of stakeholders’ profiles | 81 |
2 | 2014 [179] | Can nature-based tourism benefits compensate for the costs of national parks? A study of the Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany | 52 |
3 | 2017 [167] | Hybrid SWOT—ANP—FANP model for prioritization strategies of sustainable development of ecotourism in National Park Djerdap, Serbia | 50 |
4 | 2009 [185] | Local discourses and international initiatives: sociocultural sustainability of tourism in Oulanka National Park, Finland | 37 |
5 | 2006 [188] | Structural and narrative reconstruction of rural residents’ representations of ‘nature’, ‘wildlife’, and ‘landscape’ | 34 |
6 | 2010 [184] | Towards the ecotourism: A decision support model for the assessment of sustainability of mountain huts in the Alps | 31 |
7 | 2018 [165] | A New Approach Within ANP-SWOT Framework for Prioritization of Ecosystem Management and Case Study of National Park Djerdap, Serbia | 26 |
8 | 2008 [186] | Framing environmental policy by the local press: Case study from the Dadia Forest Reserve, Greece | 26 |
9 | 2007 [187] | Environmental policy beliefs of stakeholders in protected area management | 26 |
10 | 2011 [182] | Recreation Carrying Capacity Estimates for Protected Areas: A Study of Termessos National Park | 24 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Donici, D.S.; Dumitras, D.E. Nature-Based Tourism in National and Natural Parks in Europe: A Systematic Review. Forests 2024, 15, 588. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040588
Donici DS, Dumitras DE. Nature-Based Tourism in National and Natural Parks in Europe: A Systematic Review. Forests. 2024; 15(4):588. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040588
Chicago/Turabian StyleDonici, Delia S., and Diana E. Dumitras. 2024. "Nature-Based Tourism in National and Natural Parks in Europe: A Systematic Review" Forests 15, no. 4: 588. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040588