Previous Article in Journal
Climate Change Impacts on Agricultural Suitability in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environments
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/environments12070223
environments-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Trail Erosion Under the Impact of Tourist Traffic in the Bucegi Mountains, Romanian Carpathians

by
Mihai Radu Jula
and
Mircea Voiculescu
*
Department of Geography—West University of Timișoara, 300223 Timișoara, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2025, 12(7), 223; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12070223 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 13 May 2025 / Revised: 3 June 2025 / Accepted: 23 June 2025 / Published: 28 June 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Trail erosion is a global issue, particularly in mountainous regions, that is largely driven by increased tourist flows and uncontrolled trampling. Our study was conducted in the Bucegi Mountains, Southern Carpathians, Romania, along three of the most frequented hiking trails, each with varying levels of difficulty. Two of these trails cross both the forest and alpine zones, and the other crosses only the alpine zone: Jepii Mici, connecting the Bușteni resort (960 m a.s.l.) to Babele Chalet (2200 m a.s.l.); Jepii Mari, linking Bușteni resort to the National Sports Complex Piatra Arsă (1960 m a.s.l.); and the trail between Babele Chalet and Omu Peak (2505 m a.s.l.). Our analysis focused on morphometric parameters, the volume of displaced soil, and associated geohazards, serving as indicators for assessing the degradation state of hiking trails and their suitability for mountain biking and tourist traffic. The findings reveal a high degree of trail degradation, highlighted by increased trail width, the development of parallel trail sections due to dispersed tourist traffic, areas with abrupt gradient changes, and sections severely affected by erosion, resulting in significant volumes of displaced soil. These factors hinder effective tourist traffic, including hiking and mountain biking, and degrade the mountainous landscape. Conversely, the results can be useful for both monitoring annual trail erosion rates and facilitating tourist access, tailored to individual and group interests, as well as the physical readiness of each tourist, to offer a more pleasurable and sustainable experience.

1. Introduction

Tourist trails are vital elements of tourism infrastructure [1], providing access routes and numerous recreational opportunities [2,3,4]. Moreover, these trails play a vital role in managing tourist traffic and preventing tourist dispersion [5,6]. A major issue facing tourist trails, particularly in mountain areas, is the process of erosion [7,8,9]. Salesa and Cerdà [10] have documented this concern extensively, highlighting the ongoing interest of researchers worldwide since the 1970s.
Erosion is a key process that causes the degradation of soil, rocks, and sediments, leading to the progressive deterioration of landscape in tourist areas, affecting both forested regions and the alpine zone. Tourists significantly contribute to environmental degradation indicators. Trampling from hiking and mountain biking leads to soil compaction and accelerates erosion, especially on steep slopes [8,10,11,12], widening and deepening the trails [12,13,14], reducing or even removing vegetation cover [15,16,17], disturbing fauna through noise and pollution, and visual degradation of the environment due to litter left by some tourists [5,18,19,20]. In forested areas, erosion exposes and damages tree roots through trampling [19,21,22,23,24,25,26].
In Romania, a country with mountain areas represented mostly by the Romanian Carpathians, differentiated studies of tourist trails are relatively recent. Research has focused on evaluating geomorphological processes affecting trails in the Bucegi Massif [27], the utility of geotouristic accessibility maps as tools for tourists and protected area managers in the Ceahlău Mountains [28] and Cozia Massif [29], using digital elevation profiles in the spatial analysis of trails in the Căpățânii Mountains [30], and highlighting the relationship between natural hazards and tourism infrastructure, including trails in the Făgăraș Massif [31]. Lucaciu et al. [32] advocated for adapting existing tourist maps to the difficulty of trails and specific obstacles in the Apuseni Mountains, Western Carpathians, enabling better-informed choices for tourists. A new perspective on revitalizing tourism in the Bucegi Natural Park, post-pandemic, through geotourism was proposed by Desculțu Grigore et al. [33]. Recently, Olariu [34] mapped degraded areas in the alpine area of the Bucegi Mountains and analyzed the impact factors on the mountain environment, including tourist traffic, while Jula and Voiculescu [35] conducted a statistical analysis of accidents over a decade along the trails in the Bucegi Mountains. Trail erosion has been studied for the first time in Romania in the Bucegi and Făgăraș mountains using dendrogeomorphological methods, calculating average annual erosion rates for several hiking and mountain biking trails [24,25].
In this context, the aims of this study are as follows: (i) to assess trails from morphometric and substrate perspectives; (ii) to measure the volume of eroded soil (m3/m) over time and closely linked to slope and trail width; (iii) to identify the main geomorphological hazards and risk elements for tourists along the studied trails.

2. Study Area

2.1. Geographic and Environmental Setting

The study was conducted in the Bucegi Mountains, located in the eastern part of the Southern Carpathians, within the mountain group bearing the same name (Figure 1). These mountains present a suspended syncline, oriented in a north–south semicircular shape. At approximately 2000 m a.s.l. in the central region, there is a plateau area with gentle slopes, bordered to the west and east by two spectacular escarpments with gradients exceeding 40–50° and a vertical drop of over 1000 m compared to the Prahova Valley in the east and the Rucăr–Bran–Dragoslavele corridor in the west. In the northern part of the Bucegi Mountains lie the highest ridges, exceeding 2400–2500 m a.s.l., culminating at Omu Peak at 2507 m a.s.l. These ridges decrease to around 2000–2100 m a.s.l. toward the south. The geology of this area comprises limestone and conglomerates, with sandstone intercalations [36].
The Bucegi Mountains are entirely part of the Bucegi Natural Park, with an area of 32,663 hectares, defined by Law no. 5/2000. At the eastern bases along the Prahova Valley, there are four tourist resorts—Predeal, Azuga, Bușteni, and Sinaia—forming the most important and sought-after summer and winter tourism area in Romania.
The climate of the Bucegi Mountains is influenced by humid Atlantic air masses and the continental conditions associated with the Siberian anticyclone. Long-term meteorological data from weather stations in Sinaia (1500 m a.s.l.; 45°23′ N, 25°30′ E; 1961–2018) and Predeal (1090 m a.s.l.; 45°30′ N, 25°35′ E; 1961–2018) indicate average annual temperatures of 3.7 °C and 4.9 °C, respectively. Mean annual precipitation exceeds 1200 mm at higher elevations (1226.9 mm at Sinaia weather station) and totals 942.5 mm at Predeal weather station. Precipitation peaks during the main tourist season (May–September), accounting for 62.6% and 58.5% of the annual total at Sinaia and Predeal, respectively. The wettest months are September at Sinaia and June at Predeal [24].
Vegetation in the Bucegi Mountains follows distinct altitudinal zonation. Broadleaf forests, mainly composed of beech (Fagus sylvatica), occupy the lower slopes up to around 900 m a.s.l. These give way to mixed and then predominantly coniferous forests, especially spruce (Picea abies), between 900 and 1800 m a.s.l. Above the tree line, dwarf pine (Pinus mugo) and alpine grasslands dominate [36]. Considering the hiking activities and the immense interest in this mountain area, we selected three tourist trails that are highly frequented by tourists, and which are thus very eroded, with a high risk level. Two of these trails are used exclusively for hiking, while one is used for both hiking and mountain biking. Although the Bucegi Mountains have significant tourism potential, there are currently no precise data available regarding the number of tourists using the hiking trails. As highlighted in our previous studies on this mountain area [24,35], the data provided by the National Institute of Statistics reflect only the increase in tourist numbers in the tourist resorts, rather than the actual number of visitors engaging in hiking activities.

2.2. Tourist Trails

The three trails analyzed are as follows: Bușteni–Babele Chalet (Jepii Mici), Bușteni–National Sports Complex Piatra Arsă (Jepii Mari), and Babele Chalet–Omu Peak (see Figure 1). The first two trails traverse both the eastern abrupt of the Bucegi Mountains and the plateau area, whereas the third trail lies exclusively within the plateau. All trails experience substantial tourist flows, being connected to paved roads (DN1 and DJ713 “Transbucegi”), railways, as well as cable car transport (the Bușteni–Babele–Peștera cable car). The characteristics of the trails are summarized in Table 1.
The JMI hiking trail is considered to be the most challenging in the Bucegi Mountains, equipped with various safety features to prevent accidents. It starts from the Bușteni tourist resort at approximately 980 m a.s.l. and ascends to about 2200 m a.s.l. The trail spans over 5 km with a vertical drop exceeding 1200 m. It includes a forest trail segment on the Prahova Escarpment, characterized by steep slopes, slope breaks, and rock slabs, with safety elements such as handholds, ladders, and wall cables, as well as a section in the alpine zone. Despite being spectacular and surrounded by the imposing walls of the Bucegi Mountains, complete with viewpoints, attention must be paid to safe travel. The geological structure of the trail begins with alluvial gravels and sands near Bușteni resort, transitioning into sandy shale flysch formations up to approximately 1100 m a.s.l. Beyond this elevation, the trail traverses conglomerates and sandy flysch deposits, which dominate up to the plateau region. The soils along the trail exhibit considerable variation with elevation. In the lower sections, up to around 1000 m a.s.l., acidic brown soils are predominant, alongside erodisols and/or regosols. Between 1000 and 1300 m a.s.l., the trail traverses areas characterized by ferric-illuviated brown soils (podzolic), rendzinas, and increasingly frequent rocky substrates. Beyond 1300 m a.s.l. and up to the plateau, rocky substrates become predominant; meanwhile, on the plateau podzols, ferric-illuviated brown soils, rendzinas, and localized lithosols occur.
The JMA hiking trail also originates from Bușteni resort, extending for about 6.8 km and culminating at the Piatra Arsă Sports Complex at 1950 m a.s.l. It has a vertical drop of over 900 m. The trail traverses both forest and alpine sectors, with the hiking path notably broadening in the alpine sector, where significant erosion marks are prominently displayed. This trail, classified as difficult according to HG 77/2003, features certain safety installations along its zigzag course on the Prahova Escarpment. The JMA hiking trail offers spectacular viewpoints of the Prahova Valley, the tourist resorts at the base of the Bucegi Mountains, and the Baiului Mountains.
Along this trail, both the geological substrate and the main soil classes encountered are similar to those found along the JMI trail.
The BO hiking trail has a vertical drop of just 305 m between Babele Chalet (2200 m a.s.l.) and Omu Peak (2505 m a.s.l.) and stretches over 6.1 km. It is a plateau trail, generally over 1–1.5 m wide, and in some sections even over 3–4 m, primarily due to parallel trails formed by the strong and uncontrolled dispersion of tourists or mountain biking activities (Figure 2). This trail is frequented by a substantial number of tourists visiting the Babele Chalet and nearby geomorphosites. Although the vertical drop is not significant, the trail’s length, general altitude above 2200 m a.s.l., and climatic variability make it challenging and often underestimated by uninformed and inadequately equipped tourists. The geology consists of conglomerates and sandy flysch along the entire length of the trail. Approximately in the lower half of the route, podzols, ferric-illuviated brown soils, and localized lithosols are encountered. In the upper half, the trail crosses an area characterized by humic–silicate soils and lithosols.

3. Materials and Methods

Trail assessments and measurements were conducted during two field campaigns, in June 2022 and October 2024. Following methodologies from other studies, we analyzed the following trail attributes [7,18,37,38,39]: (i) trail width; (ii) slope classes; (iii) substrate type; (iv) trail form in relation to the slope; (v) types of hazards and number of high-risk locations. Additionally, we observed and considered possible factors contributing to landscape degradation, such as the presence or absence of additional safety structures (cables, ladders, handholds on rocky walls, bridges, etc.) in high-risk areas, as well as their maintenance status. These attributes were categorized according to Table 2.
To identify and quantify morphologically homogeneous trail sections, all attributes listed in Table 2 were initially assessed and classified at the trailhead. Along each trail, a GPS waypoint was recorded at every point where any parameter shifted to a different category, thereby marking the end of one homogeneous section and the beginning of another. In addition, all attributes were systematically re-evaluated at 50 m intervals to ensure consistency and homogeneity. These measurements allowed for the delineation of segments with consistent characteristics and their spatial variation, as well as the identification of locations associated with increased hazard potential, particularly in relation to the risk of tourist accidents or incidents.
To assess erosion amplified by tourist flows, we employed the method of cross-sections of trails, applied at several locations along them. This method, proposed by Salesa et al. [8], can be applied both in forested areas and alpine environments (Figure 3b). By creating successive cross-sections at one-meter intervals, the volume of soil displaced from the tourist trails can be quickly quantified at minimal cost, highlighting the magnitude of erosion processes.
At each cross-section, we measured the trail slope using a Suunto Tandem clinometer with an accuracy of 0.25° and recorded the location and altitude with a Garmin GPS76CSx, which has an accuracy of under 5 m.
The eroded surface area (cm2) for each cross-section was calculated using the formula provided by Salesa et al. [8]:
Aa = ((Za1 + Za2)/2) + ((Za2 + Za3)/2) + ((Za3 + Za4)/2)
where Aa = area (cm2) of the first cross-section; Za1 = depth of the first measurement (mm).
Between two successive cross-sections, spaced one meter apart, we calculated the volume of eroded soil (m3/m) using the formula provided by Salesa et al. [8]:
Va–b = (Aa + Ab)/2 × 100/106
where 100 = distance between a and b (cm); 106 = conversion factor from cm3 to m3.
A simplified version of this method was employed by Yoda and Watanabe [44] in Daisetsuzan National Park on Hokkaido Island, Japan, between 1990 and 1997, to quantify annual erosion rates.
In the Bucegi Mountains, along the selected tourist trails, we identified locations where erosion had a visible impact. Measurements were conducted at these sites to ensure the results accurately reflected the variations in profile shape and area, as well as the volume of eroded soil per linear meter of trail, in relation to its width and slope. We first measured the trail width using a measuring tape, then assessed its depth at 10 cm intervals, using the same tape and a marked string stretched between markers placed at the trail edges (Figure 4). The form of the cross-sections obtained from field measurements, their areas, and the volume of eroded soil in each case were processed using Microsoft Excel software 2021 MSO (Version 2505 Build 16.0.18827.20102) 64-bit.

4. Results

4.1. Morphometric Analysis

The main morphometric parameters of the analyzed trails are presented in Table 3. There are significant differences in trail width, with greater widths observed in the alpine area compared to the forested area. The average slope of the JMA and JMI trail sections, which cross both the forested and alpine areas, is slightly less steep in the alpine environment due to trail fragmentation. Although the number of steep sections is lower in the alpine area, these sections tend to be longer.
The percentage distribution of JMI and JMA trails by length between the forested and alpine areas is balanced, though there is a slight predominance of sectors located in the forested area, accounting for 60.6% and 66.7%, respectively. Figure 5a,b present the minimum, maximum, and average lengths and widths of sectors that are homogeneous regarding slope, width, substrate, and distribution relative to landforms along the three tourist trails. Minimum lengths of these sectors range from 11 to 40 m, with maximum lengths varying from 134 m on the JMI trail in the forested area to 784 m on the BO trail located on the Bucegi Plateau, where short-distance variations in the aforementioned parameters are minimal. The widest sections are identified on the BO trail.
The configuration of each trail in relation to landforms, analyzed through percentage lengths, demonstrates a predominant alignment along slopes. Specifically, the route of the JMI trail crosses slopes, ridges, and valley bottoms at 72.2%, 11%, and 16.8%, respectively; the JMA trail crosses 84.2% slopes and 15.8% ridges; and the BO Trail crosses 55.9% slopes and 44.1% ridges.
Another important aspect considered in this analysis is the percentage of each trail’s length where the main, marked trail is accompanied by at least one unmarked, parallel trail in close proximity. We observed such situations on all three tourist trails analyzed. Parallel trails are predominantly found in the alpine zone on the Bucegi Plateau (Figure 6a). This is attributed to the large number of tourists and the general lack of awareness of their environmental impact through trampling. Due to the gentle slopes and the allure of the alpine meadows on the plateau, in favorable weather conditions during summer, some tourists disregard the marked trail, traveling directly across meadows between the markers indicating the trail. This contributes to the emergence and development of parallel trails, as well as landscape degradation. We identified informal trails in sectors where the marked trail meanders, both on the JMI and JMA trails. In these instances, some tourists use alternative direct ascent/descent routes that are also gullies, thereby contributing to their deepening (Figure 6b). Additionally, on the JMA trail, a short sector affected by collapse was identified, where the parallel trail is also eroded and prone to collapse. On the BO trail, sectors with parallel trails exceed 1600 m in length, accounting for 30% of this hiking trail’s length. Figure 6c illustrates the length of sectors with parallel trails. The temporal and spatial evolution of this aspect will be studied in the upcoming years using modern, high-resolution methods.
The substrate composition along the JMI trail includes sand, soil, gravel, and rock, with their distribution expressed as percentages of the total trail length, as illustrated in Figure 7a. For the JMA trail, approximately 70% of the total length consists of soil, followed by sections with a soil–gravel mix, and about 8% composed of rock (Figure 7b). In contrast, the substrate composition along the BO trail is predominantly a soil–gravel mix, covering 45.8% of the trail’s total length, as shown in Figure 7c.
The width analysis of the three trails places the JMI hiking trail in the narrow category. Along its course, 31 segments with varying widths were identified, of which 16 are less than 1 m, mostly within the forested area. A total of 11 segments fall into the 1–1.5 m width category, with two segments exceeding 1.5 m in the plateau area, and another two segments over 3 m at the base, where the JMI hiking trail overlaps a forest road. In some narrow sections, the trail disappears, replaced by rocky escarpments, usually secured with chains.
On the other hand, the slope analysis revealed the existence of 61 segments with varying slope classes; 21 of these represent the medium slope class, 16 segments have steep slopes, and 8 segments are very steep, over 40°, with two of these equipped with carved steps. Small and very small slopes are found in a total of 16 segments. Their distribution along the trail is shown in Figure 8, alongside the locations where cross-sections were conducted.
The Jepii Mari hiking trail is also categorized as narrow and very narrow, with 31 segments of varying widths identified along the trail. Of these, 24 segments are less than 1 m wide, mostly situated in the forest zone and in areas with steep rocky slopes. The widest sections are found in the plateau area. Regarding the slope analysis, 76 segments with different slope classes have been identified, with 26 representing the middle slope class. Their distribution along the trail is presented in Figure 9, along with the locations where cross-sections were conducted.
In contrast, the BO hiking trail is categorized as wide. Among the 16 segments with varying widths identified along the trail, four have widths ranging from 1 m to 1.5 m, and eight have widths exceeding 1.5 m. This can be attributed to the high accessibility of the trail and the large number of tourists who do not follow the marked trails in the plateau area, which contributes to the reduction in the vegetation cover and the widening of the trail. The gentle slopes also contribute to tourists disregarding the marked trail, with 23 segments identified with different slope classes, all falling into the categories of gentle and moderate slopes. Their alternation along the trail is shown in Figure 10, which also marks the locations where cross-sections were conducted.
Figure 10 also outlines a degraded area, covering approximately 0.24 km2. This area is located near the Babele Chalet and adjacent to the Babele and Sphinx geomorphosites. The anthropogenic impact here is very high, leading to noticeable degradation. As a result, in addition to the marked trails, a large number of roads and paths can be observed branching out in all directions, as shown in the satellite image in Figure 11.
The cross-sections conducted in various segments of the three analyzed trails have highlighted average values for erosion areas and eroded soil volumes, as presented in Table 4.
For the JMI hiking trail, the shape of the five analyzed sectors is shown in Figure 12a for the forested zone and in Figure 12b for the tree line and alpine zones. For the JMA hiking trail, the significant width in the alpine zone (JMA1) can be observed in comparison to the forested area (JMA2 and JMA3) (Figure 12c). On the BO hiking trail, the locations of the three profiles (Figure 12d) are situated on the marked trail, with no measurements conducted on the secondary, nearly parallel trails. The maximum erosion value was recorded in the lower part of the trail.

4.2. Hazards Associated with Hiking Trails

The hazard analysis highlighted the following situation on the JMI hiking trail at the time of the field study: three avalanche corridors intersecting the trail, four collapsed sectors, fallen trees obstructing the trail, and three areas with residual snow, including a case where residual snow covered the section of the valley crossing, which is secured with metal chains for tourist safety (Figure 13).
On the JMA hiking trail, eight avalanche corridors were identified intersecting the trail, with some being crossed repeatedly due to the winding nature of the trail. Seven sectors were identified where the trail has collapsed, making it difficult for tourists to pass, along with fallen trees obstructing the pathway; four areas with residual snow were also observed. Additionally, the infrastructure elements of the JMI and JMA hiking trails, such as footbridges, safety chains, and ladders, were mapped. The sectors where exposed roots are found—as indicators of erosion processes and trail degradation—are also represented, posing minor injury risks to tourists (such as slipping/stumbling).
The BO hiking trail does not have infrastructure or safety elements, as the trail’s nature and difficulty level do not necessitate them. Regarding the analysis of potential natural hazards, there are two areas with avalanche risk near the Omu Peak, located below the mountain ridge. However, these can be avoided by using the winter trail, an alternative path that is slightly longer but is not the subject of this analysis.

5. Discussion

The study area is characterized by a humid climate, which, together with the geological and pedological characteristics specific to the analyzed trails, plays a significant role in shaping erosion processes. Contributing factors include slope gradient, and the intensity of tourist disturbances, which commonly lead to soil compaction, vegetation cover removal, and damage to exposed roots—this is true for many hiking trails worldwide [8,14,16,24]. The analysis of cross-sections conducted on all three trails revealed substantial trail widths, exceeding 150 cm, particularly in the alpine zone of the JMA hiking trail and on the BO hiking trail. Displaced soil on the BO trail has an average volume ranging from 0.24 to 0.69 m3/m, while on the JMA trail, it ranges from 0.16 to 0.34 m3/m. On the JMI trail, values are intermediate, between 0.2 and 0.48 m3/m. From another perspective, the average area of the cross-sections ranges from 1543.7 cm2 on the JMA trail to 6980 cm2 on the BO trail. Hikers, especially when traveling in large groups and/or across relatively flat terrain—such as the Bucegi Plateau—often disregard marked trails, a behavior that has become increasingly common with the recent rise in tourist flows. As a result, trails are wider and more prone to erosion where topography allows, with the vegetation cover being removed.
By comparison, mountain biking trails in the Nerang National Park, Australia, located in an urban area, have an average width of 0.9 m and a depth of 5.5 cm, with an average area of displaced soil of 253 cm2 [45]. Additionally, on mountain trails in “El Portalet,” eastern Iberian Peninsula, the average depths of the two studied trails were 4.33 cm and 6.91 cm [8].
In this context, conducting cross-sections on an extensive scale along hiking trails to assess eroded area and volume [8], in close correlation with high-resolution slope [46,47], substrate type, and tourist numbers, can help in highlighting the intensity of tourist activities and understanding the magnitude of their impact. These aspects are particularly important in national parks and other protected areas to better plan and manage trails for preventing environmental degradation and tourist accidents [5,6,48].
Anthropogenic impact and major geohazards in the alpine area of the Bucegi Mountains have also been studied by Mihai et al. [27] and Olariu [34], who identified both direct impacts from chaotic tourist flows (reduced vegetation cover, increased erosion, visual landscape degradation by widening trails and creating secondary, unmarked trails near the marked ones), especially near chalets and geomorphosites, as well as avalanche- or landslide-prone areas, which they delineated cartographically.
Although tourist flows have significantly increased over the past decade in the Bucegi Mountains, data from the National Institute of Statistics available on the institution’s website only refers to the number of tourists accommodated in the mountain resorts nearby. The number of tourists exploring the analyzed trails is unknown due to uncontrolled access, unlike some other protected areas in Romania or abroad. For example, access to the trail through the 7 Ladders Canyon in the Piatra Mare Massif is controlled, and requires the payment of a fee.
The analysis indicates a critical need for trail improvement and the implementation of a tourist erosion management system, particularly in heavily frequented and severely or increasingly degraded areas like the Bucegi Plateau and the BO hiking trail. One solution could be the clear demarcation of the trail with stone curbs, similar to what has been implemented in the alpine area of the Tatra National Park in Poland [7], paving the trail with various materials, or installing biodegradable mats to reduce the impact of trampling on vegetation near the trails [7]. By doing so, the area affected by tourist erosion would be confined to the main trail, preventing adjacent area degradation and the creation of secondary trails.
Implementing the proposed solutions, especially in the Babele and Sphinx geomorphosites areas, could also reduce the demand faced by the Mountain Rescue Service. This includes their attendance for minor accidents like falling or incidents where hikers wander off course on the plateau at night or in foggy conditions [35].
Other proposals to prevent trail degradation and environmental damage from high tourist traffic include modifying trail routes to cross naturally narrow areas, such as mountain ridges or zones with dense shrubbery nearby. This prevents excessive widening and the creation of secondary trails. Additionally, especially in spring and summer when heavy rains are reported, or when the winter snowpack has not fully melted—knowing that wet soil accelerates erosion processes due to tourists’ mechanical impact—it is essential to limit the daily number of tourists on each trail, despite the fact that such measures are not typically appreciated by tourists [7,38,49].
In line with dendrogeomorphological study data [24], the results from this study suggest a correlation between the recent increase in tourist numbers and trail degradation through widening, deepening, and the emergence of secondary, parallel trails to the main marked trail. However, the temporal evolution of trail morphology depends on the surface material. Trail sections crossing massive rock blocks or with stone pavements are less prone to degradation compared to cases where tourists walk directly on soil, especially on slopes and in humid conditions. Moreover, two reasonable assumptions are the following: (i) that an identical number of tourists in one day will cause more changes in the alpine environment than in the forested areas; (ii) that more tourists choose trails located entirely within the forested areas than those reaching the alpine area, where trail difficulty and risk are greater. Lastly, the most noticeable morphological changes occurred on direct descent sections, compared to zigzagging ones or those following contour lines, similar to observations in the Tatra Mountains, Poland [7].
The presence of informative panels and geotouristic thematic maps, accessible to the public at the beginning of trails and their main intermediate points [37], would bring tourists closer to the actual conditions, especially regarding trail profile, length, difficulty, and necessary equipment. This is particularly the case for medium- or high-difficulty trails like the JMI and JMA hiking trails, where such panels would reduce emergency calls to the Mountain Rescue Service, especially from inexperienced and inadequately equipped tourists who neglect prior information and, lacking such panels, tend to underestimate risk elements compared to their physical fitness and equipment levels [35].
In Romania, from a legal standpoint, Government Decision 77/2003, which regulates this field, at Article 27 letter d, does not encourage excessive infrastructure to preserve the mountain environment’s integrity. However, trail improvement should be permitted at minimal costs to prevent accidents. Also, Article 39 letter b obligates nominated mountain chalets’ operators to “install informative panels with trails in the area, marking dangerous sections and usable refuges”; Annex 4 specifies the types of indicators on mountain trails, with letter c detailing documentation signs placed “at trailheads, noting hiking difficulties such as avalanche danger, cornices on the route, alpine challenges (passages, obstacles), weather conditions significantly affecting the journey, difficult orientation, steep and slippery slope” (https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/41760 (accessed on 11 February 2025)). In this context, the association În Slujba Muntelui, an NGO dedicated to facilitating mountain hikes, has initiated trail marking restoration projects across different mountain areas in Romania, including the Bucegi Mountains. The association’s long-term goal is to create a national body to manage hiking trails.

6. Conclusions

This study has once again highlighted the ongoing issue of the continuous degradation over time of hiking trails in a mountainous area with a rich tourism tradition in Romania.
The data obtained from the measurements indicate a high level of degradation of the trails due to tourist impact, leading to their widening and deepening, along with the creation of new trails, parallel to the main marked trail.
The most evident changes in trail morphology were observed at directly descending sections compared to those with zigzag patterns or following contour lines.
The soil profiles conducted along hiking trails, through the calculation of the volume of eroded material, reveal a heightened environmental impact. Conducting more such profiles over time, closely correlated with trail slope, will demonstrate the significant effect of tourist traffic on accelerating erosion, alongside natural factors such as precipitation or substrate.
Assessing the magnitude of the impact of tourist activities in protected areas, such as the Bucegi Mountains, is vital for trail planning and mountain environment protection, and is a major concern for protected area managers.
It is necessary to install or modify, to enhance their detail, the informational panels located at the entrances and exits of hiking trails, especially those located in steep areas, as provided by Government Decision 77/2003, alongside the constant maintenance of safety elements. This will ensure a more pleasant and safer experience for tourists.
In the plateau area, where trail widths exceed 1.5–2 m, particularly near the Babele and Sphinx geomorphosites, we consider it necessary to delineate the trails to prevent chaotic tourist flows, which would otherwise lead to the erosion of even larger surfaces. Moreover, implementing such measures could also prevent cases of wandering in fog or minor accidents and incidents such as falls, especially for tourists unfamiliar with the mountainous environment.
We believe that the findings from our study can aid in the upkeep of hiking trails and their markers. These efforts should be integrated into a comprehensive plan developed by managers of protected areas to address the erosion and environmental degradation caused by often-uncontrolled tourist activities, while also enhancing safety.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.R.J. and M.V.; formal analysis, M.V.; investigation, M.R.J. and M.V.; methodology, M.R.J. and M.V.; supervision, M.V.; validation, M.R.J. and M.V.; visualization, M.V.; writing—original draft, M.R.J.; writing—review and editing, M.R.J. and M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which contributed to improving the first version of this paper as well as to the editor.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
JMIJepii Mici Trail
JMAJepii Mari Trail
BOBabele Chalet–Omu Peak Trail

References

  1. Boller, F.; Hunziker, M.; Conedera, M.; Elsasser, H.; Krebs, P. Fascinating remoteness: The dilemma of hiking tourism development in peripheral mountain areas. Mt. Res. Dev. 2010, 30, 320–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Janočkova, J.; Koščova, M.; Jablonska, J. The ability of tourist natural trails to resist tourism load and possibilities for reducing the environmental impacts: Case study of the Slovak Paradise National Park (Slovakia). Ekologia 2015, 34, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Marion, J.L.; Leung, Y.F. Trail resource impacts and an examination of alternative assessment techniques. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2001, 19, 17–37. [Google Scholar]
  4. Marion, J.L.; Leung, Y.F. Assessing and Understanding Trail Degradation: Results from Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area; National Park Service, Final Research Report; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2006; p. 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tomczyk, A.M.; Ewertowski, M. Planning of recreational trails in protected areas: Application of regression tree analysis and geographic information systems. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 40, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tomczyk, A.M.; Ewertowski, M. Quantifying short-term surface changes on recreational trails: The use of topographic surveys and ‘digital elevation models of differences’ (DODs). Geomorphology 2013, 183, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fidelus-Orzechowska, J.; Gorczyca, E.; Bukowski, M.; Krzemień, K. Degradation of a protected mountain area by tourist traffic: Case study of the Tatra National Park, Poland. J. Mt. Sci. 2021, 18, 2503–2519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Salesa, D.; Terol, E.; Cerdà, A. Soil erosion on the “El Portalet” mountain trails in the Eastern Iberian Peninsula. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 661, 504–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tomczyk, A.M. A GIS assessment and modelling of environmental sensitivity of recreational trails: The case of Gorce National Park, Poland. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Salesa, D.; Cerdà, A. Soil erosion on mountain trails as a consequence of recreational activities. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 271, 110990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Goeft, U.; Alder, J. Sustainable mountain biking: A case study from the Southwest of Western Australia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2001, 9, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Leung, Y.-F.; Marion, J.L. Assessing trail conditions in protected areas: Application of a problem-assessment method in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Environ. Conserv. 1999, 26, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, W.; Ge, X.; Liu, C. Hiking Trails and Tourism Impact Assessment In Protected Area: Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2005, 108, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Meadema, F.; Marion, J.L.; Arredondo, J.; Wimpey, J. The influence of layout on Appalachian Trail soil loss, widening, and muddiness: Implications for sustainable trail design and management. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 257, 109986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Barros, A.; Gonnet, J.; Pickering, C. Impacts of informal trails on vegetation and soils in the highest protected area in the Southern Hemisphere. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 127, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hill, W.; Pickering, C.M. Vegetation associated with different walking track types in the Kosciuszko alpine area, Australia. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 78, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Roovers, P.; Verheyen, K.; Hermy, M.; Gulinck, H. Experimental trampling and vegetation recovery in some forest and heathland communities. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2004, 7, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hill, W.; Pickering, C. Evaluation of Impacts and Methods for The Assessment of Walking Tracks in Protected Areas, 1st ed.; Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd.: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, 2009; ISBN 9781921521775/9781921521782. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pelfini, M.; Santilli, M. Dendrogeomorphological analyses on exposed roots along two mountain hiking trails in the Central Italian Alps. Geogr. Ann. Ser. A Phys. Geogr. 2006, 88, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tomczyk, A.M.; Ewertowski, M.W. Recreational trails in the Poprad Landscape Park, Poland: The spatial pattern of trail impacts and use-related, environmental, and managerial factors. J. Maps 2016, 12, 1227–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bodoque, J.M.; Díez-Herrero, A.; Martín-Duque, J.F.; Rubiales, J.M.; Godfrey, A.; Pedraza, J.; Carrasco, R.M.; Sanz, M.A. Sheet erosion rates determined by using dendrogeomorphological analysis of exposed tree roots: Two examples from Central Spain. Catena 2005, 64, 81–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bodoque, J.M.; Ballesteros-Cánovas, J.A.; Rubiales, J.M.; Perucha, M.Á.; Nadal-Romero, E.; Stoffel, M. Quantifying Soil Erosion from Hiking Trail in a Protected Natural Area in the Spanish Pyrenees. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 2255–2267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ciapała, S.; Adamski, P.; Zielonka, T. Tree ring analysis as an indicator of environmental changes caused by tourist trampling —A potential method for the assessment of the impact of tourists. Geochronometria 2014, 41, 392–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jula, M.; Voiculescu, M. Assessment of the mean erosion rate using dendrogeomorphological approaches on exposed roots along hiking and biking trails in the Bucegi Mountains, Romanian Carpathians. Catena 2022, 217, 106435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jula, M.; Voiculescu, M. Assessment of the Annual Erosion Rate along Three Hiking Trails in the Făgăraș Mountains, Romanian Carpathians, Using Dendrogeomorphological Approaches of Exposed Roots. Forests 2022, 13, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Matulewski, P.; Buchwal, A.; Zielonka, A.; Wrońska-Wałach, D.; Čufar, K.; Gärtner, H. Trampling as a major ecological factor affecting the radial growth and wood anatomy of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) roots on a hiking trail. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 107095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mihai, B.; Reynard, E.; Werren, G.; Savulescu, I.; Sandric, I.; Chitu, Z. Impacts of tourism on geomorphological processes in the Bucegi Mountains in Romania. Geogr. Helv. 2009, 64, 134–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Clius, M.; Teleucă, A.; David, O.; Moroşanu, A. Trail Accessibility as a Tool for Sustainable Management of Protected Areas: Case Study Ceahlău National Park, Romania. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2012, 14, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ovreiu, A.B.; Bărsoianu, I.A.; Comănescu, L.; Nedelea, A. Assessing the accesibility of relief for tourism activities. Case study—Cozia Massif (Southern Carpathians, Romania). Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2018, 22, 509–523. [Google Scholar]
  30. Tîrlă, L.; Matei, E.; Cuculici, R.; Vijulie, I.; Manea, G. Digital Elevation Profile: A Complex Tool for the Spatial Analysis of Hiking Trails. J. Environ. Tour. Anal. 2014, 2, 48–66. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gratton, M.; Morin, S.; Germain, D.; Voiculescu, M.; Ianăş, A. Tourism and Natural Hazards in Bâlea Glacial Area Valley, Făgăraş Massif, Romanian Carpathians. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2015, 10, 19–32. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lucaciu, G.; Marinău, M.A.; Ștef, M.; Cristea, D.I.; Olszewski-Strzyzowski, D.J. Tourism in Apuseni Mountains (Romania)—A technical proposal. Balt. J. Health Phys. Act. 2021, 13, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Desculțu Grigore, M.I.; Niță, A.; Drăguleasa, I.A.; Mazilu, M. Geotourism, a New Perspective of Post-COVID-19-Pandemic Relaunch through Travel Agencies—Case Study: Bucegi Natural Park, Romania. Sustainability 2024, 16, 985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Olariu, B. Metode de Analiză a Calității Mediilor Montane în Ariile Protejate. Studiu de Caz: Parcul Natural Bucegi. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  35. Jula, M.R.; Voiculescu, M. Ten-Year History of Hiking Accidents/Incidents in the Bucegi Mountains–Southern Carpathians, Romanian Carpathians. Rev. Hist. Geogr. Toponomast. 2024, XIX, 9–28. [Google Scholar]
  36. Velcea, V. Masivul Bucegi—Studiu Geomorfologic; Academiei R.P.R.: Bucharest, Romania, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  37. Brandolini, P.; Pelfini, M. Mapping geomorphological hazards in relation to geotourism and hiking trails. In Mapping Geoheritage; Regolini-Bissig, G., Reynard, E., Eds.; Institut Degéographie: Lausanne, The Switzerland, 2010; pp. 31–45. [Google Scholar]
  38. Marion, J.L.; Wimpey, J. Assessing the influence of sustainable trail design and maintenance on soil loss. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 189, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pickering, C.M.; Hill, W.; Newsome, D.; Leung, Y.F. Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 551–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Forest Service Trail Accesibility Guidelines (FSTAG); USDA Forest Service, National Technology and Development Program: Missoula, MT, USA, 2013.
  41. National Design Parameters; USDA Forest Service: Missoula, MT, USA, 2016.
  42. Hasselbarth, W.; Vachowski, B.; Davies, M.A. Trail Construction and Maintenance Notebook; USDA Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center: Missoula, MT, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  43. Vias Martinez, J.; Ocaña Ocaña, C. Multicriteria evaluation by GIS to determine trail hiking suitability in a natural park. Bol. Asoc. Geogr. Esp. 2014, 66, 323–339. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yoda, A.; Watanabe, T. Erosion of mountain hiking trail over a seven-year period in Daisetsuzan National Park, central Hokkaido, Japan. In Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Management; Cole, D.N., McCool, S.F., Borrie, W.T., O’Loghlin, J., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Missoula, MT, USA, 2000; pp. 172–178. [Google Scholar]
  45. Smith, I.; Pickering, C.M. Assessing the Environmental Impacts, Condition and Sustainability of Mountain Biking Trails in an Urban National Park. Environ. Manag. 2025, 75, 793–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bodoque, J.M.; Lucía, A.; Ballesteros, J.A.; Martín-Duque, J.F.; Rubiales, J.M.; Genova, M. Measuring medium-term sheet erosion in gullies from trees: A case study using dendrogeomorphological analysis of exposed pine roots in central Iberia. Geomorphology 2011, 134, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Corona, C.; Lopez Saez, J.; Rovéra, G.; Stoffel, M.; Astrade, L.; Berger, F. High resolution, quantitative reconstruction of erosion rates based on anatomical changes in exposed roots at Draix, Alpes de Haute-Provence—Critical review of existing approaches and independent quality control of results. Geomorphology 2011, 125, 433–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Matulewski, P.; Buchwal, A.; Wronska-Walach, D.; Gartner, H. Radial growth changes in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) roots subjected to trampling erosion on a hiking trail in Brodnica Lakeland, NE Poland. In Proceedings of the Tree Rings in Archaeology, Climatology and Ecology, Bialowieza, Poland, 11–15 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
  49. Leung, Y.F.; Marion, J.L. Trail degradation as influenced by environmental factors: A state-of-the-knowledge review. J. Soil. Water Conserv. 1996, 51, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Environments 12 00223 g001
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Environments 12 00223 g001
Environments 12 00223 g002
Figure 2. Tourists (a) and mountain bikers (b) on the BO trail (Jula, 2024).
Figure 2. Tourists (a) and mountain bikers (b) on the BO trail (Jula, 2024).
Environments 12 00223 g002
Environments 12 00223 g003
Figure 3. Trail forms in relation to terrain (a): a. flat surface, b. slope, c. ridge, d. steep slope, e. escarpment, f. laterally inclined trail bordered by escarpments (adapted from Brandolini and Pelfini [37]); illustration of the methodology for creating cross-sections [8] (b).
Figure 3. Trail forms in relation to terrain (a): a. flat surface, b. slope, c. ridge, d. steep slope, e. escarpment, f. laterally inclined trail bordered by escarpments (adapted from Brandolini and Pelfini [37]); illustration of the methodology for creating cross-sections [8] (b).
Environments 12 00223 g003
Environments 12 00223 g004
Figure 4. Measurements on the trails: JMA (a) (Voiculescu, 2022); BO (b) (Voiculescu, 2024).
Figure 4. Measurements on the trails: JMA (a) (Voiculescu, 2022); BO (b) (Voiculescu, 2024).
Environments 12 00223 g004
Environments 12 00223 g005
Figure 5. Minimum, average, and maximum values of homogeneous sectors identified along tourist trails: lengths (a) and widths (b).
Figure 5. Minimum, average, and maximum values of homogeneous sectors identified along tourist trails: lengths (a) and widths (b).
Environments 12 00223 g005
Environments 12 00223 g006
Figure 6. Multiple trails on the BO trail (a) and JMI trail (b), where the blue arrows indicate the marked trail, and the red arrow represents the shorter, informal one (Jula, 2024); length of sectors with parallel trails (m) and their percentage of the total trail length (c).
Figure 6. Multiple trails on the BO trail (a) and JMI trail (b), where the blue arrows indicate the marked trail, and the red arrow represents the shorter, informal one (Jula, 2024); length of sectors with parallel trails (m) and their percentage of the total trail length (c).
Environments 12 00223 g006
Environments 12 00223 g007
Figure 7. Substrate composition along the JMI (a), JMA (b), and BO (c) hiking trails, expressed as percentages of the total trail length.
Figure 7. Substrate composition along the JMI (a), JMA (b), and BO (c) hiking trails, expressed as percentages of the total trail length.
Environments 12 00223 g007
Environments 12 00223 g008
Figure 8. Distribution of segments with various slope classes along the Jepii Mici trail and the location of cross-sections.
Figure 8. Distribution of segments with various slope classes along the Jepii Mici trail and the location of cross-sections.
Environments 12 00223 g008
Environments 12 00223 g009
Figure 9. Distribution of segments with various slope classes along the Jepii Mari trail and the location of cross-sections.
Figure 9. Distribution of segments with various slope classes along the Jepii Mari trail and the location of cross-sections.
Environments 12 00223 g009
Environments 12 00223 g010
Figure 10. Distribution of segments with various slope classes along the BO trail and the location of cross-sections.
Figure 10. Distribution of segments with various slope classes along the BO trail and the location of cross-sections.
Environments 12 00223 g010
Environments 12 00223 g011
Figure 11. Bucegi Plateau near the Babele Chalet (Google Earth capture on 25 April 2024, image from 21 September 2020).
Figure 11. Bucegi Plateau near the Babele Chalet (Google Earth capture on 25 April 2024, image from 21 September 2020).
Environments 12 00223 g011
Environments 12 00223 g012
Figure 12. Cross-sections on the JMI trail in the forested zone (a); JMI trail at the tree line and in the alpine zone (b); JMA trail (c); BO trail (d), with average values/location.
Figure 12. Cross-sections on the JMI trail in the forested zone (a); JMI trail at the tree line and in the alpine zone (b); JMA trail (c); BO trail (d), with average values/location.
Environments 12 00223 g012
Environments 12 00223 g013
Figure 13. Hazards and infrastructure elements of the JMI and JMA trails.
Figure 13. Hazards and infrastructure elements of the JMI and JMA trails.
Environments 12 00223 g013
Table 1. General characteristics of the studied trails.
Table 1. General characteristics of the studied trails.
Name/CodeStarting Point (Lat/Long)Starting Altitude (m a.s.l.)Arrival Altitude (m a.s.l.)Vertical Drop (m)Length (km)Difficulty Level
(According to HG 77/2003) *
Jepii Mici/JMI45°25°24′/31′31′31″980220612265.4difficult
Jepii Mari/JMA45°25°24′/31′31″31″98019509706.8difficult
Babele–Omu Peak/BO45°25°24′/28′22″19″220625073016.1medium
* HG 77/2003 regarding the establishment of measures for preventing mountain accidents and organizing mountain rescue activities (https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/41760 (accessed on 11 February 2025)).
Table 2. Trail classification based on physical and environmental attributes.
Table 2. Trail classification based on physical and environmental attributes.
AttributeClassificationImplications
Trail Width [18,37,39,40,41,42]A: ≤50 cmDoes not allow walking side-by-side, complicating surpassing or intersecting other tourists. In sectors adjacent to steep slopes, this can lead to accidents.
B: 50–100 cmBarely accommodates side-by-side walking, and the risk of accidents is still increased near steep slopes.
C: 100–150 cmModerate width.
D: 150–300 cmSignificant tourist flows, reduced vegetation cover, the potential emergence of quasi-parallel secondary trails, visual landscape degradation, and accelerated erosion.
E: >300 cm
Trail Slope [40,41,42,43]A: ≤6°Generally accessible.
B: 6–12°Accessible when the substrate is solid.
C: 12–25°Medium difficulty; infrastructure and safety features are recommended. Slopes greater than 30% (≈17°) may be perceived as obstacles by tourists.
D: 25–40°Steep gradients and escarpments typical of semi-wild and wild areas, located on long and difficult trails, meant for well-trained and equipped tourists, as is the case of JMI and JMA trails. To safely approach such gradients, additional structures such as cables, ladders, and bridges are necessary, but their extent is limited in favor of nature conservation.
E: 40°
Substrate Type [7]Soil, gravel, rock, wood, etc.Relevant for estimating trail difficulty and choosing appropriate equipment to prevent slip-related accidents, especially during or after rain showers. Additionally, the substrate can accelerate or limit erosion triggered by tourists.
Trail Form in Relation to Terrain [37]See Figure 3aHelps tourists in making informed trail choices suited to personal interests and physical preparedness, ultimately reducing the number of mountain rescue calls. This analysis can also aid authorities responsible for trail management when planning new routes or assessing existing ones, to avoid monotonous or excessively challenging trails where possible.
Trail configuration relative to the landforms [7]Ridge, slope, or valley floorCan accelerate erosion caused by tourist traffic and expand degraded areas near trails or limit it in the case of narrow ridges.
Table 3. Morphometric parameters of trail sections.
Table 3. Morphometric parameters of trail sections.
Trail and Geoecological AreaNumber of Morphologically Homogeneous SectionsAverage Length of Sections (m)Average Width of Sections (cm)Average Slope of Sections (°)Maximum Trail Width (cm)
JMI—alpine209311121230
JMI—forested5352.6 *87 *26.2 *200 *
JMA—alpine3057.99317.7325
JMA—forested6057.95119.4130
BO—alpine32165.819511.7450
Total/average/maximum in the alpine area82105.613316.8450
Total/average/maximum in the forested area11355.36922.8200
* excludes three sectors overlapping a forest road (L = 4 m).
Table 4. Average area and volume of displaced soil in relation to trail slope.
Table 4. Average area and volume of displaced soil in relation to trail slope.
Cross-Section CodeVegetation ZoneMeasured Distance (m)Average Trail Area (cm2)Average Volume of Displaced Soil (m3/m)Average Slope (°)
JMI Trail
JMI1Forested52572.50.2616.5
JMI2Forested73187.10.3116
JMI3Tree line537550.3832.5
JMI4Alpine519410.29
JMI5Alpine54817.50.487
JMA Trail
JMA1Alpine532600.342
JMA2Tree line51543.70.1619
JMA3Forested51883.30.1816
BO Trail
BO1Alpine524550.247
BO2Alpine530000.293
BO3Alpine569800.6912.5
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jula, M.R.; Voiculescu, M. Assessment of Trail Erosion Under the Impact of Tourist Traffic in the Bucegi Mountains, Romanian Carpathians. Environments 2025, 12, 223. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12070223

AMA Style

Jula MR, Voiculescu M. Assessment of Trail Erosion Under the Impact of Tourist Traffic in the Bucegi Mountains, Romanian Carpathians. Environments. 2025; 12(7):223. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12070223

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jula, Mihai Radu, and Mircea Voiculescu. 2025. "Assessment of Trail Erosion Under the Impact of Tourist Traffic in the Bucegi Mountains, Romanian Carpathians" Environments 12, no. 7: 223. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12070223

APA Style

Jula, M. R., & Voiculescu, M. (2025). Assessment of Trail Erosion Under the Impact of Tourist Traffic in the Bucegi Mountains, Romanian Carpathians. Environments, 12(7), 223. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12070223

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop