Difference between revisions of "Jelzett gyalogos turisztikai útvonalhálózatok látogatóközpontú jellemzése (Visitor-centered characterization of waymarked walking trails for tourism) (Molnár A., 2021)"

From Sustainable Trails Toolbox
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
= Where to Find? =
= Where to Find? =


''(to be added)''
''(shared directly by the author)''


= Abstract or Summary =
= Abstract or Summary =
Line 24: Line 24:
= Table of Contents =
= Table of Contents =
List of figures.......................................................................................................4
List of figures.......................................................................................................4
List of tables...............................................................................................5
List of tables...............................................................................................5
1. Introduction and aims.......................................................................................6
 
• 1.1. Recreation on foot, tourism and marked trails......................................6
1. Introduction and aims.......................................................................................6
• 1.2. What is to be expected from the trails and on what basis?................7
 
• 1.3. The particular topic of the thesis and outline........................................9
• 1.1. Recreation on foot, tourism and marked trails......................................6
• 1.4. Aim, relevance and novelty of the study................................................10
 
• 1.5. Personal relation to the topic and acknowledgements..........................13
• 1.2. What is to be expected from the trails and on what basis?................7
2. Theoretical background and related work............................................................14
 
• 2.1. Conceptual framework. Backround and place of the phenomenon in the system of tourism....14
• 1.3. The particular topic of the thesis and outline........................................9
• 2.2. Visitors and development trends...................................................................16
 
• 2.3. Information and infrastructure-related questions of the hiking/pedestrian trail network........19
• 1.4. Aim, relevance and novelty of the study................................................10
• 2.4. Trail accreditation and classification systems and their selection....................26
 
• 2.5. The Danube Bend region and the selection of study areas...............................29
• 1.5. Personal relation to the topic and acknowledgements..........................13
3. Research method..............................................................................................31
 
• 3.1. Comparative analysis and overall synthesis of the international systems ....31
2. Theoretical background and related work............................................................14
• 3.2. General situation report relevant for Hungary and the study areas...........32
 
• 3.3. Trail network and information analysis in the study areas..............…….....34
• 2.1. Conceptual framework. Backround and place of the phenomenon in the system of tourism....14
• 3.4. Formulating general conclusions and recommendations..............................36
 
4. Analysis and synthesis of trail accreditation and classification systems.........……….37
• 2.2. Visitors and development trends...................................................................16
• 4.1. Leading Quality Trails – „Best of Europe”.................................................37
 
• 4.2. Schweizer Wanderwege: the hiking trail network system of Switzerland....39
• 2.3. Information and infrastructure-related questions of the hiking/pedestrian trail network........19
• 4.3. USDA Forest Service Trail System (United States of America)............44
 
• 4.4. Green Flag Trails: the global accreditation system of the WTN ...........48
• 2.4. Trail accreditation and classification systems and their selection....................26
• 4.5. Comparison and extract synthesis of the above systems.......................50
 
5. General situation report of Hungary and the study areas......................................53
• 2.5. The Danube Bend region and the selection of study areas...............................29
• 5.1. Looking into the practical side of the organizational and operational background.....53
 
• 5.2. Visitor needs and preferences reflected by the questionnaires............................58
3. Research method..............................................................................................31
• 5.3. Identification and system-level analysis of trail information sources of the study areas...60
 
6. Analysis of the study area of Dömös and surroundings.....................................................65
• 3.1. Comparative analysis and overall synthesis of the international systems ....31
• 6.1. Defining the area’s boundary, overview of its characteristics and trail network........65
 
• 6.2. Trip opportunities and visitor numbers....................................................................65
• 3.2. General situation report relevant for Hungary and the study areas...........32
• 6.3. Restults of field observatios...............................................................67
 
• 6.4. Map and online information analysis based on the above................70
• 3.3. Trail network and information analysis in the study areas..............…….....34
• 6.5. General remarks and conclusions.....................................................71
 
7. Analysis of the study area Nagymaros-Zebegény ............................................72
• 3.4. Formulating general conclusions and recommendations..............................36
• 7.1. Defining the area’s boundary, overview of its characteristics and attractions.........72
 
• 7.2. Pedestrian/Hiking trail network and trip opportunities........................................73
4. Analysis and synthesis of trail accreditation and classification systems.........……….37
• 7.3. Results of field observations............................................................……………..74
 
• 7.4. Map and online information analysis based on the above...............…….............77
• 4.1. Leading Quality Trails – „Best of Europe”.................................................37
• 7.5. General remarks and conclusions.....................................................78
 
8. Analysis of the study area Esztergom–Búbánatvölgy ....................................80
• 4.2. Schweizer Wanderwege: the hiking trail network system of Switzerland....39
• 8.1. Characteristics, attractions and trail network of the area...............80
 
• 8.2. Defining the boundary of the study area, overview of its connections and trip opportunities...81
• 4.3. USDA Forest Service Trail System (United States of America)............44
• 8.3. Results of field observations...............................................................82
 
• 8.4. Map and online information analysis based on the above.................85
• 4.4. Green Flag Trails: the global accreditation system of the WTN ...........48
• 8.5. General remarks and conclusions.....................................................86
 
9. General conclusions and recommendations.............................................................87
• 4.5. Comparison and extract synthesis of the above systems.......................50
• 9.1. General evalation and statements about the trail network ......................87
 
• 9.2. General conclusions of the information analyses....................................89
5. General situation report of Hungary and the study areas......................................53
• 9.3. Applicability of trail classification and accreditation systems [in Hungary]........90
 
• 9.4. Recommendation of a trail characterization/typology system. Basis for local developments...92
• 5.1. Looking into the practical side of the organizational and operational background.....53
• 9.5. Summary of the overall and system-level challenges and recommendations...............95
 
• 9.6. Possible generalizations and limitations. Recommendations for future research….96
• 5.2. Visitor needs and preferences reflected by the questionnaires............................58
10. Summary.................................................................................................100
 
• 5.3. Identification and system-level analysis of trail information sources of the study areas...60
 
6. Analysis of the study area of Dömös and surroundings.....................................................65
 
• 6.1. Defining the area’s boundary, overview of its characteristics and trail network........65
 
• 6.2. Trip opportunities and visitor numbers....................................................................65
 
• 6.3. Restults of field observatios...............................................................67
 
• 6.4. Map and online information analysis based on the above................70
 
• 6.5. General remarks and conclusions.....................................................71
 
7. Analysis of the study area Nagymaros-Zebegény ............................................72
 
• 7.1. Defining the area’s boundary, overview of its characteristics and attractions.........72
 
• 7.2. Pedestrian/Hiking trail network and trip opportunities........................................73
 
• 7.3. Results of field observations............................................................……………..74
 
• 7.4. Map and online information analysis based on the above...............…….............77
 
• 7.5. General remarks and conclusions.....................................................78
 
8. Analysis of the study area Esztergom–Búbánatvölgy ....................................80
 
• 8.1. Characteristics, attractions and trail network of the area...............80
 
• 8.2. Defining the boundary of the study area, overview of its connections and trip opportunities...81
 
• 8.3. Results of field observations...............................................................82
 
• 8.4. Map and online information analysis based on the above.................85
 
• 8.5. General remarks and conclusions.....................................................86
 
9. General conclusions and recommendations.............................................................87
 
• 9.1. General evalation and statements about the trail network ......................87
 
• 9.2. General conclusions of the information analyses....................................89
 
• 9.3. Applicability of trail classification and accreditation systems [in Hungary]........90
 
• 9.4. Recommendation of a trail characterization/typology system. Basis for local developments...92
 
• 9.5. Summary of the overall and system-level challenges and recommendations...............95
 
• 9.6. Possible generalizations and limitations. Recommendations for future research….96
 
10. Summary.................................................................................................100
 
Epilogue........................................................................................................102
Epilogue........................................................................................................102
Bibliography.................................................................................................103 Annexes................................................................................……………….. i
 
Bibliography.................................................................................................103
 
Annexes................................................................................……………….. i
 
ANNEXES
ANNEXES
A. Overview figures and tables about the study.........................................………………..........iii
 
• A/1. Overview of the research method and materials.....................………………............iii
A. Overview figures and tables about the study.........................................………………..........iii
• A/2. List of interviews with professionals.........................................................................iv
 
B. Trail marking/signage system of pedestrian/hiking trails............................................………....v
• A/1. Overview of the research method and materials.....................………………............iii
• B/1. General model and tools of the pedestrian/hiking trail marking/signage systems..…...v
 
• B/2. Hiking trail marking system in Hungary and how it is referenced [in this thesis]........vi
• A/2. List of interviews with professionals.........................................................................iv
• B/3. European trail marking principles..................................................................vii
 
C. Details from the international trail classification and accreditation systems. ……….viii
B. Trail marking/signage system of pedestrian/hiking trails............................................………....v
• C/1. Overview table with preliminary comparison of the systems .....................viii
 
• C/2. Qualification criteria of Leading Quality Trails – Best of Europe .............ix
• B/1. General model and tools of the pedestrian/hiking trail marking/signage systems..…...v
• C/3. Trail categories and selected aspects of the Swiss hiking trail system........xi
 
• C/4. Trail attributes and categorization aspects of the USDA Forest Service … xv
• B/2. Hiking trail marking system in Hungary and how it is referenced [in this thesis]........vi
• C/5. The aspects and multicriterial typology system of Green Flag Trails …..xxii
 
D. Dimensions and synthesis model of trail characterization ......................................xxvii
• B/3. European trail marking principles..................................................................vii
• D/1. Systematized characterizing dimensions and aspects/attributes.............................xxvii
 
• D/2. Synthesis model – the framework of “the ideal pedestrian/hiking trail/route”.....xxxii
C. Details from the international trail classification and accreditation systems. ……….viii
• D/3. The international systems looked from the synthesis model......…………….........xxxiii
 
• D/4. Hiker/Pedestrian-friendly aspects based on the international systems..............xxxiii
• C/1. Overview table with preliminary comparison of the systems .....................viii
• D/5. A possible trail categorization/classification system for Hungary.......................xxxv
 
E. Visitor monitoring questionnaire and its online results...............……………...............xxxviii
• C/2. Qualification criteria of Leading Quality Trails – Best of Europe .............ix
• E/1. The original questionnaire of the PBR visitor counting..................................xxxviii
 
• E/2. Supplementary questions to the PBR visitor counting questionnaire.....................xl
• C/3. Trail categories and selected aspects of the Swiss hiking trail system........xi
• E/3. Results of the preliminary evaluation of the PBR questionnaires filled-in online....xli
 
F. Listing and content structure of the analysed information sources [media]..………............xlvi
• C/4. Trail attributes and categorization aspects of the USDA Forest Service … xv
• F/1. Selected information sources of the trail owners/managers at the study areas.....xlvi
 
• F/2. Main content elements of the analysed hiking maps....................................xlvii
• C/5. The aspects and multicriterial typology system of Green Flag Trails …..xxii
• F/4. Structural information analysis of Outdooractive and Természetjáró.hu ....xlviii
 
G. Overview of the study areas and field trips...............................................lv
D. Dimensions and synthesis model of trail characterization ......................................xxvii
• G/1. Overview of the study areas with aspects of their selection...........lv
 
• G/2. List of field trips............................................................................lvi
• D/1. Systematized characterizing dimensions and aspects/attributes.............................xxvii
H. Maps of study areas and recorded trail points..................………………………….lvii
 
• H/1. Study area of Dömös..................................................................................lvii • H/2. Study area of Nagymaros–Zebegény ..........................................................lx
• D/2. Synthesis model – the framework of “the ideal pedestrian/hiking trail/route”.....xxxii
• H/3. Sudy area of Esztergom–Búbánatvölgy .....................................................lxv
 
I. Details of information analyses about the study areas...............................................lxix
• D/3. The international systems looked from the synthesis model......…………….........xxxiii
• I/1. Information analysis of the Dömös study area..............................................lxix
 
• I/2. Information analysis of the Nagymaros-Zebegény study area..........................lxxi
• D/4. Hiker/Pedestrian-friendly aspects based on the international systems..............xxxiii
• I/3. Information analysis of the Esztergom-Búbánatvölgy study area....................lxxv
 
J. Sample trail section characterizations according to the synthesis model......................lxxviii
• D/5. A possible trail categorization/classification system for Hungary.......................xxxv
K. Details of the system-level analyses and conclusions......................…………………...lxxxiii
 
• K/1. A draft SWOT analysis of the hiking/pedestrian trail network in Hungary …lxxxiii
E. Visitor monitoring questionnaire and its online results...............……………...............xxxviii
• K/2. General situation report and the author’s position as a result of the study.....lxxxv
 
• K/3. Evaluation of applicability of the international systems [for Hungary] ...........xci
• E/1. The original questionnaire of the PBR visitor counting..................................xxxviii
• K/4. Examples of local development suggestions based on a strategic approach ...xcv
 
• K/5. Recommended system-level actions/measures..................................................xcvii
• E/2. Supplementary questions to the PBR visitor counting questionnaire.....................xl
 
• E/3. Results of the preliminary evaluation of the PBR questionnaires filled-in online....xli
 
F. Listing and content structure of the analysed information sources [media]..………............xlvi
 
• F/1. Selected information sources of the trail owners/managers at the study areas.....xlvi
 
• F/2. Main content elements of the analysed hiking maps....................................xlvii
 
• F/4. Structural information analysis of Outdooractive and Természetjáró.hu ....xlviii
 
G. Overview of the study areas and field trips...............................................lv
 
• G/1. Overview of the study areas with aspects of their selection...........lv
 
• G/2. List of field trips............................................................................lvi
 
H. Maps of study areas and recorded trail points..................………………………….lvii
 
• H/1. Study area of Dömös..................................................................................lvii
 
• H/2. Study area of Nagymaros–Zebegény ..........................................................lx
 
• H/3. Sudy area of Esztergom–Búbánatvölgy .....................................................lxv
 
I. Details of information analyses about the study areas...............................................lxix
 
• I/1. Information analysis of the Dömös study area..............................................lxix
 
• I/2. Information analysis of the Nagymaros-Zebegény study area..........................lxxi
 
• I/3. Information analysis of the Esztergom-Búbánatvölgy study area....................lxxv
 
J. Sample trail section characterizations according to the synthesis model......................lxxviii
 
K. Details of the system-level analyses and conclusions......................…………………...lxxxiii
 
• K/1. A draft SWOT analysis of the hiking/pedestrian trail network in Hungary …lxxxiii
 
• K/2. General situation report and the author’s position as a result of the study.....lxxxv
 
• K/3. Evaluation of applicability of the international systems [for Hungary] ...........xci
 
• K/4. Examples of local development suggestions based on a strategic approach ...xcv
 
• K/5. Recommended system-level actions/measures..................................................xcvii


= Relevance =  
= Relevance =  
 
Check this source if you are interested into knowing:
''(will be added)''
* how compared the Hungarian trail system from the international counterpart; and
* perception of visitors of trails in Hungary


= Bibliographical Data =
= Bibliographical Data =
Line 142: Line 248:
Partial translation by the author.
Partial translation by the author.


 
[[Category:Europe‏‎]]
= Categories =
[[Category:Trail Classification‏‎]]
''(Categories will be added)''
[[Category:Visitors‏‎]]
[[Category:Management (Organizational)‏‎]]

Latest revision as of 23:29, 16 September 2022

Type of Publication

Scientific research

Language

Hungarian

Where to Find?

(shared directly by the author)

Abstract or Summary

Visitor-centered characterization of waymarked walking trails for tourism – A comparison of international trail classification and accreditation systems and the examination of their possible application in Hungary based on case studies in the Danube Bend area.

Introduction 'Trails matter. They connect us. They move us. They shape us through shared experiences in the outdoors, and in turn we shape and impact trails. They make the world a better place.' (World Trails Network motto). (Full title and Introduction)

Table of Contents

List of figures.......................................................................................................4

List of tables...............................................................................................5

1. Introduction and aims.......................................................................................6

• 1.1. Recreation on foot, tourism and marked trails......................................6

• 1.2. What is to be expected from the trails and on what basis?................7

• 1.3. The particular topic of the thesis and outline........................................9

• 1.4. Aim, relevance and novelty of the study................................................10

• 1.5. Personal relation to the topic and acknowledgements..........................13

2. Theoretical background and related work............................................................14

• 2.1. Conceptual framework. Backround and place of the phenomenon in the system of tourism....14

• 2.2. Visitors and development trends...................................................................16

• 2.3. Information and infrastructure-related questions of the hiking/pedestrian trail network........19

• 2.4. Trail accreditation and classification systems and their selection....................26

• 2.5. The Danube Bend region and the selection of study areas...............................29

3. Research method..............................................................................................31

• 3.1. Comparative analysis and overall synthesis of the international systems ....31

• 3.2. General situation report relevant for Hungary and the study areas...........32

• 3.3. Trail network and information analysis in the study areas..............…….....34

• 3.4. Formulating general conclusions and recommendations..............................36

4. Analysis and synthesis of trail accreditation and classification systems.........……….37

• 4.1. Leading Quality Trails – „Best of Europe”.................................................37

• 4.2. Schweizer Wanderwege: the hiking trail network system of Switzerland....39

• 4.3. USDA Forest Service Trail System (United States of America)............44

• 4.4. Green Flag Trails: the global accreditation system of the WTN ...........48

• 4.5. Comparison and extract synthesis of the above systems.......................50

5. General situation report of Hungary and the study areas......................................53

• 5.1. Looking into the practical side of the organizational and operational background.....53

• 5.2. Visitor needs and preferences reflected by the questionnaires............................58

• 5.3. Identification and system-level analysis of trail information sources of the study areas...60

6. Analysis of the study area of Dömös and surroundings.....................................................65

• 6.1. Defining the area’s boundary, overview of its characteristics and trail network........65

• 6.2. Trip opportunities and visitor numbers....................................................................65

• 6.3. Restults of field observatios...............................................................67

• 6.4. Map and online information analysis based on the above................70

• 6.5. General remarks and conclusions.....................................................71

7. Analysis of the study area Nagymaros-Zebegény ............................................72

• 7.1. Defining the area’s boundary, overview of its characteristics and attractions.........72

• 7.2. Pedestrian/Hiking trail network and trip opportunities........................................73

• 7.3. Results of field observations............................................................……………..74

• 7.4. Map and online information analysis based on the above...............…….............77

• 7.5. General remarks and conclusions.....................................................78

8. Analysis of the study area Esztergom–Búbánatvölgy ....................................80

• 8.1. Characteristics, attractions and trail network of the area...............80

• 8.2. Defining the boundary of the study area, overview of its connections and trip opportunities...81

• 8.3. Results of field observations...............................................................82

• 8.4. Map and online information analysis based on the above.................85

• 8.5. General remarks and conclusions.....................................................86

9. General conclusions and recommendations.............................................................87

• 9.1. General evalation and statements about the trail network ......................87

• 9.2. General conclusions of the information analyses....................................89

• 9.3. Applicability of trail classification and accreditation systems [in Hungary]........90

• 9.4. Recommendation of a trail characterization/typology system. Basis for local developments...92

• 9.5. Summary of the overall and system-level challenges and recommendations...............95

• 9.6. Possible generalizations and limitations. Recommendations for future research….96

10. Summary.................................................................................................100

Epilogue........................................................................................................102

Bibliography.................................................................................................103

Annexes................................................................................……………….. i

ANNEXES

A. Overview figures and tables about the study.........................................………………..........iii

• A/1. Overview of the research method and materials.....................………………............iii

• A/2. List of interviews with professionals.........................................................................iv

B. Trail marking/signage system of pedestrian/hiking trails............................................………....v

• B/1. General model and tools of the pedestrian/hiking trail marking/signage systems..…...v

• B/2. Hiking trail marking system in Hungary and how it is referenced [in this thesis]........vi

• B/3. European trail marking principles..................................................................vii

C. Details from the international trail classification and accreditation systems. ……….viii

• C/1. Overview table with preliminary comparison of the systems .....................viii

• C/2. Qualification criteria of Leading Quality Trails – Best of Europe .............ix

• C/3. Trail categories and selected aspects of the Swiss hiking trail system........xi

• C/4. Trail attributes and categorization aspects of the USDA Forest Service … xv

• C/5. The aspects and multicriterial typology system of Green Flag Trails …..xxii

D. Dimensions and synthesis model of trail characterization ......................................xxvii

• D/1. Systematized characterizing dimensions and aspects/attributes.............................xxvii

• D/2. Synthesis model – the framework of “the ideal pedestrian/hiking trail/route”.....xxxii

• D/3. The international systems looked from the synthesis model......…………….........xxxiii

• D/4. Hiker/Pedestrian-friendly aspects based on the international systems..............xxxiii

• D/5. A possible trail categorization/classification system for Hungary.......................xxxv

E. Visitor monitoring questionnaire and its online results...............……………...............xxxviii

• E/1. The original questionnaire of the PBR visitor counting..................................xxxviii

• E/2. Supplementary questions to the PBR visitor counting questionnaire.....................xl

• E/3. Results of the preliminary evaluation of the PBR questionnaires filled-in online....xli

F. Listing and content structure of the analysed information sources [media]..………............xlvi

• F/1. Selected information sources of the trail owners/managers at the study areas.....xlvi

• F/2. Main content elements of the analysed hiking maps....................................xlvii

• F/4. Structural information analysis of Outdooractive and Természetjáró.hu ....xlviii

G. Overview of the study areas and field trips...............................................lv

• G/1. Overview of the study areas with aspects of their selection...........lv

• G/2. List of field trips............................................................................lvi

H. Maps of study areas and recorded trail points..................………………………….lvii

• H/1. Study area of Dömös..................................................................................lvii

• H/2. Study area of Nagymaros–Zebegény ..........................................................lx

• H/3. Sudy area of Esztergom–Búbánatvölgy .....................................................lxv

I. Details of information analyses about the study areas...............................................lxix

• I/1. Information analysis of the Dömös study area..............................................lxix

• I/2. Information analysis of the Nagymaros-Zebegény study area..........................lxxi

• I/3. Information analysis of the Esztergom-Búbánatvölgy study area....................lxxv

J. Sample trail section characterizations according to the synthesis model......................lxxviii

K. Details of the system-level analyses and conclusions......................…………………...lxxxiii

• K/1. A draft SWOT analysis of the hiking/pedestrian trail network in Hungary …lxxxiii

• K/2. General situation report and the author’s position as a result of the study.....lxxxv

• K/3. Evaluation of applicability of the international systems [for Hungary] ...........xci

• K/4. Examples of local development suggestions based on a strategic approach ...xcv

• K/5. Recommended system-level actions/measures..................................................xcvii

Relevance

Check this source if you are interested into knowing:

  • how compared the Hungarian trail system from the international counterpart; and
  • perception of visitors of trails in Hungary

Bibliographical Data

  • Author: Dr. Molnár András József (ed.), Bódis Gábor (supervisor)
  • Title (original): Jelzett gyalogos turisztikai útvonalhálózatok látogatóközpontú jellemzése
  • Title in English: Visitor-centered characterization of waymarked walking trails for tourism
  • Year: 2021
  • Publisher: Corvinus University of Budapest (to be confirmed)

English Transcript

Partial translation by the author.

Retrieved from "http://mountainsteward.net/toolbox/wiki/index.php?title=Jelzett_gyalogos_turisztikai_útvonalhálózatok_látogatóközpontú_jellemzése_(Visitor-centered_characterization_of_waymarked_walking_trails_for_tourism)_(Molnár_A.,_2021)&oldid=684"