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

Type of Publication

Scientific research

Language

Hungarian

Where to Find?

(to be added)

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

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

(will be added)

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.

Categories

(Categories will be added)