Comparison of Nature Tourism in Two Hungarian Forest-Dominated Areas—Results of Visitor Surveys

Abstract

Recreation and nature-based tourism targeting forests are important cultural services provided by forests, and are also considered non-productive social functions of forests. Many factors influence the demand for forest recreation and tourism that are worth exploring for each forest area. The main aim of our study was to compare the results of visitor surveys related to two mountainous forested areas (Börzsöny and Cserhát) that are both located near to the capital city of Budapest but have different characteristics regarding the forests, accessibility, and the level of tourism infrastructure and services. The questionnaires focused on the characteristics of the visits, perceptions of visitors regarding the values of the areas, and the development needs besides the characteristics of the respondents. In addition to basic statistics, Chi² and Fisher’s exact tests were used to detect the differences between the two sites. Despite the different characteristics of the study areas, the main results were quite similar at both sites. Most respondents came from Budapest or within a 60 km distance of the sites by car with family and friends, mainly for hiking and nature walks, and spent less than a day in the areas. The state of forests was perceived as good in both areas. Landscape and fresh air were the most attracting factors for visiting both sites. There was a demand for more guided tours, and regarding tourism infrastructure development needs, benches and toilets ranked high at both sites. However, there were also some slight differences between the sites. For example, Börzsöny was visited more frequently, and railway and bicycle were more often used to access this site. Pleasant climate, easy access and fresh air were more important reasons to visit Börzsöny, and it was more associated with wilderness. In Cserhát, low prices and cultural values seemed more important reasons to visit; Hollókő as a world heritage site was highlighted, and more nature-related and other tourism development needs were mentioned regarding this site. These differences were probably due to the different characteristics of the forests (more mosaic forests in Cserhát), the level of the public transportation network, tourist infrastructure and services (higher in Börzsöny), and cultural heritage (more important in Cserhát). Based on our results, Cserhát needs more development in tourism infrastructure and services, while in Börzsöny, the development of a visitor management plan would be useful to harmonize the different uses of the forest.

1. Introduction

Forests cover approximately 35% of the total land area in Europe, and almost a quarter of it is protected for its rich biodiversity or for its unique landscape characteristics [1]. Hungary has over 2 million hectares of forest (21% forest cover) [2], of which more than 20% is protected by Hungarian law, and around 40% is designated as Natura 2000 areas of European importance [3]. In Europe, more than half of forests are in public ownership [1]. In Hungary, more than half of all forests are owned by the state [2], and most of these forest areas are managed by state forest companies [4].

It has also been recognized in Europe that forests provide a wide range of ecosystem services, not just wood, and besides their economic function, they have ecological/protective and social/cultural functions as well [5,6,7]. Recreation and nature-based tourism targeting forests are important cultural services provided by forest ecosystems [8], and are also considered non-productive social functions of forests [6]. In Europe, 70% of forests and other wooded land can be used by the public for recreation [1], and this is gaining importance [9].

In Europe, 70% of the forested and wooded area is available for recreation, and 7% is primarily managed for recreational purposes [1]. Most forests in Hungary are open for visitors; only strictly protected areas and forest reserves are excluded from tourism and recreation, which comprise less than 10% of forest areas [3]. A recent Hungarian national assessment of nature-based recreation as a cultural ecosystem service shows that mountainous forest areas, especially with natural forest cover, are among the best places for recreation [10]. Hungarian national surveys also indicate the popularity of mountainous forests among Hungarian citizens for recreation and nature-based tourism [11]. A newly published study estimates the economic value of recreational services (mostly hiking and walking) of forest ecosystems in Hungary for EUR 100 million per year (in 2020 EUR) using the travel cost method [12], which accounts for 8%–9% of the total domestic tourism expenditure of the Hungarian population [13].

A review article by Ciesielski and Sterenczak [9] shows that many factors influence the demand for forest visits. Besides the demographic characteristics of visitors (e.g., age, education) and their place of residence (e.g., local population or tourists), there are factors related to the forest as well (e.g., accessibility, forest appearance, forest management including leisure infrastructure, and negative factors such as noise or tourist density).

Forest attributes important for recreation might consist of the type of forest, age of stands, species composition, layers, ground vegetation, forest management type, and deadwood, among others, and the preferred forest can vary by region [9,14]. Dudek et al. assessed the recreational potential of four mountainous national parks in Poland characterized by over 80% of forest cover. The forest attributes examined included characteristics of the stands and their habitats (habitat moisture, age of stands, slope, stand density, ground vegetation, species composition) [15].

The habits, preferences, and perceptions of forest visitors are usually assessed by visitor surveys at local, regional or national scale. They can help forest managers understand the motivation and characteristics of visitors as well as their use of the forests and maintain a balance between the different forest functions (economic, ecological, and social) and between different ecosystem services (provisioning, regulation and maintenance, and cultural).

There are many recent publications on visitor surveys from Europe related to forests outside cities. The main focus and the geographical coverage of the surveys vary. Šodková et al. [16] carried out a nationwide large-sample survey in the Czech Republic focusing on the frequency of visits to forests and the main drivers behind these visits. Paletto et al. [17] investigated visitors of a peri-urban forest near Florence, Italy, focusing on the behavior of the visitors, the benefits they received from the forests, and their preferences towards some forest characteristics, including silvicultural treatments. Abildtrup et al. [18] applied a choice experiment in Northeastern France to analyze the preferences of visitors for different forest attributes (dominant tree species, hiking paths, facilities, access to water, and distance from home). Eriksson et al. [19] carried out a scene preference study among social science and forestry students in Sweden to explore their visual preference and intention to engage in forest activities depending on the forest setting. Skłodowski and Gołos [20] presented the results of a nationwide survey in Poland focusing on preference for different types of tourist trails and infrastructure elements when visiting a forest. Benkhard [21] conducted a questionnaire survey among visitors of the Pilis Biosphere reserve, which is a forest-covered mountainous area in the close proximity of Budapest, in Hungary, and she combined it with tourist counting.

Connecting site data and the results of visitor surveys is quite rare. Hegetschweiler et al. [22,23] made an attempt to connect natural and social scientific monitoring data related to forest recreation in Switzerland. In the earlier study, a pilot was made in 7 forests, and in the latter study, it was conducted in 41 forest plots distributed across Switzerland. Social data came from visitor surveys and were connected to forest data from the National Forest Inventory. Comparisons of a wider set of site characteristics and the results of visitor surveys are still lacking.

In this article, we compare the results of visitor surveys related to two mountainous forested areas in Hungary that are situated within 100 km-s from the capital city of the country. The chosen forests differ in their characteristics, accessibility as well as in their recreational infrastructure and services. Our aim is to investigate whether there are differences in the characteristics of the respondents, the visits, the values of the forests important for the visitors and the development needs regarding the two mountainous forest areas taking into account the differences in the characteristics of the sites. With this inquiry, we would like to make some steps to connect data available about the sites and the information gathered from visitors, which is a novelty of this research. The results of this investigation can be useful for forest managers in planning visitor management at these sites, which are currently lacking. We also provide comparable results with other Central European and European surveys.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Areas

The two study areas (Börzsöny and Cserhát) are located in the northern part of Hungary, within a hundred-kilometer distance from Budapest, the capital city (Figure 1).

2.1.1. Börzsöny Mountain

The Börzsöny mountain range is located in the northern part of Hungary, the westernmost part of the North Hungarian Mountains (Figure 2), and it is the third highest mountain in the country, with its highest peak being at 938 m [24,25]. It is protected by Hungarian law as part of the Duna-Ipoly National Park [26] and belongs to the Natura 2000 network of the European Union [27,28]. There is also a strictly protected forest reserve of 91.3 ha with a 305.1 ha protection zone around it, where no forestry activities and limited tourism are allowed [29]. The mountain range is characterized by a diverse topography, with steeply rising calderas, ridges from the main peak and V-shaped valleys [26]. Settlements are only found in the peripheral areas of the mountain range; there are no inhabited areas in the interior of Börzsöny (Figure 3) [30]. Post-volcanic tectonism and the erosional valley network played a role in the formation of Börzsöny [24,31]. The forest cover is 72% based on Corine Land cover, and forests form a large contiguous forest block of more than 34 thousand hectares. The built-up areas comprise less than 4% of the area [32]. Börzsöny is very diverse in forest types. Closed calcareous and thermophilic oak forests have developed on the southern and western slopes, while on the northern and eastern slopes, along valleys, beech forests, and near the rocky outcrops, open scrub oak forests with no stems are found [33]. Native tree species are dominant (sessile oak: 35%, turkey oak: 21%, beech: 19%, European hornbeam: 11%). Among the non-native species, black locust has the largest territory (7%). Regarding naturalness, it is among the best in the country. The proportion of semi-natural forest is 51%, and the secondary forest covers 39% of the area. Due to its conservation status, the majority of the forests (78%) serve as primary areas for nature conservation, 16% is used for economic purposes, and the rest is for other purposes. Clear-cut forestry is still the dominating management type (81%), but conversion to selective felling is underway on around 11% of the area, selective felling is practiced on 3% of the area, and the rest is non-productive forest. Nevertheless, due to the high proportion of native species, the cutting age is quite high [32]. The age group composition of the forests is quite balanced, and the proportion of tree species older than 100 years is more than 20%. Field investigations show that the number of standing dead trees is quite low, and the number of lying dead trees is under 5 m³/ha in most forest plots [27]. The flora of the mountain range is diverse, with more than 150 protected species of woody plants, and 4 species of protected plants [34]. The fauna of Börzsöny is also very diverse, with numerous reptile and amphibian species near streams and wetlands, and dry grasslands provide habitats for numerous insects. One of the most interesting species of vertebrate fauna is the lynx (Lynx lynx), which occasionally appears in the undisturbed forests of the Börzsöny [35]. In terms of ownership, 80% of the forests are state-owned, the largest part of which is managed by a state forestry company [32]. The mountain range is very popular among hikers due to its continuous natural forest cover, lack of public roads and settlements in the central area and to its proximity to Budapest, where a fifth of Hungary’s population live. There is approximately 300 km of signposted tourist trail network, and 65 km of bicycle trails are found in the area. Börzsöny can be approached by railway in the southern and eastern parts, and narrow-gauge railways go into the mountain. Three visitor centers are located near to the most popular spots, and there are some study trails as well. Guided tours are provided by the national park directorate and the state forestry company. Guest houses and cabins are the most typical accommodation types situated in many parts of the area [36].

2.1.2. Cserhát Nature Park

In Hungary, the nature park initiative is a joint effort of local governments, NGOs, businesses and individuals. In Hungary, nature parks can only be established with the approval of the regionally competent national park directorate and must include protected areas [38]. Cserhát is located in the North Hungarian Mountains between the Börzsöny and Mátra mountain ranges (Figure 4). The core area of the Cserhát Nature Park consists of the areas of 22 municipalities, 2 landscape protection areas, and 6 Natura 2000 sites [39,40]. The Cserhát varies in altitude from 144 to 574 m above sea level, and is a low mountainous area with valley basins and low hills bordered by winter ranges [40]. The area is suitable for forestry and less heat-intensive agricultural crops [24,39]. It is named after the once-dominant tree species, turkey oak (Quercus cerris), which used to cover the hilly areas [40]. The landscape is mosaic, with patches of forest alternating with stream-side wetlands and valley bottom wetlands on the rolling hills [39]. The forest cover is around 35% based on the Corine Land Cover. The non-native black locust is present in the highest proportion (33%) among the tree species, followed by the native European hornbeam (26%) and sessile oak (18%). The naturalness of the forest is not so good compared to the other mountainous forests in the country. The ratio of semi-natural forest is 22%, and the secondary forest covers 33%. A total of 67% of the forests serve economic purposes for timber production, only 15% is used for nature conservation purposes, and the rest is used for other purposes. Clear-cut forestry is the dominating management type (94%), conversion to selective felling is underway on around 2%, selective felling is practiced only in 1% of the area, and the rest is non-productive forest. The age group composition of the forests is quite unbalanced, and the proportion of tree species older than 100 years is less than 10%. In Cserhát, 55% of the forest areas are state-owned, the majority of which is managed by state forestry companies [32]. The area can be accessed mostly by road. There is over 200 km of hiking trails (Blue Trail, Mary’s Road, Green Trail) along which forestry facilities (lookouts, show places) have been established for recreation and tourism purposes, but a bicycle path network is missing. A few guest houses offer accommodation to the visitors of the area. However, no visitor center has been established in the nature park so far [24,41,42,43]. The remaining archaisms and folk costumes preserve the folk culture of the Cserhát region to this day [41]. Hollókő, a jewel of Palóc folk architecture, has had worldwide fame for Hungarians since it was declared a World Heritage Site in 1987 [44].

2.2. Data Gathering and Analysis

Two online questionnaire surveys were carried out among tourists visiting the study areas, using the tool of Limesurvey [45]. The survey related to the Börzsöny mountain was conducted between November 2021 and January 2022, while the other survey related to the Cserhát nature park was conducted between October 2023 and March 2024. Both questionnaires were divided into 4 major units: 1. visiting habits, 2. nature and landscape 3. development needs, and 4. demographics (see questions analyzed in this paper in Appendix A). We used many different question types, including open, closed, yes/no, single- and multiple-choice, short-answer and Likert-scale questions. For some questions, we wanted to elicit individual, subjective opinions, so we used an open-ended question format [46]. The two questionnaires contained some similar questions, allowing a comparison, and also questions specific to the area. After testing, they were shared on social media platforms such as Facebook, in several community groups related to hiking or local area groups, and mailing lists were also used to attract respondents. The responses were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet and, after cleaning and coding, they were analyzed with the assistance of the IBM SPSS Statistics 29 software using basic statistical methods, Chi² and Fisher’s exact test, for association between the two sites.

From the three expressions that first came to the mind of the respondents, word clouds were generated for both sites based on the frequency of occurrences using WordArt software (https://wordart.com/create, accessed on 29 August 2024) [47].

The questionnaire surveys were carried out following the ethical guidelines of social science research [48] ensuring anonymity, confidentiality, voluntary participation and no harm to participants.

To visualize the research project and results, creating maps and infographics QGIS 3.28 ‘Firenze’, Excel, and PowerPoint (Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2016, Gödöllő, Hungary) software packages, and datasets of OTAB, Corine Land Cover 50 and SRTM 90 m Digital Elevation Database v4.1 [37] were used.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Respondents

Altogether, 264 persons completed the questionnaires, 129 persons (49%) related to Börzsöny and 135 persons (51%) related to Cserhát. Many more women (Börzsöny: 64%, Cserhát: 62%) filled in the questionnaire than men at both sites. Around a third of the respondents were in the 41–50-year age group (Börzsöny: 33%, Cserhát: 35%), followed by the 31–40-year and 51–60-year age groups regarding the Börzsöny site, while at the Cserhát site, the number of respondents in the 19–30-year-old age group was also quite high. Most of the respondents had higher education degrees (Börzsöny: 71%, Cserhát: 81%) at both sites. Regarding the net monthly income per person, the middle- and higher-income categories (over 100 thousand HUF/month/person) had the highest representation among the respondents of both sites (Börzsöny: 71%, Cserhát: 81%), but in Cserhát, a smaller percentage of respondents belonged to the middle-income categories (101–300 thousand HUF/month/person), and this was a significant difference based on the Chi² test (p < 0.05). Less than 20% of the respondents were members of conservation civil organizations regarding both sites.

3.2. Characteristics of the Visits

Respondents usually visited the sites with family members and friends (around or over 60% at both sites). Going alone was less frequent, but more people selected this option related to Börzsöny (40%) than to Cserhát (27%), and this was a significant difference based on the Chi² test (p < 0.05). Going with a group was the least preferred option (less than 20%) at both sites.

Most respondents come from Budapest and within 60 km distance regarding both sites (Börzsöny: 86%, Cserhát: 82%), but their distribution was significantly different (p > 0.05) based on Fisher’s exact test. While to Börzsöny, a third of the respondents came from Budapest and the same percentage from within 30 km, to Cserhát, 38% came from Budapest and only 15% within a 30 km distance. In the questionnaires, we asked directly about visiting certain settlements at the sites (Börzsöny: 10, Cserhát: 14), and the respondents could indicate other settlements as well. In Börzsöny, Zebegény was the most favored settlement (63%), followed by Nagymaros (61%), Nagybörzsöny (60%), Diósjenő (60%), Kemence (58%) and Szokolya (54%) (Figure 5). There are hiking trails starting from each settlement. Zebegény and Nagymaros are situated in the Danube-bend and can be approached by railway. They both have a nice view on the Danube, bicycle routes, a beach, cultural values and also a good level of services. From Nagymaros, a ferry travels to the other side of the Danube, and a farmers and crafts market is organized every Saturday. Some settlements have a lake (Nagybörzsöny, Diósjenő, Szokolya), and there is a beach in Kemence. Regarding tourist infrastructure these settlements are also quite well developed (lookout towers: Zebegény and Kemence, visitor centers: Szokolya, a recreation center: Diósjenő, minimum-gauge railway: Kemence, Szokolya, Nagybörzsöny and Szob). In Cserhát, Hollókő was the most preferred destination (81%), followed by Szanda (45%), Alsótold (44%), Cserhátsurány (31%) and Nógrádsipek (29%) (Figure 6). Hollókő is a World heritage site and well known for its 100-year-old little houses and folk traditions. Besides the natural values and tourist trails, some other settlements also have cultural values (castle: Szanda, chateau: Cserhátsurány, mansion: Nógrádsipek, chapel: Szanda). There is a new lookout tower in Alsótold.

Most respondents usually visited the sites by car (more than 70% regarding both sites); other means of transportation seemed much less common (Figure 7). There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the respondents of the two questionnaires related to the use of train and bike (Figure 7), which can be explained by the more developed railway and bicycle path infrastructure in and around the Börzsöny site.

A larger percentage of respondents seemed to have a more frequent visit (at least once a year) to the sites in the spring, summer and autumn than in the winter time (Figure 8). The frequency of visits significantly differed (p < 0.05) between sites in each season based on the Chi² tests for spring, summer and fall, and the Fisher’s exact test for winter. A much higher proportion of respondents visited Cserhát than Börzsöny the first time. In each season, a higher percentage of respondents seemed to have a monthly visit to Börzsöny than Cserhát. Monthly and yearly visits were more common to Börzsöny compared to Cserhát, where the first time and yearly visits dominated the answers in each season (Figure 8). This difference might be explained by the fact that Börzsöny is closer to the capital city, and it is more accessible by public transportation. For the duration of the visit, a few hours to a day was chosen by the highest proportion of respondents at both sites, but it was a higher percentage related to Cserhát (73%) than to Börzsöny (55%). The short visits might be explained by the fact that the majority of the respondents came from a not so long distance. A much lower percentage of respondents seemed to stay at the site for a week, or live there (less than 20%). There was a significant association between the two variables (site and duration of a visit, p < 0.05). A large proportion of the respondents who were not local inhabitants did not stay overnight (Börzsöny: 35% Cserhát: 55%), which is in line with the previous responses that most respondents stayed less than a day at each site. But among those who did stay longer, guest houses seemed to be popular (above 20% at both sites) and cabins in the Börzsöny (above 20%). Other types of accommodation (hotel, aparthotel, apartments, camping, own holiday cottage and friend’s house) were chosen by less than 15% of the respondents at both sites.

Most respondents visited the sites for the purpose of hiking (around 80%) and nature walk (around 70%); the other purposes were much less frequent (Figure 9). Based on the Chi² test, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the two sites regarding cycling, recreation and photography, which seemed to be more frequent reasons to visit Börzsöny than Cserhát. This may be due to the higher level of infrastructure and services and the scenic value of the continuous forest cover at the Börzsöny site. Horse riding and hunting were the least chosen options at both sites.

3.3. Values of the Area That Attract Visitors

Landscape was chosen by the highest number of respondents (over 65%) at both sites as the main attracting factor for visiting the area. Fresh air also ranked quite high but was chosen by a higher percentage of respondents related to Börzsöny than to Cserhát. The same tendency was shown for pleasant climate and easy access. The reason behind the differences may be that the contiguous forest block of Börzsöny provides better microclimate regulation and oxygen production as well as filtration of air pollutants than the mosaic forests of Cserhát. As shown before, the transportation infrastructure of Börzsöny is also better than in Cserhát. In contrast, a larger proportion of respondents chose cultural values and low prices as an attracting factor for Cserhát compared to Börzsöny. Regarding cultural values, the difference might be explained by the fact that Hollókő is a world heritage site, and folk traditions are also much stronger at this site compared to Börzsöny. As for prices, Börzsöny has a higher level of services, which raises prices in this area. These differences were significant (p < 0.05) based on the Chi² test (Figure 10).

Most of the respondents at each site indicated that they hiked in the area. Hiking gives leisure, the joy of movement, fresh air and is energizing for more than 70% of the respondents at both sites. Silence and tranquility also ranked high at both sites, but there was a difference (p < 0.05) indicated by the Chi² test (Börzsöny: 76%, Cserhát: 63%). Loneliness, company, rest and recreation were chosen by 30%–50% of respondents at each site. Regarding inspiration, the Chi² test showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the sites (Börzsöny: 40%, Cserhát: 27%), which indicates that a wild and dense forest gives a higher inspiration than the patches of forest. Knowledge and collecting forest products (e.g., fruits or mushrooms) ranked the lowest (around 20% at both sites).

The word clouds created from the three words the respondents wrote as the ones that came to their mind first when they think about the area also showed some of the values attached to the sites (Figure 11). The expression of forest, mountains, tranquility and nature were mentioned quite a few times related to both sites. Wilderness was associated more with Börzsöny due to its continuous forest cover. Streams and the minimum-gauge railway are also characteristic features of this site that explains their frequent appearance. Csóványos is the highest peak of Börzsöny, which is why it is mentioned quite often. Hollókő is the most often cited place in Cserhát due to its cultural values. The word palóc, which was also mentioned frequently, indicates an ethnic group that lives in the area and is well known for its folk traditions.

The state of the forests was seen as good or very good by the majority of the respondents at both sites (Börzsöny: 75%, Cserhát: 67%). The difference was not significant (p < 0.05) between the sites based on the Chi² test.

3.4. Development of Nature Related and Other Touristic Infrastructure and Programs

Regarding tourist facilities, around 90% of the respondents used the hiking trails at both sites. Restaurants, educational paths and grocery stores seemed also quite popular among respondents at both sites (35%–53%). The use of accommodation was below 30%, visiting exhibitions 12%, and the rest (forest schools, guided tours, photo hiding places, and bike rentals) did not reach 10% at either site. Except for the forest school, there was no significant difference between the two sites based on the Chi² test. The difference regarding forest schools (educational services) can be explained by the fact that there are more forest schools in Börzsöny than in Cserhát.

The state of the hiking trails was seen as satisfactory or good by most of the respondents at both sites (above 90%), but in Börzsöny, a larger percentage of respondents thought they were good (80%) compared to Cserhát (50%), and this was a significant difference (p < 0.05) based on the Chi² test.

Regarding nature-related tourism development needs, guided tours were marked by the highest percentage of respondents at both sites (25%–36%), especially the herbal–mushroom–wild plant tour, followed by the botanical, geological, zoological and landscape history tours (Figure 12). There seems to be a demand for the development of children’s programs as well at both sites. The need for a visitor center was higher in Cserhát because there are currently no visitor centers, while in Börzsöny, a few already operate. There are only two forest schools in Cserhát, which might explain why a higher percentage of respondents chose this option at the Cserhát site. Börzsöny is more developed regarding nature related tourism infrastructure and services, which is probably why a larger percentage of people indicated that no development is needed here. The mentioned differences were significant (p < 0.05) based on the Chi² test.

Regarding other tourism development needs (Figure 13), benches and toilets were identified by the highest number of respondents (close and above 35%) at both sites, followed by handicraft products and viewpoints (25%–35%). The demand for restaurants, grocery stores and infrastructure development seemed to be higher in Cserhát. This is probably due to the fact that Börzsöny is more developed in terms of tourism infrastructure and services. This is also backed by a larger percentage of respondents indicating that no further development is needed in Börzsöny. These differences were significant (p < 0.05) according to the Chi² test.

4. Discussion

4.1. Characteristics of the Visits

Based on our results, most respondents usually visited both studied forested areas with family and friends. This is in line with the results of other European studies showing that enjoyment of the forests more often takes place in groups (e.g., with family and friends) [49,50]. Our results also show that most respondents come from Budapest, the capital city (less than 100 km far from the study sites) and from within a 60 km distance of both sites. Surveys from other European countries indicate the popularity of forests close to the place of residence [18], especially to urban areas or larger cities [50]. The distance that visitors are willing to travel seems to differ by region [9] and can also depend on the size of the settlement and the forest coverage of the region [51]. However, most studies indicate a shorter distance (less than 10 kms) than ours [9,50]. In our study, cars were the most often used means of transportation to reach both sites, and public transportation was utilized more in Börzsöny, with a good train connection. Car was also preferred in the study of Benkhard [21], related to Pilis Biosphere Reserve, another Hungarian forested mountainous area in the vicinity of the capital city, as well as in the paper of Bartczak et al. [52], related to Polish forests. According to the results of Mizaras et al. [50], in Lithuania, personal vehicles are used most often to visit forests. Accessibility was shown as an important factor for forest visits in the study by Komossa et al. [53] as well. Based on the results of our study, winter was less favored than other seasons for visiting both sites. Barczak et al. [52], Ciesielski et al. [54], and Dudek [55] showed similar seasonal differences in visiting Polish forests. Hegetschweiler et al. [23], regarding Swiss forests, concluded that less types of activities were undertaken during the winter time, but more people went walking and less people went hiking or cycling compared to the summer.

Respondents usually stayed less than a day at both study sites, which is also common in other countries [44]. Hiking and nature walk were the main purposes to visit both study sites, supported by the availability of tourist trails. In some other studies, the same aims were dominant [16,23,49,56], but this might vary by region in Europe. The results of Ristic et al. [57] indicate that wildlife, bird- and animal-watching, and community-based tourism were more preferred than walking, hiking and trekking in a forested national park in Serbia. Golos [58] shows in his study that besides hiking, mushroom- and berry-picking is also a common form of recreation in Polish forests. Based on the results of Mizaras et al. [50] leisure is the most often named reason for visiting a forest in Lithuania, followed by mushroom-picking in the second place and berry-picking in the third place.

4.2. Values of the Area That Attract Visitors

In our study, landscape seemed to be the main attracting factor, but fresh air and pleasant climate also ranked quite high, especially in Börzsöny, where the forest cover is continuous and not mosaic as in Cserhát. Based on our study, hiking gives joy of movement, fresh air, silence and tranquility, and is energizing for the majority of respondents at both sites, while knowledge and the collecting of forest fruits and mushrooms seemed to be not so important. Clean air, peace and quietness were also shown as important factors for visiting forests for recreation in the study of Sklodowski et al. [49], related to Polish forests, but the possibility of collecting wild fruits, plants and mushrooms was also emphasized in contrast to our results. Getzner and Meyerhoff [56] showed that hearing only natural sounds increases the benefits of Austrian forests.

In our study, the state of the forests was seen as good by the majority of the respondents at both sites. Many forest characteristics can influence the recreational value of a forest, and this varies by region. Based on the review of Ciesielski and Sterenczak [9], in Central Europe, older natural-looking forests dominated by a variety of high deciduous trees, with little deadwood and fairly rich ground vegetation, seem to be the preferred forest type. From the studied sites, Börzsöny mainly, but Cserhát only partly (less natural, higher proportion of non-native and low-cutting rotation stands), meets these criteria. Despite these differences, respondents evaluated the condition of forests as good. In the study of Getzner and Meyerhoff [56], perceived naturalness was high regarding those Austrian forests that were used for walking and hiking. Regarding forest management types, Edwards et al. [14], based on a Delphi process, show that in Central Europe, forest nature reserves have the highest recreational value, followed by close-to-nature forestry in second place and combined objective forestry in third place, while intensive, even-aged forestry and woody biomass production have negative scores. Although in Hungary, intensive forestry is still the most dominant forest management type [3] at both sites, especially in protected areas, nature conservation goals have a priority, and nature-friendly forest management methods are gaining importance.

4.3. Development of Nature-Related and Other Touristic Infrastructure and Programs

In both studied areas, guided tours and children’s programs ranked the highest among the nature-related development needs, and the visitor center was also marked by quite a high percentage of respondents in Cserhát, where currently, no such facility exists. Sklodowski et al. [49], in a visitor survey related to Polish forests, show the demand for services of foresters regarding nature walks and educating children and youth about nature and forests. In our study, guided tours on mushrooms, wild plants and herbs were demanded the most, followed by zoological, botanical, geological and landscape history tours. Demand for guided tours shows that visitors would like to gain more knowledge about the values of the forest that they might benefit from later on (e.g., mushrooms and wild plants and herbs that are not collected now by the respondents).

Benches and toilets as well as handicraft products and viewpoints were indicated by the highest number of respondents to be further developed at both sites in our study. The development of food-related services and other tourism infrastructure is desired in Cserhát, where these are at a lower level compared to Börzsöny. In other studies, development needs are slightly different. Based on the results of Skolodwski and Golos [20], waste bins and information boards were the most useful for visitors of Polish forests and car parks; places for animal observation, rest facilities and viewpoints were also indicated as important infrastructure elements. Ciesielski and Sterenczak [9] show in their review article that tourist trails and paths are the most important infrastructure elements for forest visitors. In our study, we did not directly ask about the further development of tourist trails because both study areas are supplied well with them, and our results indicate that they are used by the respondents. However, we asked about their condition, and based on the respondents’ views, they are in quite good shape at both study sites. The results of Ristic et al. [57] in the Fruška Gora National Park in Serbia indicate that infrastructure development related to walking, hiking and trekking could increase these activities in the park. The various demands for development of fire places (as important tourist infrastructure elements) in Swiss forests near cities by different visitor groups and residents are shown in an earlier study of Hegetschweiler et al. [59]. In our study, the most important tourist infrastructure element (tourist trails) seemed satisfactory, but elements that increase the comfort level for walkers and hikers (benches and toilets) were demanded, which probably indicates a recent need of urban citizens.

5. Conclusions

In our study, the results of visitor surveys related to two Hungarian mountainous forest areas were compared regarding some factors (characteristics of the people, visits, values of the area, nature and tourist infrastructure and services) that influence recreation and nature-based tourism activities in forested areas. The results show similarities in the answers related to the two sites (e.g., main means of transportation used, distance the visitors came from, companion, time spent, seasonal characteristics of the visits, main attracting factors, perceived state of forests, used infrastructure, demand for infrastructure and service developments). This result indicates that visitation habits to forests in close vicinity of the capital city where the fifth of the Hungarian population lives are quite similar regardless of the differences in the forest characteristics, accessibility and the level of tourism infrastructure and services. The state of the forests was perceived as good regardless of the differences in the forest characteristics. Some slight differences between the sites could be detected that were significant based on the Chi² or Fisher’s exact test (e.g., in Börzsöny: more frequent use of trains and bicycle, more visits, photography as a reason to visit, pleasant climate and wilderness as attracting factors; in Cserhát: low prices and cultural values as more important factors, and more development needs). The differences between the results of the questionnaire survey of the two sites were probably due to the differences in the main characteristics of the sites (forests, accessibility, tourism infrastructure and services and cultural values).

Based on our results it seems that Cserhát needs more development in tourism infrastructure and services. Although the state of forests was perceived good at both sites, the development of a visitor management plan might be useful, especially in Börzsöny, where visitation is more frequent, and the state of forest is better than in Cserhát. Especially the common infrastructure needs (benches and toilets) show that demand for tourism infrastructure is changing to provide greater comfort than before.

In our research, we faced some limits on available data regarding both sites, especially related to Cserhát. The online character of the questionnaire also had some limits, which can be overcome by extending the research to onsite face to face surveys. Further research can be toward deepening the connection between site-based information and visitor surveys. A plot-based inquiry can be a direction at both sites, with which certain forest features and infrastructure elements can be better revealed and connected to the regular elements of a visitor survey.