3.1. Results of Interviews
3.1.1. Historical Factors
The consensus among experts is that nature conservation has become more important in recent decades. Promoting natural attractions and exploiting their tourism potential have been primary since establishing the national parks. All strategic plans stated that the parks would serve as a tourist destination for natural and cultural values. In the HNP and KNP, established in the 1970s, this coincided with the socialist rediscovery of rural areas and the increasing Western European interest during regime change. The antecedent of larger-scale tourism were the European-famous steppe tourism, horse shows, and open-air fairs with a few hours’ visits to protected areas. As several experts have noted, it has become almost a patriotic duty to cultivate rural traditions (interviews: T, 11; N, 14; R, 5). In this process, the main partners of the park directorates were the state farms. Experts estimate that in the 1980s and 1990s, these programs attracted between 70,000 and 100,000 people/year/park (mainly German visitors) to the HNP and KNP. These two parks acquired new land and farm buildings during the reorganization of state property after the regime change. By using or leasing these new estates, the parks strengthened their tourism developments. “However, this boom stagnated and then fizzled out by the turn of the millennium. The era of the bus-group and guided tours to the wilderness was over.” The KMNP, founded in 1997, was in a completely different situation. “The floodplains and salt lands have never really seen a mass turnover here, so there has not been a downturn.”
Meantime, diverging policy visions complicated the partnership between the sectors. The conflicts mainly stemmed from a segregative philosophy of nature conservation. The national park directorates worked and acted as “state within the state” institutions. This approach worked relatively well until the regime change; then it became less effective in a multistakeholder economy and increasingly diverse local needs. In addition, parks could not become active players in rural development. In many cases, they were an obstacle to implementing development ideas from the point of view of the municipalities. Disputes over land use and property rights were frequent. According to the answerer, this was the main reason for losing the parks’ public authority in 2005, which the conservationists still regret. Finally, based on the interviews, nature conservation has taken many steps towards an integrative approach. “Since the E.U. accession, there has been a paradigm shift, which put the relationship between nature conservation and tourism on a new footing.” It has become clear that “conservation without people” is not the right idea. This is particularly noticeable in tourism concepts. Thus, the 2008 National Ecotourism Development Strategy already highlighted, “A significant proportion of the country’s tourist attractions are in national parks”. However, the most recent comprehensive concepts show that cooperation with regional actors has been hampered by the marginalization and subordination of national parks in the last decade. According to experts, park directorates are not sufficiently involved in tourism planning and decision making. As a result, some respondents are concerned that tourism interests are more potent than nature conservation. “The principles and good practices of nature-based tourism have emerged over the last 20 years, but the benefits are highly localized so that the positive changes have not reflected at the regional or national administrative level. Much closer sectoral, institutionalized cooperation is needed to make the positive impact of sustainable tourism at district or regional level”, said a researcher with decades of experience in rural development.
The local natural values had to be made accessible to the public, both domestic and foreign tourists. “To this end, we created new “attractions” for visitors in protected areas, presenting the natural features in a way that would not damage them. In many places, we have also tried to reconcile this with management and created the first nature trails and new visitor centers”, said a national park staff member. It is important to note that some authors emphasize the role of thermal baths and rural spas in visitor growth from the 2000s [
73,
74]. Some believe that the real demand for nature-based tourism has emerged only during recent years in the affected regions (interviews: T, 11; N, 12; R, 14). In any case, these parks operate various visitor centers, forest schools, nature trails, and other demonstration areas. Their activities have a strong emphasis on environmental education for young people and organizing awareness-raising events.
3.1.2. Barriers of the Partnership
Concerning the broad role of nature conservation and tourism in rural environment and economy, the actors of the two sectors have stated that protecting the natural environment and coordinating tourism is a fundamental issue for rural development. Most respondents agree that building a tourism brand based on the values of protected areas is a critical challenge for the national parks concerned (interviews: T, 20; N, 18; R, 19). However, these areas are disadvantaged in several respects: “Although there are distinctive landscapes and iconic sites (Nine-Hole Bridge in Hortobágy, the dunes of the Kiskunság, the gallery forests of River Körös), none of these offer the potential to increase visitor numbers significantly”. Several interviewees noted that the “primary underlying problem is the missing emblematic natural attraction”. Apart from one or two up-and-coming visitor sites (Lake Tisza Ecocentre), visitor numbers are not growing. Moreover, the programs typically last a few hours, a maximum a day, and these are also just seasonal. Thus, the transformation of natural values into tourism products is problematic (interviews: T, 15; N, 21; R, 11).
The respondents also highlighted the lack of financial resources and policy coordination as the main problems. Some say that “bottom-up development in the sectors is not aligned with the EU subsidies or domestic funding”. “There are always a few enthusiastic professionals or local leaders who do a superhuman job. Still, there is a high risk of burn-out.” Local development ideas have been around for a long time, but few resources are for investments and maintenance costs. There have also been fiascos: “A large-scale ecotourism project plan was developed many years ago but remained incomplete due to a lack of funding (KNP—“Bösztörpuszta—Western Gateway to European Grassland”)”. Although there was a winning complex ecotourism application, the authorities have withdrawn part of the funds during the process.
Entrepreneurship is also a serious concern. Due to the unpredictable number of guests, several entrepreneurs do not dare to get involved in the developments. National parks are also cautious, mainly because of previous negative experiences with tenants and subcontractors. A further difficulty is that NBT attractions are located primarily on settlements with a shortage of quality accommodation. Thus, in many cases, the bulk of tourism revenues (e.g., accommodation income) and local tourism taxes is not realized in the settlements offering the natural attractions but in nearby cities.
3.1.3. Changes with COVID-19
Data over the last 10 years have shown regular attendance in national parks. Until the beginning of the pandemic, we saw occasional short periods of decline and then minor upturns. Tourism-related activities have been sensitive to all the waves of COVID-19. Statistics show a large-scale reduction in guest numbers because visitor centers, forest schools, tourist accommodations, and enclosed spaces had to be closed during periods ordered by the national authorities. However, the interest in attractions that are open to the public (e.g., nature trails) has increased significantly, but this phenomenon is not included in the visitor statistics. All three parks estimate about 100,000 visitors in “free to visit destinations” in 2020. This raises the question of the maximum number of visitors that these protected areas could accommodate. According to experts, “the carrying capacity of habitats is different”. The erosion of landscapes and their ability to accommodate tourists depend primarily on the parks’ infrastructure. Although most nature trails are not yet overcrowded, a rapid increase in visitor numbers is not desirable. Several interviewees see further potential in guided walking or cycling tours (interviews: T, 20; N, 21; R, 11).
It was a problem before, but since COVID-19, it is even more true that tourism has become less predictable. In 2020, the number of visitors increased at an unprecedented rate in some destinations during the quarantine situation. This (1) caused pressure on natural resources and biodiversity and (2) spoiled the experience of visiting nature while also increasing health risks. The main triggers of the conflicts were the polluting effects of mass fishing tourism and the so-called “party tourists”, whose attitudes are not environmentally conscious. The tourists’ influx and disturbing effects are particularly noticeable in the central city of the KMNP in Szarvas. Here, the increased interest of people from Budapest has led to overcrowding. It is difficult for these rural municipalities that visitors arrive in large crowds at the same time.
3.1.4. Potential of NBT
There is consensus among our interviewees that there is still considerable potential for NBT in protected areas. National parks have a crucial role to play in exploiting and managing this potential. However, this requires a new basis for cooperation between the national park directorates and the relevant tourism institutions (especially local destination management offices, Hungarian Tourism Agency, and Hungarian Tourism PLC). Some respondents mentioned a need for a new policy coordination unit: a state secretariat within the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of National Economy. “The ministries and local governments should strengthen partnership in coordinating nature conservation—landscape management—tourism and rural development.” “Nature conservation in Hungary can best flourish through tourism in protected areas. This is the most effective way of educating society about the holistic environmental issues.” Unfortunately, according to some, these objectives cannot be achieved because the current human resources are insufficient in either sector. In addition, the shortage of professionals is just as acute at the national as at the local level.
Several respondents emphasized that the attractions of the Great Plain are not as prestigious as those of the mountainous parks (e.g., Aggtelek), and therefore, these parks must provide a variety of linked products and complex programs (interviews: T, 13; N, 16; R, 19). An example of this is the Mini-Hungary maquette park in Szarvas, which has significantly increased the number of visitors to the neighboring arboretum and the KMNP’s visitor center. In other words, attractions that generate a high level of interest can help to boost nature-friendly active tourism. It is also noticeable that more and more people are looking for the terms “green”, “eco”, “environment-friendly”, and “E” (electric) in tourism packages. This raises the question of whether steppe tourism is worth reviving. The rural idyll is no longer attractive enough. People today want a different kind of experience, as is shown by the fact that only a few agents offer this type of program. Moreover, this gives an idealized, nonauthentic image of these areas in Hungary.
According to experts, the essential criteria for optimizing tourism in protected areas are upgrading the infrastructure and acquiring environmentally friendly equipment. One such initiative is implementing e-bike tours, launched in 2020 and 2021. Bike tours already exist in all three parks and can be a good practice in many places. “It is much more exciting to explore the landscapes and the wildlife in an exciting and varied way (combining e-bikes, canoes, adventure tours, mobile applications). Access to services requires digitization, smart devices, and online backgrounds. The pandemic has significantly widened and accelerated the new trends and consumer habits. E.g., the Digital Wanderer APK (for mobile phones) developed for the Hungarian parks’ nature trails has quickly become popular”, said a tourism expert.
“Linking conservation and tourism can strengthen the local economy, leading to the rural development aspect”. It is a positive experience that the predominantly conservation-minded professionals’ answers strongly emphasize rural development aspects, such as sustainability of local communities and multifunctional agriculture. In this context, the promotion of national park products and the trademark system are also important. With a positive perception from producers, ecologists, and restaurateurs, “the park trademarks are the best examples of rural-type cooperation based on mutual interests”. However, there is a clear need for national parks and the state to raise brand awareness and develop supply chains. It is also evidently perceived that guests are more interested in food products and less in handicrafts. Currently, the producers’ income from sales is relatively low. For this reason, “some registered producers are concerned that their products have not received sufficient support and attention after being awarded the trademark”, as an expert described the situation.
3.2. Tourism Data and Indicators of the Study Area
This section presents the interest in nature-based tourism of protected areas and their evolution over time. Then we scrutinize the compiled data and tourism indicators at the municipal level to support and verify the opinions and statements of the respondents.
The interest in attractions of protected areas has fluctuated over the last 10 years, as shown in
Table 4.
In the KNP and HNP, the number of tourists has shown considerable variability, while in the KMNP—which is newly established compared with the other two—the developing showplaces have attracted an increasing number of visitors, with a dynamic 600% growth between 2011 and 2019. In 2020, official figures showed a significant drop in all three national parks, up to 80%. However, according to the national park experts interviewed, this was only due to the restrictive measures, as visitors to protected areas were not registered because guided tours were not possible for a large part of 2020. Their view is confirmed by Google Trends data on Hungarian internet searches for the term “nature trail”, which was at a record high in 2020, and this upward trend continued in 2021 (
Figure 2).
To illustrate the attractiveness of protected areas, it is worth comparing the number of visitors between the parks and the Northern and Southern Great Plain NUTS2 regions. Data for 2019 show that 366,000 visitors came to visit the natural assets, while the two areas welcomed 2.5 million tourists. This means only 14.05% of visitors are interested in the attractions of national parks. This ratio is only 0.14% for overnight stays, although accommodation is not crucial in the parks’ activities. Their accommodation is mainly linked to forest schools, and they have some research guesthouses too.
In the second half of our analysis, we first took stock of the facilities in the three national parks that serve tourism purposes (
Table 5).
The three national parks have 39 properties (in 22 municipalities) connected—but not limited—to their tourism activities, and they also have a total of 43 nature trails (in 35 municipalities) (
Figure 3). More than 50% of the facilities were built or renovated in the 2000s (mainly after 2007). The situation is similar for the nature trails, 80% of which were established in the 2000s.
Another essential feature of national park tourist facilities is that they are relatively spatially concentrated, with only 7% of the 310 municipalities with protected areas having a tourist facility and 11% having an educational nature trail. It is also worth noting that half of the protected areas (from the 18 sites in IUCN categories II and V) do not have independent visitor facilities. Thus, this means the three national parks have a relatively new and probably still insufficient tourism infrastructure.
As a further aspect, we also assessed the data of beneficiary settlements. We found that only one-fifth of the tourist facilities and trails of the three national parks are located in such municipalities (13 out of 166). This raises the question of how much these facilities and trails can help the development of rural municipalities with employment problems and other disadvantages.
The analysis of data on accommodations for commercial and business purposes shows similar results as previous ones. On the one hand, only less than a third of the 310 municipalities have commercial accommodation (99 in 2019 and 92 in 2020), while business accommodation is present in about two-thirds (198 in 2019 and 195 in 2020). Almost all commercial accommodation registered guests, but in business accommodation (including village hosts), only 85–90% of the municipalities had overnight stays in 2019 and 2020.
In beneficiary settlements, 17% have commercial accommodation, while for business accommodation, this proportion is 52% (86 municipalities out of 166). According to data from the National Federation of Agro and Rural Tourism, 30% of the registered hosts are located in the beneficiary municipalities. As for overnight stays in 2019 and 2020 combined, hosts reported guests in 87 beneficiary settlements, corresponding to a 52% rate. The concentration of accommodation and guest nights is also high. The 25 settlements (that register the most guest nights) covered almost 90% of all overnight stays in 2019. These include the major spa towns of the region, the county capitals, and settlements with natural attractions (riverside, lakeside, backwater, protected areas). The most important tourist destinations are generally the more developed municipalities in the study area, as indicated by the fact that only 1 of the top 25 tourist destinations is included in the list of beneficiary settlements from the government decree. In 2019, only 3 settlements out of the 310 surveyed reached the 500,000 overnight stays’ threshold, which indicates a stable, strong, and self-sustaining tourism sector. These account for more than half (54%) of all overnight stays. Ten settlements had more than 100,000 overnight stays, accounting for more than three-quarters of the total.
The pandemic had substantial impacts in 2020. The 310 municipalities surveyed have seen a more than 40% drop in visitor numbers. The high concentration remained, with the share of the top 25 settlements falling by only 1% compared with the previous year. Restrictions and closures caused by the epidemic have reduced the most popular tourist destinations (spa towns and cultural tourism destinations) by 40–50% (
Table 6). However, some rural settlements benefited during this period. These were popular destinations because they had a waterfront or other natural attractions and many small accommodation facilities (e.g., private resorts and holiday homes) that allowed for isolated recreation and social distancing during the pandemic. One example is Békésszentandrás, where the number of nights spent doubled, making it one of the top 10 settlements in terms of the number of nights spent. Two Lake Tisza settlements also made a big step forward in the top 25.
From the analysis of local tax revenue data for 2019, we can assume that the overall role of tourism in the local economy and rural development is not significant. Of the 310 municipalities, only 87, and from the 166 beneficiary settlements, only 21 have tourism tax revenues. An amount of 1.6% comes from tourism within all local tax revenue, corresponding to USD 5.3 million in absolute terms. There is a wide variation between municipalities, as the share of tourism tax revenue in local taxes varies between 0% and 24%, with only 10 municipalities exceeding 5%. For the 166 beneficiary settlements, the average rate was only 0.79%, and only 3 municipalities exceeded 5%. However, even in these 3, the revenue was still low in absolute terms, ranging between USD 1650 and USD 19,000.