133Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.71.2.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 2022 (2) 133–148. Introduction In the framework of an international project (Karst and National Parks 2022), we are ex- amining the attitudes and opinions of peo- ple living in karst national parks (NPs) and of tourists visiting these parks (Mari, L. et al. 2022). Although Apuseni Nature Park (ANP) is “only” a nature park, it is a protected area with invaluable bio- and geoheritage, includ- ing remarkable karst features. It is a popular tourist destination and also home to almost 10,000 people. Thus, it is a perfect location to study the attitudes of local people towards the protected area, and their relation to tourism. ANP is situated in the territory of Apuseni Mountains, the western part of the Romanian Carpathians (Figure 1). In translation “apuse- ni” means “sunset” referring to the position of the mountains relative to the central part of the country. Nature parks – as IUCN Category V - Protected Landscape – have a lot of roles (IUCN 2022), among which we now mention only the most important ones: – to maintain a balanced interaction of na- ture and culture through the protection of landscape and associated traditional man- agement practices, societies, cultures and spiritual values; 1 Department of Geography in Hungarian, Babeș-Bolyai University. Strada Mihail Kogălniceanu, 400347 Cluj- Napoca, Romania. E-mails: zoltan.imecs@ubbcluj.ro; andras.mathe@ubbcluj.ro 2 Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Science, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, 1117 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: balazs.kohan@gmail.com Attitudes of local people towards Apuseni Nature Park, Romania Zoltán IMECS1, András MÁTHÉ1 and Balázs KOHÁN2 Abstract Nature parks are protected natural areas whose purposes are the protection and conservation of landscapes in which the interaction of human activities with nature over time has created a distinct area, with significant landscape and/or cultural value, often with great biological diversity. This is the case of Apuseni Nature Park, which includes a significant karst terrain and is a very important tourist destination. In this article, we examine the attitude of local people towards the protected area with the help of a questionnaire composed of 32 questions. After the general questions, the economic situation was examined first. Then the respondents had to evaluate the values and the difficulties of their region and their relation to tourism. The answers reveal that they are aware of the importance of tourism, which may represent a serious complementary income for them. The most intriguing questions were some open-ended questions, which focused on the relationship of locals to Apuseni Nature Park. Based on the answers, we can conclude that the negative opinions slightly dominate. The dissatisfaction of the locals, the feeling of limitations due to the park are expressed in many different ways. But probably the most relevant problems can be linked to the rules and laws. As it is a nature park, people in fact, live inside the park, thus, the equilibrium between their lives and the purposes of the park should be approached. The administration of the nature park should involve local people more closely in decision-making, and maybe certain rules should be changed. Keywords: nature park, local people, questionnaire, karst, geotourism, protected areas Received March 2022, accepted May 2022. Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148.134 – to contribute to broad-scale conservation by maintaining species associated with cultural landscapes and by providing conservation opportunities in heavily used landscapes; – to provide opportunities for enjoyment, well-being and socio-economic activity through recreation and tourism; – to provide natural products and environ- mental services; – to provide a framework to underpin active involvement by the community in the man- agement of valued landscapes and the natu- ral and cultural heritage that they contain; – to encourage the conservation of agrobio- diversity; to act as models of sustainability so that lessons can be learnt for wider ap- plication. Some authors call “protected landscapes” as the conservation model for the 21st century (Beresford, M. and Phillips, A. 2000). Some researchers even call protected landscapes as the most effective conservation mechanism in some situations (Mallarach, J.M. et al. 2008), whereas others discuss whether protected landscapes are really protected areas at all (Dudley, N. et al. 2010). Like national parks, nature parks may also present serious values but also constraints for the local population that may be occasionally more severe than in a national park. This fact will be emphasised in the conclusions of this article. The karst landscapes are often popu- lar destinations due to their spectacular forms, such as caves, gorges, collapsed dolines or spe- cial vegetation (Cigna, A.A. and Forti, P. 2013; Božić, S. and Tomić, N. 2015; Dollma, M. 2018; Ruban, D. 2018; Telbisz, T. and Mari, L. 2020; Telbisz, T. et al. 2020, 2021). The tourism based on these values can be complementary or, for some local people, even the main source of live- lihood and can have a serious impact on the de- terioration or preservation of the environment. Nowadays, the extent to which the man- agement of protected areas should also serve the socio-economic development of the local inhabitants is a frequently examined question (Mose, I. 2007). In addition, it is also important to get to know the relationships between dif- ferent actors of the park – local people – tour- ists triangle (Hayes, T.M. 2006). One part of these complex relationships is the attitude of local people toward the protected area which is often examined with the help of question- naires (Trakolis, D. 2001; Zurc, J. and Udovč, A. 2009; Šulc, I. and Valjak, V. 2012; Mika, M. et al. 2019; Nestorová Dická, J. et al. 2020; Zawilińska, B. 2020). In this article, we present the results of a questionnaire survey conducted among the locals from Apuseni Nature Park. We focus on the following issues: – What is the priority order of the nature park goals according to local people? – To what extent do local residents perceive that the nature park also serves to their benefit? – How do local people see the values of these landscapes? – Are there conflicts in the local people – tourism – nature protection triangle? Brief description of Apuseni Nature Park Natural conditions Based on geological maps of 1:200,000 scale and our GIS-analysis (Telbisz, T. et al. 2016), it is cal- culated that in almost half (48%) of the area we can find partly or fully karstifiable rocks that explains the large number of karst landforms. Actually, karst landforms are present in more than 24 percent of the territory. Metamorphic rocks occupy 30 percent of the area, whereas plutonic and volcanic rocks are present in smaller amounts. Thus, the diversity of rocks ensures the diversity of landscapes, too. The mean altitude of the park area is 1,120 m with 66 percent of the surface between 1,000 m and 1,400 m a.s.l. (Figure 1). The relief is char- acterised by large plateaux with many deep valleys and gorges. The rivers belong to three main river ba- sins, Someș in the East, Arieș in the South and Criș in the West, all of them are tributaries to Tisa and finally to the Danube. Also, from a hydrologic point of view, we have to mention the presence of a large endorheic area with a 135Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148. surface of 59 km2 (Orășeanu, I. 2016). There is also a 7.5 km2 size artificial lake and several temporary lakes on the karst surfaces. The climate is characterised by an average temperature of 4 °C to 10 °C, decreasing with the altitude. The highest precipitation val- ues in all of Romania (more than 1,400 mm a year) are measured in the western side of the mountains (Badea, L. 1983). A specific feature is the fog that can be often seen in the karstic depressions especially in autumn. Based on CORINE Land Cover database, forests cover more than 70 percent of the park, the rest is covered by pastures and grasslands. A very small amount is agricul- tural land. The forest cover has been seri- ously modified by human impact since the Middle Ages (Jakab, G. et al. 2021). Socio-economic situation Being a mountain region, the nature park is characterised by small villages. Among the 53 settlements, 43 have a population of less than 300. The structure of the villages is dispersed. The 53 settlements belong to 17 municipalities (local administrative units), and these are parts of 3 counties. It is interest- ing that none of the municipalities is entirely inside the park. The total number of inhabit- ants is around 10,000. The main economic activities are forestry and agriculture, mainly farming. As the region represents an attrac- tive destination for tourists, the number of touristic facilities – pensions, restaurants, shops – is growing (Cucu, V. 1984; Horváth, Gy. 2006; Tempo online 2022). Fig. 1. Location of Apuseni Nature Park and the extent of karst area (with caves), settlements and survey locations Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148.136 Nature protection history At the beginning of the 20th century, Gyula Czárán was the first who created touristic trails. Some of them are still used. The famous scientist Emil Racoviță suggested protect- ing large areas in Apuseni Mountains in 1928. The first protected elements inside the park were caves: Scărișoara ice cave – 1938, Cetățile Ponorului – 1955. The first scientific documentation considering nature protection of the area was made in the 1970s. In 1990, the area was declared a “national park”, how- ever, this declaration was not followed by set- ting up a really working institution. In 2000, as part of the National Spatial Planning Plan - Section III about protected areas, it was trans- formed into a “nature park”. It corresponds to IUCN Category V - Protected Landscape. With a total area of more than 767 km2 it in- cludes 3 Natura 2000 sites, and further 55 protected areas, mainly nature reserves and natural monuments, 41 of them are karstic. The Apuseni Nature Park Administration was established in 2004 (Bleahu, M. 2019). Tourism The park area is not closed and there is no entry ticket, so there is no precise data on the number of tourists entering the area. The park administration estimates that the number of visitors is about 500,000 a year. Hiking-type tourism is very typical, and a well-developed network of hiking trails is available, there are more than 30 trails with a total length of over 400 km. There are more than 1,500 caves in the park. According to legislation (GEO, 2007), 37 caves are “classified” (i.e. have inter- national, national or local importance un- der different categories), that is more than 28 percent of all classified caves in the coun- try. There are four “show caves” (Bear Cave, Scărișoara ice cave, Vârtop ice cave, Poarta lui Ionele Cave), and the number of visitors to these caves is registered. In the last decade, the number of visitors was 128,000 a year on the average, taking into consideration all four caves (data from ANP Administration). According to National Statistical Institute data there are 114 accommodation facilities in the municipalities intersected by the park, with a capacity of more than 2,500 beds. The tourist overnights spent in these municipali- ties are more than 110,000 a year (Tempo online, 2022). We can presume that the real number of tourists is higher, because not all of them are officially registered. Further on, there are some free camp places in the area of ANP, where the number of tourists is not registered, thus, we can assume that the total number of visitors is even higher. Methodology Our questionnaire survey was planned using the experiences of similar surveys conducted in other protected areas (Trakolis, D. 2001; Pa- pageorgiou, K. and Kassioumis, K. 2005; Zurc, J. and Udovč, A. 2009; Šulc, I. and Valjak, V. 2012; Zgłobicki, W. and Baran-Zgłobicka, B. 2013; Krpina, V. 2015; Mika, M. et al. 2019; Zawilińska, B. 2020). The questionnaire survey that provides the basis of the results presented in this article was conducted in the summer of 2019 and in the summer and autumn of 2021. Questionnaires with locals were conducted at 11 locations, at the entrances to major tourist caves and other busy tourist sites or in villages situated near the park. Questionnaires were filled onsite, with direct, face-to-face questioning, with the help of assis- tants (university students). The method of con- venience sampling was used. Thus, the results are not strictly representative in the statistical sense, but they are nevertheless suitable for the evaluation and analysis of characteristic propor- tions in the views and attitudes of local people. The questions were written on both sides of an A4 sheet. There were a total of 32 questions, mostly with multiple-choice or Likert scale ques- tions, but there were also some open-ended questions. Filling the questionnaire was typi- cally a few minutes in most cases. The results were evaluated using MS Excel. 137Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148. A further note is that some of the question- naires were filled in locations that are outside the park but in the close vicinity, generally where accommodation or other service facili- ties are present. We also have to mention that it was very difficult to convince some locals to complete the survey. There were several cases when after finding that there are questions regard- ing the park, they refused to complete the questionnaires. Results A total of 139 questionnaires were completed during the survey. In the following analysis, the percentage is always related to the actual number of answers for each question (i.e. not counting the forms, in which the actual ques- tion remained unanswered). The demographic data of the respondents are shown in Table 1. It can be seen that there is an almost 2/3 to 1/3 proportion for males. About 1/4 of respond- ents are of inactive age. As for education, those with a secondary education dominated. Living place and jobs The first group of questions refers to the ac- tual living place and job of the respondent. The survey was done in 11 locations, but the respondents live in 29 different places, including the survey places, of course. The other places are very close to the survey loca- tions. Only 17 respondents mentioned that they had moved from their childhood settle- ment to another one, but even in these cases, the movements took place between very near settlements. So, we can say that the popula- tion of the region is very stable. For the question “What is your actual job?” 52 different answers were given, from a total number of 136. To better understand the struc- ture of jobs, they were grouped into 10 catego- ries, and the result is presented in Figure 2. Comparison of the attitudes and perceptions of local residents In order to assess the relationship of local people to the karst landscape, the nature park and tourism, it is important to know how they perceive their economic situation; therefore, the second group of questions was about that. Of course, in addition to local con- ditions, these views are also influenced by the macroeconomic situation. Thus, there were three questions about the economic situation, which could be answered on a 1-4 grade Lik- ert scale. The results are shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that for their own economic situation there is an equilibrium between “bad” (51.1%) and “good” (48.9%) answers, though “bad” is slightly dominant. As there Table 1. Demographic data of the respondents Indicator Categories Percentage of answers Sex male female 63.8 36.2 Age, years 14–18 19–30 31–50 51–60 over 60 2.9 14.4 32.4 27.3 23,0 Education primary school secondary school higher education 29.1 50,0 20.9 Fig. 2. Job categories of the respondents Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148.138 are 139 answers, the difference in absolute values is only 3 respondents. Referring to the situation of the settlement, the proportions are somehow reversed. From the 139 answers the “good” has a value of 54.7 percent, while “bad” is 45.3 percent. It is interesting to see the figures for the “change” question. Again, the “better” dominates (58.0%), while “worse” is 42.0 percent, which is slightly similar to the opinion about their settlement. We can con- clude that the respondents generally feel the positive changes that took place in their re- gion. But we have to underline that the domi- nation of positive feelings is very weak, and the amount of “very good” or “much better” is insignificant (2.9% and 5.8% respectively). Another question in this group is con- nected with the opening of the borders. The respondents had to say “yes” or “no” for the question whether the opening of borders had a positive or negative effect on their life. (After joining the EU, even if Romania is not a member of the Schengen convention, cross- ing the border became significantly easier as it is possible to do it only with an identity card.) They were also asked to give some reasons for their answer. Of the 126 answers 92 said “yes” (73.0%) but only 60 respond- ents gave some explanation. They empha- sised that travelling became easier (30.2%) and only 4.0 percent said that by the opening of borders, the number of tourists coming to their region will increase. In addition to the general questions, we also asked some open-ended questions, in response to which they had to formulate the “good” and “bad” things in the current situation of their settlement. As it can be expected the answers to the open-ended questions are very diverse and therefore difficult to interpret. For the question “What is good in your settle- ment?” 120 answers were given, with 65 va- rieties. The categorised results are presented in Figure 4. Almost ¼ of the respondents revealed the importance of tourism (24.2%). 20.0 percent underlined the development of infrastructure, mainly the asphalting of the roads (more than 6.0%) and the connection to water supply and waste-water systems (about 6.0%). The answers included in “good” group are very different. Some examples: “better life”, “everything is good”, “we have everything”. The most interesting an- swers are: “you can feel a small prosperity”, “the young went to work abroad bring money to home”, “the tractors help the work” or “it is good that we Fig. 3. Opinion of the local people about the economic situation. The questions: a) How do you see your per- sonal (family) economic situation? b) How do you see the economic situation of your settlement? c) How has the economic situation changed during the last 10 years? 139Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148. do not have to buy food on tickets” – these answers recall the sad memory of the communist era. All the presented answers are unique in some way. The next element is simply “nothing” (13.3%). It is strange to give such a categoric negative answer to a question which is about the good things. The local government is the next element with 7.5 percent of the answers. Some examples: “good management” (2.5%), “the mayor is doing his job”. To some surprise, only 6.7 percent of the respondents consider nature as being a good thing in their settlement. The other types represent a small amount. But the following answer is also interesting: “it is nice, but the young are gone and no one stays…” We were curious about how often “nature” or the “nature park” appeared in these re- sponses. As mentioned before, “nature” has a very low representation (6.7%), while the “nature park” does not appear at all among the answers to the “what is good…” question. For the question “What is bad in your settle- ment?” 127 answers were given, with 86 va- rieties. We tried to group the answers into 23 categories, which is still too much. In Figure 5, only the categories with more than two answers are presented. The most important element is “unemploy- ment – no work” (26.8%). In the second place is “infrastructure” with 11.0 percent. This is interesting because in the previous question, 20.0 percent of the respondents considered the infrastructure to be good. It is also inter- esting that the same elements are considered “bad” by certain people that were considered “good” by others in the previous question, namely “asphalt roads” or “water supply”. Naturally, it is obvious that the respondents are from different places. The results clearly show that the different villages in the region develop in different ways. A more detailed analysis of this topic would reveal some inter- esting conclusions. Outmigration and pover- ty are in the third place with 9.4 percent each. A few lines up we were wondering if the “nature park” appears as a good thing. In fact, it did not, but it appeared as a bad thing with 7.9 percent. Some of the answers simply mentioned the park as being “bad” (2.4%), but there were some other noteworthy answers regarding the park: “the park is bothering peo- ple”; “the park hinders us”; “the park gives laws and harsh fines”, “they make fun of people”. Local government is also mentioned by some people as a bad thing (4.7%). However, one should remember that it was also men- tioned as a good thing in the previous ques- tion (7.5%). It is similar to the opposite views about “infrastructure”. Some interesting answers from the less im- portant categories among the “bad things”: “few money”, “small pension” (money catego- ry); “people do not cultivate the lands”, “devel- opment is not allowed” (economy category); “good, everything is good” (good category); “we have no possibilities”, “we are forgotten by the world” (nothing category); “there are few places for fun, recreation” (events category). Fig. 4. Good things in the actual situation of the settlement Fig. 5. Bad things in the actual situation of the settlement Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148.140 Finally, some remarkable answers from the individual ones: “stopping the economic activities of wood processing”; “mafia leader- ship”; “crowd”; “logging not allowed”. Even if these answers are isolated and some of them extreme, they raise up some questions. However, answering these questions is not among the aims of our study. At the end of this group of economic ques- tions, we asked local residents if they would like to move out from their settlement. We got 135 answers, of which 74.1 percent were “no”. Those who might move out expressed their will to move to a city (11.1%) or abroad (7.4%). This is interesting because after reading the answers for the economic questions one could feel that a significant proportion of the locals – almost half of them – expressed a kind of dis- satisfaction. Still, the majority choose to stay. Connection with the landscape The next group of questions examined peo- ple’s relationship to the landscape. First, they were asked to select the values of their region. Nine elements were listed and they could choose several of them. The results are visible in Figure 6. “Caves”, “forests” and “peace” are the most considered values. The second question referred to the dif- ficulties of the region. Five elements were listed and respondents could choose several of them. The results are visible in Figure 7. 129 answers were given, it seems that this question was less interesting or the options less expressive, as generally, the number of chosen elements is lower. In this question, the respondents had the possibility to give their own answers, too. 19 answers were gathered, and their structure is very similar to those from the questions referring to the bad things of the settlement. 36.8 percent underlined the lack of jobs again. The next question in this group refers to the direct connection of inhabitants to caves and nature. Does anyone who lives here often go to the caves or to the nature (the surrounding forests)? The responses (Figure 8) show that the relationship between local residents and caves is rather weak, as the majority of peo- ple “never” (54.7%) or only “1–3 times a year” (37.2%) visit a cave. The proportion of those who go to a cave on a monthly or weekly ba- sis is only 8 percent. Visiting nature (surrounding forests), on the other hand, is much more significant, with more than half of the people (53.6%) go- ing to nature daily and 21.7 percent weekly. These answers can be explained probably by Fig. 6. The values of the region according to the respondents 141Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148. the fact that locals live in villages, which are closely connected to nature. Caves are not so interesting for locals, but they represent a very important attraction for tourists. Living in karst terrain is never easy (Ravbar, N. 2004; Day, M. 2010), so we also asked local people about how they consider living in a karst region as a whole: a bless- ing or a curse? We got 127 answers and the absolute majority considered living in a karst region a “blessing” (92.1%), while only 3.1 percent considered it a “curse”. The others gave an evasive or mixed answers. Tourism The next group of questions deals with tour- ism through four questions. First, we wanted to know how the number of visitors is per- ceived by locals, whether they perceive mass tourism or just stagnant or scant tourism. The responses – 135 answers – show that 55.6 per- cent perceived a high number of tourists (i.e. “crowd”), whereas 24.4 percent a small num- ber of tourists. The remaining 20.0 percent believe that the number of tourists is more of a transitory nature. Fig. 7. The difficulties of the region according to the respondents Fig. 8. Local people and caves / nature Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148.142 As can be seen in Figure 9, 91.2 percent of the respondents thought that “more tourists would be better”. This answer suggests that locals have an interest in developing tourism. The next question tries to detect the person- al relation of locals to the tourists or tourism in general. As it was an open-ended question the 128 answers had 26 varieties. It was easy to group them into categories as the majority of the answers is clearly “no” (Figure 10). 58.6 percent of the respondents have no relation with tourists at all, 14.1 percent offer rooms, while 25.0 percent work in tourism services including accommodation, catering, guiding etc. The remaining 2.3 percent consider them- selves as “friend of tourists”, which means that they have a positive attitude towards tourists without any direct involvement. The fourth and last question of this group deals with the topic of geotourism. This concept, which has been developing rapidly since the end of the 20th century (Dowling, R.K. 2011) may open up new opportunities in karst tourism. The question was if they knew what the term “geotourism” means, and if their answer was “yes” they also had to give some kind of definition. Only 19.0 percent of the 105 answers stated to know the meaning of “geotourism”, and only 18 answers were given to the open-ended part of the question, using the following terms in their definition: “nature” (5.0%), “geography” (3.6%), “geology” (2.2%) and “caves”, “karst”, “mountain” (0.7% each). These results prove the fact that the theoretical knowledge is very poor, even if practically all of them live in a place where geotourism is in fact significant. Relation to the nature park One of the key issues is the relationship be- tween local residents and the nature park. Seven questions were formulated in order to explore the details of this relationship. First, we were curious to see if locals were aware of the protection category of their region. They had to choose from: “nature Fig. 9. Perception of tourism by local people Fig. 10. Personal relation to tourism 143Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148. park”, “national park”, “natural monument” or “protected area”. From the 127 respondents, 83.5 percent knew correctly that they lived in a “nature park”. However, 7.9 percent thought that they were in a “national park”, probably confusing the two terms. The rest chose the “protected area” or the “natural monu- ment” category (6.3% and 2.4%, respectively). The second question was “Do you have any personal connection to the nature park?” 68.3 percent of the 126 respondents declared that they had no relation. Those who pre- tended to have relations gave 12 different an- swers, which were grouped in three catego- ries. The proportions can be seen in Figure 11. 24.6 percent described their relationship as “friendship with someone working at the nature park”, 5.6 percent had a working relation and 1.6 percent a relation of respect. It seems that the nature park doesn’t have an important role in the lives of the majority of inhabitants – at least not at the level of personal relations. There was also a question for families with children about how often their children meet nature park programs (in school or other ways). This is an important factor in increas- ing awareness. We got only 90 answers, and from these, only 12.2 percent affirmed that their children heard about the nature park. There were two very clear answers say- ing that in their child’s school there was a thematic competition about the park and another parent remembered that the repre- sentatives of the park attended the classes. The distribution of the other answers can be seen in Figure 12. 46.7 percent affirmed that their children did not hear about the park, the others were not sure (28.9%) or they simply did not know (12.2%). The next two questions were open-ended. The respondents were asked to specify the advantages and the disadvantages of the park for the locals. As we saw at the question re- ferring to the economic situation, the nature park appeared rather as a bad thing though not in a high frequency. So, one can expect that in these open-ended questions, the “rath- er bad” reputation of the park appears again. For the question about advantages 123 answers were given with 50 varieties. We grouped them into 19 categories. In Figure 13, only the categories with at least three answers are presented. The figure speaks for itself. “Nothing” has an absolute majority with 52.0 percent. But the next two categories (disadvantage – 7.3%, and not many – 6.5%) can also be considered as rather negative attitudes. So, altogether, the neutral and negative answers have a pro- portion of almost 2/3 (65.9%). Tourism has a value of 4.9 percent, while the further answers have less than 4.0 percent. Some interesting descriptions for advantages: “for locals abso- lutely nothing, maybe for nature”; “too little, may- be some tourists”; “I don’t think the locals feel it”. For the question about disadvantages 118 answers were given with 106 varieties. It was rather difficult to group the answers. Their Fig. 11. Personal relation to Nature Park Fig. 12. The respondents’ answers to the question “Do your children meet nature park programs in the school or other ways?” Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148.144 structure can be seen in Figure 14. Those who consider that the park has no disadvantages represent 13.6 percent of the respondents. To better understand the structure of the groups, we can highlight some representative opin- ions from each group. For group “wood cut- ting” (22.0%): “you can’t cut trees”; “we don’t have access to our own forest”; “we can’t collect firewood”. In the group “penalty” (13.6%) there are some hostile opinions: ”many disadvantag- es, fines over fines”; “we are fined, we are afraid of them”; “they don’t let us sell our products, they charge us taxes”. The group “many” has a pro- portion of 11.9 percent. Some examples: “lot of disadvantages”; “many limitations”. Finally, some examples from the group “rules” (8.5%): “we have stricter laws than other communes”; “laws invented by them”. After considering the detailed answers, we can look at the overall opinion of local resi- dents whether they consider the advantages or the disadvantages of the nature park to be more important (Figure 15). The general opinions seem to be more bal- anced than we would expect based on the previous open-ended questions. “Good” answers have a proportion of 46.2 percent, while “bad” answers of 53.8 percent, i.e. the negative opinions slightly dominate. Learning from past conflicts in the opera- tion of national parks and other protected areas worldwide, there is a strong emphasis in many places on involving local people as much as possible in the NP decision-making mechanism or at least holding frequent con- sultations with them (Nolte, B. 2004; Hayes, T.M. 2006; Mose, I. 2007; Zurc, J. and Udovč, A. 2009). When local people were asked whether they had any influence on park business (e.g. forums, councils), 53.2 per- cent of respondents answered “no”, and only 23.0 percent said “yes”. The others did not know or were not interested. An interesting opinion here: “people have lost their interest, they don’t go any more to meetings”. Fig. 15. General opinion of local people about the nature park Fig. 13. Advantages of the nature park for the local inhabitants Fig. 14. Disadvantages of the nature park 145Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148. Based on the official documents (laws) and the literature, we summarised the general tasks of the parks in seven points. Respondents could express on a 1-5 grade Likert scale how much they agreed with these goals for the Apuseni Nature Park. As it can be seen in Figure 16, the results show that the protection of geological and biological values are the most highly appre- ciated. At the same time, it should be noted that in the daily activities, budget proportions and publications about protected areas, bio- logical conservation is generally given more emphasis than geological conservation, but it is a worldwide phenomenon (cf. Gordon, J.E. et al. 2018). The lowest score was given to “cul- tural values” followed by “education”. “Scientific research” is somehow in the middle; however, it should be a very important task for nature parks. Tourism is also under-rated. Probably locals are not yet aware that tourism – which is important for them – can be developed within the framework of the nature park. Conflicts may arise between tourism and conservation (e.g. waste material, etc.), but for the benefit of local people, it is important to find ways that make sustainable development of tourism pos- sible while preserving the integrity of nature. Fig. 16. Mean scores given to the importance of each task of the park according to local people (1.00 = not important at all, 5.00 = very important). Bio = biological preservation; Geo = geological values; Cult = cultural values; Land = landscape protection; Sci = scientific research; Edu = education; Tour = tourism. Discussion and conclusions The most intriguing questions were those in connection with the nature park. As we al- ready mentioned in the Introduction, there were several situations when potential re- spondents refused to fill in the questionnaire after realising that there were questions re- garding the park. As for the economic ques- tions, we can feel a kind of optimism, and the proportion of inhabitants who would like to move away from their settlement is equal or less than in similar surveys conducted in oth- er karst areas. For instance, the proportion of locals who would move away from the Slovak Karst was between 23.0 and 55.0 percent, de- pending on their attitude cluster (Nestorová Dická, J. et al. 2020), 37.0 percent for Aggtelek karst (Telbisz, T. et al. 2018), and 36.0 percent for Tara National Park in Serbia (Brankov, J. et al. 2022). However, when speaking about the park, the balance tilts towards the nega- tive opinions. The dissatisfaction of the locals, the feeling of limitation due to the park are expressed in many different ways. The most relevant problems can be linked to the rules and laws. From discussions with the park administration, it is revealed that they also have difficulties in making the lo- cals to follow the rules. This may be due to the inherited mentality of the communist pe- riod when the nature protection rules were less severe and even they were taken less seriously. Or are the rules really too severe? This is a question that should be analysed based on cooperation and mutual under- standing. The administration of the nature park should involve local people more closely in decision-making, as stated by many other authors (Hall, D. and Richards, G. 2000; Tosun, C. 2006; Jamal, T. and Stronza, A. 2009; Puhakka, R. et al. 2009). Most dissat- isfactions are connected with forestry and wood. At this point, a strange fact should be noted that the administration of the park – actually of all national and nature parks in Romania – belongs to the state-owned National Forest Administration (ROMSILVA), which is primarily interested in the economi- Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148.146 cal use of forests and less in nature protec- tions (Băltăreţu, A. and Busuioc, M. 2009). From the answers, we can conclude that tourism is already an important issue for a significant part of local people, but it could be a complementary or even basic revenue for an even higher proportion of them. However, keeping the equilibrium between tourism development and nature protec- tion is very important (Williams, P.W. and Fennell, D.A. 2002). In this process, the na- ture park and also the rules – and respecting them - have a major role. Another question is whether we can talk about geotourism in Apuseni Nature Park. In the broadest sense of the word, the answer is yes (for types of geotourists, see Hose, T.A. 2008; Božić, S. and Tomić, N. 2015). In par- allel with this survey a closely similar sur- vey was made among tourists, the results of which will be presented in another article. In that survey, more than 400 questionnaires were completed, and more than 52.0 percent of the respondents affirmed that they heard about the term “geotourism”. But when asked if they consider themselves as being “geotourists” only 29.4 percent answered af- firmatively. Thus, it seems that the term is not well known even to the majority of tour- ists. Still, their knowledge about geotourism is better than that of locals. More intensive use of this notion could strengthen the net- working with other geotourism sites (learn- ing ideas from each other, promoting each other), which could directly or indirectly contribute to the development of tourism of Apuseni Nature Park. Acknowledgement: This research was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office Hungary (NKFIH) K124497 project. REFERENCES Badea, L. 1983. Geografia României, Vol. I. Geografia Fizică (Geography of Romania, Vol. I. Phisical Geography). București, Editura Academiei RSR. Băltăreţu, A. and Busuioc, M. 2009. The manage- ment of the natural protected areas at a national level. Romanian Economic and Business Review 4. (2): 101–111. Bleahu, M. 2019. Ariile Protejate și Protecția Naturii (Protected areas and conservation of nature). București, Paideia. Beresford, M. and Phillips, A. 2000. Protected land- scapes: A conservation model for the 21st century. George Wright Forum 17. (1): 15–26. Božić, S. and Tomić, N. 2015. Canyons and gorges as potential geotourism destinations in Serbia: comparative analysis from two perspectives – general ‘geotourists’ and ‘pure geotourists’. Open Geosciences 7. (1): 531–546. Available at https://doi. org/10.1515/geo-2015-0040 Brankov, J., Micić, J., Ćalić, J., Kovačević-Majkić, J., Milanović, R. and Telbisz, T. 2022. Stakeholders’ attitudes toward protected areas: The case of Tara National Park (Serbia). Land 11. (4): 468. Available at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/4/468/htm Cigna, A.A. and Forti, P. 2013. Caves: the most im- portant geotouristic feature in the world. Tourism and Karst Areas 6. (1): 9–26. CORINE Land Cover database, 2022. Available from https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine- land-cover Cucu, V. 1984. Geografia României, Vol. II. Geografia Umană și economică (Geography of Romania, Vol. II. Human and Economic Geography). București, Editura Academiei RSR. Day, M. 2010. Human interaction with Caribbean karst landscapes: Past, present and future. Acta Carsologica 39. (1): 137–146. Available at https://doi. org/10.3986/ac.v39i1.119 Dollma, M. 2018. Canyons of Albania and geotourism development. Acta Geoturistica 9. (2): 28–34. Dowling, R.K. 2011. Geotourism’s global growth. Geoheritage 3. (1): 1–13. Available at https://doi. org/10.1007/s12371-010-0024-7 Dudley, N., Parrish, J.D., Redford, K.H. and Stolton, S. 2010. The revised IUCN protected area manage- ment categories: the debate and ways forward. Oryx 44. (4): 485-490. Gordon, J.E., Crofts, R., Díaz-Martínez, E. and Woo, K.S. 2018. Enhancing the role of geoconservation in protected area management and nature conserva- tion. Geoheritage 10. (2): 191–203. Available at https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12371-017-0240-5 GEO, 2007. Government Emergency Ordinance No. 57/2007 on the regime of protected natural areas, conser- vation of natural habitats, wild flora and fauna (20th June 2007, published in Official Monitor nr. 442 from 29th June 2007). Available at http://legislatie.just. ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/83289 (in Romanian) Hall, D. and Richards, G. 2000. Tourism and Sustainable Community Development. 1st Edition. London, Routledge. Hayes, T.M. 2006. Parks, people, and forest protection: An institutional assessment of the effectiveness 147Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148. of protected areas. World Development 34. (12): 2064–2075. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2006.03.002 Horváth, Gy. 2006. Északnyugat-Erdély. A Kárpát- medence Régiói 4. (Northwestern Transylvania. Regions of the Carpathian Basin 4.) Pécs–Budapest, Dialóg Campus Kiadó. Hose, T.A. 2008. Towards a history of geotourism: definitions, antecedents and the future. Geological Society Special Publications 300. (1): 37–60. London. Available at https://doi.org/10.1144/SP300.5 IUCN, 2022. Protected Areas. Category V. Protected Landscape. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN. Available at https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/ about/protected-areas-categories/category-ii- national-park Jakab, G., Pál, I., Silye, L., Sümegi, P., Tóth, A., Sümegi, B., Frink, J.P., Magyari, E.K., Kern, Z. and Benkő, E. 2021. Social context of late medieval and early modern deforestation periods in the Apuseni Mountains (Romania) based on an integrated evaluation of historical and paleobotanical records. Environmental Archaeology. Taylor and Francis on- line publications, 2021. Available at https://doi.org /10.1080/14614103.2021.1942744 Jamal, T. and Stronza, A. 2009. Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: stake- holders, structuring and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17. (2): 169–189. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802495741 Krpina, V. 2015. Analysis of the relation between visitors and protected natural areas in the Zadar County. Šumarski list 139. (11–12): 535–551. Karst and National Parks 2022. Budapest, ELTE Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem. Online project content description. Available at https://karst.elte.hu/knp/ Mallarach, J.M., Morrison, J., Kothari, A., Sarmiento, F., Atauri, J.A. and Wishitemi, B. 2008. In defence of protected landscapes: a reply to some criticisms of category V protected areas and sugges- tions for improvement. In Defining Protected Areas: An International Conference in Almeria, Spain. Eds.: Dudley, N. and Stolton, S., Gland, Switzerland, IUCN, 31–37. Mari, L., Tábori, Zs., Šulc, I., Radeljak Kaufmann, P., Milanović, R., Gessert, A., Imecs, Z., Baricz, A. and Telbisz, T. 2022. The system and spatial distribution of protected areas in Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia and Croatia. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (2): 99–115. Mika, M., Zawilińska, B. and Kubal-Czerwińska, M. 2019. Exploring the determinants of local people’s attitude towards national parks in Poland. Folia Geographica 61. (1): 5–16. Mose, I. 2007. Google-Books-ID: fl3dR_WiuKwC. Protected Areas and Regional Development in Europe: Towards a New Model for the 21st Century. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Nestorová Dická, J., Gessert, A., Bryndzová, L. and Telbisz, T. 2020. Behavioural survey of local inhabit- ants’ views and attitudes about Slovak Karst National Park in Slovakia. Sustainability 12. (23): 10029. Available at https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310029 Nolte, B. 2004. Sustainable tourism in biosphere re- serves of East Central European countries. Case stud- ies from Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Policies, Methods and Tools for Visitor Management. MMV2 Proceedings, 349–356. Orășeanu, I. 2016. Hidrogeologia Carstului din Munții Apuseni (Hydrogeology of karsts in Apuseni Mountains). Oradea, Belvedere. Papageorgiou, K. and Kassioumis, K. 2005. The national park policy context in Greece: Park users’ perspec- tives of issues in park administration. Journal for Nature Conservation 13. (4): 231–246. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2004.11.001 Puhakka, R., Sarkki, S., Cottrell, S.P. and Siikamäki, P. 2009. Local discourses and international ini- tiatives: sociocultural sustainability of tourism in Oulanka National Park, Finland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17. (5): 529–549. Available at https://doi. org/10.1080/09669580802713457 Ruban, D. 2018. Karst as important resource for geopark-based tourism: Current state and bi- ases. Resources 7. (4): 82. Available at https://doi. org/10.3390/resources7040082 Ravbar, N. 2004. Drinking water supply from karst water resources (The example of the Kras Plateau, SW Slovenia). Acta Carsologica 33. (1): 73–84. Available at https://doi.org/10.3986/ac.v33i1.316 Šulc, I. and Valjak, V. 2012. Zaštićena područja u funkciji održivog razvoja hrvatskog otočja – primjer otoka Mljeta (Protected areas as a factor of sustainable devel- opment of the Croatian island – the example of Mljet island). Croatian Geographical Bulletin 74. (1): 161–185. Telbisz, T., Imecs, Z., Mari, L. and Bottlik, Zs. 2016. Changing human-environment interactions in medium mountains: the Apuseni Mts (Romania) as a case study. Journal of Mountain Science 13. (9): 1675–1687. Available at https://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s11629-015-3653-0 Telbisz, T., Mari, L., Gruber, P., Kőszegi, M., Bottlik, Zs. and Standovár, T. 2018. Képes-e egy nemzeti park a regionális fejlődést előmozdítani? – Az Aggteleki Nemzeti Park speciális esete (Can a na- tional park improve regional development? – The special case of Aggtelek National Park). In Földrajzi Tanulmányok 2018. Eds.: Fazekas, I., Kiss, E. and Lázár, I., Debrecen, Debreceni Egyetem, 251–254. Telbisz, T., Gruber, P., Mari, L., Kőszegi, M., Bottlik, Zs. and Standovár, T. 2020. Geological heritage, geo- tourism and local development in Aggtelek National Park (NE Hungary). Geoheritage 12. (1): 5. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00438-7 Telbisz, T., Ćalić, J., Kovačević-Majkić, J., Milanović, R., Brankov, J. and Micić, J. 2021. Karst geoheritage Imecs, Z. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 133–148.148 of Tara National Park (Serbia) and its geotouristic potential. Geoheritage 13. (4): 88. Available at https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00612-5 Telbisz, T. and Mari, L. 2020. The significance of karst areas in European national parks and geop- arks. Open Geosciences 12. (1): 117–132. Available at https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2020-0008 Tempo online, 2022. INSSE tables, București, Institutul Naţional de Statistică. Available at http://statistici. insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse- table Tosun, C. 2006. Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management 27. (3): 493–504. Available at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.004 Trakolis, D. 2001. Perceptions, preferences and reac- tions of local inhabitants in Vikos-Aoos National Park, Greece. Environmental Management 28. (5): 665–676. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/ s002670010251 Williams, P.W. and Fennell, D.A. 2002. Creating a sustainable equilibrium between mountain communities and tourism development. Tourism Recreation Research 27. (3): 5–8. Available at https:// doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2002.11081369 Zawilińska, B. 2020. Residents’ attitudes towards a national park under conditions of suburbanisa- tion and tourism pressure: A case study of Ojców National Park (Poland). European Countryside 12. (1): 119–137. Available at https://doi.org/10.2478/ euco-2020-0007 Zgłobicki, W. and Baran-Zgłobicka, B. 2013. Geomorphological heritage as a tourist attraction. A case study in Lubelskie Province, SE Poland. Geoheritage 5. (2): 137–149. Available at https://doi. org/10.1007/s12371-013-0076-6 Zurc, J. and Udovč, A. 2009. Local inhabitants’ opin- ion about the triglav national park management. Sociologija i proctor / Sociology & Space 47. 43–56.