Public perception of the hazards affecting ...

Public perception of the hazards affecting geomorphological heritage—case study: the central area of Bucegi Mts. (Southern Carpathians, Romania) Laura Comănescu & Alexandru Nedelea

Environmental Earth Sciences ISSN 1866-6280 Environ Earth Sci DOI 10.1007/s12665-014-4007-x

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy Environ Earth Sci DOI 10.1007/s12665-014-4007-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Public perception of the hazards affecting geomorphological heritage—case study: the central area of Bucegi Mts. (Southern Carpathians, Romania) Laura Coma˘nescu • Alexandru Nedelea

Received: 1 December 2013 / Accepted: 28 December 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract This paper aims at presenting the opinion of the population (and especially of the tourists) about the natural and anthropogenic hazards affecting the geomorphological heritage of the central area of the Bucegi Mts. Our scientific approach is intended to raise the awareness of the authorities and tourists as well with regard to the degradation hazard of the geomorphological heritage through uncontrolled tourism activities, so that the management team of the Bucegi Mountains Natural Park can take the most appropriate measures for its preservation and protection. The study area belongs to the central section of the Bucegi massif, a realm characterized by many types of landforms and shaping processes, with many geomorphosites, which create a particularly valuable geomorphological heritage. The investigation relied on a sample of 158 tourists, whose perception was assessed based on a specific questionnaire. The general finding is that most tourists are familiar with the geomorphological heritage of this area, but few of them are aware of the existing hazards and especially of their long-term effects. Keywords Hazard perception Questionnaire Geomorphological heritage Bucegi Carpathians Romania

Introduction The term of cultural heritage was introduced by UNESCO on May 14, 1954 in Hague with the issuing of the L. Coma˘nescu (&) A. Nedelea Department of Geomorphology, Pedology, Geomatics, Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania e-mail: [email protected]

Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, a document modified in 1999 in the same city. Likewise, on December 11, 1962 in Paris, the Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites was adopted, which defines cultural landscape (paragraphs I and II), offers guidelines for the protection of cultural heritage (paragraphs III and IV) and points at the education measures that need to be implemented (paragraph V) (http://portal. unesco.org/en.). Jokilehto makes for the first time a synthesis of the evolution of the term cultural heritage. His work, which was updated in 2005 within the Heritage and Society Working Group of ICCROM, shows how the concept blossomed in ancient times (6th AD, Antiquity—Theoderic the Great) and how it crossed through the Golden Age of Renaissance to reach the present. The last definition mentioned by the author is the one given by in 2004 by ICOMOS UK when referring to cultural landscapes (Jokilehto 2005). Panizza and Piacente (2003) argue that the term beni culturali (cultural heritage) refers both to natural and anthropogenic elements. As such, according to UNESCO Panizza and Piacente (2003), cultural heritage includes monuments, isolated or clustered buildings of historical, artistic, architectural and religious value, as well as natural sites (natural heritage) of historical, religious, architectural and scientific value (Fig. 1). In its turn, the natural heritage includes the following items (Fig. 1): geological, geomorphological, ecological or combined monuments of aesthetic or scientific value; protected natural sites of special value (geological, geomorphological, etc.) and unprotected natural sites of outstanding scientific or aesthetic value (Panizza and Piacente 2003; Coma˘nescu et al. 2010). The international recognition of the geological–

123

Author's personal copy Environ Earth Sci

Fig. 1 Cultural heritage and the features of the geological–geomorphological component (according to Panizza and Piacente 2003)

geomorphological heritage became effective with the Recommendation Rec (2004) 3 of the European Council, of May 5, 2004, on conservation of the geological heritage and areas of special geological interest (https://wcd.coe.int/ ViewDoc.jsp?id=740629). Marthaler (2003) has introduced the concept of heritage pyramid. Thus, heritage pyramid is organized on three levels. At the bottom lies the geological–geomorphological heritage (minerals, rocks, landforms, geological or geomorphological processes and phenomena). This is followed by the biological–ecological level (biotopes and biocenoses), while on top lies the historical–cultural heritage (buildings erected over the time by human society). All these steps together make up the total heritage, which includes all material and immaterial heritage objects that are passed on from generation to generation (Bady 1995). In our opinion, geomorphological heritage is part of the total heritage, because it adds value to the heritage of a region. It encompasses the geomorphosites, i.e. the landforms of exquisite scientific, aesthetic, cultural and economic value, which become important only through human perception. From this reason, one has to know precisely how people look at natural and anthropogenic hazards affecting the geomorphological heritage, in general, and the geomorphosites, in particular. Over the time, hazards may lead to landscape degradation, which means that some of the values mentioned previously (scientific, aesthetic, cultural, economic) will be entirely lost (especially the aesthetic or scientific value).

123

Due to the diverse and inestimable cultural heritage spread around the Mediterranean Sea, the Italian Geological School has developed a new direction in the assessment of the potential hazards that might affect the cultural heritage (Lazzari et al. 2010; Brandolini et al. 2012; Galadini et al. 2012; Lazzari and Lazzari 2012; Gizzi and Lazzari 2012). This issue has also been approached by Chinese school of thought (Lei and Xuegong 2010). Within Romanian scientific literature the topic of natural heritage in general and of geomorphologic heritage in particular is approached by several paper works (Ilies and Josan 2009; Coma˘nescu et al. 2010) which refer to its pure theoretical dimension without applying the concept to a specific territory. Individual or collective perceptions (that many times are very different) of the potential of the various natural or anthropogenic phenomena that negatively impact the geomorphological heritage are very important from the standpoint of the management of natural and anthropogenic hazards, especially prior to their occurrence (Cheval 2003). The results of the studies assessing human perception must be put at the disposal of local authorities, so that to enable them to take the most appropriate measures for the protection and preservation of geomorphological heritage, to support tourism development in the respective areas and the proper management of cultural heritage. Over the last decades, the investigations of the various types of hazards have seen two directions. One is the subjective approach, based on the analysis of people’s perception (Cutter 2001), while the other is the objective approach, relying on mathematics and aiming at computing the involved hazards on a probabilistic base (Heijmans 2001). The differences between the two directions are undoubtedly significant. Outstanding works regarding human perception on the various types of hazards generally appeared after the year 2000. Most times, these studies had a strong psychological and social component (Bland et al. 1996; Sjo¨berg 2000; Loewenstein et al. 2001; Chesney et al. 2002; Weber et al. 2002; Bickerstaff 2004; Cannon and Davis 2004; Sjo¨berg et al. 2004; Armas¸ 2008). Based on the existing Romanian and international literature, this paper aims at studying the connection between the geomorphological heritage and the natural or humaninduced hazards that may affect it. Moreover, we would like to outline this interaction from a double perspective: from the experts’ point of view (including their proposal for measures intended to reduce the degradation and to increase the conservation of the geomorphologic heritage) and from the tourists’ point of view (who practice different types of tourism, including various uncontrolled activities). The final purpose of our effort is to make the tourists realize the danger of degrading


the geomorphological heritage and to educate them in the spirit of geotourism. Likewise, our intention is to make the local authorities and the Park Administration understand the dangers that threaten the geomorphological heritage of this outstanding area of the Romanian Carpathians. The investigation, which was accomplished in several stages between 2008 and 2010, was supported by the Administration of the Bucegi Mountains Natural Park. We turned our attention to this area because it shelters a diversity of geological elements and an inestimable geomorphological heritage, well known at national and international level. At the same time, it has a well-developed transport infrastructure (marked tourist trails, cable transport, forest roads, earth roads, chalets), which explains the high tourist flows. Since the 19th century, the Bucegi Mountains have been the most popular tourist area of Romania, especially because of the Transcarpathian railway and the road connecting Bucharest to Bras¸ ov (Mihai et al. 2009).

Study area The investigated territory is represented by the central area of Bucegi massif, a mountain division lying in the central part of Romania, to the east of the Southern Carpathians (Fig. 2), between the Prahova Valley, on the east, and the Rucar–Bran Corridor, on the west. The studied area is part of Bucegi Mountains Natural Park, protected territory designated through Law 5/2000, whose limits were established through Governmental resolution 230/2003. The park has an area of 35,700 hectares, which overlaps the territory of three counties: Daˆmbovit¸ a, Prahova, and Bras¸ ov. Within this territory there are 14 natural reserves totalling 12,770 hectares (35 % from the total territory of the park). They include the most important components of the geomorphological heritage within the central section of Bucegi Mountains such as: Horoabei Valley, Prahovean Scarp, Ta˘tarului Gorges, Bucs¸ oiu– Ma˘la˘ies¸ ti–Gaura Scarp. The geological structure is made up of conglomerates (the so-called Bucegi conglomerates), more than 1,000 m thick, calcareous formations and marly sandy flysch. These

rocks have responded differently to selective erosion, thus producing specific landforms (Patrulius 1969). The Bucegi massif is composed of an arc-shaped ridge, resembling a horseshoe, cut in its central part by the Ialomit¸ a valley, which shows a sequence of gorges and basin-like depressions. The maximum elevation of Bucegi Mts. (Omu peak, 2,505 m) lies in the investigated area (Velcea 1961). The massif exhibits cliffs (to the Prahova valley and Bran–Rucar corridor), structural plateaus (developed between 1,800 and 2,000 m), gorge stretches along the Ialomit¸ a valley (Urs¸ ilor, Ta˘tarului, Za˘noaga), Alpine crests, castellated relief resulted through selective erosion (Babele, Baba Mare, Sphinx), glacial topography (Ma˘la˘ies¸ ti, T¸ iga˘nes¸ ti, Obaˆrs¸ ia and Valea Cerbului complexes), karst topography (Ialomit¸ a cave), glacial thresholds, as well as torrential streams (Coma˘nescu and Nedelea 2010) (Figs. 3, 4). At the same time, Bucegi massif preserves relatively well the planation surfaces, with gradients of 5–10, which are often dissected by the headwaters of the streams that cut the structural cliffs (Velcea 1961). The most valuable elements of the geomorphological heritage (the geomorphosites) located in the studied area (Figs. 3, 4) are represented by Babele, Baba Mare, the Sphinx, Caraiman Peak, Braˆna Caraiman, Caraiman Waterfall and Prahova Scarp (Coma˘nescu and Dobre 2012). –

– –

–

Babele are isolated rocks with bizarre shapes developed on conglomerates as a result of differential erosion exerted by water and freeze–thaw processes. They may be easily accessed both on road (forestry and asphalted roads) and through cable transport. Baba Mare has similar genesis and morphology with Babele. The Sphinx is an isolated rock, similar in aspect with the Sphinx in Egypt, which was carved by external agents in conglomerates. It is 8 m high and 12 m wide being located at an altitude of 2,215 m. It is an iconic tourist attraction for the Romanian Carpathians, accessible all year round by gondola car. The dome-shaped Caraiman Peak (2,384 m) represents an important panorama point. Its cultural value is

Fig. 2 Geographical location of the study area (Coma˘nescu and Nedelea 2010)

123


Fig. 3 Outstanding elements of the geomorphological heritage of the Bucegi Mts. (a Babele, b Sphinx, c Baba Mare, d Prahovean scarp and Heroes’ monument)

Fig. 4 The geomorphological heritage of the study area (according to Mihai et al. 2009, with alterations and additions; Coma˘nescu and Dobre 2012)

123


–

–

–

enhanced by the presence of World War I Heroes Monument (The Caraiman Cross). Braˆna Caraiman is a structural bench on the Prahova slope of Bucegi Mountains. It has a high level of difficulty and an impressive appearance being used as tourist path between Caraiman chalet and the Heroes Monument. Caraiman Waterfall develops on a structural threshold on the upper part of Jepii Mari valley at an altitude of 1,700 m. The Prahovean slope is an escarpment of large dimensions (relative elevation of above 1,000 m) formed on conglomerates and dissected by narrow valleys. It is hardly accessible in winter season, because the avalanche risk is high and tourist trails are closed.

In this area, tourism activities thrive. One should note both the well-developed infrastructure (it is the only Carpathian area with themed geotourism paths) and the numerous geotourism products. The three themed itineraries are included in a tour of approximately three hours, which allows the tourists to admire the main geomorphosites in this area. These itineraries are the following (Coma˘nescu and Dobre 2012): •

•

•

Babele Chalet—Heroes Monument—level difference 80 m, easy hike, access all year round. The trail is obvious and well marked and represents the main access route to The Heroes Monument. It crosses a series of gullies and torrential streams within the Jepii Mici catchment, which may pose a threat for the tourism activities occurring during the periods with heavy or long-lasting rains. Babele Chalet—Caraiman Chalet—level difference 200 m, easy hike (although may present some risks during the periods with thick fog) and all year round accessibility. The trail connects the Caraiman chalet with the Prahovean escarpment and Caraiman waterfall. It descends constantly along the Jepii Mici torrential stream (passing over a threshold developed on conglomerates). Caraiman Chalet—Heroes Monument—level difference 250 m, strenuous hike (during the foggy and heavy rain periods). The trail goes along a structural bench and has extremely difficult stretches, especially where it crosses torrential bodies that may sometimes be covered by snow.

The most common hazards specific to this area are rock falls and avalanches, while the most destructive anthropogenic activities are excessive tourism, the breaking up of speleothems, the climbing on strange-looking rocks, the scratching of cave walls and rocks, inadequate waste disposal procedures, overgrazing, deforestations, garbage

dumps, the presence of parallel trails, which affect the grassy vegetation, noise pollution and tailpipe gas emissions, the presence of pillars, water and gas pipes, constructions, and ski runs. There is no study on the risks and hazards in this area and neither a coherent strategy for their assessment and management. Unfortunately, the local and central authorities have not taken any technical, structural or legislative measures to manage the natural hazards or to reduce the impact of human activities upon the geomorphological heritage. The only important measure taken so far is the creation of the Bucegi Mountains Natural Park. However, this is rather a formal measure, in as much as it has not put an end to human activities with destructive potential. In Romania, the management of hazards and risks meets a regulatory and top-down approach, the prevention being poorly addressed.

Materials and methods The questionnaire was conceived based on other similar undertakings (Knowles 2002; Cheval 2003; Contiu and Contiu 2007; Ceobanu and Grozavu 2009). To meet the goals of the present study the questionnaire was oriented in two directions: tourism activity on the one hand and natural and human hazards, on the other hand. It includes 15 questions, most of them close-ended (12 close-ended questions and 3 open-ended questions) and an interview sheet. The questions were selected so that to reflect both the way in which the natural hazards affect the evolution of tourism activities in the Bucegi Mountains and the tourists’ stand in connection with the local authorities and their management actions. The questionnaire was used further to make valuable correlations between the tourists’ portrait and their perception upon the hazards that affect the geomorphological heritage. The questionnaire shown in Table 1 was conceived by taking into account the purpose of the study. It may suffer changes and adaptations to ensure a greater accuracy. The data obtained by administering the questionnaire can be statistically processed and analysed, while the results can serve a practical purpose.

Results and discussion A person’s perception of a natural or anthropogenic hazard depends on a number of psychological, social, economic and historical factors. Thus, the short- or long-term decisions of that person will rely entirely on his own subjective judgments (Smith 2001).

123

Author's personal copy Environ Earth Sci Table 1 Questionnaire sample: the assessment of hazards affecting the geomorphological heritage 1. How often are you a tourist in the Bucegi Mts.? a. Every month b. Every season c. Every year d. At intervals longer than 1 year 3. What type of tourism do you practice? a. Trekking b. Cave exploring c. Sport (including climbing and extreme sports) d. Scientific 5. What impressed you the most in the Bucegi Mts.? a. Natural tourist attractions b. Landscape in general c. Anthropogenic tourist attractions d. Recreation facilities 7. What do you appreciate the most to a natural tourist attraction? a. Aesthetic features b. Scientific significance c. Cultural significance d. Economic value 9. How do you appreciate their state of conservation? a. Very good b. Good c. Satisfactory d. Unsatisfactory 11. If you have come many times in the Bucegi Mts., how would you appreciate the state of the tourist attractions related to topography? a. It has worsened b. It has improved c. It has remained the same d. I don’t know 13. How do you act when tourists disregard landscape protection rules?

15. In your opinion, what is the tourist attraction related to topography that is particularly prone to natural and/or man- induced hazards? Interviewee sheet 1. Age A. Less than 20 B. 21–40 C. 41–60 D. Over 60 2. Gender A. Male B. Female

123

2. Which is the average length of your stay? a. 1 day b. 1 weekend c. 3–5 days d. A week or longer 4. How do you judge the state of the infrastructure of the Bucegi Mts.? a. Very good b. Good c. Medium d. Weak 6. Please mention the tourist attractions of the Bucegi Mts. related to topography (the landforms).

8. Which of the elements below is the most important for the value of a tourist attraction connected to topography? a. Singularity b. Attractiveness c. Representativeness d. Accessibility 10. Do you have knowledge of serious natural or anthropogenic phenomena (hazards) that impact them? a. Human activities (including tourism) b. Floods c. Collapses, landslides d. Various climatic phenomena e. Other (specify) 12. In your opinion, who should oversee the development of ecological tourism? a. Mountain rescue centers b. Chalet keepers c. Local authorities d. Protected areas rangers e. Other (who exactly?) 14. Do you think the authorities manage properly the area, so that to preserve the landforms? a. Yes b. No c. Only to some extent

Author's personal copy Environ Earth Sci Table 1 continued 3. Nationality A. Romanian B. Other(specify) 4. Educational level A. Secondary education B. Higher education 5. Place of origin A. Urban B. Rural

Table 2 Sample structure

Country of origin

Romania

132

Other nationality Age

\20 years.

50

21–40 years. 41–60 years

56 44

[60 years.

Questionnaire identification The questionnaire was administered to 158 people (tourists). It was rather difficult to achieve a representative sample, because the number of tourists was very large and hard to establish precisely (the massif has many access points). The questionnaire was very useful to our approach, in as much as it allowed us to compare tourists’ opinions with those of specialists and local authorities. Even though not everybody was familiar with scientific terminology (which actually was avoided in most questions), many tourists (about 75 %) coming often in this area were able to provide interesting and useful information. The sample mainly consists of Romanian citizens (83 %), most of them living in the city (98.7 %), especially in Bucharest, the capital of Romania, which due to the rather short distance (about 150 km) generates the highest tourist flows in this area (Table 2). The questionnaire was applied especially to people with high educational level (87 % of the respondents were higher education graduates), hence a greater accuracy of the answers. The age structure of the sample shows that 67 % of the respondents were young people (less than 40 years old). As a matter of fact, even though the access is rather easy, Bucegi massif remains a target especially for the young. As far as the gender structure is concerned, one can see a rather equal distribution (54 % men and 46 % women) (Table 2). The subjects who participated in the survey (75 % of them being constant tourists of the massif) consider this area as being a climbing school or the cradle of tourism in Romania. Most of them (72 %) use to come here for

Educational level

26

8

Secondary education

19

Higher education

139

Place of origin

Urban

156

Gender

Rural Male

2 86

Female

72

trekking. Of these, 28 % said they usually stay for 3–5 days, while 70 % come here only at weekends. Tourists appreciate the infrastructure as being good and very good (probably comparing it to other mountain areas in Romania), 70 % of the respondents considering that most tourist attractions related to topography are generally accessible. Some of them complained about the uneven distribution of the infrastructure over the territory, because most facilities lie on the Bucegi Plateau, on the scarp towering the Prahova valley and along the Ialomit¸ a valley, while the western side of the massif has been largely neglected. The importance of the geomorphological heritage of the Bucegi Mts. was clearly revealed by the answers provided by the subjects to question number 5. Thus, about 80 % of the respondents (Fig. 4) was impressed by the natural tourist attractions (especially the landforms, but also the vegetation and hydrography perceived as landscape components) (Coma˘nescu and Nedelea 2010). Tourists are familiar with many landforms lying in the Bucegi Mts.; they even know the origin of some of them and are aware of their value. The landforms most often mentioned in our survey are the following: Babele (mentioned by everybody), Sphinx (mentioned by everybody), Omu Peak, Orzei Gorges, Za˘noaga Gorges, Caraiman Plateau, Eastern Scarp, Ma˘la˘ies¸ ti Cirque, T¸ iga˘nes¸ ti Cirque, Ma˘la˘es¸ ti Valley, Morarului Crags, Ialomit¸ a Cave, and Horoabei Valley. When referring to the tourist attractions connected to topography, the respondents appreciate both their aesthetic and scientific value (Fig. 5). The economic and cultural values have a lower weight, as the first is not perceived by

123


Fig. 5 Tourists’ opinion regarding the attractions, the value of landforms and features of the landforms in Bucegi Mts.

Fig. 6 The relation between the conservation state and its evolution tendencies

the tourists, while the second is less represented in comparison to other massifs (only the Ialomit¸ a cave falls in this category due to the little church built at its entrance). The fact that scientific value is mentioned by 34 % of the respondents reinforces our finding that most tourists are educated people, who represent the so-called ideal geotourist. The survey has shown that from the four characteristics included in the questionnaire (singularity, attractiveness, representativeness and accessibility), singularity and accessibility occupy the first positions (Fig. 5). In our opinion, the notion of representativeness was not clearly understood by everybody. As far as the conservation state of the landforms is concerned, tourists appreciate it as being good and very good, which is actually understandable given the fact that the most emblematic and valuable landforms lie within protected areas or have been declared monuments of

123

nature. In connection with this issue, more than 90 % of the respondents think that the state of these landforms has remained the same between their successive comings (Fig. 6). People surveyed appreciate that geomorphological heritage as a whole is affected primarily by human activities (irrational tourism, overgrazing, improperly stored waste, noise pollution, pollution with exhaust gas produced by the sport utility vehicles travelling on the dirt roads, scratches on the caves’ walls or on the monuments of nature, the presence of cable car poles, the high density of trails, the presence of various posts, pipelines, trench drains, buildings and ski tracks, the presence of the relay antenna at Cos¸ tila). Incidentally, 95 % of the respondents mentioned at least one anthropogenic activity that negatively impacted the landscape (Fig. 7). Besides, many of them also pointed out at a number of natural phenomena that possess a high destructive potential, of which collapses, avalanches and gully erosion were considered the most significant. Climatic hazards and floods were not mentioned at all. Most subjects (more than 85 %) deem that local authorities and rangers should be the first involved in ensuring a clean tourism and in protecting the nature, in general, and the landforms, in particular. The respondents do not envisage other people who might take care of these issues and consider that mountain rescue staff (12 %) and chalet keepers (3 %) play a secondary role. Generally, most subjects (75 %) believe the authorities fail to do their best for ensuring a fair and integrated management of geomorphological heritage, but usually they do not give suggestions about what should be done. Another survey accomplished on a national scale (Cheval 2003) shows the prevailing opinion is rather similar

Author's personal copy Environ Earth Sci Fig. 7 The human elements and activities that represent destructive threats on the central section of Bucegi Mts. (a the presence of road and tourism cable infrastructure as a determinant factor of pollution; b overgrazing and uncontrolled tourism; c, d the climbing and deterioration of nature monuments of geomorphologic interest/geomorphosites; e the presence of auxiliary and transport infrastructure; f chaotically placed constructions)

(60 % of the respondents), which confirms the general distrust on the authorities and the way they handle the situations. Unfortunately, as in the case of other surveys (Cheval 2003), we ought to take note of the people’s low coping capacity in the face of unwanted events (question number 13). In our case, this means they disregard the environment protection rules and implicitly endanger landform integrity, which leads us to consider that it is compulsory to start building a civic consciousness, especially for the age group less than 20 years. Figure 8 shows the age–gender correlation and the involvement degree for voluntary environmental initiatives. The respondents believe the landforms most prone to degradation are Babele, Sphinx, Omu Peak, Urla˘toarea Waterfall (because of human impact), Bucegi Plateau (both through anthropogenic and natural processes), Horoaba valleys, Za˘noaga stretch (collapses) and the many stream sections where avalanches are common (Ma˘la˘ies¸ ti, T¸ iga˘nes¸ ti and Dorului valleys).

Conclusions During the last decades, there has been a growing interest for the protection of natural and cultural sites not only against the natural hazards, but also against the human activities that may contribute to their degradation. The sustainable management of the tourist activities in this geographical space must be accomplished through the medium of tourists and not necessarily for them, especially if we understand that anthropogenic activities in general and the tourist ones in particular are the main hazards affecting the geomorphological heritage. It is extremely important for tourists to understand that the geomorphological heritage of an area is a depleting resource and that uncontrolled tourism can make it lose its value. Unfortunately, the Romanian legislation, although exists (Article 41 of the Government Emergency Ordinance 57/2007 on the regime of protected natural areas), is poorly applied, because the management projects for a sustainable development are lacking.

123

Author's personal copy Environ Earth Sci Fig. 8 The degree of social engagement on age groups and gender (a yes, b no)

To promote a sustainable tourist activity in the central section of the Bucegi Mts., the local authorities should take immediate actions, as follows: designing a well-defined trail network, adapted to topography; improving the condition of access roads; improving the quality of vegetal cover in those places where it has been degraded by overgrazing or irrational tourism; educating the tourists in the spirit of practicing correctly the tourist activities (geotourism); ensuring the protection and conservation of geomorphological heritage; developing an appropriate, comprehensive and coherent plan for the Administration of the Bucegi Mountains Natural Park and supporting its immediate implementation (Mihai et al. 2009). Acknowledgments The present contribution is part of the research project PNII/Idei (Inventorying, evaluating and mapping of the geomorphosites. Case studies: the Dobrogea Tableland and the South Carpathians) financed by NURC (National University Research Council). We want to thank our colleague Dr. Robert Dobre for his support in accomplishing the graphical part of this article.

References Armas¸ I (2008) Percept¸ ia riscului natural: cutremure, inundat¸ ii, aluneca˘ri de teren. Edit. Universita˘¸t ii, Bucures¸ ti Bady JP (1995) Patrimoine culturel, patrimoine naturel. Ecole Nationale du Patrimoine, Paris Bickerstaff K (2004) Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environ Int. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2003.12.001 Bland SH, O’Leary ES, Farinaro E, Jossa F, Trevisan M (1996) Longterm psychological effects of natural disasters. Psychosom Med 58:18–24 Brandolini P, Faccini F, Maifredi A, Benedettini A (2012) Geomorphological hazard and cultural heritage: a case-study of the Roman bridges in the Finalese karstic area (Western LiguriaItaly). Disaster Adv 5:79–86 Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London Ceobanu C, Grozavu A (2009) Psychosocial effects of the floods perception and attitudes. Carpathian J Earth Environ Sci 4:25–38 Chesney PES, Cannibal GL, Baines R (2002) The development of a new holistic assessment model for the inclusion of public perceptual values in the decision-making process. Risk Anal. doi:10.2495/RISK020171

123

Cheval S (2003) Percept¸ ia hazardelor naturale. Rezultatele unui sondaj de opinie desfa˘s¸ urat ˆın Romaˆnia (octombrie 2001– decembrie 2002). Riscuri s¸ i catastrofe 2:49–59 Coma˘nescu L, Dobre R (2012) Harta geoturistica˘ a Munt¸ ilor Bucegi. Edit. Ars Docendi, Bucures¸ ti Coma˘nescu L, Nedelea A (2010) Analysis of some representative geomorphosites in the Bucegi Mountains: between scientific evaluation and tourist perception. Area. doi:10.1111/j.14754762.2010.00937.x Coma˘nescu L, Ielenicz M, Nedelea A (2010) Relieful s¸ i valorificarea lui ˆın turism. Edit. Ars Docendi, Bucures¸ ti Cont¸ iu A, Cont¸ iu HV (2007) Percept¸ ia riscurilor induse de inundat¸ ii. Rezultatul unui sondaj de opinie desfa˘s¸ urat ˆın oras¸ ele din bazinul Taˆrnavei. Riscuri s¸ i catastrofe 4:179–188 Cutter SL (2001) The changing nature of risk and hazards: American hazardscapes: the regionalization of hazards and disasters. Joseph Henry Press, Washington Galadini F, Ceccaroni E, Falcucci E, Gori S (2012) Natural hazards in the Abruzzi Apennines (Italy) and the risk to archaeological sites. Disaster Adv 5:72–79 Gizzi FT, Lazzari M (2012) Geological risks and cultural heritage safeguard. Disaster Adv 5:3–4 Heijmans A (2001) Vulnerability—a matter of perception disaster management working paper IV. Benfield Grey Hazard Research Center, London http://portal.unesco.org/en. Accessed 20 Jul 2014 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=740629. Accessed 20 Jul 2014 Ilies¸ D, Josan N (2009) Geosituri s¸ i geopeisaje. Edit. Universita˘¸t ii din Oradea, Oradea Jokilehto J (2005) Definition of cultural heritage—references to documents in history. ICCROM Working Group ‘Heritage and Society, Roma Knowles DJ (2002) Risk perception leading to risk taking behaviour amongst farmers in England and Wales. HSE, Norwich Lazzari M, Lazzari S (2012) Geological and geomorphological hazard in historical and archaeological sites of the mediterranean area: knowledge, forecasting and mitigation. Disaster Adv 5:63–72 Lazzari M, Danese M, Delli Santi M (2010) Integrated methods to define the cultural heritage risk map: the sample area of Laurenzana historical centre (Basilicata, southern Italy). Proceedings of the international conference on ‘‘mountain risks: bringing science to society’’, pp 381–386 Lei Y, Xuegong X (2010) Assessing the vulnerability of socialenvironmental system from the perspective of hazard, sensitivity, and resilience: a case study of Beijing, China. Environ Earth Sci 61(6):1179–1186 Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 Marthaler M (2003) Le memoire de la Terre cachee derriere les panoramas. Ge´omorphologie et tourisme 24:105–114

Author's personal copy Environ Earth Sci Mihai B, Reynard E, Werren G, Sa˘vulescu I, S¸ andric I, Chit¸ u Z (2009) Impacts of tourism on geomorphological processes ˆın the Bucegi Mountains in Romania. Geogr Helv Swiss J Geogr 3:134–148 Panizza M, Piacente S (2003) Geomorfologia culturale. Pitagora Editrice, Bologna Patrulius D (1969) Geologia masivului Bucegi s¸ i a culoarului Daˆmbovicioarei. Edit. Academiei, Bucures¸ ti Sjo¨berg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal. doi:10.1111/ 0272-4332.00001

Sjo¨berg L, Moen BE, Rundmo T (2004) Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Rotunde Publikasjoner, Trondheim Smith K (2001) Environmental hazard: assessing risk and reducing disaster. Routledge, London Velcea V (1961) Masivul Bucegi-studiu geomorfologic. Edit. Academiei, Bucures¸ ti Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak. doi:10.1002/bdm.414

123