Geographia Polonica Vol. 93 No. 3 (2020), Spatial diversity of tourist facilities in the Silesian Beskid mountains in Poland

This article proposes a method of the assessment of distribution of tourist facilities. The main aim of presented study is to assess a spatial density of tourist elements. The evaluation of the distribution of tourist facilities in the landscape allows to indicate overloaded areas. The second purpose is the proposition of an indicator measuring the landscape saturation of tourist facilities, i.e. density index developed by the authors. The index, referred to river basin, is based on the ratio of the area of the tourist facilities to the total area of the unit. For the purposes of calculation, the authors developed a framework for the classification of tourist facilities based on its spatial character. The method was examined in the Silesian Beskid mountain range and can be applied in similar mountain areas.


Introduction
Increasingly often, tourism develops spontaneously and puts pressure on the natural environment and on landscape The effects of tourism, and especially of mass tourism, and its global scale are currently seen as some of the most significant manifestations of human pressure on natural systems (Cohen, 1978;Myga-Piątek, 2011). The landscape is subject to pressure from expanding tourist infrastructure and tourist traffic, which causes urbanisation in tourist destinations and lasting spatial transformations (Mullins, 2009;Boori, Vožení lek, & Chou dhary, 2015;Petrikovičová, Krogmann, Fialová & Svorad, 2019).
Because of the dynamic development of tourist facilities, the material, physiognomic and symbolic values of the landscape can be damaged or lost. Very often, conflicts arise at the intersection of economics, sociocultural issues, environmental protection and resource usage. (Inskeep, 1987;Burns, 2004;Pawłowski, 2009). Conflicts between investors and environmentalists related to the protection of areas of special environmental value, such as mountainous areas, are often widely discussed in scientific works (e.g. Butler, 1980Butler, , 1996Barker, 1982;Stalski, 1986;Agarwal, 1998;Sołtys, 2009;Partyka, 2010;Myga-Piątek, 2011Włodarczyk, 2011Włodarczyk, , 2014Duffy, 2014;Stoffelen & Vanneste, 2015) and receive coverage in the media (i.e. WWF post concerning plans for new skiing areas in the region around the Carpathian Mountains and the Balkans, Ski area plans threaten Europe's last untouched forests, 2009). In Poland, for example, there is much controversy surrounding the construction of new ski lifts and ski runs, such as the construction of a ski station in Wierchomla (Okrasiński, 2012), the expansion of the ski resort on the Pilsko mountain (Ślusarczyk & Bożek, 2006), and the construction of large hotel complexes in the Beskid and Karkonosze mountains. Striking examples of such developments are the large Gołębiewski Hotel in Karpacz (Żemła & Żemła-Siesicka, 2010) and the recent construction of an enormous hotel with architecture resembling a castle on an island inside the Natura 2000 area in Stobnica, in the Notecka Forest (Zamek na obszarze Natura 2000).
Considering that the excessively intensive development (in terms of the number of tourist facilities) may lead to the negative changes of the landscape properties which attracted the tourists in the first place, it is important to identify areas where the density of existing elements is high. In such areas, further development may disturb the visual integrity of the landscape. The indication of the intensity of tourist facility development is important for the planning of further investments, especially in the case of areas with important natural and landscape values, such as mountainous areas.
This article closes the research gap in the spatial analyses of tourist infrastructure by proposing a method of the assessment of distribution of tourist facilities. The main aim of presented study is to assess a spatial density of tourist elements. The evaluation of the distribution of tourist facilities in the landscape allows to indicate overloaded areas. The second purpose is the proposition of an indicator measuring the landscape saturation of tourist facilities, i.e. density index developed by the authors. The calculation of the index is based on several innovative assumptions. First, the spatial distribution and intensity of tourist facilities in the studied mountain area is connected to the landscape background, which is the river basins. Such units integrate natural processes and are clearly visible in space.
Second, all types of tourist facilities are taken into account in the research, i.e. accommodation, food and beverage facilities, supporting and transport facilities. All inventoried elements are distinguished and parameterized in terms of their morphological (shape) properties. This enables to describe the physiognomic differentiation of the tourist facilities. In this case, the study include cubature elements, such as hotels, guesthouses or shelters, area elements (e.g. parking lots, downhill skiing routes) and linear elements (tourist trails, ski lifts). The tourist facility's impact on the landscape depends strongly on its spatial form. Cubature elements affect the landscape significantly, while the impact of linear elements, e.g. tourist trails, is minor. However, in this study the space in geographical scale was studied. It was considered in what degree the space was occupied by tourist facilities. This enables a quantitative assessment of the entire infrastructure of the area, as well as spatial differentiation.
An integral indicator of the degree of infrastructure density was worked out. The index is based on the ratio of the area of the tourist facilities to the total area of the unit. The method enables an objective and unified approach to assessing the strain exerted by tourist facilities on the landscape and determining the prospects for the development of these elements in the analysed area.
The novum of the work is the study of the existing tourist infrastructure in landscape (spatial) aspects in geographic field and planning scale, which is based on the density index and classification of the tourist infrastructure proposed by authors. Results presented in this paper are a part of larger study on the impact of tourist infrastructure on the physiognomy of the landscape and concentrate only on the spatial aspects.
Overview of indicators used for analysis of the spatial differentiation of the development of tourism Diagnostic indicators are an important element of the process of tourism development, from the assessment of existing phenomenon to decisions indicating further proceedings (Szromek, 2012). The existing measures concerning tourism development (broadly defined) can be divided into two main groups. The first (which is particularly commonplace) includes indicators measuring the phenomenon of tourism in relation to tourist traffic or the capacity of a facility or area. The second trend, related to environmental studies, measures the influence of tourism on the natural environment.
The first set of trend indicators are often used in relation to the study of tourism economics. These include Baretje-Defert (tourist function indicator, expressed in number of tourist accommodation places per 100 permanent residents) and Charvat index (saturation index of the tourist accommodation), expressed in number of granted overnight stays per 100 inhabitants of the area), as well as the accommodation density index (expressed as the number of beds offered to tourists per 1 km 2 area) (Baretje & Defert, 1972;Szromek, 2012;Hendel, 2016). The latter measures both tourist facilities and tourist traffic. The second group of indicators includes indices presenting the impact of tourism on the natural environment. They indicate changes in the natural environment caused by various types of tourist activities (Baranowska-Janota & Kozłowski, 1984;Buckley & Pannell, 1990;Butler, 1996;Krzymowska-Kostrowicka, 1997;Ptaszycka-Jackowska & Baranowska-Janota, 1998;Sun & Walsh, 1998;Buckly, 2004;Rixen & Rolando, 2013;Tesler & Clark, 2016;Bodoque et al., 2017). Limits of the impact of tourism to the natural environment can be used to establish optimal usage standards, e.g. carrying capacity (the maximum number of people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time, without causing destruction of the physical, economic, sociocultural environment and an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitors' satisfaction, UNWTO, 1981) and, similar, natural capacity (the maximum number of people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time, which does not cause degradation in the specific character of its use, Baranowska-Janota & Korzeniak, 1991) (Bartkowski, 1972;Marsz, 1972;O'Reilly, 1986;Butler, 1996;Coccossis & Mexa, 2004;Simón, Nara ngajava na & Marqués, 2 004;Marsiglio, 2016;Butler, 2019). Szromek (2012) describes this group as indicators of tourist space and environment. They are the basic measures used in tourism development planning, but they do not consider existing changes in the natural environment or the landscape. Architectural methods constitute a separate group of indicators which are not directly related to tourism. This includes the urban indexes and methods concerning the physiognomic impact of buildings on the landscape, which are derived from the technical sciences. The indicators commonly used in architecture and spatial planning are i.a. index of development intensity (i.e. the ratio of the total area of all overground storeys to the parcel area, Act on spatial planning and development 2003), or Building Site Coverage (area of ground floor footprint of building divided by the parcel area, Forsyth, 2003). This indicators are also very useful for the purposes of assessing tourist facilities, but only apply to cubature elements analysed on an urban scale.
The methods of objective assessment of the impact of an individual object (not necessarily those associated with a tourist function) on a landscape are used in architectural-landscape methods. It includes visual absorption capacity (the landscape's ability to absorb physical changes without transformation in its visual character and quality, Amir & Gidalizon, 1990) (Rygiel, 2007;Ozimek, Tarko & Łabędź, 2010;Krajewski & Mastalska-Cetera, 2014), visual absorption capability (a tool to assess a landscape's susceptibility to visual change caused by man's activities, Anderson et al., 1976) or visual impact assessment (a tool to estimate, in perspective view, the potential visual effect of proposed operations on the scenic landscape, Visual Impact Assessment Guidebook, 1995) (Giedych, 2016), understood as an analysis of the visibility range and aesthetic evaluation of the object itself and its impact on the environment or area assessment in terms of the possibility of accepting new facilities (often carried out for the purpose of location of wind farms, Molina-Ruiz, Martínez-Sánchez, Pérez-Sirvent, Tudela-Serrano & García Lorenzo, 2011). The above criteria cannot be applied for development intensity analysis considered in geographical terms, in which not only cubature elements, but also area elements are taken into account.
One of the indicators illustrating the impact of tourism on the natural environment is the index of tourism development pressure on the environment (Mika, 2004). It includes a wider range of elements of tourism development compared to the methods used in the economic sciences. Mika considers the space occupied by individual elements (tourist settlements, active recreation areas and other areas with a function related to tourism) and gives them the correct value for evaluation, depending on the estimated impact on the natural environment. For the purpose of spatial analysis of tourist facilities, the above index can be the basis for further research, due to its complex approach to the issue of tourism development. However, it is not sufficient for the study of the visual aspect of landscape change under the influence of tourist facilities.
In summary, despite numerous measures being described in the literature cited above, there is a clear lack of indicators referring to landscape saturation with tourist facilities. Existing indicators related to tourism development refer to tourist traffic, accommodation, or food and beverage facilities, and they mostly focus on the number of beds, which cannot be applied to spatial research. Only the index of tourism development pressure on the environment (Mika, 2004) includes facilities other than accommodation and food and beverage (although this also does not include the entire spectrum of tourist facilities, which is largely due to a lack of statistical data).
The above-mentioned indicators also omit the issue of the magnitude of the impact on the space occupied by tourist facilities. In the landscape approach, the space occupied by various tourist facilities (not only cubature elements) is very important.
Considering the above-mentioned factors, the authors have developed a different indicator (see below), which in their opinion is more "objective" and useful for solving the research problem -the assessment of pressure exerted by tourist facilities on the Silesian Beskid landscape, and further optimisation of development in the area based on this assessment.

Classification of tourist facilities
It is difficult to clearly define the term of 'tourist infrastructure' (Mandic, Mrnjavac & Kordić, 2018). It includes physical elements -facilities necessary to receive tourists (Jovanović & Ivić, 2016) but often includes also services necessary to develop tourist reception area (Gunn & Var, 2002;Kowalczyk & Derek, 2010). In the current paper, the term 'tourist facilities' will be used to refer to the physical infrastructure (settlements, roads, parking spaces, trails and tourist and recreation routes) used for tourist activities, which shape and change the landscape.
The classification of tourist infrastructure is not unified. In Polish-language papers, there are numerous criteria of classification. including function, time of use, accessibility to users, spatial form and geographical distribution (Kowalczyk & Derek, 2010). According to the division most commonly accepted in tourism, based on the function criterion (Rogalewski, 1974;Warszyńska & Jackowski, 1978), accommodation, food and beverage, transport and supporting facilities and services can be distinguished. Accommodation facilities include, i.a., hotels, hostels, youth hostels, motels, camp sites, resorts, home stays, agro-tourism accommodation, holiday and training resorts, clusters of houses or bungalows, and health resorts (Płocka, 2005; Statistical Yearbooks of the Central Statistical Office, 2018). Food and beverage facilities include, i.a., restaurants, bars, cafés, teahouses, confectioners, wine bars, and pubs (Płocka, 2005). Transport facilities concern i.a. parking lots, tourist trails, ski lifts and also technical infrastructure as roads, airports and railways system (Kowalczyk & Derek, 2010). Supporting facilities include tourist information, services facilities necessary for tourist (as medical services, souvenir shops. post agency), cultural-entertainment facilities (as museums, cinemas) and sports and recreation facilities as pools, sports halls (Płocka, 2005). Pawlikowska-Piechotka (2008) classifies tourist and recreational facilities (such as pools, ski lifts, sports fields, tennis courts) and others (semi-tourist) (such as museums, theatres, cinemas) as supporting facilities. A different classification is presented in the WTO classification (International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008). In this document, tourist facilities are presented in relation to characteristic tourist activities or industries. The main groups of tourism industries are distinguished: accommodation, food and beverage provision, passenger transportation, travel agencies and other reservation services activities, cultural activities, sport and recreational activities, retail trade of country-specific characteristic foods for tourists and other country-specific characteristic activities.
In most studies evaluating existing tourist infrastructure, a classification using the function criterion is used (Płocka, 2009;Bogucka, 2010), and the evaluation refers most of all to accommodation and food and beverage facilities. Narrowing the approach to these two functional types is reflected in tourism function indicators. The classification of tourist infrastructure plays a key role in assessing existing elements, and deciding whether or not to include an element in research. Focusing on accommodation and food and beverage elements leads to a lack of indicators in planning further development for recreational and sports facilities, which are appearing more and more often in the tourist landscape (e.g. rope parks, toboggan runs). As a consequence, we often find littering and the commercialization of space resulting from the accumulation of these elements. Table 1 presents a proposition for the classification of tourist facilities, combining spatial and functional aspects. The presented classification has been used in the presented study on the density of tourist facilities. The authors of this study propose taking into account the spatial division of elements into cubature, area and linear elements (see chapter 5. Methods).

Geography of the study area
The study area is located in Poland, in the Western Carpathian mountains. It covers Source: Own compilation based on Kowalczyk, Derek, 2010;Płocka, 2005;Statistical Yearbook, 2018. the geographical macroregion of the Silesian Beskids (Kondracki, 2002) and also, in accordance with the latest division into mesoregions Solon et al., 2018), comprises part of the Koniaków Intermontane mesoregion (Fig. 1). The location of the area, in the immediate vicinity of large towns (Bielsko-Biała and Żywiec) and a few dozen kilometres from the Katowice conurbation, is important for the development of tourism. The area has particular landscape values, determined by the diversity of the relief (rolling hills, whose which height reaches 1000-1500 m above sea level, with denivelations of 300-600 m), significant areas of forests, rivers and springs, and also the specific culture of the region (Mika,97). The presence of spa resources, which was crucial to the development of tourism, is also significant (Gonda-Soroczyńska, 2013). The conditions mentioned above have impacted land use and led to tourism being of particular importance in the development of the region. The natural landscape of the Beskids has been strongly transformed, to a large extent under the influence of activities related to tourism. The area was and still is under strong pressure from tourism (Mika, 2001(Mika, , 2004. It is also characterized by a diversity of forms of tourism, and therefore there  are various tourist facilities, which are functionally and spatially different. The large hotels and resorts are located mostly in Ustroń and Wisła, while small accommodations, like guest rooms and "second homes" or recreation houses, are situated in Szczyrk, Brenna and so-called Triple Village (Koniaków, Istebna, Jaworzynka). The tourist activities are also diversified. In Triple Village more important is cultural tourism (Faracik, Kurek, Mika, Pawlusiński, 2009). In Ustroń, Wisła and Szczyrk the mass tourism is present, which is proved by high Defert index for this municipalities (Hendel, 2016). The special landscape and natural values combined with the pursuit of tourism development have led to numerous conflicts between landscape preservation and tourism (Mika, 1997;Mika, Krzesiwo & Krzesiwo, 2007;Myga-Piątek & Jankowski, 2009).
Numerous areas of the Silesian Beskids are under excessive tourist pressure and there has been a significant reduction in landscape values due to the accumulation of tourist facilities (Mika, 2004). The uncontrolled accumulation of tourist attractions has caused a decrease in landscape values which can be observed, for example, on the slopes of Równica. Although the mountain hostel was built in the 1920s, and road access was provided in the 1930s, tourism developed particularly rapidly at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries (Barański, 2007). In last 20 years, not only have numerous accommodation and catering facilities been built on the slopes of Równica, but so have a rope and paintball park, a zoo, a toboggan run and car parks serving the above attractions (Petryszyn & Zuzańska-Żyśko, 2009).
The spatial conflicts mentioned above and the lack of evaluation of the impact of tourism on the physiognomy of the landscape were the basis for choosing the Silesian Beskids as the study area.

Methods
The following research algorithm was used in the presented studies: after determining the boundaries of the study, based on Kondracki's mesoregions (2002), delimitation of the primary (spatial) units based on the basin model was carried out. Next, an inventory of tourist facilities according to the developed classification was made and related to individual spatial units. The final step was to determine the index and calculate the density of tourist facilities for the studied area.

Delimitation of primary units
As mentioned above, in this study the primary spatial unit (used in calculations) is a river basin of the appropriate category (microbasin). The use of microbasins as a primary unit in landscape research is not a typical approach (Żemła-Siesicka, 2017). In research on tourist facilities, administrative divisions are most often used as primary units. This is undoubtedly a convenient approach, because decisions and statistics regarding tourism are provided in relation to administrative boundaries. However, the presented goal, related to the analysis of the impact of existing facilities on space in the landscape, requires a different, more "visual" approach. This is due to the fact that, in mountain areas, catchments (understood here as individual valleys determined on the basis of water divides), create clear, visible and cohesive units. Conversely, artificially-set administrative boundaries are "invisible" in the field (although some boundaries between communes coincide with clearly visible topographic elements).
Using the basin criterion, it was possible to obtain spatial units based on water divides of various categories, ranging from the European watershed to category III water divides (water divides marked on a hydrographic map (geoportal.gov.pl, 1:50,000 scale) were used). As a result, 68 spatial units were obtained, delimited in the catchments of smaller rivers in the northern part of the Beskids (

Inventory of tourist facilities
The tourist facilities of the Silesian Beskids were divided into area elements (e.g. camp sites), cubature elements (e.g. hotels) and linear elements (e.g. tourist trails). This kind of division based on spatial form is presented and defined by Kowalczyk and Derek (2010). Based on their adopted and modified definitions, the authors of this article developed the following terms: cubature elements are an association of tourist facilities gathered in one building, which have tourism as the sole or predominant function.
Linear elements, which were considered by Kowalczyk and Derek (2010) to be tourist trails, have been extended in this research to include ski lifts (classified by Kowalczyk and Derek as area facilities) due to their linear character and particular impact on the landscape. So linear elements include linear technical elements such as ski lifts and elements without technical equipment as tourist paths and trails. In the research only separated trails and paths were taken into account, i.e. if several trails have the same route, they are considered as one element, and if a trail or path overlaps with a circular road it is not considerate. Those assumptions results from the fact that the space (area) is the main criterion taken into consider, so it can't be duplicate.
Area elements are areas that perform tourist or recreational functions without buildings, as well as complexes of facilities with an area of ground floor footprint less than 50 m 2 (e.g. clusters of houses or bungalows, camp sites). If there is a building associated with an area element (i.e. ticket and ski rental office at the foot of downhill slope), these buildings are considerate separately as cubature elements.

Calculation of the density of tourist facilities
To calculate the density of tourist facilities, an index based on existing similar tourism indices, particularly on the density of accommodation index, was proposed. The density of tourist facilities index is a quantity indicator specifying the intensity of the area, including all facilities. The index is calculated according to the formula: where: G i -density of tourist facilities P i -area of all facilities (m 2 ) within a given spatial unit P j -area of a spatial unit (m 2 ) Area of all facilities is calculated on the base of summary of area of the cubature elements, area of the area elements and area of the linear elements. The area of cubature and area elements was provided from GIS, the linear elements area was calculated on the base of the length of the elements multiplied by the assumed average width of 3 m in the case of trails and paths, of 5 m in the case of ground ski lift and of 6 m in the case of chair and gondola lift.

Results
Occurrence of tourist facilities in the studied area Inventory of tourist facilities in the studied area shows that the cubature elements are concentrated along rivers, especially the main rivers of Silesian Beskid. The most numerous are small cubature elements, i.e. hostels, small hotels, restaurants, bars and mountain shelters. The least numerous are large cubature elements, i.e. those located in Szczyrk and Wisła (Gołębiewski hotel in Wisła, Jawornik hotel in Wisła-Jawornik, Orle Gniazdo hotel in Szczyrk-Biła). Many hotels are located in holiday districts such as Ustroń-Zawodzie and Ustroń-Jaszowiec, most of which were built in the period of People's Republic of Poland (PRL -Polska Republika Ludowa). Some of these have been modernized (e.g. Gwarek in Ustronie-Jaszowiec), and some parts have been completely rebuilt. Some of the facilities have been closed, such as Magnus Resort in Bystra. Guest houses, homestays and agro-tourism accommodation (usually this is true in name only, and these are de facto guest rooms located in separate buildings especially designed for tourists) occur frequently almost throughout the entire area. A particularly high concentration can be observed along the Vistula, Brennica and Żylica valleys. Numerous elements are dispersed in Istebna. In the last decade or so, the number of food and beverage facilities has increased significantly, especially restaurants -inns designed in the highland style, most often on the main roads but also in the higher mountain areas, e.g. in Równica. The spatial distribution is presented on figure 2.
Area elements are represented in Silesian Beskids by transportation elements (parking) and rarely by accommodation facilities (campsites, clusters of bungalows). Car parks with different areas are very numerous throughout the study area, constituting one of the basic elements of technical infrastructure. Most of them are located near ski lifts. Area elements inventoried in Silesian Beskid also include facilities for recreation and sports: tennis courts, sports fields, outdoor swimming-pools and parks and also more typical tourist elements: off-road trails, rope parks, paintball fields and a mini-zoo. Other important element of tourist facilities include downhill runs, ski slopes and one cross-country skiing area (concentrated in Kubalonka). A spatial distribution shows that these elements occur the most often in central and west areas of the Silesian Beskid, in Wisła, Szczyrk and Brenna.
Linear elements occur throughout almost the entire area of the Silesian Beskids. This includes transportation elements: hiking, biking, skiing routes, educational paths, ski lifts, cable cars, MTB routes, promenades. Hiking routs are the most common tourist elements, forming a dense network covering almost the whole area of the study, except for the south-eastern part. Educational paths are also common but, as they are usually part of walking routes, they were not separated in the research, with the exception of the nature path "In the Zimnik Valley" at the foot of Skrzyczne (the path doesn't lead together with other tourist trails). The specific layout of the routes depends, to a certain extent, on tourist values, first of all on the relief, but also it results from the methodological assumptions of the studies, which did not take into account the tourist routes running along roads. This is why the visible system refers very clearly to the water divisions -most of the routes run along mountain ridges.
Ski lifts in Silesian Beskid form a specific system. Usually, they form isolated elements; only on Czantoria and in Szczyrk they show a network character. In the Silesian Beskids, ski lifts, and the increasingly common chairlifts occur frequently. The main centre for ski infrastructure is Szczyrk, which has recently undergone significant changes. Numerous ski lifts are also located in Wisła, Ustoń, Brenna and Zwardoń. In recent years, the ski centre in Istebna with lifts on the slopes of Złoty Groń has also been developed.
Quantitative analysis shows the dominance of cubature elements (514 cubature elements, 187 area elements and 432,42 km of linear elements). Most of elements is located in the valleys of Vistula, Żylica and Brennica. Some elements occur in area of Istebna--Koniaków-Jaworzynka. In south-east of Silesian Beskid there are very few of cubature and area elements and some linear elements.  4, 513.452.4, 513.452.8, 513.454.4, 513.455.2, 513.455.3, 513.455.6, 513.457.2, 513.457.3, 513.457.4, 513.457.6, 513.457.7. The values of the received index are presented in Table 2.
The most intensely developed areas in terms of tourist facilities are areas in the western and central part of the Silesian Beskids (Fig. 3). A particularly intense density of tourist facilities has occurred in the Żylica basin (Szczyrk), and a slightly lower density can be observed in the basin of Brennica, Vistula and Olza. The lowest density occurs on the eastern slopes of Barania Góra and in the south-eastern part of the Silesian Beskids.

Discussion
The results show the spatial distribution and spatial diversity of tourist facilities in the Silesian Beskids area. The density index shows that the most developed areas in terms of the occurrence of tourist facilities are those located in the central and western part of the Silesian Beskids, and the least developed are in the south-eastern part. The areas in the central and western parts of the Silesian Beskids are the best developed, while the south-eastern part is the least developed. Similar results concerning tourism in Silesian Beskid were obtained by Mika (2004) in the study of the impact of tourism on the natural environment and by Hendel (2016)   However, it should be remembered that the final evaluation of the area depends also on other conditions: natural, such as forest cover or surface waters, but also economic or social situation. In this particular spatial studies it was considered that forest cover has the greatest impact on the distribution of elements, because it is a form of land protection that prevents any permanent development. The forestation in Silesian Beskid is very differentiated. The forest cover mostly the north part of study area and in the south the percentage of forest cover is very low. The opportunities for tourist investments are strongly limited in units covered mostly or entirely by forests. In these cases, only linear elements (tourist trails) should be developed. On the other hand, if the area is almost unforested, there is a space for tourist investments. Therefore, the division was additionally supplemented with information on the extent of forest cover. Forest cover was divided into intervals (<40%, ≥40-60%, ≥60-80% and ≥80%) and assigned to the groups mentioned above. So the first step was the division of density index. Than intervals of forest cover were the second criterion of providing the groups of indicated development. The results of the division are shown in table 3. The results of integral evaluation are shown in the table 4.
As seen below (Fig. 4), the areas possible to invest in or recommended for further development are located in south-eastern parts of Silesian Beskid mountain region and cover   Figure 4. Types of units indicating opportunities of further development of tourist facilities in the Silesian Beskid mountain range. 1 -study area boundaries, 2 -main catchments boundaries, 3 -spatial unit boundaries, 4 -forbidden, 5 -strongly limited, 6 -limited, 7 -possible, 8 -recommended infrastructure should be taken into account. Those differences prove also the need to introduce an indicator for tourism spatial studies. The conducted studies on the density of tourist facilities in the area of Silesian Beskids have both scientific and application implications. First, the proposed method allows to describe and understand the spatial implications of the tourism. Both proposed classification and the density index contribute a new possibilities to measure the influence of tourism on the landscape. The second contribution of the article is an application one. As was mentioned in the Introduction, an indication of the intensity of tourist facilities development is very important for the planning of further investments. The obtained results enable the evaluation of the pressure exerted by tourist facilities on the landscape of the Silesian Beskids, and the determination of further development optimisation in the studied area. The presented density index can be used for studies of tourist facilities as a basis for indicating opportunities for further development.
However, it is worth to notice, that to indicate the further development of tourist facilities, it is important to examine diverse approaches, not only the spatial dimension. Research in other areas is equally important, including environmental protection (impact of new investments on soils, water, air, etc.), economics (study of the profitability of new facilities) or tourism (research on tourist preferences). The presented research only highlights the significant impact of tourism infrastructure on the landscape space. The spatial-physiognomic aspect of the tourist region largely determines if the area is attractive to tourists or not. Taking care of landscape quality is therefore in the interest not only of tourists, but also of the local population who benefit economically from tourism.
The presented method of analysis and indications regarding tourist facilities was tested for a specific area, so it can be used primarily in mountains similar to Silesian Beskid, (as Beskid Żywiecki) due to the adopted basin spatial units which are useful for areas where the valleys are clearly visible. The method should be also tested in other areas to verify its suitability. If administrative units were substituted as a primary units, the density index could also be applied in lowland areas. With minor methodological corrections (adopting other primary units) it would also be possible to assess landscape changes on a more detailed scale and in a smaller area (e.g. for municipalities).
Editors' note: Unless otherwise stated, the sources of tables and figures are the authors', on the basis of their own research.