Discussion Papers 2008.
Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA) 64-75. p.

9 Cultural and natural heritage in the Carpathian region
9.1 The situation and problems
9.1.1 Cultural heritage
The cultural heritage of the Carpathian area represents a unique composition within
Europe:
−  This region is the most Eastern part of Europe, where the monuments of the
Western  European  Romanesque,  Gothic  and  Renaissance  art  can  be  found.
The  medieval  Polish  and  Hungarian  kingdoms  were  Roman  Catholic  states
and  church  architecture  followed  the  Western  patterns.  But  not  only  church
art, but secular architecture and art also followed these artistic styles. German
and  other  Western emigrants  have founded  cities in this  area,  importing  the
artistic  styles  of  their  home  countries.  It  was  then  taken  over  by  the  native
aristocrats  and  well-to-do  citizens  as  well.  Brasov,  Sibiu,  Alba  Julia  and
Sighisoara  are  the  easternmost  examples  of  Romanesque  and  Gothic  archi-
tecture.  Lviv,  Zamošč  and  KaŜimierz  are  the  easternmost  examples  of  Ren-
aissance architecture.
−  On the other hand, this is the most Western area of Europe, where the monu-
ments  and  art  of  Eastern  Christianity  are also  present.  In  some  parts  of  Ro-
mania and Ukraine one can find a marvellous co-existence or even mixture of
the two artistic and architectural Worlds.
−  Finally, the Carpathian area is the part of Europe where the monuments of
European  folk  art  and  architecture  have  been  preserved  the  most  intact.
Mountain people are everywhere more inclined to be engaged in the prepara-
tion of local handicraft products and to build artistically decorated houses. On
the one hand, they are compelled to complete their income through the sell-
ing of handicraft (wooden, textile) objects because income from agricultural
activity was not enough for survival. On the other hand, they had more time,
and  their  environment  was  more  inspiring  for  artistic  activity,  than  on  the
plains. Furthermore, the Carpathian settlements were rather isolated from the
outside world, to preserve their customs and traditions. Not only the tangible,
but also the intangible cultural heritage (music, songs, dances, fairy tales) are
protected parts of the cultural heritage of the Carpathians.
These  three  strands  of  cultural  heritage  are  equally  present  in  the  Carpathian
area, and they together determine the respective policies of the countries and of the
area as a whole.

Illés, Iván : Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 64-75. p. Discussion Papers, Special
URBAN NETWORK IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA
6
5
The respective institutions of the management of the cultural heritage have been
established in all Carpathian countries already at the beginning of the 20th century.
Most  of  them  have  taken  over  the  Austrian legislation,  since  most  Carpathian  re-
gions belonged at that time to the Habsburg Monarchy. This legislation gave prior-
ity  to  the  methods  of  art  history.  The  selection  of  protected  heritage  was  exclu-
sively  the  work  of  art  historians.  Such  relations  lasted  very  long,  even  after  the
Second World War until the 1970’s. It was not earlier than in the third part of the
20th century that the so called vernacular architecture in rural regions and “anony-
mous”  architecture  in  urban  structures  became  part  of  protected  cultural  heritage.
But  change  is  rather  slow.  It  can  be  truly  stated  that  the  system  of  protection  of
architectural heritage in many Carpathian countries and regions is still too strongly
connected to its origins (from the time of the Austro–Hungarian Monarchy) and it
is not enough developed in the sense of modern theory, methodology and aims of
European trends.
The other “heritage” of the management of cultural heritage stems from the “so-
cialist” period. In this period the political system provided a centralised managing
power to act for the preservation of historic heritage in the name of “common in-
terest”.  Architects  and  managers  did  not  have  to  care  about  efficiency,  utilisation
and the participation of private sector.
The democratic changes in 1989–1990 have brought completely different possi-
bilities for the society – and for the management of historic cultural heritage from
this time. Both urban planning and conservation became multilayered, and former
centrally  managed  societies  had  to  realise  that  decision-making  involves  more
stakeholders, different interests and new techniques.
As a part of these changes, the earlier “academic” aims to protect only the most
artistic part of built heritage has been fundamentally changed. The new economic
criteria,  the  new  technologies,  and  the  demand  to  integrate  built  heritage  into  the
everyday  human  environment  have  substantially  changed  the  former  approaches.
Cultural – and within it architectural – heritage has been transformed from an ob-
ject of symbolic or even ideological values, to an organic part of towns, landscapes,
even regions.
Such  changes  certainly  demand  new  methods  of  assessment  and  utilisation.
Historical  architectural  heritage  should  have  become  an  organic  part  of  regional
and urban planning, new methods of utilisation and re-utilisation are needed. New
principles,  new  methods  and  new  possibilities  have  to  be  put  forward,  involving
not  only  politicians  and  experts,  but  investors,  individual  users  and  the  general
public as well.

Illés, Iván : Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 64-75. p. Discussion Papers, Special

66
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
9.1.2 Natural heritage
Obviously,  the  main  object  of  natural  heritage  management  in  the  Carpathian  re-
gion  is  the  mountain  range  of  the  Carpathians.  Mountain  ranges,  flood  areas  of
rivers and sea coastal areas are – generally – the main objects of natural conserva-
tion  and  management,  because  these  are  the  areas,  where  natural  habitats  could
survive with the highest probability.
Carpathian countries – like in the case of the cultural heritage – have established
their  institutions  and  regulations  of  natural  conservation  and  most  of  them  have
taken over the respective guidelines and regulations of the UN and of the European
Union. The result of these activities, nevertheless, is rather differentiated.
The countries can be divided into two groups. Austria, the Czech Republic, Po-
land and Slovakia declared more than 15 percent of their territory to be protected.
This percentage corresponds to the level of developed European countries. In Hun-
gary, Romania and in Ukraine this percentage is substantially lower. In the case of
Hungary and Ukraine, it can be partly explained by the fact that the large part of
these two countries is a plain used for agricultural production.
More characteristic is the distribution of protected areas according to the level
of protection (Table 5).
Table 5
The main territorial dimensions of natural protection on the
Carpathian countries
Country
Number of
Area of the
Protected area,
Share of protected
protected objects
country, km2
km2
area, %
Austria
1,087
83,860
23,475
27.94
Czech Republic
1,768
78,870
12,451
15.79
Hungary
236
93,030
8,299
8.92
Poland
1,822
333,882
90,526
27.11
Romania
931
238,610
12,360
5.18
Slovakia
1,176
49,010
12,347
25.19
Ukraine
5,198
657,630
22,468
3.42
Source: Collected by the author.
While the share of protected area is relatively smaller in Hungary, Romania and
in Ukraine, the larger part of it enjoys the highest level of protection. These coun-
tries  have  much  more  and  larger  national  parks  and  much  less  of  lower  ranked
natural  protection  areas.  These  countries  started  their  natural  protection  pro-
grammes  by  designating  their  national  parks,  while  the  designation  of  more  per-

Illés, Iván : Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 64-75. p. Discussion Papers, Special
URBAN NETWORK IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA
6
7
missive protected landscape areas and their regulation followed only later. In some
of  the  large  National  Parks  there  is  intensive  economic,  agricultural  and  animal
husbandry activity. Conservation and economic objectives are together present and
their priorities are rather ambiguously defined. In some National Parks there is in-
tensive wood cutting activity. In other parks, there is large scale animal husbandry.
In order to feed the animals, meadows are cut down, and there is a serious danger
to  destroy  rare  species  and  the  nests  of  rare  birds.  Government  support  to  these
large  National  Parks  is  insufficient  and  Park  managements  try  to  achieve  income
from  agricultural  activity,  sometimes  at  the  expense  of  conservation  objectives.
Transitional  provisions  between  absolute  and  full  protection  and  absolute  profit
making  activity  are  not  satisfactorily  regulated  and  that  is  frequently  a  source  of
conflict. In the Western countries, on the overwhelming part of the protected area,
some  economic  activities  are  allowed  which  is  in  harmony  with  the  objectives of
the protection. In the Carpathian countries this “co-habitation” is not yet working
adequately (Table 6, Figure 12).
Europe is  particularly  rich in  cultural  landscapes  which  are formed  by  various
combinations  of  human  and  natural  factors  and  illustrate  the  evolution  of  human
society,  its  settlements,  and  their  interaction  with  nature  in  time  and  space.  They
acquired  socially  and  culturally  recognised  values,  because  of  the  simultaneous
presence of natural values and of remains reflecting skills or distinctive traditions.
The  combined  protection  of  natural  environment  and  human  activity  is  the
insufficiently elaborated element of the protection regulations of some Carpathian
countries. That is the source of most problems and conflicts which arose in the last
years concerning protected areas.
Table 6
Share of National Parks and Biosphere Reserves in the protected areas
Country
Number of
Of which: in
Area of
Of which: in
Share of
national parks  the Carpathian  national parks  the Carpathian  national parks
area
km2
area
in the protected
area, %
Austria
6
3
2,356
403
10.0
Czech Republic
4
1
1,372
79
11.0
Hungary
10
6
4,817
2,296
58.0
Poland
23
7
2,983
852
3.3
Romania
13
12
8,848
3,047
72.0
Slovakia
9
9
3,178
3,178
26.0
Ukraine
30
9
19,091
5,214
85.0
Carpathian region

47

15,069

Source: Collected by the author.

Illés, Iván : Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 64-75. p. Discussion Papers, Special

68
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
Figure 12
National Parks in the Carpathians

Legend:  Austria:  (1)  Thayatal;  (2)  Donau-Auen;  (3)  Neusiedler  See.  Czech  Republic:  (1)  Podyjí.
Hungary:  (1)  Aggtelek;  (2)  Bükk;  (3)  Duna–Ipoly;  (4)  Hortobágy;  (5)  Kırös–Maros;
(6) Fertı–Hanság. Poland: (1) Babia Góra; (2) Gorce; (3) Pieninski; (4) Magura; (5) Bieszczady;
(6)  Ojcowsky;  (7)  Swietokrzyski.  Romania:  (1)  MunŃii  Apuseni;  (2)  Munti  Maramuresului;  (3)
Calimoni; (4) Ceahlau; (5) Cheli Bicazului-Hâşmaş; (6) Cenk; (7) Bucegi; (8) Piatra Craiului; (9)
Cozia; (10) Gradistea-Muncelului-Cioclovina; (11) Retezat; (12) Domogled-Valea; (13) Semenic-
Cheile-Carasului; (14) Cheli Nerei Beusnita; (15) PorŃile de Fier; (16) Rodna. Slovakia: (1) Low
Fatra;  (2)  Tatra;  (3)  Low  Tatra;  (4)  Muranska  Planina;  (5)  Slovak  Paradise;  (6)  Poloniny;  (7)
Highs Fatra; (8) Slovak Karst; (9) Pieniny (Pieninski). Ukraine: (1) Ung; (2) Sinver.
Source: Author’s edition.

Illés, Iván : Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 64-75. p. Discussion Papers, Special
URBAN NETWORK IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA
6
9
The  first  one  concerns  the  privatisation  of  some  areas.  In  the  period,  when  agricultural  land
was  collectivised,  some  parts  of  the  area  have  been  declared  to  be  a  nature  conservation  area.
Their retirement from cultivation was not a problem for the collective farm, since these protected
areas represented only a very small fraction of their cultivated area. During re-privatisation, these
areas were given back to the original owner. For him/her, however, it was a very serious problem,
because he (she) could not afford, not to turn these areas into arable land or intensively used pas-
ture or meadow. So, a conflict arose between natural protection and the basic interests of the new
individual  farmers.  It  happened  in  most  countries  where  the  re-privatisation  of  agricultural  land
took place, but the solutions were different. In some countries farmers received compensation; in
other countries – like Hungary – the government was forced to purchase back these areas.
The other conflict and controversy emerged in the Tatras, after the catastrophic wind-storm in
November 2004. The wind-storm devastated 12,600 ha forest, threw down 2.5 million cubic me-
tres  of  wood.  The  trees  thrown  down  were  in  overwhelming  majority  spruces,  planted  more  re-
cently.  Most  of  the  area  had  been  quickly  cleared  from  the  thrown  down  trees,  but  in  the  Tatra
National Park,  mainly in its  Western part a serious conflict arose  between  environmentalists and
forestry organisations, especially in the Tichá and Koprová valleys. Environmentalists blocked the
clearing  of  the  area  from  the  thrown  down  trees,  because  they  wanted  to  prove  that  the  original
non-planted trees (spruce, larch-tree, fir-tree and beech-tree) survived much better the wind-storm,
than planted spruces. Foresters said that the invasion of a type of wood-borer worms, the Ips ty-
pographus which invaded the thrown down trees will invade soon the intact trees as well and will
cause a much larger damage. The conflict between environmentalists and foresters is not yet set-
tled  which  could  endanger  already  the  promised  EU  support  to Slovakia  to  reconstruct  the  Tatra
forests and damages caused by the wind-storm.
9.2  Policy recommendations concerning some specific problems
of the cultural heritage in the Carpathian area
9.2.1 National bias in the management of cultural heritage
A specific feature of the Carpathian area is that there are several areas inhabited by
more  than  one  nationality  with  distinctive  cultural  heritage  and  there  are  areas
which were inhabited in the past by national and religious groups which do not live
there  any  more.  Several  churches,  synagogues,  monuments  and  buildings  became
victims of national ideologies. These ideologies promoted and cared for the protec-
tion of national cultural heritage supporting their interpretation of national history,
and  neglected those  elements  of  cultural  heritage,  which  did  not  fit into  this con-
ception.  Therefore,  in  all  countries  of  the  region  legal  and  professional  arrange-
ments are needed to preserve the respect for and memory of all nations and nation-
alities, language and religious groups, which created a specific cultural heritage.
In  the  Carpathian  region  deliberate  destruction  of  cultural  heritage  –  experi-
enced in the Balkan wars – did not occur. But some bias in favour of national heri-
tage  occurred.  UNESCO  World  Cultural  Heritage  nominations  serve  for  it  as  an
example (Figure 13).

Illés, Iván : Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 64-75. p. Discussion Papers, Special

70
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
Figure 13
The World Cultural Heritage Sites of the Carpathians

Legend: Austria: (1) Palace and Gardens of Schönbrunn (1996); (2) Towns Krems , Melk; (3) Fertı /
Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape (2001); (4) Historic Centre of Vienna (2001). Czech Republic:
(1)  Gardens  and  Castle,  Kroměříž  (1998);  (2)  Holy  Trinity  Column  ,  Olomouc  (2000);  (3)
Tugendhat  Villa,  Brno  (2001).  Hungary:  (1)  Budapest,  including  the  Banks  of  the  Danube,  the
Buda  Castle  Quarter  and  Andrássy  Avenue  (1987,  2002);  (2)  Old  Village,  Hollókı  (1987);  (3)
Caves  of  Aggtelek  Karst  and  Slovak  Karst  (1995,  2000);  (4)  Millenary  Benedictine  Abbey,
Pannonhalma  (1996);  (5)  Hortobágy  National Park  –  the Puszta  (1999);  (6)  Tokaj  Wine  Region
Historic Cultural Landscape (2002); (7) Fertı / Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape (2001). Poland:
(1) Cracow’s Historic Centre (1978); (2) Wieliczka Salt Mine (1978); (3) Auschwitz (Oswiecim)
Concentration  Camp  (1979);  (4)  Kalwaria  Zebrzydowska:  the  Mannerist  Architectural  and  Park
Landscape Complex and Pilgrimage Park (1999); (5) Wooden Churches of Southern Little Poland
(2003). Romania: (1) Churches of Moldavia; (2) Monastery, Horezu; (3) Villages with Fortified
Churches  in  Transylvania  –  Extension  of  “Biertan  and  its  Fortified  Church”  (1993,  1999);  (4)
Dacian Fortresses of the Orastie Mountains (1999); (5) Historic Centre of Sighişoara (1999); (6)
Wooden  Churches  of  Maramureş  (1999).  Slovakia:  (1)  Historic  Town,  Technical  Monuments,
Banská  Štiavnica  (1993);  (2)  Spišský  Hrad,  Associated  Cultural  Monuments  (1993);  (3)
Vlkolínec  (1993) –  Zilina  Region;  (4)  Caves  of  Aggtelek  Karst  and  Slovak  Karst  (1995,  2000);
(5)  Bardejov  Town  Conservation  Reserve  (2000).  Ukraine:  (1)  Lviv  –  the  Ensemble  of  the
Historic Centre (1998). Serbia: (1) Ravanica monastery.
Source: Author’s construction, UNESCO.

Illés, Iván : Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 64-75. p. Discussion Papers, Special
URBAN NETWORK IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA
7
1
− There are 36 registered UNESCO World Heritage items in the Carpathian area;
− Poland  signed  the  agreement  with  the  UNESCO  in  1976.  Until  1997  no  heritage  site  was
nominated in the New territories, belonging formerly to Germany
− Romania  signed  the  agreement  in1990.  The  first  Saxonian  city,  Sighisoara  was  nominated  in
1999.
− A large part of Ukraine’s valuable architectural heritage – the countries only renaissance castles,
palaces are in the Carpathian area which was part of Poland, Austria and Hungary at that time.
So far only the inner city of Lviv is nominated.
− The Carpathian area had 4 million Jewish inhabitants before World War II. No Jewish  quarters
or buildings (synagogues) are nominated so far from the region.5
After 1999, this attitude changed significantly and more nominations were made from the formerly
neglected types of heritage.
9.2.2 The “heritage” of the socialist period
Carpathian countries face now the problem how to treat the “cultural heritage” of
the socialist era. A lot of buildings and monuments were created during this period
of four-five decades, which are now marking the view and skyline of many cities
and  settlements.  Many  of  the  most  provoking  monuments,  symbolising  the  old
system, had been already removed. It is, however, important, not to commit again
the  mistakes  of  the  past.  The  recent  architectural  and  cultural  heritage  should  be
reconsidered only from aesthetic and practical, not from ideological point of view.
It has to be preserved what is worth to preserve, because – willing or not willing –
it became part of the respective nation’s historical heritage.
9.2.3 Military cemeteries and monuments of World War I. and II.
In  1914–17  the  Carpathian  region  was  the  scene  of  some  of  the  largest  and  most
fierce  and  desperate  battles  of  World  War  I.  (Gorlice,  Limanova,  Przemysl,
Kolomea,  Chernivtsi).  On  the  Galician  and  Romanian  fronts  nearly  2  million
soldiers  died.    These  soldiers  came  from  26  present  countries  and  nations.  Their
graves,  however  –  in  contrast  to  other  battle-fields  –  are  not  cared  for,  many  of
them are not even marked.
It  may  sound  strange,  but these  battle-fields and  cemeteries also  belong  to  the
historical heritage and historical monuments of Europe. In the other battle-fields of
World War I this fact is long ago recognized. The battle-fields of Flanders, Artois
and Champagne are marked by beautiful flower gardens, visitor centres and trench-
museums.  The  situation  is  similar  in  Italy,  in  the  battle-fields  of  the  Dolomites.
Even  in  Turkey,  near  to  Gallipoli,  Dardanelles,  the  graveyards  of  British,

5 The Jewish Quarter of Třebíč int he Czech Republic is registered as World Heritage, but it is outside
the Carpathian area in the region of Vysocina.

Illés, Iván : Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 64-75. p. Discussion Papers, Special

72
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
Australian and, New Zealander and Turkish soldiers are carefully  maintained and
visitor  centres  erected.  Great  numbers  of  visitors  are  visiting  these  cemeteries
everywhere.  In  the  Carpathian  area,  however,  all  these  monuments  and  facilities
are missing. The new states, emerging after World War I in these areas, felt neither
obligation  to,  nor  interest  in  caring  for  the  military  cemeteries  of  that  war.  There
are  a  few  committed  amateur  historians  in  Polish-Carpathian  cities,  which  are
making efforts to identify, map and mark the military cemeteries.
To  establish  these  war  memorials  would  require  the  common  action  of  the
Carpathian counties, Austria, Germany and Russia. It would be a symbolic action
at  the  beginning  of  the  21st  century,  in  honour  of  those  who  lost  their  lives  in  a
senseless war at the beginning of the 20th century, just a century ago.
7–8  million  soldiers  fought  in  the  Galician  and  Romanian  Fronts  in  1914–17,
and 2 million have lost their life there. Today, minimum 50-60 million descendants
of these fighters live in Europe.
9.2.4 Sites of pilgrimage in the Carpathian area
The  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Carpathian  area  are  Christians,  and  a  large
part of them are strong believers. Beside Ireland, the largest share of church-going
people  can  be  found  in  Poland,  Slovakia  and  Romania  in  Europe.  Among  the
Czechs and Hungarians the share of church-going people is lower.
The  number of pilgrimage sites is very high in the Carpathian area. Only in the
Carpathian Basin, that means within the mountain range of the Carpathians, there
are more than 400 pilgrimage places. In the whole Carpathian area their number is
about 700. Obviously, the overwhelming part of them are small and only of local
significance. There are 50–60 which have national significance and there are 10–15
which are of international significance (Figure 14).
The  pilgrimage  site  is  mostly  a  church,  a  chapel  or  a  spring  with  or  without  a
cabin. The ground of the pilgrimage is that at that place Maria or Jesus appeared to
somebody and concomitantly some miracles happened there.
In the socialist period, the communist state tolerated pilgrimage and the sites of
pilgrimage, but did not do anything to facilitate pilgrimage, to improve access and
transport to  these sites,  and  to  create  accommodation,  hygienic  conditions to  stay
there.
In most sites the conditions did not change substantially so far. Hygienic condi-
tions  are  unacceptable  even  on  normal  days,  not  speaking  of  religious  holidays,
when hundred thousands are gathering at the most famous places. Pilgrimage can
be  regarded in these  countries  as  the  largest  tourism  movement  and  support  –  in-
cluding  EU  Structural  Funds  support  –  should  be  allocated  accordingly  to  create
acceptable conditions in the 21st century.

Illés, Iván : Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 64-75. p. Discussion Papers, Special
URBAN NETWORK IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA
7
3
Figure 14
Pilgrimage sites in the Carpathian area

Legend:  Poland:  (1)  Czestochowa;  (2)  “Pilgrims  Park”  Kalvaria  Zebrzydovska;  (3)  Wadowice  (the
birthplace of pope John Paul II); (4) Łagiewniki, Cracow. Czech Republic: (1) Guty; (2) Frydek-
Mistek;  (3)  Kunčice;  (4)  Hostin;  (5)  Kroměříž;  (6)  Křitny;  (7)  Brno.  Slovakia:  (1)  Nitra;  (2)
Banská  Bistrica;  (3)  Levoča  Marianka;  (4)  Rajecka  Lesná;  (5)  Staré  Hory;  (6)  Bratislava;  (7)
Košice; (8) L’utina; (9) Šaštin; (10) Turzovka. Hungary: (1) Máriapócs (Greek Catholic Basilica);
(2)  Máriaremete;  (3)  Márianosztra;  (4)  Bélapátfalva.  Romania:  (1)  Humor;  (2)  Voronet;  (3)
Moldovita; (4) Sucevita; (5) Neamt; (6) Secu; (7) Agapia; (8) Sihatria; (9) Varatec; (10) Bistrita;
(11)  Şumuleu  Ciuc/Csíksomlyó;  (12)  Moisei;  (13)  Bogdan  Voda;  (14)  Rozavlea;  (15)  Barsana;
(16) Sinaia;  (17)  Curtea de  Arges;  (18)  Cozia;  (19)  Hurezi.  Ukraine:  (1)  Univ;  (2)  Krekhiv;  (3)
Lviv; (4) Hrushiv; (5) Hoshiv.
Source: Author’s construction.

Illés, Iván : Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 64-75. p. Discussion Papers, Special

74
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
The  most  famous  and  the  most  frequented  pilgrimage  site  in  the  Carpathian
region is the Jasna Góra monastery in Czestochowa, Poland. More recent and less
famous is the “Pilgrims Park” Kalvaria Zebrzydovska (UNESCO World Heritage),
but  already  attracts  large  masses  of  pilgrims.  Important  sites  of  pilgrimage  in
Carpathian Poland are Wadowice (the birthplace of pope John Paul II), Łagiewniki
in Cracow.
In the Czech Carpathian region more significant sites of pilgrimage are: Svatý
Hostin, Velehrad, Svatý Kopeček, Zlaté Hory and Křtiny.
In  Slovakia,  the  main  (national)  pilgrimage  places  are  Nitra,  Banská  Bistrica,
Levoča Marianka, Rajecka Lesná, Staré Hory, L’utina, Šaštin, Turzovka.
In  the  Hungarian  Carpathian  region  the  most  famous  pilgrimage  site  is
Máriapócs (Greek Catholic Basilica), Máriaremete, Márianosztra, Bélapátfalva
In  Romania,  orthodox  monasteries  can  be  regarded  as  the  main  pilgrimage
destinations.  There  are  four  main    concentration  areas  of  these  pilgrimage
monasteries: the monasteries of Bucovina (Humor, Voronet, Moldovita, Sucevita),
Neamt  region  (Neamt,  Secu,  Vovidenia,  Agapia,  Sihatria,  Varatec),  the  valley  of
the  river  Olt  (Hurezi,  Curtea  de  Arges,  Cozia,  Bistrita,  Sinaia)  and  Maramures
(Moisei,  Bogdan  Voda,  Rozavlea,  Barsana).  The  main  pilgrimage  place  of
Hungarians  in  Romania  is  the  church  and  monastery  in  Csíksomlyó  (Şumuleu
Ciuc).
The main pilgrimage sites in the Carpathian Ukraine are: Univ, Krekhiv, Lviv,
Hrushiv, Hoshiv and Prylbichi.
9.2.5 Recommendations for the management of the natural heritage
−  The network of National Parks and of other forms of high level protection can
be  regarded  as  established.  Further  extension  of  these  network  is  not
recommended,  even  in  a  few  cases  the  territory  of  the  National  Park  may  be
somewhat reduced.
−  Areas  with  somewhat  more  permissive  regulations  must  be  extended.
Especially protected landscapes, where human activities and natural processes
are in harmony.
−  Regulations  between  the  two  types  of  protection  should  be  clearly
differentiated.  In  National  Parks,  they  should  be  made  –  in  some  sense  –
stricter (for example: areas belonging to a national park should not be allowed
to be privatised). In the other protected areas, human economic activity should
be  allowed  but  carefully  regulated.  Especially,  the  exploitation  of  forests  and
meadows  in  protected  areas  should  be  regulated  more    carefully  and  in  a
differentiated way;