Assessment of websites of Polish landscape parks

• Authors: Zbaraszewski Wojciech

Title variants

PL

Ocena serwisów internetowych polskich parków krajobrazowych

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The purpose of the article is to evaluate the websites of Polish landscape parks in terms of information (presence and quality) and technical aspects (loading speed, availability, responsiveness) including functional development stages. The study concerned all (125) Polish landscape parks. The research consisted in assessing the websites of landscape parks according to the adopted 37 consolidated criteria which formed the basis for distinguishing 4 stages of functional development of websites. As a result of the study, the hypothesis that Polish landscape parks do not use the full potential of modern

PL

Celem artykułu jest ocena serwisów internetowych polskich parków krajobrazowych pod względem informacyjnym (obecność i jakość) oraz aspektów technicznych (szybkość ładowania, dostępność, responsywność) z uwzględnieniem etapów rozwoju funkcjonalnego. Badanie dotyczyło wszystkich (125) polskich parków krajobrazowych. Polegało ono na ocenie serwisów internetowych parków krajobrazowych według przyjętych 37 skonsolidowanych kryteriów, na podstawie których wyodrębniono 4 etapy rozwoju funkcjonalnego serwisów internetowych. W wyniku przeprowadzonych badań pozytywnie zweryfikowano hipotezę, że polskie parki krajobrazowe nie wykorzystują w swoich serwisach pełnego potencjału nowoczesnych technologii informacyjno-komunikacyjnych.

Keywords

EN

landscape park; nature protection; tourism; websites; websites assessing criteria; sustainable development

PL

park krajobrazowy; ochrona przyrody; turystyka; strony internetowe; kryteria oceny stron internetowych; zrównoważony rozwój

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu
• Journal: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu
• Year: 2020
• Issue: vol. 64, nr 9
• Pages: 131-141

Contributors

author

Zbaraszewski Wojciech

References

• Accessibility Check – Tingtun. (2020). European Internet Inclusion Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.tingtun.no/accessibility-checker
• Acosta-Vargas, P., González, M., and Luján-Mora, S. (2020). Dataset for evaluating the accessibility of the websites of selected Latin American universities. Data in Brief, (28).
• Beresford, M., and Phillips, A. (2000). Protected landscapes: A conservation model for the 21st century. The George Wright Forum, 17(1), 15-26.
• Budiman, E., Puspitasari, N., Wati, M., Widians, J. A., Haviluddin, H., and Puspitasari, N. (2019). Web performance optimization techniques for biodiversity resource portal. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1230:012011.
• Büyüközkan, G., Ruan, D., and Feyzioğlu, O. (2007). Evaluating e-learning website quality in a fuzzy environment. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(5), 567-586.
• Cai, L., Card, J. A., and Cole, S. T. (2004). Content delivery performance of worldwide websites of US tour operators focusing on destinations in China. Tourism Management, 25(2), 219-227.
• Castañeda, J. A., Frías, D. M., and Rodríguez, M. A. (2007). The influence of the Internet on destination satisfaction. Internet Research, 17(4), 402-420.
• CBOS. (2019). Korzystanie z internetu. Fundacja Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej.
• Eagles, P., Mccool, S., and Haynes, C. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas: Guidelines for planning and management. In A. Phillips (Ed.), United Nations Environment Programme, World Tourism Organization and IUCN – The World Conservation Union.
• Eurostat. (2020). Eurostat – Data Explorer. Retrieved from https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do
• Głąbiński, Z. (2015). Ecological awareness of tourists in the coastal areas of Poland – preliminary results of the survey. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, (28), 53-68.
• Google. (2018). PageSpeed insights, now powered by lighthouse. Retrived from https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2018/11/pagespeed-insights-now-powered-by
• Google. (2020). Mobile-friendly test tool – search console help. Retrived from https://suport.google.com/webmasters/answer/6352293?hl=en
• GUS. (2019). Ochrona środowiska 2019. Warszawa: Główny Urząd Statystyczny.
• Hennig, S., Vogler, R., and Möller, M. (2013). Use of Modern Information and Communication Technology in Large Protected Areas (5th Symposium for Research in Protected Areas).
• Höpken, W., Eberle, T., Fuchs, M., and Lexhagen, M. (2018). Search engine traffic as input for predicting tourist arrivals. In B. Stangl and J. Pesonen (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2018 (pp. 381-393).
• Hu, Y.-C. (2009). Fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making in the determination of critical criteria for assessing service quality of travel websites. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3, Part 2), 6439-6445.
• Kabassi, K. (2017). Evaluating websites of museums: State of the art. Journal of Cultural Heritage, (24), 184-196.
• Kantar. (2019). Segmentacja turystów krajowych. Retrieved from https://www.pot.gov.pl/attachments/article/1804/Segmentacja%20turyst%C3%B3w%20krajowych_2019.pdf
• Koliouska, C., Andreopoulou, Z. S., Kiomourtzi, F., and Manos, B. D. (2015). E-government for national forest parks in Greece. HAICTA.
• Kozłowski, M. (2006). Początki Internetu w Polsce. In G. Bliźniuk (Ed.), Społeczeństwo informacyjne. Doświadczenie i przyszłość. Polskie Towarzystwo Informatyczne. Oddział Górnośląski.
• Layne, K., and Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, (18), 122-136.
• Lee-Geiller, S., and Lee, T. (2019). Using government websites to enhance democratic e-governance: A conceptual model for evaluation. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 208-225.
• Leung, Y., Spenceley, A., Hvenegaard, G., and Buckley, R. (Eds.). (2018). Tourism and visitor management in protected areas. Guidelines for sustainability. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series, (27).
• Liu, G.-Z., Liu, Z.-H., and Hwang, G.-J. (2011). Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for English learning websites with university students and professors. Computers & Education, 56(1), 65-79.
• Ostovare, M., and Shahraki, M. R. (2019). Evaluation of hotel websites using the multicriteria analysis of PROMETHEE and GAIA: Evidence from the five-star hotels of Mashhad. Tourism Management Perspectives, (30), 107-116. Pesonen, J., and Pasanen, K. (2017). A closer look at tourist information search behaviour when travelling abroad: What is the role of online marketing in choice of destination? In R. Schegg and B. Stangl (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017 (pp. 431-443), Springer.
• PPKP. (2020). Porozumienie Parków Krajobrazowych Polski. Retrieved from https://www.parkikrajobrazowe.pl/porozumienie-parkow-krajobrazowych-polski/
• PSI. (2020). PageSpeed Insights. Retrieved from https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/
• Puhakka, R., Pitkanen, K., and Siikamaki, P. (2017). The health and well-being impacts of protected areas in Finland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1243696
• Rao, S., Metts, G., and Mora-Monge, C. (2003). Electronic commerce development in small and medium sized enterprises: A stage model and its implications. Business Process Management Journal, 9, 11-32.
• Tham, A., Croy, G., and Mair, J. (2013). Social media in destination choice: Distinctive electronic word-of-mouth dimensions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1-2), 144-155.
• Tsai, W.-H., Chou, W.-C., and Lai, C.-W. (2010). An effective evaluation model and improvement analysis for national park websites: A case study of Taiwan. Tourism Management, 31(6), 936-952.
• Verkijika, S. F., and De Wet, L. (2018). A usability assessment of e-government websites in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Information Management, (39), 20-29.