Quality and Quantity of Tourist Infrastructure Provided by the

In regard to the infrastructure provided by the two national parks, museums and nature paths have to be mentioned first. Both national parks maintain one museum complex however the amount of cognitive and nature paths differs. The KN includes three nature trails and one small cognitive path for children the KK has four nature trails which are longer as well.

Additionally, the amount of information on the KK nature paths seems to be more detailed, however solely in Russian. The KK has equipped every parking lot next to the nature path with recreational facilities such as picnic pavilions and fire places. The parking places next to the KN nature paths are equipped more for the basic needs including a few benches and trash bins. Thus, probably displaying the different needs of the visitors whereby many people visiting the Russian part could be observed eating in these pavilions at lunch and in the evenings whereas the visitors on the nature paths in Lithuania mainly seemed to be interested in the nature.

Interestingly, none of the nature paths possessed a trash bin on the path but all parking areas were equipped with bins. Although, the missing trash bins, all nature paths in the territory were presented in a clean state even though two illegal fire places could be observed on the Russian side. Some information stands on the Parnidis Dune are rather old and washed out by the weather and some in the Russian national park are covered by graffiti.

Focusing on the built infrastructure as wooden paths on the dunes furthermore no real differences could be determined on the nature paths. However, the infrastructure on the beaches, outlook platforms and stairs over the protective dunes are of much lower quality in the KK than on the Lithuanian side. Most trails to the Russian beaches were in poor condition and the amount of litter was higher in the KK, however KN recreational beach infrastructure is maintained by the municipalities. Anyway the impression of most beach areas in the KK is poor. Additionally, the number of trampling paths to the beaches is much higher in the KK, threatening the protective dune. Few of these paths could be observed on the Lithuanian side where the beach recreational infrastructure is more developed, newer and cleaner. On the other side, the signed parking areas and roads are cleaner in the KK. The KK territory feels cleaner while passing it on the main road however the nature itself and the landscape seem much more ordered and managed on the Lithuanian side.

72 

Fig. 13: Inside view of the KN main Museum exhibition (Albrecht 2007)

Fig. 14: Inside view of the KK Museum exhibition (Albrecht 2007)

Fig. 15: KN Visitors Center in Smyltine (Albrecht 2007)

73 

Fig. 16: KK Administration building in Rybachy (Albrecht 2007)

Another infrastructure provided by the administrations is their own administration buildings, their Visitor Centers and their Museums. The KN Museum buildings, contents and presentation styles are quite old fashioned while the KK museum is more modern (See Fig. 13

& 14). However, both present very good information in several languages. The KN Museum is situated in three old villas in Smyltine which are in need for restoration while the KK Museum is a Soviet style bloc which requires renovation as well. The KK Administration has started to renovate and reconstruct their Museum Complex while the KN Administration is still stuck in the planning phase of their rebuilding process (Korolevskaya 2007; Zacharzenko 2007). The KN Museums structure has to be described as not sufficient whereas the Museum of the KK was in a good state already before the start of the renovation and renewing works.

However, the recent renovation processes will probably change the museum situation completely during the next years.

The KN is already equipped with two Visitors Centers in Nida and Smyltine; the Russian Visitor Center is situated in the Museum Complex however, it is not sufficient and therefore an enlargement is included into the renovation plan (Korolevskaya 2007). The recent provision of tourist information offices is rather meager in the KK even though the Visitors Center will be enlarged. Additionally, the complete separation of the Administration in Rybachy and the Kaliningrad administered Visitors Center in the Museum Complex close to Lesnoye has to be stated. The Visitors Center in Nida shares a renovated traditional house with the KN Administration and the Visitors Center in Smyltine is situated in an old villa while the KK administration building in Rybachy is of less the representative style (See Fig.

15 & 16).

74 

The KN represents itself better than the KK with the exception of the Museums Complex. The administration building in Nida has to be presented as a good example for cultural protection because of its situation in the strict protected urban area of Nida while the KK administration, as situated in a settlement, hitherto out of the direct KK territory, has no need to represent itself in order to defend values. Both national parks realize these problems as can be observed by the recent measures to overcome such problems. Anyway, the all time problem stated by both administrations is lack of time and money for addressing extra infrastructure problems in addition to the already carried out maintenance (Diksaite 2007; Snegiryov 2007; Varkaliene 2007).

6.3 The National Parks Printed and Digital Information Material