Attractiveness index and 58 coverage by the by the which attainedattained theAttractiveness index and 58

Attractiveness index and 58 coverage by the by the which attainedattained the
Attractiveness index and 58 coverage by the by the which attainedattained the highest tourism attractiveness index and 58 coverageNatura Natura 2000 network, followed by Czarnk (municipal commune) (0.557). A considerable 2000 network, followed by Czarnk (municipal commune) (0.557). A important share share investment attractiveness was observed in the in the synthetic measure of your poof the with the investment attractiveness was observedgeneralgeneral synthetic measure of the prospective case case of Czarnk (municipal commune). Due urban character, this tential inside the in theof Czarnk (municipal commune). Resulting from its to its urban character, this commune has limited possibilities development of tourism, specifically in the field commune has restricted opportunities for thefor the development of tourism, in particular in the field tourism. tourism. the ranking had been the communes of Czarnk Czarnk of nature of nature 20(S)-Hydroxycholesterol In Vitro Further in Further inside the ranking have been the communes of(rural com (rural commune) (0.481), Krzyz Wielkopolski (0.443), Lubasz (0.439), and Drawsko (0.369). mune) (0.481), Krzy Wielkopolski (0.443), Lubasz (0.439), and Drawsko (0.369). Apart Apart from Czarnk (rural commune), these communes had been characterized by a higher from Czarnk (rural commune), these communes were characterized by a higher proporproportion from the Natura 2000 network’s location in the total area of the commune (from 56 tion of your Natura 2000 network’s location in the total area on the commune (from 56 to 78 ). to 78 ). The commune using the lowest result was Polajewo (0.342). This commune was The commune with all the lowest outcome was Polajewo (0.342). This commune was charactercharacterized by low tourism attractiveness. In the same time, its investment attractiveness ized by low tourism attractiveness. At the identical time, its investment attractiveness was was also one of several reduced values observed in the county. The share with the Natura 2000 also one of many reduced values observed in the county. The share in the Natura 2000 (Z)-Semaxanib Technical Information network network inside the location of this commune was only 26 , and it was a homogeneous forest inside the region of this commune was only 26 , and it was a homogeneous forest (Figure 5). (Figure 5). Based on Spearman’s rank correlation analysis, it was possible to indicate the relation involving the proportion of the Natura 2000 network’s region in the total location of communes and communes’ tourism and investment attractiveness as well as a general synthetic measure of tourism and investment potential. The conducted evaluation revealed no correlation between the Natura 2000 network and communes’ tourism and investment prospective. However, a unfavorable correlation was observed between the proportion on the Natura 2000 network’s region in the total region with the commune and investment attractiveness (r = -0.714, p 0.05). As a result, growing the Natura 2000 network’s share in the commune’s location contributed towards the lower of its investment potential (Table 4).Sustainability 2021, 13,mune) (0.481), Krzy Wielkopolski (0.443), Lubasz (0.439), and Drawsko (0.369). Aside from Czarnk (rural commune), these communes were characterized by a high proportion of the Natura 2000 network’s region within the total area from the commune (from 56 to 78 ). The commune with all the lowest result was Polajewo (0.342). This commune was characterized by low tourism attractiveness. In the exact same time, its investment attractiveness of 17 12 was also among the list of decrease values observed inside the county. The share of the Natura 2000.