The document discusses the concept of "wilderness" in a Central European context. It provides examples of areas that could potentially be considered wilderness in Central Europe, such as long-unmanaged forests and former industrial sites. However, there is no universal definition of wilderness. The document also summarizes the results of a survey conducted in Mueritz National Park, Germany, which found that visitors generally have positive connotations with wilderness but definitions varied depending on lifestyle and education levels. While some saw the park as wilderness, others felt it showed too many signs of human impacts. The concept of wilderness may still be relevant for Central Europe if carefully defined and communicated.

1. ECCB 2012 Glasgow, Scotland
Chair: Zoltan Kun, PAN-Parks
Session: Wilderness at the Edge of
Survival
"Wilderness": A Suitable
designation for Central
European Landscapes?
Gerd Lupp*, Franz Hoechtl**
* Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development/
Institute for Landscape Management, Freiburg University
**Alfred Toepfer Academy for Nature Conservation (NNA)

2. What is
“Wilderness”?

3. Swiss National Park
IUCN Cat. 1
No management since 1914
170,3 km²

4. Natural UNESCO
Beech World
(Fagus Heritage
Sylvatica) Core
stand in 268 ha
Serrahn
part Forest
Mueritz manage-
National ment
Park ceased in
/IUCN 1961,
Cat. II outside
still some
6.200 ha fading out
forest
treatment

5. Former military shooting range in Müritz
National Park IUCN Cat. II; completely
devastated, 15 years after military use
faded out , ~1.000 ha

6. National Park Wadden Sea at Langeoog island
345.800 ha, IUCN Cat. II since 1986
UNESCO World Heritage

7. Südgelände Berlin:
Abandoned railroad switch yard
Natural Beech
Unmanaged since 1945
(Fagus
18 ha
Sylvatica)
stand

8. Leipzig, Jahrtausendfeld, former
industrial area, demolition of the
buildings in 1998, no management
since then
2 ha

9. Dresden, Trachenberger Platz,
Abandoned backyard since 1994,
1000 m²

10. Abandoned part of a
tram-depot still in use
Dresden – Mickten
(abandoned for 10
years)

11. Birch
(Betula
pendula)
growing
on a
building
still used
for
housing
(Leipzig)

12. Statement
All this might be considered “wilderness”!
But what is in common?
In Central Europe, there is nothing like the US wilderness
act, also comparable sizes without settlements are difficult
to find in Central Europe
Are there suitable definitions for “wilderness” in a Central
European context? What do all these areas mentioned
have in common?
Are areas set aside for natural processes being perceived
as “wilderness”?
Is “wilderness” a suiting term for communication for
Central European National Parks?

13. Introduction
Scientific definitons of “Wilderness”
(KOWARIK & KOERNER 2005)
Traditional Wilderness
Remnants of virgin forests (do not really exist) and land
set aside for natural processes in former managed forests
German strategy for CBD biodiversity goal: 2% of forests
New Wilderness
Fallow, unmanaged land in cities and suburban areas due
to structural changes in the industrial sector (1970ies), but
also demographic change (1990ies), as well on former
military training ranges when cold war period ended
“Nature experience parks” for environmental education

14. Introduction
“Naturalness”
Retrospective Naturalness
Assumes a composition of vegetation, before man shaped
the land
Prospective Naturalness
Self establishment of ecosystems, including Neophytes and
new approached animals

15. Introduction
Wilderness and its value for biodiversity
Old unmanaged forests with its specific spectrum of
species are rare, but in general, beech forests that would
dominate Central Europe contain less (endangered)
species than many man-made managed ecosystems like
high value grasslands, oak-forests etc.
Spontaneous vegetation especially in urban surroundings
are often dominated by non-native species; e.g. many
examples from Berlin with up to 90% non-native share
(KOWARIK & KOERNER 2005)

16. Methods
Literature surveys, expert quotes on wilderness and its
perception and, if possible, a physical definition
Mueritz National Park is one of the most “natural” places
in Germany with large forests not being used for timber
production for over 50 years, which is one of the longest
periods documented for Central Europe
Survey among 605 visitors in Mueritz National Park,
quantitative approach, systematic, objective selection of
the interviewees

17. What is “Wilderness”? – Results from
Literature
A physical definition with means and measurement of
Natural Sciences does not really exist; most “wilderness”
species mentioned like wolves (Canis lupus) are not
dependent on one of the types of “wilderness”
“unregulated self-reproduction of nature” is also not a
suitable definition
Biased: Important are values and perspectives of the
authors (ethical/religious, pedagogic, …)
However, there is a kind of “character” of
“wilderness” common to most authors analyzed

18. What is “Wilderness”? – First
Summary
Unplanned, unpredictable, spontaneous, surprising,
unexpected encounters with nature
Often related with attributes like gaining experience,
emotions, feelings, challenges, inspiration, contemplation,
being curious, fear, physical strains, happiness, joy, …
Contrast to rational, predictable, manmade, planned
human environment
Has a gradient that might even stretch down to plants
growing in a crack of a paved road (BROUNS 2004).
Object of projection and for feelings  a cultural
(KANGLER & VICENZOTTI 2007) or mental construct
Not quantifiable and reproducible  “Myth”  “Logos”

19. A Need for User-Based Surveys
But what about “real” people?
Some studies have been carried out, e.g. HUNZIKER
2000, WASEM 2002, HOECHTL et al. 2005, BAUER 2005.
Focus on alpine space
Natural processes are seen positive, however the
consequences are perceived negative:  loss of
biodiversity on alpine meadows and loss of identity in
alpine valleys (HUNZIKER 2000, HOECHTL et al. 2005)

20. A Need for User-Based Surveys
Some studies for urban “wilderness” (e.g. RINK 2003,
SCHEMEL 2005, HOHN et al. 2005, KEIL et al. 2005), focus
on certain user groups, often no broader, quantitative
approaches
BREUSTE 2001, RINK 2003 for East German cities:
perceived negative, “danger”, “loitering”, often seen as
symbol of economic collapse; not as “Wilderness”
KEIL 1998, 2002 (Ruhr region); SCHEMEL 2005 (towns in
South West Germany): little aesthetic attractiveness,
however perceived as valuable places for recreation, for
children and for nature protection

21. A User-Based Survey in Müritz
National Park
Method
On site interviews in “real nature” inside largest German
land-based National Park
Standardized approach, systematic on-site interviews at
5 places inside the park
Classification for different user-groups, Anova-Tests for
significance
KNOWLEDGE of the LIFESTYLE GROUP CONCEPT
PARK REGION by SCHULZE 1997
First time visitors 5 lifestyle groups, differentiated
Regular visitors by age, education, leisure time
Locals activities at home

22. A User-Based Survey in Müritz
National Park
Lifestyle Groups
Lifestyle group Age Behaviour patterns Education
Unterhaltung Rock, Pop, Tabloids, Easy
< 40 Low
(“Entertainment”) Listening Music, Quiz Shows
Selbstverwirklichung Rock, Pop, Classical Music,
< 40 High
(“Self-Fulfilment”) Theatre, Quality Newspapers
Harmonie Tabloids, Easy Listening
> 40 Low
(“Harmony”) Music, Quiz Shows
Integration Easy Listening Music, Quiz
> 40 Medium
(“Integration”) Shows, Classical Music
Niveau Classical Music, Theatre,
> 40 High
(“High Class”) Quality Newspapers

23. A User-Based Survey in Müritz
National Park
Questions posed (among others)
Is “wilderness” positive or negative for you?
Define in your own words, what “wilderness” might be
(Open ended question)
In your opinion, is Mueritz National Park a “wilderness
area”? Answers given: Yes, No, not yet ...
Why? A statement for the classification had to be given

24. A User-Based Survey in Müritz
National Park
Results: Wilderness is a positive term
87% of visitors name it “positive”, 5% “negative”, 8%
ambivalent
77% of locals name “wilderness” “positive”, 11%
“negative”, 12% “ambivalent”
For the lifestyle group characterized by older, less
educated persons, “wilderness” is less positive than for
groups characterized by high level of education

25. A User-Based Survey in Müritz
National Park
Results: Definition
No human intervention
Untouched
Rich wildlife
Left naturally
Few signs of civilisation
Free development of nature
“Forest”
“Deadwood”, “mess”
No paths
Some mentioned feelings and confrontation with death
and rebirth

26. A User-Based Survey in Müritz
National Park
Results: Definition
Significant differences between lifestyles
Lifestyles characterized by high education levels
mentioned more frequently “untouched” and “few signs
of civilisation”
Lifestyle characterized by young, less educated persons
more frequently mentioned “Rich wildlife”

27. A User-Based Survey in Müritz
National Park
Comparison of Terms
“Untouched”, “left naturally” used mainly by persons
perceiving “wilderness” positive
“Not possible to get through” and “mess/ deadwood”
were used by persons connoting “wilderness” more
frequently mentioned by persons quoting a negative
connotation with “wilderness”
However: When asked for evaluating the real on-site scenic
quality of the old, unmanaged beech forest, “deadwood
visible” was one of the most frequently mentioned positive
features for liking this place (~ 4,7 on 5 step scale)

28. A User-Based Survey in Müritz
National Park
Wilderness in Central Europe: Is Mueritz National
Park “Wilderness”?
Yes 58 %
No 37 %
Not yet 3%
No answer 2 %
Lifestyle Group characterized by young, well educated
persons perceived the park less frequently being a
“Wilderness Area”

29. A User-Based Survey in Müritz
National Park
Reasons Mueritz National Park being wilderness
“No more human interference”, “No possibility to get
through”, “Rich wildlife”
“(Vast) Forests”
Water courses and wetlands
Geographical descriptions: unmanaged beech forests in
Serrahn, large bogs along Mueritz lake shoreline

30. A User-Based Survey in Müritz
National Park
Reasons given against wilderness
Too much interference of mankind visible
Too many people visible
To much infrastructure
Not large enough for being “wilderness”
Land management in the past is still visible
Lifestyle characterized by older, well educated persons
significantly more often mentioned “too much interference
of mankind visible”
Lifestyle characterized by younger, well educated persons
more often mentioned “too many people visible”

31. Conclusions
“Wilderness” is a suiting concept and designation for
larger unmanaged forests and wetlands in a densely
populated area like Central Europe
 perceived positive! But be careful when just
communicating “Wilderness”
Different values and criteria for different lifestyles
Uncritical use may cause disappointment between
expectation and reality (e.g. “rich wildlife”), best
combined with “No intervention by human activities”.

32. Conclusions
Difference between mental picture in mind compared to
interviewing real on site scenic qualities (e.g. deadwood),
information and communication
“Solitude” is an important positive attribute for
“wilderness”, important for visitor management

33. Conclusions
In urban areas, “Wilderness” needs more advocates
and linkage with positive connotation, although many
attributes of “wilderness” for broader public are missing
like “solitude” or a certain felt extent
Wilderness in urban area has different values far
beyond seeking some red-list species among a sea of
neophytes as a right for its existence
 Space for “a glimpse of wilderness” with unexpected,
emotional, inspirational, unplanned contacts with nature
in urban areas

34. Thank You Very Much For Your
Attention!
Dr. Gerd Lupp
Leibniz Institute of Ecological
Urban and Regional
Development (IÖR)
Weberplatz 1
DE-01217 Dresden
Phone: +49 (0)351 4679-279
E-Mail: g.lupp@ioer.de
Internet: www.ioer.de

35. References
Lupp, G.; Konold, W.; Bastian, O. (in press): Landscape
management and landscape changes towards more naturalness
and wilderness: Effects on scenic qualities - The case of the
Müritz National Park in Germany. Journal for Nature Conservation
Lupp, G.; Hoechtl, F.; Wende, W. (2011): "Wilderness" - a
designation for Central European landscapes? In: Land Use Policy
28 (2011), 594-603
Höchtl, F.; Lehringer, S.; Konold, W. (2005): “Wilderness”: What
it means when it becomes a reality – A case study from the
southwestern Alps. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 85-95