Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Wilderness lupp hoechtl


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Wilderness lupp hoechtl

  1. 1. ECCB 2012 Glasgow, Scotland Chair: Zoltan Kun, PAN-ParksSession: 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. 2. What is“Wilderness”?
  3. 3. Swiss National ParkIUCN Cat. 1No management since 1914170,3 km²
  4. 4. Natural UNESCOBeech World(Fagus HeritageSylvatica) Corestand in 268 haSerrahnpart ForestMueritz manage-National mentPark ceased in/IUCN 1961,Cat. II outside still some6.200 ha fading out forest treatment
  5. 5. Former military shooting range in MüritzNational Park IUCN Cat. II; completelydevastated, 15 years after military usefaded out , ~1.000 ha
  6. 6. National Park Wadden Sea at Langeoog island345.800 ha, IUCN Cat. II since 1986UNESCO World Heritage
  7. 7. Südgelände Berlin: Abandoned railroad switch yardNatural Beech Unmanaged since 1945(Fagus 18 haSylvatica)stand
  8. 8. Leipzig, Jahrtausendfeld, formerindustrial area, demolition of thebuildings in 1998, no managementsince then2 ha
  9. 9. Dresden, Trachenberger Platz,Abandoned backyard since 1994,1000 m²
  10. 10. Abandoned part of atram-depot still in useDresden – Mickten(abandoned for 10years)
  11. 11. Birch(Betulapendula)growingon abuildingstill usedforhousing(Leipzig)
  12. 12. Statement All this might be considered “wilderness”! But what is in common?In Central Europe, there is nothing like the US wildernessact, also comparable sizes without settlements are difficultto find in Central EuropeAre there suitable definitions for “wilderness” in a CentralEuropean context? What do all these areas mentionedhave in common?Are areas set aside for natural processes being perceivedas “wilderness”?Is “wilderness” a suiting term for communication forCentral European National Parks?
  13. 13. IntroductionScientific 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 forestsNew 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. 14. Introduction“Naturalness”Retrospective Naturalness Assumes a composition of vegetation, before man shaped the landProspective Naturalness Self establishment of ecosystems, including Neophytes and new approached animals
  15. 15. IntroductionWilderness 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. 16. MethodsLiterature surveys, expert quotes on wilderness and itsperception and, if possible, a physical definitionMueritz National Park is one of the most “natural” placesin Germany with large forests not being used for timberproduction for over 50 years, which is one of the longestperiods documented for Central EuropeSurvey among 605 visitors in Mueritz National Park,quantitative approach, systematic, objective selection ofthe interviewees
  17. 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. 18. What is “Wilderness”? – First SummaryUnplanned, unpredictable, spontaneous, surprising,unexpected encounters with natureOften related with attributes like gaining experience,emotions, feelings, challenges, inspiration, contemplation,being curious, fear, physical strains, happiness, joy, …Contrast to rational, predictable, manmade, plannedhuman environmentHas a gradient that might even stretch down to plantsgrowing in a crack of a paved road (BROUNS 2004).Object of projection and for feelings  a cultural(KANGLER & VICENZOTTI 2007) or mental constructNot quantifiable and reproducible  “Myth”  “Logos”
  19. 19. A Need for User-Based SurveysBut what about “real” people?Some studies have been carried out, e.g. HUNZIKER2000, WASEM 2002, HOECHTL et al. 2005, BAUER 2005.Focus on alpine spaceNatural processes are seen positive, however theconsequences are perceived negative:  loss ofbiodiversity on alpine meadows and loss of identity inalpine valleys (HUNZIKER 2000, HOECHTL et al. 2005)
  20. 20. A Need for User-Based SurveysSome studies for urban “wilderness” (e.g. RINK 2003,SCHEMEL 2005, HOHN et al. 2005, KEIL et al. 2005), focuson certain user groups, often no broader, quantitativeapproachesBREUSTE 2001, RINK 2003 for East German cities:perceived negative, “danger”, “loitering”, often seen assymbol of economic collapse; not as “Wilderness”KEIL 1998, 2002 (Ruhr region); SCHEMEL 2005 (towns inSouth West Germany): little aesthetic attractiveness,however perceived as valuable places for recreation, forchildren and for nature protection
  21. 21. A User-Based Survey in Müritz National ParkMethod 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. 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 ShowsSelbstverwirklichung 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. 23. A User-Based Survey in Müritz National ParkQuestions 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. 24. A User-Based Survey in Müritz National ParkResults: 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. 25. A User-Based Survey in Müritz National ParkResults: 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. 26. A User-Based Survey in Müritz National ParkResults: DefinitionSignificant 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. 27. A User-Based Survey in Müritz National ParkComparison 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. 28. A User-Based Survey in Müritz National ParkWilderness in Central Europe: Is Mueritz NationalPark “Wilderness”?Yes 58 %No 37 %Not yet 3%No answer 2 %Lifestyle Group characterized by young, well educatedpersons perceived the park less frequently being a“Wilderness Area”
  29. 29. A User-Based Survey in Müritz National ParkReasons 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. 30. A User-Based Survey in Müritz National ParkReasons 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. 31. Conclusions“Wilderness” is a suiting concept and designation forlarger unmanaged forests and wetlands in a denselypopulated area like Central Europe perceived positive! But be careful when justcommunicating “Wilderness”Different values and criteria for different lifestylesUncritical use may cause disappointment betweenexpectation and reality (e.g. “rich wildlife”), bestcombined with “No intervention by human activities”.
  32. 32. ConclusionsDifference between mental picture in mind compared tointerviewing real on site scenic qualities (e.g. deadwood),information and communication“Solitude” is an important positive attribute for“wilderness”, important for visitor management
  33. 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. 34. Thank You Very Much For Your Attention!Dr. Gerd LuppLeibniz Institute of EcologicalUrban and RegionalDevelopment (IÖR)Weberplatz 1DE-01217 DresdenPhone: +49 (0)351 4679-279E-Mail: g.lupp@ioer.deInternet:
  35. 35. ReferencesLupp, G.; Konold, W.; Bastian, O. (in press): Landscapemanagement and landscape changes towards more naturalnessand wilderness: Effects on scenic qualities - The case of theMüritz National Park in Germany. Journal for Nature ConservationLupp, G.; Hoechtl, F.; Wende, W. (2011): "Wilderness" - adesignation for Central European landscapes? In: Land Use Policy28 (2011), 594-603Höchtl, F.; Lehringer, S.; Konold, W. (2005): “Wilderness”: Whatit means when it becomes a reality – A case study from thesouthwestern Alps. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 85-95