Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T16:12:05.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Parks, Reserves, and Landscape Protection, in Three Countries of the Eastern Alps

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Mary L. Barker
Mary L. Barker
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Conservation policies adopted in the Provinces of Tirol (Austria), Salzburg (Austria), Bavaria (West Germany), and Südtirol–Alto Adige (Italy), reflect the specific constitutional settings, management fields, and regional planning strategies, of these four regions in the eastern European Alps. Despite differences in historical–political heritage, their conservation programmes exhibit a number of similarities:

1. Early conservation efforts by local communities were justified on the basis of perceived economic benefits, while those of organized conservation groups were directed towards establishing reserves with the objective of strict preservation.

2. Government involvement in conservation increased in the 1970s, when comprehensive legislation covering Nature protection and regional planning was enacted by provincial authorithies.

3. Much of the land in projected and existing parks or reserves remains in private ownership, and long-held traditional land-use rights are upheld.

4. Reserves are established under individual legal ordinances which specify prohibited practices, allowable uses, and permit approval procedures. A land-use zoning approach is used only in the management of National Parks.

5. Provincial legislation requires the integration of Nature protection into regional planning policies and programmes (e.g. the Bavarian Recreational Landscape Plan). Efforts to integrate government programmes on an international level have been limited to discussion and consultation.

The controversy surrounding the proposed Hohe Tauern National Park (Austria) illustrates that, within a setting of long-established vested interests, it is difficult to reach agreement between provincial governments (with their power-utility corporations), local communities (with their economic self-interest), and environmental groups (with their often strict preservation philosophy).

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , Winter 1982 , pp. 275 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

ARGE-ALP (Alpine Countries Working Group) (1981). Gemeinsames Leitbild für die Entwicklung und Sicherung des Alpengebietes. Background report, Conference of Government Leaders, 19 06 1981, Feldkirch, Austria: 37 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Austria, (1978). Raumordnung in Österreich. Österreichische Raumordnungskonferenz, Vienna, Austria: 89 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Barker, M.L. (in press). Traditional landscape and mass tourism in the Alps. Geographical Review, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnick, H. (1980). ‘Alpine Raumordnung’—ein wichtiger Teil der Tiroler Raumordnung. Berichte zur Raumforschung und Raumplanung, 24, pp. 3–7, 2 maps.Google Scholar
Batisse, M. (1982). The Biosphere Reserve: A tool for environmental conservation and management. Environmental Conservation, 9(2), pp. 101–11, 8 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavaria, (1978). Landesplanung in Bayern. Staatsministerium für Landesentwicklung und Umweltfragen, München, West Germany: 72 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Bavaria [Bayerische Staatsregierung] (1980 a). Naturschutz, Landschaftspflege und Landschaftsentwicklung. Raumordnungsbericht, 5, pp. 67–72.Google Scholar
Bavaria, (1980 b). Erholungslandschaft Alpen. Staatsministerium für Landesentwicklung und Umweltfragen, München, West Germany: 21 pp., 3 maps.Google Scholar
Bölsche, J. (Ed.) (1982). Natur ohne Schutz: Neue Öko-Strategien gegen die Umweltzerstörung. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, Spiegelbuch 22, Reinbek, West Germany: 288 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Club Alpino Italiano & Italia Nostra (1975). Stilfersjochpark: ein Naturschutzgebiet für Europa. Trento, Italy: 65 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (1978). Conférence des régions de l'arc alpin: l'avenir de l'arc alpin. 18–20 September, Lugano, Switzerland: Final declaration, 5 pp., (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Draxl, A. (1979). Die Planung für den Nationalpark Hohe Tauern seit der Heiligenblut-Vereinbarung. Alpenvereins-Jahrbuch 1979, 104, pp. 151–6, map.Google Scholar
Frigo, W. (1980). Parco nazionale dello Stelvio. Musumeci Editore, Aosta, Italy: 159 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Gardner, J.E. & Nelson, J.G. (1980). Comparing national parks and related reserve policy in hinterland areas: Alaska, Northern Canada, and Northern Australia. Environmental Conservation, 7, 43–50, 3 maps.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haber, W. (1973). Conservation and landscape maintenance in Germany: Past, present, and future. Biological Conservation, 5, pp. 258–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansley, H. & Draxl, A. (Eds.) (1978). Ausgliederung von Kernzonen. Nationalpark Hohe Tauern: Berichte-Informationen, 3, pp. 42–6, map.Google Scholar
Heller, W. (1979). Flachennutzungskonkurrenzen: dargestellt am Beispiel der Auseinandersetzung um den Alpen- und den Nationalpark Berchtesgaden. Geographische Rundschau, 31, pp. 450–64, map.Google Scholar
IUCN (1975). 1975 United Nations List of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. IUCN publication new series No. 33, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland: 84 pp.Google Scholar
IUCN (1978). Categories, Objectives and Criteria for Protected Areas. (Final report prepared by the Committee on Criteria and Nomenclature, Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas.) International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Morges, Switzerland: 19 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Kandolf, H. (1979). Energiewirtschaft und Nationalpark. Alpenvereins-Jahrbuch 1979, 104, pp. 157–63, map.Google Scholar
Köchler, H. (1976). Projekt Rechtsharmonisierung. Euregio Alpina, Innsbruck, Austria: 2 volumes [Not available for checking.]Google Scholar
Kofler, W. (1976). Natur- und Umweltschutz in Tirol. Österreichischer Naturschutzbund, Innsbruck, Austria: 366 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Kofler, W. (1981). Quoted in Tiroler Tageszeitung, 26 02, p. 5.Google Scholar
Kofler, W. & Stüber, E. (1979). Natur- und Umweltschutz in Salzburg. Österreichischer Naturschutzbund, Innsbruck, Austria: 343 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Kux, S. (1980). Überlegungen zum Naturschutz in Österreich. Gesundheitswesen und Umweltschutz, 2, pp. 75–81.Google Scholar
Plitzka, R. (1977). Sozioökonomische Aspekte des Landschaftsschutzes in alpinen Berggebieten: dargestellt am Beispiel eines Südtiroler Landschaftschutzgebietes. Mitteilungen des Österreichisches Institutes für Raumplanung, 2, pp. 163–74, map.Google Scholar
Poore, D. & Gryn-Ambroes, P. (1980). Nature Conservation in Northern and Western Europe. IUCN-UNEP-WWF, Gland, Switzerland: 408 pp., 16 maps.Google Scholar
Schindegger, F. (1977). Probleme der Koordination der Raumordnungspolitik föderativer Staaten. Mitteilungen des Österreichisches Institutes für Raumplanung, 2, pp. 51–71.Google Scholar
Schloeth, R. (1976). Der Schweizerische Nationalpark. Ringier Verlag, Zürich, Switzerland: 224 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
SIAV (Sudtiroler Ingenieur- und Architektenverein) (1980). Raumordnung, Ortsplanung, Landschaftsschutz. Bolzano, Italy: 145 pp.Google Scholar
Wolkinger, F. (1981). Die Natur- und Landschaftsschutzgebiete Österreichs. Österreichische Gesellschaft für Natur und Umweltschutz, Vienna, Austria: 154 pp., 9 maps, illustr.Google Scholar
Zierl, H. (1981). Nationalpark Berchtesgaden: Exkursionsführer. Nationalparkverwaltung, Ramsau, West Germany: 57 pp., 2 maps, illustr.Google Scholar
Zoppé, L. (1979). Il Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio. Itinera Edizione, Milan, Italy: 174 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Zwink, E. (Ed.) (1978). Salzburger Naturschutzgesetz 1977. Government of Salzburg Information Office, Salzburg, Austria: 129 pp.Google Scholar