“Wilderness” – A designation for Central European landscapes?

Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

“Wilderness” – A designation for Central European landscapes? Gerd Lupp a,∗ , Franz Höchtl b , Wolfgang Wende a a b

Leibniz-Institute of Ecological and Regional Development, Research Area Landscape Change and Management, Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany Alfred-Toepfer-Academy for Nature Conservation (NNA), Department of Training and Education, Camp Reinsehlen, D-29640 Schneverdingen, Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 May 2010 Received in revised form 8 November 2010 Accepted 25 November 2010 Keywords: Wilderness Biodiversity Landscape perception Central Europe Lifestyle groups

a b s t r a c t The concept of “wilderness” has been intensively discussed as an approach for nature protection in Central Europe among managers of protected areas, decision makers, natural and social scientists. This paper discusses the various attempts for physical definitions for Central Europe. It examines, if “wilderness” a suitable expression for communicating different types of places designated “wilderness”, especially in the context of rising awareness and acceptance in all parts of society of the demands of the national strategies for protecting biodiversity. Literature surveys were carried out in order to find expert quotes on the physical definitions, spatial characteristics, and attributes of “wilderness”. For the analytical perception of the general public, a survey using opinion polls among visitors in the Müritz National Park in northeastern Germany was carried out. A quantitative approach was chosen, and interviewees were selected on an objective, systematic basis. The paper demonstrates, that the wilderness discussion among experts in Central Europe lacks a common physical and spatial definition. It can be shown that there are strong ethical and religious, educational and cultural motifs in the demand for wilderness. For a broad range of laypersons interviewed in Müritz National Park, “wilderness” seems to be a suitable, positive label for wetlands, shorelines, large forests and remote mountain areas. Important key factors, aside from natural features, are few human traces, little infrastructure and few persons using an area, so that visitors experience a feeling of solitude. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Wilderness and the European mind – More than woolly thoughts? The concept of “wilderness” has been intensively discussed as an approach for nature protection and as a land management strategy in Central Europe among landscape managers, policy makers as well as natural and social scientists. However, no clear definition for this term seems to exist, so that misunderstandings arise (Diemer et al., 2004; Höchtl et al., 2005b; Kirchhoff and Trepl, 2009; Hoheisel et al., 2010). It describes various types of nature, habitats and protection strategies, often subject to contradictory policy goals. A good example for this can be found in the German National Strategy on Biological Diversity, adopted by the Federal Cabinet in November 2007. A whole chapter is dedicated exclusively to the term “wilderness”, which describes visions and goals for 2020 (BMU, 2007). Despite the claim that wilderness areas are “extensive regions” (BMU, 2007, p. 40), the examples given on developing wilderness biotopes are mainly small-scale. On the one hand, the strategy demands strict protection and the absence of humans,

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 351 4679 0; fax: +49 351 4679 212. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (G. Lupp), [email protected] (F. Höchtl), [email protected] (W. Wende). 0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.11.008

while on the other, it calls for access – to permit nature to be experienced – and even for designing the “wilderness”. In Central European countries, no legislation comparable to the US Wilderness Act exists, which clearly defines a “wilderness” as of a minimum area size, and designates places exclusively as such. Given these size definitions, it would be difficult to find places in Central Europe which could fulfil these American legislative standards. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world’s largest global environmental network, has established a worldwide classification system for protected areas according to management objectives. A Category Ib “Wilderness Area” is defined as a large unmodified or slightly modified area that has retained its natural character. A primary objective is the long-term ecological integrity of natural areas, undisturbed by human activity (Dudley, 2008). Whereas Category Ia defines strict reserves with extremely restricted access, Ib allows some low impact visitation, research and educational activities. In Central Europe, very few IUCN Category I protected areas exist, since there are few areas that meet these high IUCN standards for state of naturalness. In most places in Central Europe, the land has been intensively used for a thousand years, and the countryside and its habitats have been strongly influenced by humans. The result of this ongoing impact has been a genuine, diverse and smallscale structured landscape. Even in remote areas of the alpine arch,

G. Lupp et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603

close to the glaciers, many traces and indicators of a long tradition of land use, such as the grazing of domestic animals or the collection of fodder, can be found (Baetzing, 1991). Only some very small patches of land in hardly accessible regions have been left almost untouched, such as the Rothwald in the border region between Lower Austria and Styria. Due to structural changes in agriculture after World War II, large scale land use abandonment can be observed in many less climatically favoured regions, in mountain areas and on less fertile soils. Despite the demands for space for the production of energy crops, it is predicted that a certain percentage of the arable land in Central Europe may fall out of agricultural use during the coming decades (Jessel, 1997). Due to its appearance, this too is perceived as wilderness. In German, Wildnis (“wilderness”) also has an association meaning something looking messy and untidy, so that these sites are also understood to be wilderness – in the sense of being unmanaged, dynamic and uncontrolled nature; this Cole (2001) opposes to “naturalness”, which he defines as “untouched”. Land use abandonment can also be observed in urban landscapes, although there is a heavy demand for space for additional commercial or residential development. In Germany, 120 ha of previously undeveloped space is newly developed for housing, industrial areas and infrastructure every day. At the same time, 9 ha of built-up areas drop out of use. This happens not only in areas characterized by socio-economic decline and shrinkage, but also in the cores of dynamic growth regions with a population surplus (UBA, 2003). The driving forces are structural, economic and demographic change, as well as the incongruity between the demands for housing, industry and transport infrastructure. Old existing facilities are no longer needed, are obsolete, do not meet current demands, or are too cost-intensive to adapt (Bürkner et al., 2007). This leads to long-term unused or abandoned urban areas ranging in size from several hundred square meters to more than 10,000 ha (Kowarik, 2005b). Due to an expected increased population drop after 2020 in a number of German and other Central European regions, this phenomenon will become more common in the near future (BBR, 2006). According to the national strategy for conserving biological diversity, places where human use has discontinued are of great importance for establishing secondary wilderness (BMU, 2007). Given these various types of nature designated “wilderness”, the question for land use policy, nature conservation, landscape management and environmental science is, what “wilderness” might be in the Central European context. Does any common physical definition of what is widely perceived as being wilderness exist? What do laypersons have in mind when they think about wilderness and how do they perceive places designated as “wilderness”? The paper examines by literature surveys and empirical work the question as to whether “wilderness” is a suitable expression for communicating a concept covering all these different types of places, in the context of rising awareness and acceptance in all parts of society of such areas as one of the key elements for protecting biodiversity (BMU, 2007). Moreover, this paper points out inconsistencies and provides basic criteria for strategies to better involve different groups of society in wilderness protection.

Wilderness: a new world concept meets old Europe Although the term “wilderness” has long existed in various European languages, it is a rather new concept as a strategy for nature conservation in Central Europe (Hintermann et al., 1995; Zunino, 2007). A number of paradigms and definitions form the American context, such as a minimum size of 5000 acres (2000 ha),

595

or the possibility to hike for several days without finding traces of human use are not very well suited for Central Europe. Many ideas and mind-sets have found their way to Europe during the ongoing debate, e.g. Aldo Leopold’s land ethic (Bibelriether, 1998a,b; Knapp, 2000). When asking visitors, and also managers, scientists and conservationists, about wilderness and national parks in Central Europe, values and images from the American context sometimes come to their minds, and they compare them with parks visited in the US, like Yellowstone or Yosemite (Lupp, 2002). Therefore, it is necessary to understand the background of the American ideas. A long tradition for protecting wilderness exists in the United States, where land was first set aside for protection as wilderness in 1872 (Yellowstone). In the United States, an attraction to natural features grew during the romantic era of the mid-19th century, through landscape paintings, writings, novels and poems (Gobster, 1999). Nash (2001) states that after gaining independence, Americans searched for an identity of their own, and symbols for the new nation. With no long unique tradition of art or monuments, Americans discovered nature as an ideal object. In Europe, rural landscapes and their inhabitants, such as shepherds or farmers, were used to project romantic feelings. In the American context, the indigenous people did not share the values of the European culture, and the goal was to acculturate or exterminate them (Dirlinger, 2000). The only people suitable for the projection of romantic feelings were a few European explorers and the unsettled land, although the land perceived as “wilderness” had often been shaped by Native Americans and formed as a cultivated landscape (Schama, 1995). This landscape of the American West was rapidly opened up and settled during the mid-19th century. Instead of President Thomas Jefferson’s vision of a nation of yeoman farmers living in a cultivated landscape (Miller, 2008), the industrial revolution led to large urban areas in the Northeast, while there was still plenty of unsettled land in the West. “Wilderness” was seen as a counterpoint to these negatively perceived Europeanstyle metropolitan areas. Painters, writers and artists saw an aesthetic and ethical value in the unsettled land, and vehemently advocated the protection of these landscapes, which they feared would soon be completely tamed by settlement and the exploitation of the natural resources (Trommer, 1997; Gobster, 1999). After a number of expeditions and reports about the outstanding natural beauty of the Yellowstone area, a law was passed in 1872 making it a public park, so as to protect it from exploitation, and to preserve it as a “pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people” (Chittenden, 1915, p 77). A number of other parks, such as Sequoia, followed. Initially, the reasons for protection were anthropocentric, and focused on recreation and the protection of aesthetic qualities. Soon, a more integrative approach was demanded. John Muir claimed that all animals, plants and rocks have value and should be protected (Nash, 1989; Meyer, 1997). In his “land ethic”, Aldo Leopold proposed a holistic concept for the protection of nature, which includes all living creatures, the water and the soil, and stresses the intrinsic value of protecting nature as such. Efforts should, he argued, be made to protect unchanged nature (Leopold, 1948; Nash, 1989). A result of these ideas was the National Wilderness Act of 1964. It reflects this holistic approach, as well as preserving the capacity of the landscape to experience what the country was like when the first European settlers arrived. This can be seen in such regulations for wilderness areas as a ban on bicycle use, while horseback-riding, canoeing and hunting are allowed, although these activities could have a higher impact on nature than bicycles (Wilson and Seney, 1994).

596

G. Lupp et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603

“Artificial”, “real” or “state of mind”: definitions for Central European wilderness in the literature A number of attempts have been made to give European style wilderness a physical definition. In Europe, only Finland has a national law protecting the wilderness. Norway has planning policies for “wilderness-like” areas, which it defines as areas without infrastructure which are at least 1–5 km from any major infrastructural development (Martin et al., 2008). For Italy, the “Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness” defines a wilderness area as one with no roads or infrastructure, no buildings and no mechanized use of the land. This definition was influenced by the US Wilderness Act, however certain activities such as hunting, fishing, gathering forest products and, under certain circumstances, logging activities are allowed (Zunino, 2007). Concepts for integrating various types of “wilderness” were proposed e.g. by Diemer et al. (2003) and Kowarik (2005a). Diemer et al. suggest four designations with different spatial extents: National Parks (>1000 ha), Urban Wilderness (<1000 ha close to cities), Urban or Rural Rewildering Sites (<500 ha) and Rewildering Microcosms (several hectares). All of these designations are to serve the purposes of biodiversity and recreation. In this framework, urban or rural rewildering sites (<500 ha) on abandoned urban, industrial or agricultural land are distinguished from urban wilderness as a management goal, mainly on forested land. Long-term management objectives for these areas are different since “rewildering” should also include demonstration of historical industrial architecture, succession of slag heaps and cultural assets (Diemer et al., 2003). Kowarik (2005a) describes four dimensions of “wilderness” and two categories. The first dimension is remnants of virgin forest (Picture 1). The second dimension includes land and forests set aside for natural processes (Picture 2). These two dimensions together constitute the so-called “Traditional Wilderness” category. Kowarik’s third dimension is fallow, unmanaged land in cities and suburban areas resulting from structural changes in the industrial sector, and demographic changes (Picture 3). Finally, there is a fourth dimension, the so-called “nature experience wilderness” with an emphasis on environmental education, nature experiences and a place for personal freedom (Schemel, 1997; Sziemer, 1997; Keil, 2005); the latter two dimensions define a category called “New Wilderness”. According to the German national biodiversity strategy, these types of nature described by Diemer et al. (2003) and Kowarik (2005a) together should cover 2% of Germany’s land area (BMU, 2007). Wilderness can also be categorized according to concepts of naturalness (Kowarik, 2005b). “Retrospective naturalness” assumes a composition of vegetation that existed before humans shaped and changed the land. “Prospective naturalness” is classified by self-establishing species, including neophytes (Kowarik, 2005b). However, looking at these two concepts, it can be stated that “wilderness” does not necessarily increase biodiversity, at least when the factors numbers or rarity of species are considered. Wilderness in the sense of abandoned cultivated land does not necessarily increase species richness, at least in the short and medium terms. While old, unmanaged forests are rare, managed ones or even urban parks can contain characteristic species, e.g. the hermit beetle Osmoderma eremita (Stegner et al., 2006). In terms of pure numbers of species, such anthropogenic ecosystems as meadows or even military firing ranges may contain more species. The termination of management activities leads to a decline of open habitats, due to natural succession. E.g. rare red-list Drosera species associated with open land, and the poor soils caused by constant training activities could disappear completely from former military training areas (Gaertner et al., 2010). Höchtl et al. (2005a)

Picture 1. Impression of an unmanaged beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest in the Serrahn Part of the Müritz National Park, Germany.

point out a decrease in biodiversity of the traditional landscape (vineyards, chestnut groves, alpine meadows and pastures) in the south-western Alps as a result of land abandonment. The structural diversity of the landscape is changing, and the floristic species richness is decreasing significantly from lower to higher successional stages. In the Val Grande National Park, “Italy’s largest wilderness area” (Valsesia, 1993), light demanding and typical south alpine plants such as Nigritella nigra, Paradisea liliastrum or Tulipa australis have become very rare during the past decades. Kowarik (2008) shows that vegetation composition on abandoned urban brownfields is often dominated by non-native species, especially in the

Picture 2. Succession on a military firing range abandoned during the early 1990s near Granzin, Müritz National Park, Germany.

G. Lupp et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603

Picture 3. Berlin’s Südgelände: abandoned railway switchyard with almost 50 years of undisturbed succession.

tree layer, that suppress native ones. On the other hand, studies have found a number of Red List species on these same sites (e.g. Keil et al., 2002; Junghans, 2007). Considering the dimension of space however, this strategy reestablishes unmanaged beech forest habitats, since these types only occur in Central Europe and almost all have been modified due to forest management. In urban areas, wastelands can provide a unique, rich composition of native and non-native species (Kowarik, 2008). Other authors have tried to differentiate even more types of wilderness, e.g., Scherzinger (1996), who names seven types. “Artificial wilderness” is actively designed for nature experiences, and is managed accordingly. “Temporary wilderness” is a management practice close to natural forestry. “Wildering” former agricultural and urban land can be found in a small abandoned backyard as well as on a huge military firing range covering several thousand square hectares. Another category mentioned by this author is “renaturing”, if such land management practices as logging or mowing are stopped. On a large scale, this can be considered “secondary wilderness”. A further category is the “wilderness-cell”, with relicts of “real wilderness”, small remnants of real untouched nature that have been preserved over time. However these cells are too small to provide all the structures and mosaics of an entire unmanaged ecosystem. This is provided in the final category, “primary wilderness”, which is large enough to provide space for viable populations of large predators. However, these definitions and categories of wilderness have been criticized. Bibelriether (1998a,b) claims that they do not help in any way to protect these areas, while Trommer (1997) calls the European “wilderness” mainly a cultural phenomenon, a contrast to “civilization”. A closer look at most attempts to give definitions for a minimum size of “wilderness” in Central Europe shows that primarily values and perspectives are important. Such definitions as enough space for top predators like wolves (Canis lupus) are not suitable, since most of these are not necessarily dependant on wilderness, and can survive in managed cultural landscapes (Okarma and Langwald, 2002). The wilderness discussion in Central Europe lacks a common physical and spatial definition. It can be shown that there are strong ethical and religious, educational and cultural motifs in the demand for wilderness. The ultimate conclusion of the thesis that wilderness is a “state of mind” (Nash, 2001) or a “mental construct” (Vincenzotti and Trepl, 2009) could be that even vegetation in a crack in the pavement or a bird singing in the city might be

597

“wilderness” from a human perspective (Brouns, 2004). Hoheisel et al. (2010) claim that “wilderness” is not a feature that can be described in natural scientific terms, and demand a cultural scientific approach. From this perspective, “wilderness” could on the one hand be only a personal feeling (Stremlow and Sidler, 2002), different in each individual; on the other, it could be a cultural pattern with common features shared by larger groups. Almost all attempts by experts to define wilderness in the Central European context lead to a certain character of nature which could be described by such adjectives as “spontaneous”, “unexpected”, “surprising”, “free”, which often lead to an emotional perception of a piece of nature, which in turn serves as a projectionscreen for wishes, longing, feelings, inspirations and challenges, with dangers but also joy, as also described by Patterson et al. (1998). It is a contrast to the daily routine. “Wilderness” is therefore not subject to purely rational definition, and therefore has a character of “myth” (Lupp, 2002). “Myth”, in contrast to “logic” or rationalism, creates a reality experienced by humans (Bellinger, 1989). According to results of psychoanalysis, myths are important for humankind since ratio alone is not enough to fully cover reality (Gottschalk, 1973). Nevertheless, the term “wilderness” is broadly used and it is an important term for communication. In the context of land management, especially for national parks, it is understood as allowing natural dynamics without human interference (e.g. Nationalparkamt Müritz, 2003; Bayrischer Wald, 2009). “Wilderness”: a term for communicating all dimensions of wilderness? Using the concept of tolerating natural processes with as little interference as possible, a number of user-based studies have been carried out in recent years in Central Europe, with a focus on the Alpine arc (Hunziker, 1995; Hunziker, 2000; Wasem, 2002; Höchtl et al., 2005a,b; Bauer et al., 2009). In these studies, “wilderness” is perceived positively by locals and visitors; on the other hand, the effects of “wild”, i.e. uncontrolled landscape development on landscape qualities were seen negatively. Hunziker (2000) and Höchtl et al. (2005b) describe a loss of identity for local people. For tourists, despite regretting the loss of rural landscape elements, the scenery is still considered attractive, and offers a unique experience of “untouched nature” (Höchtl et al., 2005b). The perception of shrub and woodland on abandoned urban and industrial sites has been analyzed in a number of studies (Breuste and Breuste, 2001; Rink, 2002; Schemel et al., 2005; Keil, 2005; Hohn et al., 2007). However, interviews were mainly focused on certain user groups; rarely have broader, quantitative approaches been chosen. For cities in eastern Germany, urban wilderness often was seen negatively, and associated with “danger”, or “loitering”, often as a result of the economic collapse of the region (Rink, 2003). Studies by Keil (2005) and Schemel et al. (2005) in the Ruhr Region point out that the aesthetic quality of such woody succession states are low; nonetheless, they are perceived as valuable for recreation, offering space for children and for nature protection. For urban wasteland and wilderness, Mathey and Rink (2010) point out that in their discussions with various interest groups, results can be summarized with the following statement: This kind of urban nature is not considered wilderness, and when the question was put, this response was firmly rejected: “Wilderness is a different kind of nature, that you don’t find in the city” (Mathey and Rink, 2010, p. 417). Stopping management activities and permitting undisturbed natural processes in urban forests seem to enjoy quite good acceptance among a large number of visitors, as Wasem (2002) points out in studies for Zurich’s municipial forest Sihlwald in Switzerland,

598

G. Lupp et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603

and Ernwein and Höchtl (2006) for the city forest of Saarbrücken, Germany. However, it seems that these forests are not perceived as wilderness by broad sections of the population. Also, for these settings, certain management features like well maintained trails or the preservation of historic monuments and sites are demanded. In these studies, there is still a lack of data from systematic onsite surveys among laypersons. This approach seems to be of great importance. Dramstad et al. (2006) demonstrate that professionals judging landscapes seem to have different perspectives than laypersons from a certain region, and to have different preferences for the overall appearance of landscapes. Also background knowledge and education seem to have an impact when laypersons judge landscapes and their perceived naturalness (Gobster et al., 2007; Fry et al., 2009). It is still unclear what “wilderness” might be for laypersons, and whether places dedicated for natural processes with no human interference are perceived as wilderness when persons are directly confronted with it. To fill this gap, a study was carried out among visitors to the Müritz National Park.

A case study among locals and visitors to the Müritz National Park, Germany’s largest on-land national park The Müritz National Park is situated 100 km north of Berlin, and covers around 322 sq km (Nationalparkamt Müritz, 2003). This area has one of the lowest population densities in Germany. While an average of 50 inhabitants/sq km live in the region including the National Park, it drops to 3 persons/sq km inside the park; the average for Germany is 228 persons/sq km (Nationalparkamt Müritz, 2003). The Park includes a number of areas with no direct human impact, such as bogs, marshes, and alder (Alnus glutinosa) swamps, and long-time unmanaged forests documented for periods of over 50 years (Tempel et al., 2003), but also a large scale spontaneous self-reforestation on a former military firing range which was abandoned during the early 1990s. It therefore provides large scale unmanaged land, which could potentially be perceived as wilderness. Like all other protected areas in Germany, the Müritz National Park has a free access policy. A large number of bicycle and hiking trails, some minor roads, two canoe routes and public transport enter the park. On-site interviews were carried out in the MüritzNational Park. In addition to topics dealing with scenic qualities, a number of questions on “wilderness” were posed. The first question addressed the general concept of “wilderness”. It was an openended question, to find out what terms were associated with it. In a follow-up question, interviewees were asked to state whether they perceived wilderness positively, negatively or ambivalently. The final question was whether they considered the Müritz National Park a “wilderness-area”, with the multiple-choice possibilities “yes”, “no” and “not yet”; with a reason for the response requested. For answers to questions with no multiple-choice answers, a content analysis was carried out. Groups of words/synonyms were formed and counted (Atteslander, 2003); if an interviewee gave more than one response, all were considered. An adapted method had to be developed to cope with the special needs of information in the Müritz National Park. A quantitative approach enabled a broader perspective on different park users. However, a number of open-ended questions, which are more typical for a qualitative approach, had to be implemented especially involving perception. According to Allesch and Keul (1995), this blurred line between quantitative and qualitative research is necessary to cope with the specific demands of on-site environmental research. Interviews with random members of the public at sites inside the park were considered the most efficient way to gain informa-

tion and also to cover all types of park users, such as day visitors, long term guests, and locals. Standardized questionnaires were developed. People gave their answers to an interviewer, who filled in the form. Five different, well frequented sites inside the park were chosen (see Map 1). The interviews were held between early May and late August 2005, since the park is mainly visited in the summer. Three interview batches were carried out at each place, one each in early, mid- and late summer. In order to get a good, random selection of interviewees, one weekday, one Saturday and one Sunday were selected. Questioning started at 9:00 am and ended at 5:00 pm. The first person passing by the interview site after 9 am was asked to participate in the survey, its purpose was explained, and the overall duration (approx. 20–30 min) stated. After the interview, the next person was approached. A total of 722 visitors were asked to participate by this procedure; 605 of them eventually took part. This is a response rate of 83.8%. To detect possible discrepancies between different users of the park, three sub-groups are classified: First Time Visitors, Regular Visitors and Residents. First Time Visitors are literal “first time visitors”, as well as persons who had been in the park before, but only for a few times. Regular Visitors are defined as persons who have visited the park frequently at least over the past 10 years. Residents or Locals are defined as persons living in the villages within the national park and the towns of Neustrelitz, Waren and Mirow, near the park entrances. Modern approaches to landscape preferences (e.g. Tress et al., 2001) and perception state a mixture of both fixed, biologically oriented preferences, such as described in Kaplan and Kaplan (1989), and cultural features. According to statements from the literature review, the concept of “wilderness” has a strong cultural component. Perception patterns and preferences seem to be influenced by a number of socio-demographic factors, e.g. age, gender or knowledge (Strumse, 1996; Gobster et al., 2007). Post-modern sociological theories posit a pattern of individualization, with a wide range of options for conducting life. However, socialization leads to similarities in behavioural patterns (Schulze, 1997). Groups can be observed which share values, norms, similar tastes and preferences – so-called “lifestyles” (Schulze, 1997). Recent studies indicate that value orientation (Müller and Job, 2009) or lifestyles strongly influence opinions and attitudes towards the environment, and seem to provide a better differentiation and understanding than such purely socio-demographic characteristics as age or sex (UBA, 2009). Using a lifestyle approach also helps to identify practice-oriented approaches for improving target-oriented communication, thus making it possible to achieve a broader acceptance and appreciation for nature protection issues (UBA, 2009). On the basis of this theoretical background, all interviewees were sorted into lifestyle groups according to a concept of the German sociologist Schulze (1997), who identifies five groups with specific behavioural patterns (Table 1). The elements of these patterns are leisure time interests, communications channels and educational levels. The age of 40 marks a border between younger and older lifestyle groups. According to Schulze, behavioural patterns and views of life correlate with aging and usually are modified or revised by mid-term of life. Despite its tendency to form stereotypes and some fuzziness in assigning individuals to certain lifestyles, this concept helps understand people in their everyday lives and realities. Schulze’s lifestyle group concept of contains many aspects regarding communications channels, general preferences and home leisure-time activities of the different groups (see Table 1), which is valuable e.g. for developing visitor information. Direct questions as to educational level were considered too personal in these face to face situations (e.g. Korff, 2005). Therefore, only age, and, on a voluntary basis, type of professional training, were queried. Therefore additional questions were asked regard-

G. Lupp et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603

599

Map 1. Müritz National Park (Germany) and interview sites.

ing preferred everyday leisure time activities, since these correlate well with respective lifestyles (see Table 1, column 3). The selection was made by age and by profession. If no profession was stated, interviewees were assigned to a lifestyle group purely on the basis of their responses to questions on leisure activities. In most cases, this approach worked well. In 63 cases however, it was not possible to clearly determine whether individuals should be assigned to the High-Class or the Integration lifestyle. This is also a more general problem, since item patterns of Integration are mixing with the High-Class group. To solve this problem, these unclear cases were assigned to a sixth category called “I/C”. The significance in responses was tested by comparing among different lifestyle groups, and also among Locals, Regulars and First Time Visitors. A-posteriori comparisons were carried out to test for significance at the 5% level by using ANOVA tests and SPSS. Results Of the interviewees, 2.5% were blow the age of 18; 8% aged 18–30; 20%, 31–40; 35.5%, 41–50; 21.5%, 51–60; and 12.5% over 60. In terms of visitor groups, 53% visited the park in pairs, 20% with their family, 18% together with friends, 6% alone and 3% in organized tours. Of the respondents, 78% were First Time Visitors, 9% Regular Visitors and 13% Locals. The largest numbers of First Time and Regular Visitors came from the states of North Rhine Westphalia (15%; Germany’s biggest state) and Berlin (14%; the nearby metropolitan area). The places of origin overall indicate that the park is a tourist destination for all of Germany. Despite the distance, considerable numbers of visitors came from southern

Germany (e.g. 6% from Bavaria). 7% of the tourists were from foreign countries, mainly from the Netherlands and Belgium. A look at the groups indicates that most of the interviewees belong to HighClass (36%), and that the second largest category is Self-fulfilment (22%) (Entertainment 8%, Harmony 10%, Integration 14%, I/C – the group that could not be clearly assigned – 10%). This shows that the majority of park users lead lifestyles which indicate a higher educational level. German national statistics cited by Blasius (1994) indicate that 8.6% of Germans can be assigned to the “High Class”, 11.0% to “Integration”, 34.2% to “Harmony”, 19.2% to “Self-fulfilment” and 27% to “Entertainment” categories. Since intense efforts were made to get a good cross-section of persons visiting the park, this result indicates that only a certain segment of society can be found here. Other studies collecting socio-demographic data have produced similar findings, e.g. Manning (1999, some of the studies cited therein), Brämer (2000) or Muhar et al. (2006). Cycling was the most popular way to get around inside the park (85%). More than 60% of all interviewees wanted to go swimming in one of the lakes. The percentage favouring this activity among Locals was significantly higher, at around 80%. “Canoeing” was favoured to significantly varying degrees among the lifestyle groups: while only 25.9% of the Integration group planned to engage in this activity, 76.9% of the Self-fulfilment did so, while for the same aged Entertainment group, the figure was 53%. Regular Visitors liked canoeing significantly more frequently than did other groups (70%, compared with 48% for both Locals and First Time Visitors) (Lupp and Konold, 2008). For 87% of visitors, wilderness was positive, 5% perceived it as negative and 8% had an ambivalent attitude. There was a signifi-

Table 1 Lifestyle groups according to Schulze (1997): characteristics and typical behaviour patterns. Lifestyle group

Age

Correlating everyday behaviour patterns

Education

Unterhaltung (“Entertainment”) Selbstverwirklichung (“Self-fulfilment”) Harmonie (“Harmony”) Integration (“Integration”) Niveau (“High-Class”)

<40 <40 >40 > 40 >40

Listening rock, pop, easy listening music, reading tabloids, watching quiz shows Listening to rock, pop, classical music, going to theatre performances, reading quality newspapers Listening to easy-listening music, reading tabloids, watching quiz shows Listening to classical music, easy listening music, watching quiz shows, Listening to classical music, going to the theatre, reading quality newspapers

Low High Low Medium High

600

G. Lupp et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603

cant difference with the Locals group, but even here, 77% stated that wilderness was positive (11% negative, 12% ambivalent). Significantly, the Lifestyle group “Harmony” named “wilderness” as positive less frequently than did other groups with higher education levels. This agrees with the studies by Habron (1998) in Scotland. The more education the interviewee has received, the more likely the person is to rate wildness highly. Wilderness was mainly defined as “no human intervention” (37.4%). Other frequently used descriptions were “untouched” (20%), “rich wildlife” (19.5%), “left natural” (19%), “few signs of civilization” (15.7%), “free development of nature” (15.7%) or “impassable” (14.7%), “forest” (13.9%); words related to deadwood or fallen trees were mentioned by 12.2%. There were differences between lifestyle groups. Lifestyles with higher educational backgrounds more frequently mentioned “untouched” and “few signs of civilization”, while younger persons with lower educational backgrounds in the “Entertainment” group significantly more often mentioned “rich wildlife”. Persons who appreciated wilderness more frequently named “untouched” and “left natural”, while those perceiving it ambivalently or negatively mentioned “impassable”, or “messy/deadwood”. However, a closer look at this feature using the on-site interview design at a site having quite a large amount of visible deadwood gave a different perspective: that place was rated at 4.7 on the 5-point Lickert scale, with “deadwood” being one of the most frequently mentioned features for liking this place (Lupp and Konold, 2008). Can “wilderness” be experienced in Central Europe, and might the Müritz National Park be considered a “wilderness area”? For 58% of all interviewees, the answer was yes, 37% answered “no”, and 3% said “not yet” (no answer: 2%). The “Self-fulfilment” lifestyle group called the Müritz National Park a wilderness area significantly less frequently; a majority of this group answered “no” (45% yes; 51% no; 2% not yet; 2% no answer). Reasons for perceiving the park as a “wilderness” were “no human interference” (19.1%), and “impassable” (13.1%). Many persons, instead of stating a reason, gave geographical descriptions of places where they did perceive wilderness. It was experienced especially in forests (13.4%), along water courses (12.6%) and for bogs, marshes and alder swamps (12%). Places frequently mentioned inside the park were the eastern shoreline of Lake Müritz (8%), consisting of large marshes, bogs and alder swamps, and the long unmanaged beech (fagus sylvatica) forests in Serrahn (6.6%), with many trees over 250 years of age, and containing a large share of deadwood. Although the military firing range covers a very large area and is unmanaged, it was not perceived as a wilderness, although it fits many definitions given by the interviewees. Often, they thought the pine (Pinus sylvestris) stands occurring as a result of natural succession had been planted. Reasons given against the Müritz National Park being wilderness were “too much interference by humans” (40.2%), “too many people visible” (22.1%), and “too much infrastructure” (19.3%). The Lifestyle group “High Class” more frequently mentioned “too much interference visible”, while the young, well educated “Selffulfilment” group more frequently stated “too many people visible”.

Discussion According to management principles and statements by park managers, the use of the term “wilderness” in the context of managing Central European National Parks is mainly understood as a strategy for areas that are allowed to develop unhindered. Since this mainly happens through succession on former cultivated land

or the termination of forest management, scenic qualities change significantly. For biodiversity, this strategy is ambivalent. At the species level, it could lead to a loss, compared with previous land uses, especially in the case of extensively used cultivated land. At the landscape level, new, unmanaged land use types are emerging in Central Europe. Also, new types of spontaneous vegetation composition types are appearing, often dominated by non-native species which suppress and eliminate native ones. However, the extinction of native species is in many cases not due solely to these invasive species. Usually, a number of factors are responsible for this, with habitat destruction by human activities being the most important (Pimm and Raven, 2000; Wilson, 2002). For example, a number of species depend on such replacement habitats as military firing ranges with certain patterns of disturbance, since their original habitats, open dunes or natural riverbanks, no longer exist in the densely populated core of Europe (Anders et al., 2004). Wilderness as a management strategy at these places leads to rather homogenous forests in the short and/or medium term (Beuthler, 2001), providing habitats for only a few species. In the long term, and with enough space for uncontrolled dynamic processes, similar types of habitats might occur again, providing space for plants and animals dependant on disturbance patterns, e.g. as described by Scherzinger (1996). The literature indicates a correlation between naturalness and positive perception (e.g. Gobster, 1999), but it is not that simple in the European context. As shown by studies in the Alpine arc, land use abandonment and more naturalness by allowing undisturbed natural processes can destroy the original identity of place, which is perceived as negative especially by the local population, although this process would mean more naturalness, when the term is defined as “no more management activities”. But these processes can create a new identity, which is e.g. perceived positively by tourists (Höchtl et al., 2005b). In the case of the Müritz National Park, it was shown that unmanaged and “wild” impressions are highly appreciated by both visitors and residents, but mainly for those places that had little management before, such as the large bogs, marshes and alder swamps along the east shoreline of Lake Müritz, and large forest complexes. Deadwood is often stated as negative in the older literature (e.g. Schroeder and Daniel, 1981; Vodak et al., 1985) but also in some of the more recent studies (McFarlane et al., 2006). In recent years however, it has become in many cases an explicitly positive feature of unmanaged forests, at least to some extent (Lindhagen and Hörnsten, 2000; Lupp and Konold, 2008). Extremely large segments, such as the large decaying forest stands in the Bavarian Forest National Park in southern Germany, or stands destroyed by gales, are perceived as negative, but environmental interpretation and information can increase the acceptance for non-interventionist policies (Bäuerle, 2004; McFarlane et al., 2006; Liebecke et al., 2009). Müller and Job (2009) and Liebecke et al. (2009) have shown that the social status of interviewees in the Bavarian Forest National Park correlates with acceptance of these policies. The higher the social level and the younger the persons, the more positive the perception of respondents of the non-interventionist management strategies of the Bavarian Forest National Park authorities. Müller and Job (2009) conclude that this extreme appearance of natural processes could even be perceived as a unique feature, and of special attraction for visitors. This implies adapted strategies for different target groups, and is also identified as one of the key factors for the acceptance of management strategies in protected areas (Stoll-Kleemann and Welp, 2008 for biosphere reserves). Urban wastelands without management often seem to be dominated by a few alien invasive species (Kowarik, 2005a). However, they can be valuable for conservation, and provide space for bio-

G. Lupp et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603

diversity. According to the studies analyzed, the term “wilderness” does not seem a very suitable designation for these landscapes, since most persons do not see it as such. Negative connotations prevail for these patches, and wilderness is seen as a different kind of nature from these negatively perceived urban brownfields. There is also a lack of appreciation of these spaces, despite their value for the conservation of nature. However, fallow land in general does not necessarily need to be negative. Lupp and Konold (2008) could demonstrate that for the study area in north-eastern Germany, dominated by large fields, especially locals related fallow land with diminished agriculture, and had a negative perception when surveyed. However, a picture showing fallow land was considered interesting and attractive, and in the Müritz Park case study, ranked positive in a Q-Sort picture set assessment. For a broad range of persons, “wilderness” seems to be a suitable, positive designation for large forests, remote mountain areas, and large bogs, marshes and alder swamps. Results indicate a positive perception of these landscapes, as they seem to be undisturbed by humans, although they are to some extent influenced by human management activity, and are therefore, strictly speaking, cultivated land by definition. One important criterion for wilderness mentioned in the Müritz study was “few signs of civilization”. In addition to undisturbed nature, this also includes the infrastructure provided and the visitor numbers. Habron (1998) states that for his study in the Scottish Highlands, wildness was often associated with the feeling of solitude, which correlated with user frequency. For many of his interviewees, this was more important than the actual size of an area dedicated as wilderness. The Müritz National Park results indicate that, although many features mentioned for wilderness exist, it cannot be experienced as such by many people, since they see user frequency as too high. By spatial extent, a number of areas in Central Europe allow at least a partial “wilderness experience” in a stricter, more broadly accepted sense. Important key factors, aside from natural features, are few traces of human activity, little infrastructure, and few persons using an area, so that visitors experience a feeling of “solitude” (Habron, 1998). The character of “solitude” and physical challenge is an important part of the definition of the US Wilderness Act and for IUCN category Ib. However, it seems that the very high demands on long-term ecological integrity posed for IUCN category Ib is not absolutely necessary to perceive an area as “wilderness” in Central European context. More important seem to be the experience of solitude, few traces of human presence and some challenges to access these places, which is not only a character of IUCN Category Ib protected areas. Using the concept of perception by Bourassa (1991), appreciation of landscapes considered wilderness seems to be based mainly on so-called personal laws and individual strategies. Appreciation of features perceived as wilderness is based on knowledge, experiences and values, as has also been demonstrated by other authors (e.g. Habron, 1998). This seems to be at least to some extent correlated to educational background. Elderly people with less education tend to perceive wilderness less positively. Especially among those groups, it might be necessary to develop a higher appreciation for wilderness. For this purpose, the information should not be too complex, and it should be kept in mind that contact with nature for this group is often based on a functional relationship, e.g. collecting berries, mushrooms and firewood in their childhood (Braun, 1999). Looking at the results from the Müritz National Park, it is apparent that the national park definition of “wilderness” as protecting natural processes without intervention, is in many aspects compatible with the understanding of visitors to this rather large protected area. However, “wilderness” is not related with all terms used to define wilderness, e.g. rich

601

wildlife. To avoid disappointment and misunderstanding, a careful use of the term is needed. It makes sense to communicate the term in combination with management purposes, using widely positively connotations such as “no human interference”. One of the points criticized especially by the young, well educated lifestyle group for not having a wilderness experience is that too many human-made features are visible, and that places are crowded. Park management can influence this to some extent by reducing visible signs of human presence, e.g. by low construction standards for trails, or by means of visitor management measures, so as to provide a feeling of solitude (Manning, 2001; Newsome et al., 2001). The value of and appreciation for “wilderness” often goes beyond a purely physical definition, and is more a mental or cultural construct (Kangler and Vicenzotti, 2007). Very different types of nature can be perceived as wilderness. Then, it is often connected with a yearning for nature, and a desire and a seeking for a contrast to the planned, predictable organized urban world. Wilderness is described more by such attributes as “not managed”, “unpredictable”, “spontaneous”, “not adapted” or “non-conformed” (Lupp, 2002); thus, nature serves as a projection screen, and becomes a psychotope, as put forward by Trommer (1998, 1999) and Jung (2005).

Conclusions The analysis of articles, papers and the literature reveals that quite a bit of theoretical work has been done on the issue of “wilderness” in the Central European context. However, there is a lack of systematic on-site empirical research on the perception of landscapes labelled “wilderness”. For general landscape preference studies, it is necessary to consider the identity and history of a place, in addition to the concept of naturalness. Concluding from the studies analyzed, in the Central European context, “wilderness” would appear to be a suitable term for describing large unmanaged forest complexes, remote mountain areas and large bogs, marshes and alder swamps, which are not heavily frequented. Many people would agree to that, and the term wilderness often has a positive connotation, even among locals. However, more on-site research needs to be conducted to confirm this statement. Concepts suitable for urban wasteland need to be developed, so as to increase the appreciation for it. The concept of dedicating these places as areas to experience nature might be a possibility for improving the value of these brownfield sites (Schemel, 2009). According to the literature analyzed, the definitions given for wilderness in the Müritz National Park, the study of Ernwein and Höchtl (2006) in the Saarbrücken City Forest, and the work by Mathey and Rink (2010), “wilderness” does not seem to be a very suitable term for communicating unmanaged places in an urban context. Very few people seem to accept it as wilderness; those who do give reasons based mainly on individual emotional feelings and experiences that cannot be generalized. While urban forests which permit undisturbed natural processes as a remnant of the original vegetation are perceived as very important, brownfields and succession stages seem to have little acceptance. However, more systematic surveys on these issues are necessary. To point out and understand differences on landscape perception, it is necessary to differentiate between different groups of society, as Buijs et al. (2009) found in their work in the Netherlands, analyzing differences in images of nature and the landscape between native Dutch and immigrants. Knowledge on the perception of places labelled “wilderness” is vital for an understanding of the interests of various stakeholders and laypersons using or living close to such areas. This is necessary to achieve broad acceptance from all parts of society, as demanded in the Convention

602

G. Lupp et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603

on Biological Diversity and by national biodiversity strategies (e.g. BMU, 2007). Bourassa (1991) points out the importance of experiences and knowledge gained about a piece of nature, providing positive experiences by visitor information, and helping to raise acceptance for these concepts of nature conservation. Although all groups of society claim a general interest in experiencing nature (e.g. UBA, 2009), it is mainly people with lifestyles characterized by a higher educational levels who seem to make major trips to visit natural features. However, as Germany’s national biodiversity strategy demands that broad public acceptance be achieved, for which experiences in nature are one means (BMU, 2007), other groups too need to be motivated to undertake outdoor nature experiences. Finally, further on-site research is necessary with a focus on different perceptions, their uses, and their demands in different groups of society. Using lifestyle group concept approaches helps ascertain differences in perception and attitudes. Despite its tendency to form stereotypes, and some fuzziness with regard to the assignment of persons to certain groups, life style concepts offer alternative, practical approaches and help managers and decision-makers to understand people by getting insights into their everyday reality and the communications channels they use. This provides valuable information for addressing and involving persons in their preferred way to improve awareness and acceptance for wilderness. References Allesch, C., Keul, A., 1995. Analyse von Mensch-Umwelt-Beziehungen. In: Roth, E. (Ed.), Sozialwissenschaftliche Methoden. Lehr- und Handbuch für Forschung und Praxis. Oldenbourg, Munich, Vienna, p. 845. Anders, K., Mrzljak, J., Wallschläger, D., Wiegleb, G. (Eds.), 2004. Handbuch Offenlandmanagement am Beispiel ehemaliger und in Nutzung befindlicher Truppenübungsplätze. Springer, Berlin, p. 320. Atteslander, P., 2003. Methoden der Empirischen Sozialforschung, 10th ed. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Baetzing, W., 1991. Die Alpen: Entstehung und Gefährdung einer Europäischen Kulturlandschaft – New Edition. Beck, Munich, 287pp. Bauer, N., Wallner, A., Hunziker, M., 2009. The change of European landscapes: Human-nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for landscape management. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 2910–2920. Bäuerle, H., 2004. Landschaftswahrnehmung und Akzeptanz von nicht aufgearbeiteten Sturmwurfflächen am Beispiel des Lothar-Pfades. Univ. Thesis, Department of Forestry, Univ. of Freiburg, 107pp., unpublished. Bayrischer Wald (Ed.), 2009. Leitbild/Ziele – Entwurf. Internet Source (accessed 12.08.09). BBR – Federal Office for Building and Spatial Planning (Ed.), 2006. Flächenkreislaufwirtschaft – Kreislaufwirtschaft in der städtischen/stadtregionalen Flächennutzung – Fläche im Kreis. Ein ExWoSt-Forschungsfeld, vol. 1. Theoretische Grundlagen und Planspielkonzeption. Bellinger, G., 1989. J. Knaurs Lexikon der Mythologie 1989. Droemer Knaur, München. Beuthler, H., 2001. Landschaft in neuer Bestimmung: Russische Truppenübungsplätze. Findling, Bliesdorf. Bibelriether, H. 1998a. Faszination Wildnis – wissenschaftlich nicht erfassbare Realität. In: NATIONALPARK 3/98(100), pp. 4–8. Bibelriether, H. 1998b. Wildnis – wozu? In: CIPRA Alpenreport 1, CIPRA International (Ed.), Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart, Vienna, pp. 172–175. Blasius, J., 1994. Subjektive Umweltwahrnehmung – Eine Trendbeschreibung. In: Braun, M., Mohler, P.P (Eds.), Blickpunkt Gesellschaft, vol. 3. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp. 107–132. BMU, 2007. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. National Strategy on Biological Diversity, Berlin, 178pp. Bourassa, S.C., 1991. The Aesthetics of Landscape. Belhaven Press, London, New York, 168pp. Brämer, B., 2000. Profilstudie Wandern 2000 in Stichworten. Online source http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/∼braemer/prostu00.pdf (accessed 03.03.10). Braun, A., 1999. Wahrnehmung von Wald und Natur. Leske & Buderich, Opladen. Breuste, J., Breuste, I., 2001. Stadtnaturschutz – theoretische Positionen und empirische Befunde zur Nutzung und Akzeptanz von Pflegegrün und Wildnatur in der Stadt. Halle/Saale. Geobotan. Kolloquium, Frankfurt/M 16, 25–36. Brouns, E., 2004. Ist Wildnis planbar? Natur und Landschaft 79 (2), 57–63. Buijs, A.E., Elands, B.H.M., Langers, F., 2009. No wilderness for immigrants – cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 91, 113–123.

Bürkner, H.J., Berger, O., Luchmann, C., Tenz, E., 2007. Der demographische Wandel und seine Konsequenzen für Wohnungsnachfrage Städtebau und Flächennutzung. IRS – Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung, Erkner. Chittenden, H.M., 1915. The Yellowstone National Park – Historical and Descriptive. Stewart and Kidd Co., Cincinnati, 849pp. Cole, D.N., 2001. Management dilemmas that will shape wilderness in the 21st century. Journal of Forestry 99 (1), 4–8. Diemer, M., Held, M., Hofmeister, S., 2003. Urban wilderness in Central Europe – Rewilding at the urban fringe. International Journal of Wilderness 9 (3), 7–11. Diemer, M., Held, M., Hofmeister, S., 2004. Stadtwildnis – Konzepte, Projekte, Perspektiven. GAIA 4, 260–262. Dirlinger, H., 2000. Bergbilder: die Wahrnehmung alpiner Wildnis am Beispiel der englischen Gesellschaft 1700–1850. Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Wien, 283pp. Dramstad, W.E., Sundli Tveit, M., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A., 2006. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 78, 465–474. Dudley, N. (Ed.), 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, p. x + 86. Ernwein, V., Höchtl, F., 2006. Wenn “Wildnis” wahr wird. . . Einstellungen zu ungelenkter Naturentwicklung im saarländischen “Urwald vor den Toren der Stadt”. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 38 (1), 13–19. Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Ode, Å., Velarde, M.D., 2009. The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators 9, 933–947. Gaertner, M., Konold, W., Richardson, D.M., 2010. Successional changes on a former tank range in eastern Germany: does increase of the native grass species Molinia caerulea cause decline of less competitive Drosera species? Journal for Nature Conservation 18 (2), 63–74. Gobster, P.H., 1999. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal 18, 54–64. Gobster, P.H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C., Fry, G., 2007. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22, 959– 973. Gottschalk, H., 1973. Lexikon der Mythologie der Europäischen Völker. Safari, Berlin. Habron, D., 1998. Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning 42, 45–56. Hintermann, U., Broggi, M., Locher, R., 1995. Mehr Raum für die Natur – Ziele, Lösungen, Visionen im Naturschutz. Ott, Thun, 352pp. Höchtl, F., Lehringer, S., Konold, W., 2005a. “Wilderness”: what it means when it becomes a reality – a case study from the southwestern Alps. Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 85–95. Höchtl, F., Lehringer, S., Konold, W., 2005b. Kulturlandschaft oder Wildnis in den Alpen? Bristol-Schriftenreihe, vol. 14. Paul Haupt, Bern, 629. Hoheisel, D., Kangler, G., Schuster, U., Vicenzotti, V., 2010. Wildnis ist Kultur – Warum Natruschutzforschung Kulturwissenschaft braucht. Natur und Landschaft 85, 45–50. Hohn, U., Jürgens, C., Otto, K.-H., Prey, G., Piniek, S., Schmitt, T., 2007. Industriewälder als Bausteine innovativer Flächenentwicklung in postindustriellen Stadtlandschaften – Ansätze zu einer integrativen wissenschaftlichen Betrachtung am Beispiel des Ruhrgebietes. Conturec 2, 53–67. Hunziker, M., 1995. The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands: perception and aesthetical assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban Planning 31, 399–410. Hunziker, M., 2000. Einstellung der Bevölkerung zu möglichen Landschaftsentwicklungen in den Alpen. Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt WSL. Birmensdorf, Switzerland, 157pp. Jessel, B., 1997. Wildnis als Kulturaufgabe ANL 1997 In: ANL (Ed.), Laufener Seminarbeiträge 1/1997, pp. 7–20. Jung, N., 2005. Naturerfahrung, Interdisziplinarität und Selbsterfahrung – zur Integration in der Umweltbildung. In: Unterbruner, U. (Ed.), Forum Umweltbildung: Natur erleben. Neues aus Forschung und Praxis zur Naturerfahrung. Studienverlag, Innsbruck, pp. 87–98. Junghans, T., 2007. Urban- Industrieelle Flächen als “Hotspots” der BlütenpflanzenVielfalt am Beispiel der Bahn- und Hafenanlagen von Mannheim (BadenWürttemberg). In: Dettmar, J., Werner, P. (Eds.), Perspektiven und Bedeutung von Stadtnatur für die Stadtentwicklung. Schriftenreihe des Kompetenznetzwerkes Stadtökologie, Darmstadt, pp. 87–94. Kangler, G., Vicenzotti, V., 2007. STADT. LAND. WILDNIS. Das Wilde in Naturlandschaft Kulturlandschaft und Zwischenstadt. In: Bauerochse, A., Haßmann, H., Ickerodt, U. (Eds.), Kulturlandschaft. administrativ – digital – touristisch. Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt: Initativen zum Umweltschutz, Bd 67. Erich Schmidt, Berlin, pp. 279–314. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature – A psychological Experience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 385pp. Keil, A., 2005. Use and perception of post-industrial urban landscapes. In: Kowarik, I., Körner, S. (Eds.), Wild Urban Woodlands. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 117–130. Keil, P., Sarazin, A., Loos, G.H., Fuchs, R., 2002. Eine bemerkenswerte industriebegleitende Pteridophyten-Flora in Duisburg, im Randbereich des Naturraumes ,,Niederrheinisches Tiefland. Decheniana 155, 5–12. Kirchhoff, T., Trepl, L. (Eds.), 2009. Vieldeutige Natur. Landschaft, Wildnis und Ökosystem als kulturgeschichtliche Phänomene. Transcript, Bielefeld, p. 356. Knapp, H., 2000. “Wildnis” – Feindbild, Heiligtum und Herausforderung. In: NATIONALPARK (109) WNPC special issue, pp. 12–16.

G. Lupp et al. / Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603 Korff, C., 2005. Mit den Augen des Urlaubsgastes – Studien zur Naturund Kulturlandschaftswahrnehmung am Beispiel regionskundlicher Themenwege. Leibniz-Institut für Landerkunde (Forum/IFL; H. 4), Leipzig, 277pp. Kowarik, I., 2005a. Urban ornamentals escaped from cultivation. In: Gressel, J. (Ed.), Crop Ferality and Volunteerism. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 97–121. Kowarik, I., 2005b. Wild urban woodlands: towards a conceptual framework. In: Kowarik, I., Körner, S. (Eds.), Wild Urban Woodlands. New perspectives for Urban Forestry. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–32. Kowarik, I., 2008. On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation. In: Marzluff, J., et al. (Eds.), Urban Ecology. An International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature. Springer, New York, pp. 321– 338. Leopold, A., 1948. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press, New York, 1987, 204pp. Liebecke, R., Wagner, K., Suda, M., 2009. Nationalparke im Spannungsfeld zwischen Prozessschutz, traditionellen Werten und Tourismus – Das Beispiel Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald, vol. 73. Jahrbuch des Vereins zum Schutz der Bergwelt, Munich, pp. 125–138. Lindhagen, A., Hörnsten, L., 2000. Forest Recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Swed changes in public preferences behaviour. Forestry 73 (2), 143–153. Lupp, G., 2002. Mythos Wildnis – Innenansichten der aktuellen Wildnisdebatte in den Alpen. Diplomarbeit, Forstwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Albert-LudwigsUniversität Freiburg, 146pp., unpublished. Lupp, G., Konold, W., 2008. Landscape preferences and perception of both residents and tourists: A case study in the Müritz National Park (Germany). In: Siegrist, D., Clivaz, C., Hunziker, M., Iten, S. (Eds.), Visitor Management in Nature-based Tourism – Strategies and Success Factors for Parks and Recreational Areas, Series of the Institute for Landscape and Open Space. HSR University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil 2, Rapperswil, pp. 47–58. Manning, R.E., 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation, second ed. Oregon State University Press, Corvalis, OR, USA, 374pp. Manning, R., 2001. Visitor experience and resource protection: a framework for managing the carrying capacity of National Parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19, 93–108. Martin, V.G., Kormos, C.F., Zunio, F., Meyer, T., Doerner, U., Aykroyd, T., 2008. Wilderness momentum in Europe. International Journal of Wilderness 14 (2), 34–43. Mathey, J., Rink, D., 2010. Urban Wastelands – a chance for biodiversity in cities? Ecological aspects, social perceptions and acceptance of wilderness by residents. In: Müller, N., Werner, P., Kelcey, J.G. (Eds.), Urban Biodiversity and Design: Implementing the Conversion on Biological Diversity in Towns and Cities. WileyBlackwell (Conservation science and practice series), Oxford, pp. 406–424. McFarlane, B.L., Stumpf-Allen, R.C.G., Watson, D.O., 2006. Public perceptions of natural disturbance in Canada’s national parks: the case of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins). Biological Conservation 130, 340–348. Meyer, J.M., 1997. Gifford Pinchot John Muir, and the boundaries of politics in American thought. Polity (Palgrave MacMillan) 30 (2), 267–284. Miller, R., 2008. Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark and Manifest Destiny. Bison Books. Muhar, A., Schauppenlehner, T., Brandenburg, C., 2006. Trends in alpine tourism: the mountaineers’ perspective and consequences for tourism strategies. In: Siegrist, D., Clivaz, C., Hunziker, M., Iten, S. (Eds.), Exploring the Nature of Management. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. University of Applied Sciences, Rapperswil, pp. 23–27. Müller, M., Job, H., 2009. Managing natural disturbance in protected areas: Tourists’ attitude towards the bark beetle in a German national park. Biological Conservation 142, 375–383. Nash, R., 2001. Wilderness and the American Mind, fourth ed. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Nash, R., 1989. The Rights of Nature – A History of Environmental Ethics. The University of Wisconsin Press, 280pp. Nationalparkamt Müritz, 2003. Nationalparkplan – Bestandesanalyse. Hohenzieritz, 67pp. Newsome, D., Moore, S.A., Dowling, R.K., 2001. Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management. Channel View Books, Clevedon, UK. Okarma, H., Langwald, D., 2002. Der Wolf: Ökologie. Verhalten, Schutz, Berlin, Parey.

603

Patterson, M.E., Watson, A.E., Williams, D.R., Roggenbuck, J.R., 1998. A hermeneutic approach to studying the nature of wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research 30 (4), 423–452. Pimm, S.L., Raven, P., 2000. Extinction by numbers. Nature 403, 843–845. Rink, D., 2002. Naturbilder und Naturvorstellungen sozialer Gruppen. Konzepte Befunde und Fragestellungen. In: Erdmann, K.-H., Schell, C. (Eds.), Naturschutz und Gesellschaftliches Handeln. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn. Rink, D., 2003. Ist wild schön? Untersuchung zur Akzeptanz von Sukzession in der Stadt. Garten + Landschaft H. 2/2004, 16–18. Schama, S., 1995. Landscape and Memory. Harper Collins, New York, 652pp. Schemel, H.-J., 1997. Erholung in “wilder” Landschaft: Die neue Flächenkategorie Naturerfahrungsraum. In: ANL (Ed.), Laufener Seminarbeiträge 1/1997, pp. 141–147. Schemel, H.-J., 2009. Naturerfahrungsräume – Ein Beitrag der Stadtplanung zur Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. Public Health Forum 17 (1), 15.e1–15.e3. Schemel, H.-J., Reidl, K., Blinkert, B., 2005. Naturerfahrungsräume im besiedelten Bereich. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 37 (1.), 5–14. Scherzinger, W., 1996. Naturschutz im Wald. Qualitätsziele einer dynamischen Waldentwicklung Reihe Praktischer Naturschutz. Stuttgart-Hohenheim. Schroeder, H.W., Daniel, T.C., 1981. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science 27 (1), 71–80. Schulze, G., 1997. Die Erlebnisgesellschaft: Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart, vol. 7. Auflage, Campus, Frankfurt, New York, 765pp. Stegner, J., Strzelczyk, P., Martschei, T., 2006. Der Juchtenkäfer (Osmoderma eremita) eine prioritäre Art der FFH-Richtlinie. Handreichung für Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, vol. 2. Auflage, 59pp. Stoll-Kleemann, S., Welp, M., 2008. Participatory and Integrated Management of Biosphere Reserves – Lessons from Case Studies and a Global Survey. Gaia 17/S1, pp. 161–168. Stremlow, M., Sidler, C., 2002. Schreibzüge durch die Wildnis. Wildnisvorstellungen in Literatur und Printmedien der Schweiz. Zürich, Bristol-Stiftung; Birmensdorf, Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt WSL. Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien, 192pp. Strumse, E., 1996. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for Agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16, 16–31. Sziemer, P., 1997. Natur als Erlebnis – Zur Rolle des Wildnisgedankens in der Umweltbildung. In: ANL (Ed.), Laufener Seminarbeiträge 1/1997, pp. 137–140. Tempel, H., Oheimb, G., Friedel, v.A., 2003. Sukzessionsforschung in naturnahen Buchenwäldern mit langjährig ungestörter Walddynamik im nordostdeutschen Tiefland. Abschlussbericht. Universität Lüneburg. Institut für Ökologie und Umweltchemie, 368. Tress, B., Tress, G., Decamps, H., d’Hauteserre, A.M., 2001. Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57, 137–141. Trommer, G., 1997. Wilderness, Wildnis oder Verwilderung – Was können und was sollen wir wollen. In: ANL (Ed.), Laufener Seminarbeiträge 1/1997, pp. 21–30. Trommer, G., 1998. Ein Psychotop entsteht. Wildniserfahrungen mit Studenten. Nationalpark 4/1998, pp. 6–11. Trommer, G., 1999. Psychotop Wildnis. Politische Ökologie 59, 10–13. UBA (Ed.), 2009. Umweltbewusstsein und Umweltverhalten der sozialen Milieus in Deutschland. Dessau-Roßlau. UBA, 2003. Reduzierung der Flächeninanspruchnahme durch Siedlung und Verkehr. Materialienband 90/03, Berlin. Valsesia, T., 1993. Val grande Ultimo paradiso. Alberti Libraio Editore, VerbaniaIntra, 209pp. Vincenzotti, V., Trepl, L., 2009. City as wilderness: the wilderness metaphor from Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl to contemporary urban designers. Landscape Research 34 (4), 380–396. Vodak, M.C., Roberts, P.L., Wellman, J.D., Buhyoff, G.J., 1985. Scenic impacts of Eastern Hardwoods management. Forest Science 31 (2), 289–301. Wasem, K., 2002. Akzeptanz von Wildnisgebieten. Hintergründe zur Befürwortung und Ablehnung von Wildnisgebieten: dargestellt an den Fallbeispielen Naturlandschaft Sihlwald und Auenschutzpark Aargau Geogr. Inst. Univ. Zürich. Wilson, J.P., Seney, J.P., 1994. Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development 14, 77–88. Wilson, E.O., 2002. The future of life. Knopf, 229. Zunino, F., 2007. A perspective on wilderness in Europe. International Journal of Wilderness 13 (3), 40–43.