Wilderness lupp hoechtl

ECCB 2012 Glasgow, Scotland Chair: Zoltan Kun, PAN-Parks

Session: Wilderness at the Edge of

Survival

"Wilderness": A Suitable designation for Central European Landscapes?

Gerd Lupp*, Franz Hoechtl**

* Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development/ Institute for Landscape Management, Freiburg University

**Alfred Toepfer Academy for Nature Conservation (NNA)

What is “Wilderness”?

Swiss National Park

IUCN Cat. 1

No management since 1914

170,3 km²

Natural Beech (Fagus Sylvatica) stand in Serrahn part Mueritz National Park /IUCN Cat. II

6.200 ha

UNESCO World Heritage

Core

268 ha

Forest manage-ment ceased in 1961, outside still some fading out forest treatment

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

National Park Wadden Sea at Langeoog island

345.800 ha, IUCN Cat. II since 1986

UNESCO World Heritage

Natural Beech (Fagus Sylvatica) stand

Südgelände Berlin:

Abandoned railroad switch yard

Unmanaged since 1945

18 ha

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

2 ha

Dresden, Trachenberger Platz,

Abandoned backyard since 1994,

1000 m²

Abandoned part of a tram-depot still in use

Dresden – Mickten

(abandoned for 10 years)

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

Statement

All this might be considered “wilderness”!

But what is in common?

In Central Europe, there is nothing like the US wilderness act, also comparable sizes without settlements are difficult to find in Central Europe

Are there suitable definitions for “wilderness” in a Central European context? What do all these areas mentioned have in common?

Are areas set aside for natural processes being perceived as “wilderness”?

Is “wilderness” a suiting term for communication for Central European National Parks?

Introduction

Scientific definitons of “Wilderness”

(KOWARIK & KOERNER 2005)

Traditional Wilderness

Remnants of virgin forests (do not really exist) and land set aside for natural processes in former managed forests

German strategy for CBD biodiversity goal: 2% of forests

New Wilderness

Fallow, unmanaged land in cities and suburban areas due to structural changes in the industrial sector (1970ies), but also demographic change (1990ies), as well on former military training ranges when cold war period ended

“Nature experience parks” for environmental education

Introduction

“Naturalness”

Retrospective Naturalness

Assumes a composition of vegetation, before man shaped the land

Prospective Naturalness

Self establishment of ecosystems, including Neophytes and new approached animals

Introduction

Wilderness and its value for biodiversity

Old unmanaged forests with its specific spectrum of species are rare, but in general, beech forests that would dominate Central Europe contain less (endangered) species than many man-made managed ecosystems like high value grasslands, oak-forests etc.

Spontaneous vegetation especially in urban surroundings are often dominated by non-native species; e.g. many examples from Berlin with up to 90% non-native share (KOWARIK & KOERNER 2005)

Methods

Literature surveys, expert quotes on wilderness and its perception and, if possible, a physical definition

Mueritz National Park is one of the most “natural” places in Germany with large forests not being used for timber production for over 50 years, which is one of the longest periods documented for Central Europe

Survey among 605 visitors in Mueritz National Park, quantitative approach, systematic, objective selection of the interviewees

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

What is “Wilderness”? – First Summary

Unplanned, unpredictable, spontaneous, surprising, unexpected encounters with nature

Often related with attributes like gaining experience, emotions, feelings, challenges, inspiration, contemplation, being curious, fear, physical strains, happiness, joy, …

Contrast to rational, predictable, manmade, planned human environment

Has a gradient that might even stretch down to plants growing in a crack of a paved road (BROUNS 2004).

Object of projection and for feelings a cultural (KANGLER & VICENZOTTI 2007) or mental construct

Not quantifiable and reproducible “Myth” “Logos”

A Need for User-Based Surveys

But what about “real” people?

Some studies have been carried out, e.g. HUNZIKER 2000, WASEM 2002, HOECHTL et al. 2005, BAUER 2005. Focus on alpine space

Natural processes are seen positive, however the consequences are perceived negative: loss of biodiversity on alpine meadows and loss of identity in alpine valleys (HUNZIKER 2000, HOECHTL et al. 2005)

A Need for User-Based Surveys

Some studies for urban “wilderness” (e.g. RINK 2003, SCHEMEL 2005, HOHN et al. 2005, KEIL et al. 2005), focus on certain user groups, often no broader, quantitative approaches

BREUSTE 2001, RINK 2003 for East German cities: perceived negative, “danger”, “loitering”, often seen as symbol of economic collapse; not as “Wilderness”

KEIL 1998, 2002 (Ruhr region); SCHEMEL 2005 (towns in South West Germany): little aesthetic attractiveness, however perceived as valuable places for recreation, for children and for nature protection

A User-Based Survey in Müritz National Park

Method

On site interviews in “real nature” inside largest German land-based National Park

Standardized approach, systematic on-site interviews at 5 places inside the park

Classification for different user-groups, Anova-Tests for significance

KNOWLEDGE of the PARK REGION

First time visitors Regular visitors Locals

LIFESTYLE GROUP CONCEPT by SCHULZE 1997

5 lifestyle groups, differentiated by age, education, leisure time activities at home

Lifestyle Groups

Lifestyle group Age Behaviour patterns Education

Unterhaltung (“Entertainment”)

< 40 Rock, Pop, Tabloids, Easy

Listening Music, Quiz Shows Low

Selbstverwirklichung

(“Self-Fulfilment”) < 40

Rock, Pop, Classical Music, Theatre, Quality Newspapers

High

Harmonie

(“Harmony”) > 40

Tabloids, Easy Listening Music, Quiz Shows

Low

Integration

(“Integration”) > 40

Easy Listening Music, Quiz Shows, Classical Music

Medium

Niveau

(“High Class”) > 40

Classical Music, Theatre, Quality Newspapers

High

A User-Based Survey in Müritz National Park

A User-Based Survey in Müritz National Park

Questions posed (among others)

Is “wilderness” positive or negative for you?

Define in your own words, what “wilderness” might be (Open ended question)

In your opinion, is Mueritz National Park a “wilderness area”? Answers given: Yes, No, not yet ...

Why? A statement for the classification had to be given

A User-Based Survey in Müritz National Park

Results: Wilderness is a positive term

87% of visitors name it “positive”, 5% “negative”, 8% ambivalent

77% of locals name “wilderness” “positive”, 11% “negative”, 12% “ambivalent”

For the lifestyle group characterized by older, less educated persons, “wilderness” is less positive than for groups characterized by high level of education

A User-Based Survey in Müritz National Park

Results: Definition

No human intervention

Untouched

Rich wildlife

Left naturally

Few signs of civilisation

Free development of nature

“Forest”

“Deadwood”, “mess”

No paths

Some mentioned feelings and confrontation with death and rebirth

A User-Based Survey in Müritz National Park

Results: Definition

Significant differences between lifestyles

Lifestyles characterized by high education levels mentioned more frequently “untouched” and “few signs of civilisation”

Lifestyle characterized by young, less educated persons more frequently mentioned “Rich wildlife”

A User-Based Survey in Müritz National Park

Comparison of Terms

“Untouched”, “left naturally” used mainly by persons perceiving “wilderness” positive

“Not possible to get through” and “mess/ deadwood” were used by persons connoting “wilderness” more frequently mentioned by persons quoting a negative connotation with “wilderness”

However: When asked for evaluating the real on-site scenic quality of the old, unmanaged beech forest, “deadwood visible” was one of the most frequently mentioned positive features for liking this place (~ 4,7 on 5 step scale)

A User-Based Survey in Müritz National Park

Wilderness in Central Europe: Is Mueritz National Park “Wilderness”?

Yes 58 %

No 37 %

Not yet 3 %

No answer 2 %

Lifestyle Group characterized by young, well educated persons perceived the park less frequently being a “Wilderness Area”

A User-Based Survey in Müritz National Park

Reasons Mueritz National Park being wilderness

“No more human interference”, “No possibility to get through”, “Rich wildlife”

“(Vast) Forests”

Water courses and wetlands

Geographical descriptions: unmanaged beech forests in Serrahn, large bogs along Mueritz lake shoreline

A User-Based Survey in Müritz National Park

Reasons given against wilderness

Too much interference of mankind visible

Too many people visible

To much infrastructure

Not large enough for being “wilderness”

Land management in the past is still visible

Lifestyle characterized by older, well educated persons significantly more often mentioned “too much interference of mankind visible”

Lifestyle characterized by younger, well educated persons more often mentioned “too many people visible”

Conclusions

“Wilderness” is a suiting concept and designation for larger unmanaged forests and wetlands in a densely populated area like Central Europe

perceived positive! But be careful when just communicating “Wilderness”

Different values and criteria for different lifestyles

Uncritical use may cause disappointment between expectation and reality (e.g. “rich wildlife”), best combined with “No intervention by human activities”.

Conclusions

Difference between mental picture in mind compared to interviewing real on site scenic qualities (e.g. deadwood), information and communication

“Solitude” is an important positive attribute for “wilderness”, important for visitor management

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

Thank You Very Much For Your Attention!

Dr. Gerd Lupp

Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (IÖR)

Weberplatz 1

DE-01217 Dresden

Phone: +49 (0)351 4679-279

E-Mail: [email protected]

Internet: www.ioer.de

References

Lupp, G.; Konold, W.; Bastian, O. (in press): Landscape

management and landscape changes towards more naturalness and wilderness: Effects on scenic qualities - The case of the Müritz National Park in Germany. Journal for Nature Conservation

Lupp, G.; Hoechtl, F.; Wende, W. (2011): "Wilderness" - a designation for Central European landscapes? In: Land Use Policy 28 (2011), 594-603

Höchtl, F.; Lehringer, S.; Konold, W. (2005): “Wilderness”: What it means when it becomes a reality – A case study from the southwestern Alps. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 85-95