Park–People Relationships: The Socioeconomic Monitoring of National Parks in Bavaria, Germany

Abstract

Questions about park–people relationships and the understanding and handling of the conflicts that may result from the creation and management of national parks in the surrounding area are prerequisites for both successful park management and sustainable rural tourism development. This paper analyzes the roles that research may play in relation to park–people relationships in the context of the two oldest German national parks located in Bavaria. The different fields of action of national parks are used to identify the potential for conflict, using detailed case studies from the Bavarian Forest and Berchtesgaden National Parks using quantitative population surveys carried out in 2018. The overall attitude towards both national parks is overwhelmingly positive, with trust towards park administrations and the perceived economic benefits from rural tourism being the attitudes most strongly correlated to the overall level of park–people relationships. Nevertheless, some points of contention still exist, like the ecological integrity approach towards strict nature conservation and related landscape changes (e.g., deadwood cover). A comparison over time shows in both cases that the spatial proximity to the protected area negatively influences people’s attitudes towards the parks, but less so than in the past. Recommendations for national park management include communicating proactively and with greater transparency with locals and decision-makers, to identify conflicts earlier and, where possible, to eliminate them. Furthermore, developing a standardized method to monitor park–people relationships in Germany is a must and would benefit integrated approaches in research and management based on conservation social science.

Factors Influencing the Level of Local Participation in Planning and Management of the Planned Salzburger Lungau & Kärntner Nockberge Biosphere Reserve in Austria

“…The findings show that PBC, ATB and SN might be important factors for becoming active, whereas the influence of socio-demographics, the level of concern (i.e., involvement in agriculture or tourism) and the attitude towards the BR seem to be of minor importance, compared to previous findings [11]. Due to a focus on sustainable development and economic development rather than on conservation [37,38], the level of concern seems to be lower than in more strictly protected areas [20].…”

“…A frequently mentioned factor is the level of concern and the potential impact on local livelihoods [11,18,19]. In the context of conservation areas or national parks, potential conflicts due to imposed land use changes, human-wildlife conflicts or, in a Central European context, bark beetle manifestations can be a main trigger for becoming active [20]. However, the effect of the level of concern has been viewed controversially [10].…”

“…The strong influence of social acknowledgement and encouragement indicates a difficult situation for management bodies. Failed past participatory processes, traditional values discouraging participation or a lack of trust in local authorities might be beyond the sphere of influence but have a strong impact on future participation and are a particular challenge for appropriate and targeted communication [20]. Consequently, it seems to be important for management bodies to communicate and officially appreciate involvement [20].…”

“…Failed past participatory processes, traditional values discouraging participation or a lack of trust in local authorities might be beyond the sphere of influence but have a strong impact on future participation and are a particular challenge for appropriate and targeted communication [20]. Consequently, it seems to be important for management bodies to communicate and officially appreciate involvement [20]. Furthermore, given that place attachment is high, management bodies may consider broader participatory processes to ensure high acceptance explicitly involving local associations, local multipliers and educational institutions [39].…”

“…It seems that the public supports the general idea of the BR, without seeing an immediate need to act. Whereas national parks are often confronted with a high readiness to (counter-)act as the populations fears potential restrictions or impacts such as increased wildlife conflicts or restrictions in land use [20], the concept of a biosphere reserve as a rather weak conservation category seems to cause less of a reaction. This might indicate a prevailing attitude that "those in charge" should take care of the issue.…”