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

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
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).