IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i16p8984-d612382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Hubert Job

    (Institute of Geography and Geology, University of Würzburg, 97070 Würzburg, Germany)

  • Sarah Bittlingmaier

    (Institute of Geography and Geology, University of Würzburg, 97070 Würzburg, Germany)

  • Marius Mayer

    (Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, Team SME & Tourism, University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

  • Eick von Ruschkowski

    (Alfred Toepfer Akademie für Naturschutz, 29640 Schneverdingen, Germany)

  • Manuel Woltering

    (Institute of Geography and Geology, University of Würzburg, 97070 Würzburg, 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Hubert Job & Sarah Bittlingmaier & Marius Mayer & Eick von Ruschkowski & Manuel Woltering, 2021. "Park–People Relationships: The Socioeconomic Monitoring of National Parks in Bavaria, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-27, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:8984-:d:612382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/8984/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/8984/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janetta Nestorová Dická & Alena Gessert & Lenka Bryndzová & Tamás Telbisz, 2020. "Behavioural Survey of Local Inhabitants’ Views and Attitudes about Slovak Karst National Park in Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-24, December.
    2. Wunder, Sven, 2000. "Ecotourism and economic incentives -- an empirical approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 465-479, March.
    3. Susanne Stoll-Kleemann, 2001. "Opposition to the Designation of Protected Areas in Germany," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 109-128.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smith, Joyotee & Scherr, Sara J., 2003. "Capturing the Value of Forest Carbon for Local Livelihoods," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 2143-2160, December.
    2. Jacobus Koens & Carel Dieperink & Miriam Miranda, 2009. "Ecotourism as a development strategy: experiences from Costa Rica," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(6), pages 1225-1237, December.
    3. Imran, Sophia & Alam, Khorshed & Beaumont, Narelle, 2014. "Environmental orientations and environmental behaviour: Perceptions of protected area tourism stakeholders," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 290-299.
    4. Torres-Sovero, Claudia & González, José A. & Martín-López, Berta & Kirkby, Christopher A., 2012. "Social–ecological factors influencing tourist satisfaction in three ecotourism lodges in the southeastern Peruvian Amazon," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 545-552.
    5. Matias, Denise Margaret S. & Tambo, Justice A. & Stellmacher, Till & Borgemeister, Christian & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2018. "Commercializing traditional non-timber forest products: An integrated value chain analysis of honey from giant honey bees in Palawan, Philippines," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 223-231.
    6. Wood, Apanie L. & Butler, James R.A. & Sheaves, Marcus & Wani, Jacob, 2013. "Sport fisheries: Opportunities and challenges for diversifying coastal livelihoods in the Pacific," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 305-314.
    7. Chaminuka, P. & Groeneveld, R.A. & Selomane, A.O. & van Ierland, E.C., 2012. "Tourist preferences for ecotourism in rural communities adjacent to Kruger National Park: A choice experiment approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 168-176.
    8. Tanay Yıldırım & Tutku Ak & Zuhal Ölmez, 2008. "Assessment of the natural-cultural resources in Çanakkale for nature-based tourism," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 871-881, December.
    9. Prest, Brian C., 2018. "Explanations for the 2014 oil price decline: Supply or demand?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 63-75.
    10. Deidre M. Peroff & Duarte B. Morais & Erin Sills, 2022. "The Role of Agritourism Microentrepreneurship and Collective Action in Shaping Stewardship of Farmlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, July.
    11. Yaquan Dou & Changhao Wu & Youjun He, 2023. "Public Concern and Awareness of National Parks in China: Evidence from Social Media Big Data and Questionnaire Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, February.
    12. Madhumita Das & Bani Chatterjee, 2020. "Livelihood In Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary, India: An Impact Assessment Of Ecotourism Practices," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(03), pages 653-681, June.
    13. Despina Sdrali & Maria Goussia-Rizou & Pinelopi Kiourtidou, 2015. "Residents’ perception of tourism development as a vital step for participatory tourism plan: a research in a Greek protected area," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 923-939, August.
    14. Ruiz-Ballesteros, Esteban, 2011. "Social-ecological resilience and community-based tourism," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 655-666.
    15. Lonn, Pichdara & Mizoue, Nobuya & Ota, Tetsuji & Kajisa, Tsuyoshi & Yoshida, Shigejiro, 2018. "Evaluating the Contribution of Community-based Ecotourism (CBET) to Household Income and Livelihood Changes: A Case Study of the Chambok CBET Program in Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 62-69.
    16. Jones Thomas, 2012. "A life cycle analysis of nature-based tourism policy in Japan," Contemporary Japan, De Gruyter, vol. 24(2), pages 179-211, July.
    17. Robert Innes & George Frisvold, 2009. "The Economics of Endangered Species," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 485-512, September.
    18. Bosello, Francesco & Delpiazzo, Elisa & Eboli, Fabio, 2015. "Macro-economic Impact Assessment of Future Changes in European Marine Ecosystem Services," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 199442, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    19. Dolisca, Frito & McDaniel, Josh M. & Teeter, Lawrence D., 2007. "Farmers' perceptions towards forests: A case study from Haiti," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 704-712, February.
    20. Mikusiński, Grzegorz & Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof, 2020. "Perceived importance of ecosystem services in the Białowieża Forest for local communities – Does proximity matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:8984-:d:612382. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.