445
edits
Sustainable tourism in Šumava national park: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Sustainable tourism in Šumava national park (view source)
Revision as of 08:51, 28 September 2016
, 08:51, 28 September 2016restructured, amended
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (start to describe method) |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) m (restructured, amended) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==History of the population of the area== | ==History of the population of the area== | ||
Social conditions of the region have been worsening in several stages resulting in a distorted social structure. Since a population peak in the second half of the 19th century, the local inhabitants have been declining in number until WWII; after 1945, most of the original residents (of German nationality) were displaced from the Czech part of the Bohemian Forest. Many villages in the frontier area were abandoned, often even intentionally destroyed while the others were resettled with newcomers that were not familiar with sustainable life in this mountain region. Under the communist regime (till 1990) there was also closed frontier zone spreading over the majority of the mountain region where entry for civilian visitors was not permitted. This was also one of the reasons that the natural value remained untouched here. For more information see ([http://www.npsumava.cz/en/3287/sekce/history-of-the-landscape/ NP ŠUMAVA/History]) | Social conditions of the region have been worsening in several stages resulting in a distorted social structure. Since a population peak in the second half of the 19th century, the local inhabitants have been declining in number until WWII; after 1945, most of the original residents (of German nationality) were displaced from the Czech part of the Bohemian Forest. Many villages in the frontier area were abandoned, often even intentionally destroyed while the others were resettled with newcomers that were not familiar with sustainable life in this mountain region. Under the communist regime (till 1990) there was also closed frontier zone spreading over the majority of the mountain region where entry for civilian visitors was not permitted. This was also one of the reasons that the natural value remained untouched here. For more information see ([http://www.npsumava.cz/en/3287/sekce/history-of-the-landscape/ NP ŠUMAVA/History]) | ||
== Conflicts == | |||
General problems of the region ([http://www.geo-praha.cz/ic.htm#NP_SUMAVA_ANAL GEO Group, 2002)] are source of conflicts. | |||
Currently there are ongoing discussions about an appropriate management of the forests, i.e. ‘non-intervention’ management versus ‘necessary’ bark-beetle combat. Šumava National Park has been established by the Czech Government Regulation No. 163/1991 of March 20, 1991. Its Article 4 outlines zonation into 3 zones according to the natural values and hence differentiated management of the protected phenomena. In the Zone 1 are strictly natural areas where human intervention is limited; area belonging under this Zone has been subject of discussions (significantly reduced in 1995; after critique of the IUCN extension was proposed by the Šumava NP Authority which was not officially approved). As the bark beetle infestation appeared in this Zone, these discussions eventually developed into the battle between nature protection oriented NGOs and representatives of municipalities who insisted on cutting down the affected trees. | |||
In the period 1998 – 2001 the most strictly protected Zone 1 of the Šumava national park was logged in by the relevant authority (decision was accompanied by democratic process of decision-making) – the reason was to control bark beetle infestation, but finally the situation was opposite, the infestation increased. In 1998 the Park Authority requested exemption from the legal protection regime which was approved by the Ministry of Environment in spite of numerous protests by NGOs (annual administrative appeals to the Ministry have failed, as well as appeal to the High Court, Constitutional Court and National Environmental Monitoring Agency) ([http://www.zelenykruh.cz/dokumenty/sbornik-limity-soudni-ochrany-web.pdf Humlíčková, 2008]), see also other resources ([http://crowdvoice.org/protests-to-protect-national-park-in-czech-republic?all=true here Crowdvoice], etc.). | |||
== Actors == | == Actors == | ||
To cope with the regional development problems, social issues (as sources of conflict) should be also addressed. Social structure with most important stakeholders see ([http://www.geo-praha.cz/ic.htm#STAKEHOLD_SUMAVA GEO Group, 2002)]); following overview of actors is cited from ([http://ejes.cz/index.php/ejes/article/view/150 Křenová, Vrba, 2014]) | |||
===State administration=== | ===State administration=== | ||
Vulnerable to political (often non-supporting nature protection) interests. Often changing directors of the Park (9 directors in 22 years; in contrast on the German side – 3rd director in 43 year history). Management is not consistent and even legal framework has been changing. | Vulnerable to political (often non-supporting nature protection) interests. Often changing directors of the Park (9 directors in 22 years; in contrast on the German side – 3rd director in 43 year history). Management is not consistent and even legal framework has been changing. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 29: | ||
== Tourism == | == Tourism == | ||
([http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/su_pictures/su03_tmp_en.pdf RDA, 2007] | There exists strategy for sustainable tourism development that has been developed within a participatory process with a wide range of stakeholders, including regional governments, the regional development agency, local communities, protected areas administrations and hotel owners that together defined their joint vision of future tourism development in the region. The strategy aims at defining opportunities of sound tourism development reflecting changes in social trends and tendencies, newly emerging tourism activities, the potential of the natural and cultural resources of the region, the tourism market and the legal and management frameworks ([http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/su_pictures/su03_tmp_en.pdf RDA, 2007]). | ||
Tourism opportunities have been mapped ([http://www.sumavanet.cz/mszapad/turistika.asp?lng=en Information server ŠumavaNet.CZ]) and exposed to the criteria for sustainable tourism ([http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/backdocs/Criteria%20for%20Sustainable%20Tourism.pdf Ecological Tourism in Europe and UNESCO MaB, 2007]). In spite of these endeavours, PLA management failed to develop opportunities for ecotourism ([http://www.radio.cz/en/section/marketplace/wilderness-trumps-insensitive-development-of-sumava-says-study Johnstone, 2014]). | |||
==Village Prášily== | ==Village Prášily== | ||