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 17:26, 23 November 2016
, 17:26, 23 November 2016citations improved
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) m (citations improved) |
||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
== Conflicts == | == Conflicts == | ||
General problems of the region are source of conflicts. | General problems of the region are source of conflicts.([http://www.geo-praha.cz/ic.htm#NP_SUMAVA GEO Group, 2002]). | ||
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. | 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 [[wikipedia:en:Bark beetle|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) | 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 [[wikipedia:en:Bark beetle|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 == | ||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
*Eremiášová R., Havlíček M., P. Mackovčin. 2007. Quantitative analysis of landscape development and mapping of drainage network based on historical maps: case study of the surroundings of the Kašperské Hory town (Czech Republic). Silva Gabreta 13: 285–299. | *Eremiášová R., Havlíček M., P. Mackovčin. 2007. Quantitative analysis of landscape development and mapping of drainage network based on historical maps: case study of the surroundings of the Kašperské Hory town (Czech Republic). Silva Gabreta 13: 285–299. | ||
*Görner T., Čihař M. 2012. Indicator system of Czech national parks and biosphere reserves: Some developing trends in the Šumava. Silva Gabreta 18: 49–58. | *Görner T., Čihař M. 2012. Indicator system of Czech national parks and biosphere reserves: Some developing trends in the Šumava. Silva Gabreta 18: 49–58. | ||
*Humlíčková, P. 2008. Jaké jsou limity soudní ochrany v Čechách? Sborník mezinárodní konference, Zelený kruh, Praha. ISBN: 978-80-903968-2-1, str. 4-5. Online http://www.zelenykruh.cz/dokumenty/sbornik-limity-soudni-ochrany-web.pdf | |||
*Kušová D., Bartoš M., Těšitel J. 1999. Potential development of the right shore of Lipno Lake area – comparison of landscape and urban planning documentation with ideas of local inhabitants. Silva Gabreta 3: 217–228. | *Kušová D., Bartoš M., Těšitel J. 1999. Potential development of the right shore of Lipno Lake area – comparison of landscape and urban planning documentation with ideas of local inhabitants. Silva Gabreta 3: 217–228. | ||
*Kušová D., Těšitel J., Bartoš M. 2001. The winter season visitors to the Bohemian Forest – their views on recreation possibilities and qualities within the region. Silva Gabreta 6: 287–294 | *Kušová D., Těšitel J., Bartoš M. 2001. The winter season visitors to the Bohemian Forest – their views on recreation possibilities and qualities within the region. Silva Gabreta 6: 287–294 | ||