Landscapes
Landscapes
Landscapes
Landscape Development
in Mountain Regions
Proceedings of the
ForumAlpinum 2007
18. 21. April, Engelberg / Switzerland
www.forumalpinum.org
ISCAR
ii
Imprint
Distributor
Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna
Editors
Prof. Heinz Veit, Dr. Thomas Scheurer, Dr. Gnter Kck
International Scientifc Committee on Research in the Alps Iscar, www.iscar-alpineresearch.org
ISBN Online: 978-3-7001-3940-9
doi: 10.1553/forumalpinum
Local scientifc committee
Prof. Heinz Veit (Icas / Iscar / University of Berne), chair, Susanne Grieder (Iscar / Swiss Alpine Museum), Dr. Christian Gysi (Schweizer
Alpen-Club SAC), Dr. Stefan Husi (National Research Programme NRP 48), Sylvia Martinez (Swiss Biodiversity Forum). Prof. Jon Mathieu
(Icas / University of Lucerne), Prof. em. Bruno Messerli (University of Berne), Christian Preiswerk (Swiss Academy of Sciences scnat), Dr.
Raimund Rodewald (Stiftung Landschaftsschutz Schweiz), Dr. Engelbert Ruoss (Icas / Iscar / Unesco Biosphere Entlebuch UBE), Dr. Thomas
Scheurer (Icas / Iscar), Andreas Stalder (Federal Offce for the Environment Foen), Urs Steiger (Swiss National Research Programme NRP
48), Marlis Zbinden (Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences SHS)
Partners:
Swiss Academy of Sciences scnat, Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences SHS, Swiss National Research Programme NRP 48,
Federal Offce for the Environment Foen
International scientifc committee
International Scientifc Committee on Research in the Alps Iscar:
Prof. Heinz Veit (University of Berne, chair 2005-2006), Dr. Loredana Alfar (Imont, Rome), Prof. Axel Borsdorf (University of Innsbruck),
Prof. Philippe Bourdeau (University Joseph Fourier, Grenoble), Dr. Anton Brancelj (Slovenian National Institute of Biology, Ljubljana),
Dr. Jean-Jacques Brun (cemagreF, Grenoble, chair 2007-2008), Susanne Grieder (Swiss Alpine Museum, Berne), Prof. Horst Hagedorn
(University of Wrzburg), Prof. Dietrich Herm (University of Munich), Dr. Gnter Kck (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, guest), Ivan
Kreft (University of Ljubljana;), Dr. Massimo Pecci (Imont), Dr. Christian Preiswerk (Swiss Academy of Sciences scnat, guest), Prof. Roland
Psenner (University of Innsbruck), Dr. Engelbert Ruoss (Unesco Biosphere Entlebuch UBE), Dr. Thomas Scheurer (Iscar offce, Berne), Marlis
Zbinden (Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences SHS, guest)
Editorial staff and production
Dr. Gnter Kck (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna)
Dr. Thomas Scheurer (Iscar offce, Berne)
DI (FH) Vittorio Muth (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna)
Mag. Herwig Stger (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna)
Vera Kaufmann (Iscar offce, Berne)
Layout
Vera Kaufmann (Iscar offce, Berne)
Translation & Proof-Reading
Margret Powell-Joss, Berne
Veit H., Scheurer T., Kck G. (Eds.) 2007: Landscape Development in Mountain Regions. Proceedings of the ForumAlpinum 2007,
18. 21. April, Engelberg / Switzerland International Scientifc Committee on Research in the Alps Iscar. Vienna, Austrian Academy
of Sciences Press. Digital Edition.
ISBN Online: 978-3-7001-3940-9; doi: 10.1553/forumalpinum
2007 Austrian Academy of Sciences
1
Contents
Foreword 3
1. Plenary Session 1: Values and valuation 5
1.1. Pecci M., Weck-Hannemann H.: summary 5
1.2. Key input contributions to Plenary Session 1: extended summaries 7
1.2.1. Walter F.: The Alps as both matrix and model of European perception of the landscape 7
1.2.2. Hunziker M.: What values, needs and expectations do future alpine landscapes have to
meet?Results of representative preference studies in Switzerland 8
1.2.3. Pruckner G.: Use and non-use values of landscapes economic valuation 9
1.2.4. Panizza M.: Cultural Geomorphology in Mountain Regions 10
1.3. Workshops Plenary Session 1: summaries 12
1.3.1. Backhaus N., Stremlow M.: Alpine views: from imagination to action
Workshop 1/1 (NRP 48 synthesis 1) 12
1.3.2. Grt-Regamey A.: Economic valuation of alpine landscapes
Workshop 1/2 (NRP 48 synthesis 4) 13
1.3.3. Sgard A.: Landscape and identity
Workshop 1/3 14
1.3.4. Hausner I., Reynard E.: Toponymy and Geoheritage in the Alps cultural approaches
in geoheritage research
Workshop 1/4 15
2. Plenary Session 2: Transformation processes 19
2.1. Brun J.-J., Golobi M.: summary 19
2.2. Key input contributions to Plenary Session 2: extended summaries 21
2.2.1. Tappeiner U.: Land-use change in the European Alps: effects of historical and future
scenarios of landscape development on ecosystem services 21
2.2.2. Bolliger J., Kienast F.: Observed and simulated transformation of Alpine landscapes:
driving forces and potential impact on landscape functions 24
2.2.3. Bertrand N., Vanpeene S.: Landscape under urban pressure: agreement or divergence
between socio-economical and ecological approaches 24
2.2.4. Vancutsem D.: Shaping our future urban landscapes experiences from Bavaria 26
2.3. Workshops Plenary Session 2: summaries 27
2.3.1. Perlik M.: Urbanisation: changes of the built environment
Workshop 2/1 27
2.3.2. Stcklin J.: Agriculture, Alpine landscapes and biodiversity
Workshop 2/2 (NRP 48 synthesis 2) 29
2.3.3. Probst T.: Changing climate changing landscape
Workshop 2/3 30
2.3.4. Kozak J., Petek F.: Land-use changes in the Carpathians and in the Alps
Workshop 2/4 32
2.3.5. Alewell Ch., Spehn E.: Soil system services in mountain environments
Workshop 2/5 33
2
3. Plenary Session 3: Cooperation and decision-making in
landscape management 35
3.1. Luque S., Weixlbaumer N.: summary 35
3.2. Key input contributions to Plenary Session 3: extended summaries 37
3.2.1. Wiesinger G.: The importance of social capital in rural development, networking
and decision-making in rural areas 37
3.2.2. Coy M.: The perception of landscape management the example of the
Groes Walsertal Biosphere Reserve 38
3.2.3. Hirschmugl M., Zebisch M.: How can remote sensing support landscape planning
and landscape management in mountain regions? 39
3.3. Workshops Plenary Session 3: summaries 40
3.3.1. Heeb J.: Shaping future landscapes: negotiation processes and best practices
Workshop 3/1 (NRP 48 Synthesis 3) 40
3.3.2. Lange E.: Virtual worlds real decisions: modelling the Alps
Workshop 3/2 (NRP 48 Synthesis 5) 41
3.3.3. Castiglioni B., De Marchi M.:Strategic Environmental Assessment and Alpine
landscape development
Workshop 3/3 43
3.3.4. Egerer H.: Cooperation in European mountains the example of the Alpine and
Carpathian Conventions
Workshop 3/4 45
4. Plenary Session 4: Landscapes role in a changing society 47
4.1. Wytrzens H. K.: summary 47
4.2. Key input contributions to Plenary Session 4: extended summaries 49
4.2.1. Debarbieux B.: Social demand for landscapes 49
4.2.2. Lehmann B.: Landscapes: from by-product to resource selected conclusions
from the Swiss NRP 48 Landscapes and Habitats of the Alps 50
4.2.3. Helming K., Kruchi N.: Assessing land-use impacts on landscape goods and
services the specifc case of mountain landscapes 51
5. Project & Programme Fairs 55
5.1. Borsdorf A.: Project networking in European Mountains (FP 6, Interreg III and cost)
Project & Programme Fair 1 55
5.2. Bjrnsen Gurung A., Scheurer T., Veit H.: Global change research in European mountains:
Implementation of the glochamore Research Strategy and Research Agenda in the
multi-annual working programme of the Alpine Convention among the scientifc
community
Project & Programme Fair 2 56
5.3. Bose L.: Ecological networks within and into the Alps: from concepts to actions
Project & Programme Fair 3 58
5.4. Jost S., Kirchgesser M.: The Alpine Space Programme: A successful approach to
transnational cooperation in the Alpine Space
Project & Programme Fair 4 59
6. Poster presentations 61
List of participants and contributors 75
3
Foreword
After Disentis (CH 1994), Chamonix (F 1996), Garmisch-
Partenkirchen (D 1998), Bergamo and Castione della
Presolana (I 2000), Alpbach (A 2002) and Kranjska Gora
(SI 2004), the seventh ForumAlpinum was hosted again by
Switzerland from April 18
th
21
st
, 2007. As in 1994, the
Swiss venue was Engelberg, a historic location famous for
its monastery. Some 230 scientists, stakeholders, politi-
cians and interested laypeople responded to the invitation
to discuss various aspects of Landscape Development in
Mountain Regions at this years ForumAlpinum, exten-
ded by the International Scientifc Committee for Alpine
Research Iscar, the Swiss Academy of Sciences scnat and
the Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences
SHS. The choice of topic was related to the Swiss national
research programme Landscapes and habitats of the
Alps (NRP 48), realized between 2001 and 2007, but to
be discussed in a broader alpine and European context.
Four plenary sessions dealt with values and valuation,
transformation processes, cooperation and decision-
making in landscape management and the role of land-
scape in a changing society. The plenary sessions with
talks by various speakers were complemented by thirteen
workshops, a poster presentation, four project & pro-
gramme fairs, flm presentations and two excursions. Par-
ticipants and invited guests spent the offcial evening on
the Titlis (3020 m asl), an impressive peak on which Edwin
Bernbaum, Head of the Sacred Mountains Programme
of The Mountain Institute, Berkeley, USA, enhanced our
awareness of sacred mountains around the world.
These proceedings summarize the results of the 7
th
ForumAlpinum. I trust that issues addressed at Engel-
berg will encourage further research and programmes to
provide our society with greater knowledge in managing
mountain landscape as a cultural heritage and resource
for development.
The next ForumAlpinum will be integrated into Alpweek
2008 and focus on innovation processes in the Alps.
Alpweek 2008 will be held from June 11
th
14
st
, 2008 at
LArgentire-la Besse, France, in the south-western Alps.
Heinz Veit,
Chair of the ForumAlpinum 2007
4
5
1. Plenary Session 1:
Values and valuation
1.1. Summary
Moderators:
Hannnelore Weck-Hannemann (Institut fr
Finanzwissenschaft, Universitt Innsbruck, Austria)
Massimo Pecci (Imont, Rome, Italy)
Mountain landscapes represent symbolic and cultural
values, which are a part of driving factors for landscape
development in mountain regions, such as scenery,
amenity, identity, authenticity, naturalness, wildlife,
seclusion, or sacredness. This frst Plenary Session asked
(1) how such values are recognised, valuated and used by
policy-makers, society and the private economic sector,
(2) what issues concerning landscape development need
to be addressed, and (3) what appropriate concepts of
landscape development or effcient instruments exist to
preserve, improve or create such values.
The presentations of the Plenary Session emphasized cul-
tural, historical, political, social and economic dimensions
in the use of landscape values and debated on questions
as:
How are landscapes valuated by society and different
user groups?
What landscape for which users?
Are landscapes a public (national or regional) good?
Use (economic) and non-use (cultural, ethical) values
of landscapes?
Do we need landscapes for identity?
Will future mountain tourism depend on landscape?
Do value changes precede landscape changes or vice
versa?
How to create new values in / of landscapes?
The four Keynote Speakers represented different ap-
proaches to these issues. Franois Walter from the
Dpartement dHistoire gnrale of the University of
Geneva (Switzerland) questioned the perception of Alpine
landscapes from a historical perspective. He was followed
by Marcel Hunziker, from the Social Sciences in Landscape
Research Group of the Swiss Federal Research Institute
WSL in Birmersdorf (Switzerland), who further explored
the question of what objectives and preferences the Swiss
population has with respect to landscapes in the Alps
in the future. Gerald Pruckner from the Department of
Economics at the University of Linz (Austria) focussed on
the valuation of landscape amenities in monetary terms
and as revealed by local compensation schemes based
on political negotiations. Finally, Mario Panizza from the
Dipartmento di Scienze della Terra at the Universit di Mo-
6
Gerald J. Pruckner (Sozial- und wirtschaftswissen-
schaftliche Fakultt, Universitt Linz, Austria):
Use and non-use values of landscapes economic
valuation
The economic valuation of public goods such as
landscape amenities is diffcult due to market failure.
To overcome obvious free-riding incentives, econo-
mists have developed specifc tools for a monetary
valuation of public (environmental) goods. Based on a
contingent valuation study, it was possible to provide
willingness-to-pay (WTP) fgures by tourists in Austria
for the provision of landscape-enhancing services by
mountain farmers. These so-called non-commodity
outputs of agriculture contribute to the pleasure of
individuals, either as residents or as tourists on holiday
in the relevant areas. Moreover, landscape-cultivating
activities protect people, animals and infrastructure
from avalanches, landslides, erosion and rockslides.
Even though the potential of hypothetical benefts as-
sociated with landscape amenities seems substantial, it
was argued that the monetary landscape values have
not been suffciently transformed into real payments
for farmers. Since the preservation of a cultivated and
open countryside in mountain regions will require the
comprehensive internalization of all landscape values
in the future, voluntary local compensation schemes
based on political negotiations at the municipal level
may arise, which was illustrated by a specifc example.
Mario Panizza (Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra,
Universit di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Italy):
Cultural Geomorphology in mountain regions
The author proposed a defnition of cultural geo-
morphology, i.e. the study of the geomorphological
component of a territory which embodies both a
cultural feature of the landscape and its interactions
with cultural heritage (archaeological, historical,
architectural, etc.). Moreover, he illustrated in general
terms and by selected examples from mountain regi-
ons that the relationships between geomorphology
and cultural elements can be considered schematically
according to two reciprocally integrated viewpoints:
(1) geomorphology is intended as a component of a
territorys cultural heritage (geomorphosites); (2) the
relationships between some cultural components (in
a strict sense) of a territory (archaeological, historical,
architectural assets, etc.) and their geomorphological
context. Finally, it was argued that this concept can
be extended to all the felds of earth sciences (cultural
geology) based on geodiversity and geohistory.
In sum, this frst Plenary Session with input contributions
from four speakers, and comments from the audience and
the moderators, has contributed to a general overview
of the complexity of landscape values and valuation, pre-
7
photography and the graphic arts. Landscape designa-
tions with references to the Swiss model spread quickly
throughout the world. Thus, 116 regions, scattered across
the globe, have been identifed as bearing the Swiss
label. Through its mountains, Switzerland has become the
canonical reference for beauty in Nature.
The question of a national landscape
Issues associated with a landscape model took on mea-
ning in the nation-forming processes of the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries. The adoption of an aesthetic model, like that
of the Alpine landscape, in a different context involves
a complex system of cultural images. It is a question of
explaining the social mechanisms of its trans-cultural ap-
propriation and its reinterpretation in a different national
context. The landscape of the Alps is used to develop a
new defnition of national culture.
Sometimes the model is integrated by hybridization (at
the regional scale in neighbouring countries), while in
other situations it is rejected through a refusal of domina-
tion, a step accompanied by a process of cultural sublima-
tion of local qualities (Germany, Scandinavia). In yet other
contexts, references of the model may be taken over, not
with a view to adopting it but rather to become distinct
from it and develop a counter model. Relations of simili-
tude are inversed here. The metaphor helps to reveal an
antonymic relationship while at the same time including
the positive features of the model (Hungary, Russia).
These mechanisms are not found in nations that have a
suffciently strong historical base to assimilate the shock
of comparison with the Alps or, better still, to ignore it
(case of France).
Political values
The phenomenon of a narrow identity anchor is not
exclusive to mountain areas. However, it expresses itself
in the Alps with particular force when local populations
defend their freedom and privileges as if the existence of
their autonomy was written in Nature. This indicates that
the mountain environment, more than any other, makes it
possible to project values considered as universal, such as
freedom, courage, authenticity and other ethical values.
They transcend time or at least take on a permanent cha-
racter. This is why we fnd the same references in other
mountain areas (for example, in Portugal or Scandinavia),
although temporal aspects are peculiar to the different
regions and national circumstances.
At different periods in history and in different contexts,
these models have been mobilised in order to express
national identity through a series of signs, metaphors,
semiophores, and accounts. The 19
th
century was a key
moment in this process.
1.2. Key input contributions to
Plenary Session 1: extended
summaries
1.2.1. The Alps as both matrix and model of
European perception of the landscape
Franois Walter (Dpartement dHistoire gnrale,
Universit de Genve, Switzerland)
Keywords
Landscape and ideology, national identity, perception and
representation
The aim of this paper is to show how, throughout history,
Europeans have symbolically invested the world of moun-
tains, and have not merely transformed it into a marke-
table commodity, into something with an exchange value,
as so often suggested by tourism today. The Alps have
provided something more than an exceptional context for
interchangeable leisure activities.
The Alps as a landscape
Today, it is diffcult to measure the extraordinary en-
richment of thought that has been brought about by
the diffusion of the landscape concept. We have gene-
rally become used to the idea that Western civilisation
invented, or at least discovered, the concept. The
origin of the concept has frequently been discussed, as
has its gradual emancipation from the strictly pictorial
context where it frst appeared. Alongside a few other
emblematic landscapes, the alpine mountain landscape
has been considered since the end of the 17
th
century as
the prototype of the aesthetic landscape. Its pictorial and
artistic interpretation is expressed in every aesthetic code
of perception, whether it be pastoral, georgic, exotic, or
even sublime rather than picturesque, where each vision is
non-exclusive of any other. Although the alpine mountain
landscape is a sensitive manifestation of the environment
that should not be reduced to its aesthetic dimensions,
it does represent something more than a simple way of
seeing the world. It is a means for making it visible,
which is more than a nuance of style.
Resistance to an aesthetic model
At frst, it may seem surprising to fnd texts that show
a sort of contempt for or resistance to the landscape,
appearing to refect a rejection of an intrusive landscape
model. Certain authors denounce the partiality shown for
grandiose high-mountain landscapes, which they consider
as no more than a fashion trend.
It is true that the 19
th
century saw a multiplication of
so-called Swiss landscapes. The signs or symbols of
the Swiss landscape became rapidly diffused thanks to
8
1.2.2. What values, needs and expectations
do future alpine landscapes have to
meet?
Results of representative preference
studies in Switzerland
Marcel Hunziker (Research Group Social Sciences
in Landscape Research, Swiss Federal Research
Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland)
Keywords
Landscape preferences, theories, models, surveys
Due to the high value of the landscape as an important
resource of the Alps, in particular regarding tourism,
society is called upon to consciously steer the future
development of Alpine landscapes. Thus, it needs to be
established what is expected from these landscapes, what
values and needs they have to meet. Our project within
the framework of the Swiss National Research Program
Landscapes and Habitats in the Alps (NRP 48) aimed
at providing such prerequisites for planning and realising
future landscape development in the Alps.
A frst main goal of our study was to investigate the
objectives of different parts of the (Swiss) population
regarding the Alpine landscape and its development.
In this context, the driving forces of the objectives and
preferences such as values, needs and expectations were
analysed, as well as the reasons of conficts of objectives.
Special emphasis was also given to the analysis of the role
of perceived quality of everyday landscape of (peri-)ur-
ban areas as a background of landscape objectives and
preferences.
As the landscape-objectives of different groups may
diverge, a second main goal was to develop, apply and
evaluate suitable methods to foster consensus building
regarding these objectives. Therefore, the infuences of
contextual and procedural factors on acceptance, hand-
ling and success as well as the outcome-effect of such
procedures were investigated.
The project consisted of three parts with different metho-
dological approaches:
The inductive part, i.e. the analysis of qualitative data
collected in problem-centred interviews of representa-
tives of different social groups, revealed deep insights
into the (different) landscape objectives and their
socio-cultural driving forces. Furthermore, conficts
resulting from diverging landscape objectives could be
recognised, and consensus criteria established.
The deductive part primarily provided representative
quantitative data regarding landscape objectives and
their socio-cultural and psychological driving forces. It
allowed the creation of models regarding the infu-
ence of values, needs and expectations on landscape
1)
2)
preferences, and the inter-relationship between
satisfaction with the daily environment, expectations
from leisure landscapes, and leisure mobility. To this
end, representative samples of different strata of the
Swiss public as well as of tourists and residents of two
investigation areas were surveyed by standardised
questionnaires (with visualised scenarios of future
landscape development in the Alps).
In the quasi-experimental part, consensus-building
procedures were applied. This approach was under-
stood as an intervention-experiment that is evaluated
empirically. Procedural aspects were evaluated by
process observation; effect was measured by surveys
before and after the intervention.
At the conference, the focus was on the main results of
the second research part. Special emphasis was therefore
given to the results of the statistical evaluation of an inte-
grative theoretical preference model, developed to com-
prehensively explain public assessments of future lands-
cape developments by basic driving forces such as values,
needs and expectations. This model combines two groups
of approaches: (1) concepts of the so-called biological
perspective (Bourassa 1991) such as Kaplan & Kaplans
(1989) information-processing theory, or attention-resto-
ration theory (e.g. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Hartig et al.,
1997) and (2) concepts of social perspective, including
place-attachment (e.g. Altman & Low, 1992; Korpela et
al. 2001), place-identity (e.g. Breakwell, 1986; Twigger-
Ross & Uzzell, 1996), familiarity (e.g. Hammit, 1981), time
orientation (Stokols & Jacoby, 1984), political, ecological
and economical interests (e.g. van den Berg 1998; Hunzi-
ker 1995). Not only was it shown which factors have gre-
atest infuence on landscape preferences and objectives,
but also which factors are suggested by statistical analyses
to represent general underlying dimensions of (bundles
of) preference predictors. Three such underlying dimensi-
ons were identifed through factor analyses. They can be
described as needs for security, stimulation and self-direc-
tion, and might also be interpreted as value-orientations
in terms of Schwartz (1992) theory of integrated value
systems. The suggestion that security, stimulation
and self-direction form a shared, higher-order structure
linking different theoretical approaches, and representing
guiding dimensions in the human-landscape relationship
is also supported by the fnding that the three dimensions
are also related to types of landscape preferences: the
Arcadian type, the Utilitarian type and the Wilderness
type. Each of these types assesses future potential land-
scape developments such as settlement development or
reafforestation in another way. Furthermore, they are not
equally distributed in Switzerland.
Thus, considerable differences were found in the as-
sessment of future landscape scenarios, with landscape
experts and decision makers as well as the local popula-
3)
9
1.2.3. Use and non-use values of landscapes
economic valuation
Gerald J. Pruckner (Sozial- und wirtschafts-
wissenschaftliche Fakultt, Universitt Linz,
Austria)
Keywords
Use and non-use values of landscape, contingent valua-
tion, willingness to pay, agricultural externalities, non-
commodity output of agriculture, local compensation
payments
Environmental Valuation
One important principle of environmental economics is
that individuals face a trade-off between income (wealth)
and environmental quality. Therefore, it is theoretically
possible to elicit peoples willingness to pay (WTP) for an
increase in environmental quality in monetary terms.
However, environmental quality (landscape quality) is
a typical public good characterized by non-rivalry and
non-excludability. We face valuation problems as private
markets (demand and supply curves) do not exist.
Economists have developed non-market valuation
techniques for environmental goods. These techniques
capture different components of values:
Use values
Non-use values - existence values
- option values
- bequest values
We distinguish indirect and direct valuation instruments:
indirect instruments (revealed preferences): preference
elicitation by observable behavior; hedonic pricing,
travel cost method, etc.;
direct instruments (stated preferences): preference
elicitation by means of survey techniques; contingent
valuation, etc.
Landscape Valuation: Empirical Evidence from Alpine
Regions
Background: Apart from the production of food, feed
and other raw materials sold on private markets, Austri-
an agriculture provides non-commodity outputs (NCOs),
most of which represent external benefts of production.
Austrian farmers (including the forest sector) cultivate
more than 80 per cent of the national territory and are
therefore in charge of creating an appropriate landscape
across the nation the multifunctional role of (moun-
tain) agriculture. However, due to structural change in
agriculture, mountain farms are no longer suffciently
competitive policy measures have failed to keep farmers
in mountain areas. Therefore, the provision of landscape-
enhancing services and the openness of the countryside is
13
are addressed. Different expectations of a (beautiful)
landscape and questions regarding pleasure and enjoy-
ment are at the heart of the aesthetic dimension. Feelings
of belonging are often connected with landscapes and
therefore landscapes are connected with identity (dimen-
sion of identifcation). The fourth dimension we call the
political dimension, in which stakeholders and interest
groups enter negotiation processes. The economic dimen-
sion does not only concern values that can be expressed
monetarily, but also values connected to security. The
ecological dimension, fnally, addresses different ecologi-
cal concepts and their normative impact.
and perceptions, it is important to at least acknowledge
the existence of other ways of looking at them.
Recommendations
Landscapes should be regarded as the combination
of people and nature. Therefore, landscape is also an
intermediary for peoples spatial needs.
Landscapes provide socio-spatial aspects of a changing
world. Steering landscape development is a creative
cultural task; it includes protection and education, and
requires that we jettison traditional views of lands-
capes.
Landscapes themselves cannot be lost (only their qua-
lities and values).
Landscapes potential not only includes ecological and
economic aspects, but also emotional, aesthetic, social
and ethical ones.
Consequently, landscapes require a multidimensional
view, considering also the fact that inside and outside
views can differ (and change), that individual views
are not always the same as socially accepted ones,
and that the same person can look at a landscape
differently.
Bargaining processes should be supported using
knowledge about peoples / groups needs related
to landscapes and acknowledging inside-outside and
exper v. laypeoples views.
Especially in large-scale participation processes, coordi-
nators/moderators should be involved.
Discussion
How do we translate the debate on multifunctionality
into a viable planning instrument?
The model could be adapted to other topics and be
used as an evaluation tool.
Participatory approaches can also imply threats due to
limited resource; they are rarely practical, for if needs
are expressed/created, they should be able to be met
at least potentially.
1.3.2. Economic valuation of alpine
landscapes (NRP 48 synthesis 4)
Workshop 1/2
Moderator:
Adrienne Grt-Regamey (Landscape and
Environmental Planning LEP, ETH Zrich,
Switzerland)
Alpine landscapes are often perceived as economically
non-proftable regions. While 87% of the regional income
of Alpine regions is produced by the market (Simmen et
al., 2006), many goods and services provided by these
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
n
a
t
u
r
e
society
inter-subjective
We can conclude that there are different ways to look at
landscapes and that there is no landscape that everyone
experiences the same way. Consequently, there is also no
scientifc, objectively valid landscape description.
The six dimensions show that landscapes are multi-layered
and that people emphasise different aspects according to
the context in which they regard or experience it.
But our model also shows that these dimensions or
spheres overlap and merge with each other. The spheres
can be regarded as frames or focal points through which
researchers as well as laypeople regard landscapes. For the
understanding of other peoples landscape preferences
14
regions are not marketed and thus do not command mar-
ket values. The objective of the workshop was to discuss,
(1) the economic potential of different strategies to make
use of the public goods and services provided by Alpine
landscapes; (2) the implementation of these strategies in
different Alpine regions.
A comprehensive set of strategies to make use of lands-
cape values was presented by Felix Walter (ecoplan, Berne,
Switzerland). These include market strategies, valuation
of public goods strategies, and mixed strategies (fg. 2).
Their success is, however, dependent on regional imple-
mentation: as the economic potential of certain regions is
large, selective withdrawal from other regions might be
necessary. For decision-makers, this means that problems
in areas with low economic potential should pro-actively
be tackled, and that local landscape policy should take the
function of resource policy.
that these regionally studies are not released to the large
public and that the resulting values are small compared to
the regional income hinder their integration into strategic
discussions. Yet, if economic estimates are assumed to be
a valuable part of the information base for environmen-
tal decision-making, then a database summarizing the
fndings of these Alpine studies would help organize and
express certain kinds of information on the range of alter-
native courses of action, and provide credible information
to decision-makers.
Reference
Simmen, H., Walter, F., Marti, M., 2006: Den Wert der Alpen-
landschaften nutzen - Thematische Synthese zum Forschungs-
schwerpunkt IV Raumnutzung und Wertschpfung, VDF
Hochschulverlag AG, ETH Zrich, p. 212.
1.3.3. Landscape and identity
Workshop 1/3
Moderator:
Anne Sgard (Institut de Gographie Alpine,
Grenoble, France)
The purpose of this workshop was to explore the relation-
ship between Landscape and Identity, or, more precisely,
between landscape and identifcation processes.
The workshop proposed three steps:
frst a general framework, presenting the two key
words: Landscape and Identity (by A. Sgard);
followed by a presentation of the theme of sacred
mountains with a series of landscapes from all over
the world (by E. Bernbaum, The Mountain Institute,
Berkeley, USA);
fnally a few examples introducing some of the main
questions concerning the relationship between land-
scape, identifcation processes and mountain, and
suggesting points of discussion.
The general presentation pointed out some elements of
characterization of the landscape as a social and cultural
construction, and focused on the fact that each person
looking at a landscape has his or her own interpretative
framework. Landscape is then the perceptible, emotional,
aesthetical dimension of our relationship with a territory.
From this point of view, landscape is a social and historic
construction, and our perception of landscape depends
on our cultural background. Each social group selects and
codifes certain landscapes and attaches certain values
to these landscapes: economical, aesthetic, symbolical,
etc. How can we say that a landscape participates in the
construction of identity, of feeling that one belongs to a
territory? Many studies have shown that landscape can be
integrated
concepts
compensation
for protection
fnancial
equalisation
nature parks
agriculture
mixed
strategies
innovative
products
housing
tourism
energy
market
strategies
valuation of
public goods
Fig. 2: Strategies to make use of landscape
values (Simmen et al., 2007)
Payoffs and problems implementing a specifc tourist
strategy in a region in Switzerland were illustrated by Urs
Wohler (head of Scuol Tourismus, Switzerland). The region
offers spas, traditional events, objects of cultural heritage,
and local products the livelihood of 7300 people. Yet,
even though several innovative ideas have been imple-
mented to exploit the values the landscape provides,
other strategies have to be considered to remain competi-
tive, especially considering rapid shifts in demand.
As the price of public goods only increases when they
become scarce, users can consume more of the landscape
values than their fair share. Such free-rider problems can
threaten the income of Alpine regions in the long-term.
Viewed in this light, valuation studies are essential to
demonstrate the value of public goods and services to
decision-makers. Several economic valuation studies have
been conducted in the last years in the Alps. But the fact
15
used as material and a medium for appropriation and
attachment processes by populations, both at a national
and local scale. Landscape is a kind of cement binding
local communities, as well as a means of projecting a
positive image of this society towards the outside world.
Three examples provoked discussion:
The case of Mont Aiguille: an emblematic landscape
showing a very unique and legendary mountain,
which has been very well known since the 15
th
cen-
tury. It can be found on many brochures, packaging,
postcards, etc. It certainly functions as an emblem
and a source of attachment for the people of the
nearest area (Trives), for whom the peak is a feature
of everyday environment. However, this is not true for
all the inhabitants of the Vercors massif. Mont Aiguille
is more a showcase, an advertising landscape for
the Vercors, the Dauphin, and even the North of the
Alps. This example shows that identity-building capa-
city depends on scale.
The case of Valchevrires (Vercors): this small village
was destroyed by German troops in 1944 as a repri-
sal; since then, it has become a memorial to the
Resistance: the ruins continue to exist, the meadow
is mowed, the woodland and scrub are cleared, etc.
Various notice boards all around the site tell of its
history. Here the landscape is part of the testimony; its
sacredness may induce meditation. But surveys show
that the location is more connected to the memory of
World War II and national identity. The local popula-
tion does not express a real attachment; they might
prefer to forget. This example allows us to focus on
relationships between identity and memory.
Is a golf club a modern landscape? This landscape is
extremely well appreciated by the local population
because it was created on an abandoned area. Now
the forest is cleaned, the grass is green and perfectly
cut, some statuesque trees have been preserved in
the golf course. This is an example of a totally artifcial
mountain landscape, an example demonstrating
that identifcation and attachment not only refer to
heritage and tradition but also to recent practices and
sceneries.
The workshop also addressed issues of forest landscapes
and peri-urban landscapes in mountains.
All these examples try to converge on the main idea, i.e.
the fact that the construction of collective identity is a
permanent process; that expressions of identity change as
populations and territories change; that identifcation is
based on memory or lack thereof, and on transformation
and adjustment. It is generally more relevant to study
processes and materials used by the population to build
and express different forms of identity, rather than to try
and fx a local identity as a well-defned object.
2u
under changing conditions. These goods and services
are discussed in the context of landscape functions,
a concept being pushed forward by several articles in
the international literature.
Nathalie Bertrand & Sylvie Vanpeene (CemagreF Greno-
ble, France):
Landscape under urban pressure: agreement or
divergence between socio-economical and ecological
approaches
Changes in regional landscapes due to urban pressure
raise questions regarding land use, economic, social
and environmental issues related to urban sprawl,
daily commute increases, and land consumption.
These changes and dysfunctions jeopardise sustainable
development in such areas, especially in the Alps with
their diverse biotopes in a geographically constrained
space.
Sustainability calls for three pillars: economic, sociolo-
gical, environmental. However, what does landscape
under urban pressure mean? What kind of analysis
can take into account the three pillars of sustainabi-
lity? How can we go beyond disciplinary approaches
and offer an integrated analysis?
This paper is based on two years of work undertaken
by socio-economists and ecologists on the effects of
peri-urbanisation on landscape and the environment
in an alpine area. The frst of them regards space and
how space is taken into account in the environmental,
economic or social processes, respectively. Three the-
mes are developed: landscape point of view, problems
of spatial and temporal scales, indicators.
The three pillars of sustainability require the defnition
of a common feld with regard to temporal and space
scales as well as indicator type. To go beyond requires
a hierarchisation of these questions, taking a more
ecological, economic and / or social approach, and
dropping the notion of a common interface to address
specifc disciplinary questions.
Didier Vancutsem (IsoCarp & Vancutsem Stadtplaner
Landchaftsarchitekten, Mnchen, Germany):
Shaping our future urban landscapes experiences
from Bavaria
Radical changes in the urban landscape due to demo-
graphic change and various trends in settlement struc-
ture are a topical phenomenon in Germany. Forecasts
predict a population decline in Eastern Germany and
growth in Southern Germany, especially in Bavaria,
with increasing urban pressure on the foothills of the
Alps.
Current soil consumption in Bavaria is about 20 hec-
tares per day. Our landscapes are laboratories of urban
transformation and urban sprawl. Regions are facing
various challenges: planners are yet to see evidence of
shrinking.
Our landscapes are mirrors of our society. In view of
trends of suburbanization, dispersion, sustainable
re-urbanization, and return to core-cities, the regions
role must be reconsidered: new strategies for urban
regions are being developed. Regional landscape will
shape regional identity.
What types of landscapes will there be in the future?
Our generation has to decide.
Conclusions and outlook
Especially the frst two contributions presented a signif-
cant step forward in landscape-change modelling tech-
niques. Both included construction of cause-effect chains,
explanation and evaluation of present change as well
as modelling future landscape. Methods have acquired
increasing scientifc value and are based on better data,
resulting in reliable forecasts. Both presentations also
evaluated landscape change in terms of its consequence
for landscape services (visual quality, biodiversity and C-
pool capacity). Although we tend to think of landscape
change as something prevailingly negative, the presenta-
tions showed some interesting results: expected landscape
change does not necessarily mean loss of biodiversity but
could be benefcial in terms of increasing C-pool capacity,
while negative visual effects would become neutral in
time due to human adaptive capacity.
This brings us to a challenging perspective of how to
use these methods to answer the important questions of
whether changes will bring us closer to desired landscape
or not; and of course, what landscape services will be
required in the future. It inevitably raises management
issues, i.e. how (and if) processes of change could be
managed. Mapping of the main trends shows that many
of them correlate to administrative borders. This indicates
that policies do affect certain change processes. But
detailed analysis of pilot areas often reveals a much more
complex picture of drivers and changes. In fact, ecological
analysis is mainly spatially based (habitat mapping) but
space is not considered as a major dimension of econo-
mic and social processes. We must therefore be aware of
impacts of urban pressures on the integrity of remarkable
ecosystems (recreational activities) and on the functiona-
lity of ecological corridors (ordinary nature consumption).
New indicators depicting socio-economical and socio-
ecological trends at a local scale have to be devised to
illustrate these transformation processes and their limits.
While the frst three contributions were science-oriented
and structured, the last presentation discussed lands-
cape change more from a design perspective, meaning
that experts are the actors of change rather than passive
observers and analysts. This slight antagonism was also
refected in the discussion, which raised the question of
whether this view is suitable only for man-made / urban
21
landscapes or could be appropriate for predominantly na-
tural and agricultural landscapes. This dilemma is related
to the key question of distinguishing between urban and
rural landscapes and changing concepts: ways of life in
Alpine cities and in marginal areas are no longer so diffe-
rent; physical processes are following in their wake. Land
abandonment for example, which we usually attribute to
remote areas, also occurs in urbanized areas, although
land use intensifcation still prevails. Therefore, answers in
the last presentation emerged not so much from traditio-
nal scientifc methods as from choosing and interpreting
examples that respond to challenges by a new, more
complex understanding of landscape typology, which
goes beyond an urban-rural distinction and traditional
categorisation by land use (agricultural, energy produc-
tion, industrial, natural landscapes). These answers also
consider multifunctional landscapes whose production of
goods and services is embedded in a dynamic view, i.e.
communication landscapes, transit landscapes, recrea-
tional landscapes, contemplation landscapes, valuable
intermediary places, changing landscapes, etc.
2.2. Key input contributions to
Plenary Session 2: extended
summaries
2.2.1. Land-use change in the European
Alps: effects of historical and future
scenarios of landscape development
on ecosystem services
Ulrike Tappeiner (Institute of Ecology, University
of Innsbruck, Austria & European Academy of
Bolzano/Bozen, Italy)
Keywords
Landscape-scale changes, biodiversity, agrarian structure
region
In the European Alps 41.4 per cent of farms ceased ope-
rations within the last 20 years (1980-2000). In addition,
almost 70 per cent of farms still in operation today are
run only as a secondary source of income (Tappeiner &
Bayfeld 2003). With regard to the land use issue, this
means that an average of about 20 per cent of the agricu-
ltural land of the Alps has been abandoned, and in some
areas as much as 70 per cent (Tappeiner et al. 2003).
These developments vary greatly in the different regions
of the Alps. Due to climatic, demographic and socio-cultu-
ral differences, the Alps are not a single, cohesive unit in
a natural, social and/or economic sense. There are certain
essential contrasts between the traditional Germanic and
Romanic Alpine agricultural methods of the northern Alps
(grassland farming with cattle husbandry) and Southern
Alps (mixed grassland-arable-farming, permanent crops
and sheep husbandry). In addition, the agricultural sector
in the Alpine Countries is also affected by the differences
between federal and more centralized forms of govern-
ment, the varying instruments of subsidy for mountainous
areas, and the issue of EU membership to the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP).
Change of agricultural land use in the Alps in the past
50 years
Based on a set of 76 indicators, Tappeiner et al. 2003
showed that eight characteristic agrarian structure regi-
ons have developed in the Alps. Each region represents a
specifc type of agricultural settings in terms of socio eco-
nomic factors, in terms of population trends and in terms
of physical characteristics such as climate and altitude. In
past decades these differences still led to varying deve-
lopments in agriculture (fg. 4). In four of these agrarian
structure regions we analysed in detail the landscape
development in the last 150 years based on orthophotos
(1980-2002), aerial images (1950-80), and historical maps
(1869-87) (fg. 5).
22
has been reduced to about 30 per cent. Dwarf shrubs
and forests have replaced up to 70 per cent of the former
alpine meadows and pastures. Even the favourable areas
have undergone signifcant changes. Where 50 years ago
arable land spread across the hill slopes, we now fnd
highly used grassland or settlements instead. These land-
use changes have a massive effect on the above-ground
and below-ground phytomass-pools and the C-pool:
from 1865 to 2003 the total phytomass increased by
21.7 per cent, equivalent to 253886 t in the whole valley
(249 km
2
) (fg. 5). The growth of phytomass combines a
proportional increase of C-pool. Depending on the phy-
tosociological communities, the C-storage lies between
42 per cent and 47 per cent of the total phytomass. For
the period from 1865 to 2003, this means an increase of
total C-pool of 22.9 per cent (106171 t). However, our
studies showed highly differential developments along
the elevational gradient. While in the valley bottoms only
small changes in the pools can be seen, the subalpine belt
(1700-1900 m a.s.l.) experienced massive increases due to
natural reforestation.
In all future scenarios the aforementioned trend is assu-
med to continue. The transition matrices imply the deve-
lopment of the past 15 years and forecast a continuous
reduction of land use, particularly in the subalpine belt.
The stakeholders expect the settlements to grow consider-
ably over the next 30 years, but do not expect any major
changes in land use. According to the developed agro-
economic model, even more dramatic changes can be ex-
pected. As a simulation result we obtained that the most
unfavourable areas will be abandoned if milk support is
reduced by the EU. Assuming the subsidies will be further
cut down, even favourable areas in the valley bottom will
be abandoned. This will induce a dramatic reforestation.
Fig. 4: Classifcation of the Alps
by eight agrarian structure regions
as well as land abandonment
from 1865 (100 per cent) to 2000
in the South Tyrolean grassland
region Sdtiroler Berggebiet
(a), the alpine standard region
Innsbruck Land (b), the agricu-
ltural retraction region Carnia
(c), and in the South Tyrolean
wine and fruit cultivation region
Unterland / beretsch (d) (after
Tappeiner et al. 2003).
The general trend in landscape development moves
toward the decrease of agriculturally used areas. Win-
ners of this trend are the settlement areas on the one
hand and the forest on the other hand, while the main
losers constitute the traditionally used area of cultivation
(larch meadows and the lightly used meadows in the
subalpine and alpine belt). The magnitude of this trend
differs greatly between regions (fg. 4) as well as along an
altitudinal gradient (Becker et al 2007). With the excep-
tion of the agricultural retraction region Carnia, no area
was abandoned in the agricultural used valley bottom,
the agrarian most favourable region. The more diffcult
the conditions for agricultural use of the locations are, the
more obvious the tendency of farmers to abandon their
land. In steeper mountainsides of the valleys, agricultural
areas were increasingly taken out of cultivation. The main
areas abandoned were on the mountain pastures (-39 per
cent to -80 per cent).
Effects of likely future scenarios of landscape development
on the phytomass- and C-pools and biodiversity in the
Stubai Valley
In one of the investigated regions, the alpine standard
region (Innsbruck Land), we developed and tested a land-
scape model in order to analyse landscape-scale changes
of carbon pools and biodiversity in relation to historical
and current land use, as well as explorative scenarios of
future land use. This was achieved by integrating socio-
economic drivers and spatially explicit information, scaling
up C-pools and diversity from the ecosystem to the lands-
cape scale (fg. 5).
Results: Over the past 150 years, a massive reduction of
agricultural land use has taken place, particularly in areas
considered unfavourable, where traditional agriculture
23
Hence, a further increase in the C pool of 18.7 per cent
(95663 t C) over the next 50 years can be expected.
As another important ecosystem service we calculated the
changes in biodiversity at landscape level. It is well known
that shifts in vegetation, related to changing management
strategies, are often accompanied by changes in biodiver-
sity (e.g. Tasser and Tappeiner 2002, Tasser et al. in press).
Studies of changes in the diversity of ecosystems have
rarely been performed. Our analyses of the Stubai Valley
show, that species diversity and ecosystem diversity do
not always have to correlate regarding their development.
Between 1865 and 1970 the phytodiversity (mean species
number of vascular plants) decreased by 6.6 per cent,
while the ecosystem diversity (patch richness) increased by
12 per cent. From this point on the species as well as the
ecosystem diversity decreased. Future scenarios point out
a further slight decrease in both species and ecosystem
diversity (Tappeiner et al. 2007).
Fig. 5: Research approach to analyse landscape-sca-
le changes of carbon pools in relation to historical
and current land use, as well as explorative scenarios
of future land use on the example of the Stubai
Valley in Austria (region Innsbruck Land). The
approach combines: (i) historical and current land
cover, (ii) scenarios of land use as inferred from
stakeholder consultations, from a spatially explicit
land-use change model (transition matrices), from
an agro-economic model, and (iii) an estimation of
above- and belowground C-stocks in the phytomass
via a geo-statistical model (from Tappeiner and
Tasser 2004).
References:
Becker, A., Krner Ch., Bjrnsen Gurung A., Brun J, Guisan A.,
Haeberli W., Tappeiner U. and GLOCHAMORE participants 2007:
Altitudinal Gradient Studies and Highland-lowland Linkages in
Mountain Biosphere Reserves. Mountain Research and Develop-
ment, forthcoming
Tappeiner U. and Bayfeld N. 2002: Management of mountainous
areas. In Land Cover and Land Use - Land Use Management,
edited by W. Verheye, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems
(EOLSS). Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss
Publishers, Oxford, UK, [http://www.eolss.net].
Tappeiner U., Tappeiner G., Hilbert A. and Mattanovich E. 2003:
The EU Agricultural Policy and the Environment. Evaluation of the
Alpine Region. Blackwell Science, Berlin, Germany.
Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Leitinger G, Tappeiner G 2007: Land-
nutzung in den Alpen: historische Entwicklung und zuknftige
Szenarien. In: Psenner R, Lackner R (eds) Die Alpen im Jahr 2020.
Alpine Space - Man & Environment Vol.1, pp.23-39. Innsbruck,
University Press.
Tasser, E. and Tappeiner, U. 2002: Impact of land use changes on
mountain vegetation. Applied Vegetation Science 5, 173-184.
Tasser E., Tappeiner U., Cernusca A. (in press):Ecological effects of
land-use changes in the European Alps. In: Huber, U. / Becker, A.
/ Bugmann, H. (ed.): Global Change and Mountain Regions A
State of Knowledge Overview. Springer.
24
2.2.2. Observed and simulated
transformation of Alpine landscapes:
driving forces and potential impact on
landscape functions
Felix Kienast & Janine Bolliger (Swiss Federal
Research Institute WSL Birmensdorf, Switzerland)
Keywords
Transformation, modeling, landscape functions, land use,
perception
Long-term economic changes as well as shifts in agricultu-
ral policies and management have been leading to large-
scale land-use changes throughout Europe. As a result
marginal regions (e.g. mountains) are at risk to experience
increasing land abandonment and spontaneous reaffore-
station. This trend could be accelerated by ongoing global
warming. In mountain areas in particular, the likely conse-
quence of this marginalization is an increasingly segrega-
ted land-use pattern. At higher elevations various stages
of spontaneous reafforestation are expected, replacing
formerly open-land habitats by closed forests, whereas at
lower elevations open land may be prone to increasing in-
tensifcation. Marginalisation and on-going intensifcation
might cause loss of cultural and social identity and will
certainly have decisive impacts on fauna and fora.
The paper elaborated on the above mentioned trans-
formation processes at three organizational levels, i.e.
regional (Surselva), national (Switzerland) and continen-
tal (Europe). Based on historical evidence we presented
analyses of past land-use change and showed how plant
and animal species react(ed) to these changes. Further-
more we showed new results on how people perceive
and remember changing land use. The fndings as well as
extensive literature reviews represent the knowledge base
for various predictive models aiming at simulating various
goods and services of landscapes (i.e. biodiversity, carbon
storage, landscape attractiveness).
These goods and services were discussed in the context of
landscape functions, a concept pushed forward by several
articles in the international literature. Landscape func-
tions measure to what degree landscapes fulfll societal
and ecological needs. Recently it has been suggested to
embed the landscape function approach in the ecosystem
millennium assessment (www.maweb.org). According
to this framework policy both the social/cultural and the
natural/cultivated capital of a society are affected, and
they both have decisive impacts on peoples well-being.
Within this framework, landscape functions act as a link
between land use (change) and an ecosystems goods and
services, which are assumed to be direct drivers of human
well-being.
Finally, the presentation concentrated on the potential
impacts of future land-use change on three landscape
functions, i.e. (a) the potential of a landscape to host
species; (b) the potential to store carbon (soil, above- and
below ground); and (c) the potential to be attractive for
the population.
Land-use predictions are derived from three scenarios
based on synergetically assessed drivers originating in
different disciplines (socio-economy, ecology). The three
scenarios are: (1) a business-as-usual scenario that relies
on trends of land-use change observed during the last 20
years; (2) a biodiversity support scenario that assumes op-
timal management strategies and subsidies for biodiversity
and conservation; and (3) a liberalisation scenario where
agriculture and conservation receive no public support.
2.2.3. Landscape under urban pressure:
agreement or divergence between
socio-economical and ecological
approaches
Nathalie Bertrand & Sylvie Vanpeene (CemagreF,
Grenoble, France)
Keywords
Urban pressure, sustainable development, ecosystem
and spatial sustainable development, land use function,
multidisciplinarity
Changes in regional landscapes due to urban pressure
raise questions regarding land use as well as economic,
social and environmental issues related to urban sprawl,
increasing daily commutes, and land consumption. On the
one hand, land use becomes more complex as competi-
tion between agriculture, urbanization, natural areas and
forests intensifes, and relates to space multifunctionality.
On the other hand, functional and structural urban inte-
gration of peripheral rural areas implies negative externa-
lities such as social segregation, or degradation of natural
environments subjected to human pressure (as tourist or
residential frequentations).
These changes and dysfunctions question the sustainabili-
ty of development in such areas. This point is all the more
critical in the Alps since it is a geographically constrained
space that is rich in unique biotopes and subject to highly
disparate human pressure, for example the French Alpine
Sillon with intense conurbation, or the Carpatians very
low population density. Sustainability calls for three pillars:
economical, sociological, environmental. However, what
does a landscape under urban pressure mean? How
to develop an analysis that takes into account the three
pillars of sustainability? How to go beyond disciplinary
approaches and offer an area of integrated analysis?
25
This paper is based on two years of work undertaken
by socio-economists and ecologists on the effects of
peri-urbanisation on landscape and the environment in
an alpine area. By crossing two disciplines ecology and
(socio-)economy it highlights dimensions that the ana-
lysis covers with such processes. The frst of them regards
space and how space is taken into account respectively
in the environmental, economic or social processes.
Ecological analysis is mainly spatially based. But space
has been a problem for a long time in economic analy-
sis, where space has not traditionally been considered a
dimension of economic (and social) processes. Thus, it
is around the confrontation of these differences that it
seems interesting here to underline some dimensions of
major processes that are current concerns in the alpine arc
and landscape changes, by confronting the differences of
the disciplinary approaches. This paper has this aim, and
includes three steps.
The frst step focuses on disciplinary questions. To socio-
economists, questions about landscape and its change
predominantly concern natural areas and land used by hu-
man beings, including settlement areas. Questions related
to urban pressure focus on spatial segregation, processes
of population and activity polarisation. In this sense,
landscape is closely related to the concept of regional
development. To ecologists, the environmental dimension
covers two types of concerns. One is related to unique
ecosystems while the other is related to ordinary nature
and its organization patterns. Remarkable ecosystems are
frequently included in protected zones or management
plans. This means that they may escape from urban pres-
sure even if they are affected by recreational activities. On
the other hand, urban pressure takes its full signifcance in
the evolution of space organization of ordinary nature.
This can infuence ecosystems or remarkable species when
urbanization destroys or damages corridors that used to
ensure the functionality of a whole landscape by connec-
ting ordinary and remarkable milieux.
Regarding landscapes, the two disciplines also ask
different questions. But they do converge on land use
and changes in land use, even if specifc concerns about
management or economic development belong to each
discipline. Thus, a study carried out in the French Alps
highlighted a common socio-economic and environmental
analysis by identifying indicators of land use: landscape
fragmentation, evolution of linear corridors for the en-
vironment; demographic trends and increase in building
permits for the economy. Other research in the European
context found the concept of land use functions (Sensor
IP, 2006).
The second part of the presentation dealt with scales of
analysis (temporal or spatial). Economics (or sociology) call
upon various scales, answering mainly to administrative
perimeters (area Nuts 2, Nuts 3, common Nuts 5 in the
French case...). It concerns statistical data available (or
not) at a pan-European dimension; more local analysis
makes it possible to highlight evolutions at fner scales
and calls for qualitative information collection revealing
the importance of institutional dimensions. Environmental
data can be overlayedwith these zonings, such as land use
cartographies (Corine Landcover), inventories of protec-
tion zonings, or cartography of the natUra2000 network.
However, this level of data is very global and not suitable
to areas of very complex landscape mosaic, as in the case
of mountain areas. For many ecological questions, it is ne-
cessary to go down to a fner level of information by habi-
tat mapping. These data are not generalized. To combine
the two disciplines requires working in a common area of
analysis that could be supplemented by fner approaches
carried out by each discipline.
The temporal scale of the two disciplines can be relatively
similar and requires less disciplinary adaptation than the
spatial scale. Indeed, over the 50 past years and in 10-year
sample steps, the two disciplines can combine their data,
for example of successive censuses (e.g., population and
agriculture) and land cover photos interpreted from aerial
photography.
Lastly, the question of indicators was addressed. The
nature and sensitivity of indicators able to refect a process
is questioned in the same manner for the two disciplines.
It is the same for indicator availability at a European scale.
As an example, analysis of the impact of a peri-urban land
use pressure in a Regional Natural Park (Parc Naturel Regi-
onal, PNR) was given. The analysis of its sustainability did
not lead to the creation of a mixed indicator but rather to
some joint indicators. For example:
analysis of municipal population growth rate related
to travel time to the city (this analysis being able to be
refned by social and economic category and age of
new residents);
percentage of change between two dates in land use,
which can be related to population growth rate.
At plot level, data overlay between land zoning (urbanised
classifed surfaces) and aerial photo interpretation of land
use makes it possible to quantify and locate areas actually
consumed by residential use, and available land reserves.
This also makes it possible to identify the type of land use
on which urbanization actually occurred. To identify the
rate and localization of land reserves that are still available
can help mediation between municipalities and PNRs,
and help build a vision of future land use if all currently
planned buildings were actually constructed.
The three pillars of sustainability require defning a
common feld on the level of temporal and space scales
26
and on the type of indicators. To go beyond requires
addressing the questions on a hierarchical basis, and
asking more ecological or more economic and/or social
questions, dropping the notion of a common interface in
favour of specifc disciplinary questions.
2.2.4. Shaping our future urban landscapes
experiences from Bavaria
Didier Vancutsem (IsoCarp & Vancutsem Stadtplaner
Landchaftsarchitekten, Mnchen, Germany)
In July 2005, the community of Fraunberg, in the Munich
region, made headlines: in a village that wants to keep its
identity, the council abolished traditional activity zones in
the land use development plan.
So kann das nicht weiter gehen (This cannot go on),
Mayor Wiesmaier declared two years ago, as his munici-
pality of 3400 inhabitants was again faced with the pro-
blem of peripheral urban extension. The council was sure
of its strategy as it decided to abolish all activity zones
in the periphery. In their place, an exchange platform of
buildings and plots was established. It became possible
for enterprises to use disused farmland; in comparison
with industrial zones, investment costs were reduced. The
urban structure of the community was preserved, and
most workplaces are still in the village centre.
Sustainable Landscape
Despite our cities urban transformations, problematic
economic growth and strict intervention of nature protec-
tion services, soil consumption is still very high. Today, the
Bavarian State has a daily consumption of 20 hectares.
The federal government goal to reduce current soil con-
sumption of 93 hectares to 30 hectares is utopian. Unless
current instruments are implemented forcefully, and new
ones are introduced, this goal will not be reached even if
economic growth should be slow.
The most recent demographic indicators for Germany
taking births, life expectancy and immigration into
account show a shrinking population. The German po-
pulation will drop from 82 million (in 2000) to 68 million
(in 2050). More important than this reduction, however,
is the populations average age. The number of people
over 60 will increase from 17.5 million (in 2000) to 28
million (in 2050). This defcit could be compensated by a
net immigration of 3.4 million, which, however, is not a
realistic assumption.
Our consumption of resources should allow sustainable
development. But land consumption is currently too high.
Conclusion: high land consumption cannot be tolerated.
Solutions must be found, in urban transformation and
planning methods.
Our landscapes: laboratories of urban transformation
and urban sprawl.
Our cities and regions are facing various paradoxical
challenges:
low income, higher social costs;
unused infrastructures, high maintenance costs;
more economic competition, social cohesion at risk;
disappearance of the European city, erosion of our
society.
How could our cities and regions react creatively to these
developments?
Today, 75 per cent of the European population lives in
urbanised areas. In 2020, more than 80 per cent of the
population will be urban and the phenomenon of urban
sprawl will be omnipresent all over Europe.
In the past, some cities opted for compact growth the
city of Munich is one example. The Munich development
strategy applied since 2000 has produced some impres-
sive results.
Urban landscape typology
Our landscapes mirror our society what types of lands-
capes will we have in the near future?
Our cultural landscape is undergoing a rapid and com-
plex transformation process. It is subject to increasingly
intense, global pressure; yet it is still considered as a
commodity. Locations loss of identity is common, points
of identifcation are fast disappearing.
Will our future landscapes be used for energy production,
monoculture, multi-functionality, transformation, or for
history and nature conservation? Our generation has to
decide.
27
2.3. Workshops Plenary Session 2:
summaries
2.3.1. Urbanisation: changes of the built
environment
Workshop 2/1
Moderator:
Manfred Perlik (Gebirgsforschung: Mensch und
Umwelt Forschungsstelle der sterreichischen
Akademie, Innsbruck, Austria & ETH Zrich,
Switzerland)
This conference was intended to show impacts of the
current urbanisation process on alpine landscapes, and to
discuss these changes in terms of land use, conformati-
on of the built environment, and regional development.
It is an especially signifcant topic for the following two
reasons:
cities and agglomerations are increasing, both within
and outside the alpine region. Hence, the number
of rural areas used by urban populations for leisure
and recreational purposes is also increasing. These
areas are slowly being transformed into urbanised
landscapes, although this often only shows on closer
inspection.
in spatial development circles, a debate on land use
for housing and transport is raging under the label
of land consumption. New architectural and design
disciplines have entered the fray disciplines that
primarily consider the aesthetics of landscape and
anthropogenic impacts.
1
They have a visual perception
of landscape change and use images to try and exert
some infuence.
It has therefore been the intention of this Workshop to
contrast aspects of the material basis and socio-cultu-
ral construction of landscapes, their interrelations and
underlying driving forces. Discussion was based on three
input presentations of case studies on alpine landscapes,
focusing on
economic interest of external and local actors, in
particular investors;
new socio-cultural housing, leisure and life-style
needs;
marketing, design and architecture as spatially rele-
vant actors.
Marie Wozniak (French ministry of environment, Paris /
Grenoble, France), discussed new demands on the built
environment in her input contribution.
From 1946 to 1977, skiing resorts of the stations in-
1 Schuler, M.,Dessemontet, P. et al. 2006: Atlas des rumlichen
Wandels der Schweiz. Bern. S. 8
33
particular concern on the Ukrainian part. This issue was
further discussed during Workshop 3/4 of Forum Alpi-
num: Cooperation in European Mountains the example
of the Alpine and Carpathian Conventions.
2.3.5. Soil system services in mountain
environments
Workshop 2/5
Moderators:
Christine Alewell (Institut fr
Umweltgeowissenschaften, Universitt Basel,
Switzerland)
Eva Spehn (Botanisches Institut, Universitt Basel,
Switzerland & Global Mountain Biodiversity
Assessment gmba)
Introduction
Changes in climate and land use practices affect alpine
biodiversity and the stability of alpine soils. The integrity
of alpine ecosystems is crucial to sustain important ecosys-
tem services such as drinking water production, food
prevention and slope stability. Thus, the stability of alpine
soils has a high ecological and economic value for todays
society. The workshop explored the likely effects of global
change on soil stability in the Alps and its consequences
for the lowlands.
Erich Tasser (European Academy, Bozen/Bolzano, Italy)
discussed in his input presentation the effects of land-
use changes on vegetation rooting and soil stability.
Erika Hiltbrunner (Botanisches Institut, Universitt Basel,
Switzerland & Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment
gmBa) presented a contribution addressing global change
impacts on alpine soils.
Further, contributions by the following workshop par-
ticipants are included in this report: Katrin Meusburger
(University of Basel, Switzerland) Ludwig Braun (Commis-
sion for Glaciology of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences,
Munich, Germany), Roland Psenner (Institute of Ecology,
University of Innsbruck, Austria), Jean-Jaques Brun, cemag-
reF, St. Martin dHres, France).
Outcome of the workshop
The stability of alpine soils is infuenced by multiple factors
(e.g. global warming, nitrogen deposition, land use chan-
ge), interacting and reinforcing each other.
Land use change effects on soil stability:
The present situation in the Alps leads partly to an aban-
donment of high alpine lands and partly to an inten-
sifcation of easily accessible areas. Loss of agricultural
land in the Swiss Alps between 1979/85 and 1992/97
amounted to approx. 18000 ha, with most of the land
being changed to bushes, forests and woods (Areastatistik
Schweiz, BFS). Simultaneously, animal numbers increa-
sed, tripling livestock density on the remaining land from
1950 until today. For example, livestock in the Urseren
Valley (Meusburger & Alewell in prep) shows an increase
of 1000 to nearly 8000 sheep, and 800 to 1500 cattle
since the 1960s. This increase in livestock has important
consequences on soil stability and thus, on the water and
nutrient cycles. Changes in vegetation composition and
rooting leads to a change of erosion risk. A comparison
of aerial photographs from 1959 and 2004 showed a
dramatic increase of eroded area by 92% over 45 years.
This was caused mainly by changes in land use practice
rather than the mere increase in animal numbers, e.g. no
herded summering but uncontrolled grazing in grasslands
with low soil stability.
What determines erodibility of alpine soils?
In the Passeier Valley (South Tyrol) and Stubai Valley (Tyrol),
important factors which infuence erodibility in alpine soils
were exposition (East, South-East), slope inclination, soil
depth, land use type (abandoned land), rooting depth and
root density (Tasser et al 2003). Biodiversity of alpine land
decreased with intensifcation as well as with abandon-
ment, but was highest in traditionally managed meadows.
The latter also had the higher root densities (up to 120
km/m
2
) than intensively used meadows and abandoned
land with dwarf shrubs (20-40 km/m
2
).
In the study of Hiltbrunner on the Furka Pass (central
Swiss Alps), erosion rates (runoff and sediment loss)
where correlated to vegetation cover but not to diversity
of alpine grasslands. Dense plant cover is key against
erosion in steep slopes, whereas species number/plant
diversity is not directly linked to runoff or sediment loss
due to high variability (Hiltbrunner).
The presence of different plant functional types (e.g.
dwarf shrubs) has a major impact on surface water runoff.
As dwarf shrubs signifcantly increased soil erosion and
decreased slope stability at the Austrian site, Tasser recom-
mended that abandoned areas on steeper slopes should
be reafforested as rapidly as possible to avoid the suc-
cession stage dominated by dwarf shrubs. Dwarf shrubs
were also found to decrease surface runoff (Hiltbrunner).
However, evaluation of aerial photographs of the Urseren
Valley (Switzerland) showed that landslide susceptibility
was reduced with higher dwarf shrub cover (Meusburger,
Univ. of Basel). These different results of the two sites led
to a discussion of the infuence of dwarf shrub effects on
stability/erosion of soils and therefore of their role during
succession after abandonment of managed grasslands.
We conclude that the effect of dwarf shrubs depends on
the specifc invading dwarf shrub species (e.g. Rhodo-
dendron ferrugineum seems to have a positive effect on
34
soil stability), and on the soil type. Land slides and surface
erosion are caused by two different processes: overland
fow causes surface erosion, whereas the retention of
overland fow (e.g. by soil compaction due to heavy gra-
zing) increases subsurface fow, which triggers landslides
and thus, increases landslide risk. Brun reported a case of
induced soil erosion by forest encroachment on aban-
doned slopes on schist soil in the French Alps. Forested
parts were exposed to soil erosion, as trees were too
heavy and induced soil slips. Foresters had to cut trees
out (forest thinning) to reduce weight.
Climate change effects on alpine vegetation, hydrology
and soils
Warming (in the range of +1K) leads to predominantly
negative plant responses (biomass). Snow bed species
were most negatively affected. None of the plant species
was stimulated under warmer conditions. Soluble ni-
trogen deposition exerts signifcant plant responses at
rather low deposition rates (25 kg N ha y). Herb species
were negatively affected by experimental trampling. Most
responses increased with time. Trampling often intensifed
the negative warming impact. Fine root density increased
under warming, but only in combination with N-addition
(Hiltbrunner).
In the discussion, Braun showed that water yield from
catchments with glaciers is enhanced during dry and
hot summers due to excessive ice melt. However, this
compensating effect will be lost once the glaciers are
gone. With further global warming, the solid fraction of
precipitation will diminish at all elevation levels. However,
maximum snow depths are expected to increase at high
elevations (above 2500 m) due to higher precipitation
in winter (glowa-Danube study, www.glowa-danube.
de). This will lead to more runoff in winter and spring,
but less in summer. Processes during snow melt will gain
importance in the future, as higher melt intensitites are
predicted. This will alter the timing and velocity/intensity
of nutrient release from snowpack, changing the concent-
ration and seasonality of nutrients (Psenner). Nitrogen fux
models predicted 10-15 kg ha
-1
y
-1
, but measurements at
2500 m asl showed only 3-5 kg ha
-1
y
-1
in the Central Alps
(Hiltbrunner). 1-3 kg N ha
-1
y
-1
is assumed to be added by
mineralization. As indicated in some areas in the Central
Alps, forest soils started to release signifcant amounts of
nitrate (Psenner).
Climate warming and carbon in alpine soils
C-mineralization showed highest temperature sensitivity
under low incubation temperature, therefore climatic
warming will lead to higher C-mineralization rate in alpine
soils (Wthrich and Hiltbrunner). Since carbon pools
will change over time, the feed-forward mechanism of
increased carbon mineralization at increased temperatures
probably will not persist, but lead to a new equilibrium
over time. The time to reach a new equilibrium depends
on a variety of factors, such as the total carbon pool, the
labile fraction, soil humidity, and permafrost.
Outlook
Tassers data refect the nail and screw concept of the
Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (gmBa) of dIver-
sItas (fg. 6) indicating that a greater variety of roots and
rooting patterns with higher plant diversity increases soil
stability on steep slopes. Tassers data not only showed a
signifcant increase of root density when more grass spe-
cies were present in the vegetation, but also an increase
in soil stability. Roots in alpine grasslands are like a mat of
felt with high mechanical stability reducing gravitational
forces acting on the soil layer (Hiltbrunner). Lets call them
the underground web (Psenner).
Fig. 6: Roots and rhizomes, natures diverse screws and nails for
mountain soils. Mountain ecosystem services depend on slope
stability, which in turn depends on a diverse and intact vegetation
cover with associated animal and microbial life (Krner 2002).
References:
Tasser E., Mader M., Tappeiner U. 2003: Effects of land use in al-
pine grasslands on the probability of landslides. Basic and Applied
Ecology 4: 271-280.
Krner C. 2002: Mountain Biodiversity: its causes and function:
an overview. In: Krner C and Spehn E. (eds): Mountain Biodi-
versity: a global assessment. The Parthenon Publishing Group,
London, New York
35
3. Plenary Session 3:
Cooperation and
decision-making in
landscape management
3.1. Summary
Moderators:
Sandra Luque (CemagreF, St. Martin dHres, France)
Norbert Weixlbaumer (Institut fr Geographie und
Regionalforschung, Universitt Wien, Austria)
The central goal of this session was to analyse the state
of the art on research that would help directly to promote
the understanding among rural regions of how relati-
onships function in ecosystems and to render relevant
processes in landscape management visible. The session
stressed the link between ecological science and decision-
making in theory and practice. A fundamentally different
model of knowledge transfer is required, i.e. a network
rather than a linear model, so that scientists may learn
from practice how to insert local knowledge into their
generic tools.
The session addressed the following topics:
theoretical frameworks regarding aims in decision-ma-
king and realisation of goals in rural development;
tools to improve communication paths between biodi-
versity and ecosystem services and stakeholders;
development of methods to increase cooperation
and communication between conservation scientists,
decision-makers and citizens;
increased research on the understanding of public
attitudes and views on biodiversity and biodiversity
management to develop and present arguments for a
comprehensive approach for socially and environmen-
tally effective ecological outcomes.
With reference to these topics, the frst two presentations
(by G. Wiesinger and M. Coy) concentrated on theoreti-
cal frameworks and methods focusing a socio-economic
approach. The third one (by M. Zebisch & M. Hirschmugl)
discussed the usefulness of technological tools to promote
cooperation and decision-making in landscape manage-
ment.
Georg Wiesinger (Bundesanstalt fr Bergbauernfra-
gen, Vienna, Austria):
The importance of social capital in rural development,
networking and decision-making in rural areas
Rural decline is frequently explained in economic
terms by unfavourable conditions and by missing re-
sources or support. Hence this link is not entirely clear
and does not apply in all regions. Recent discussions
36
strategy. Biosphere Reserves are expected to contri-
bute substantially to the sustainable and well-adapted
socio-cultural, ecological and economic development
of both region and population. In this context, it is
of great relevance to consider local potentials and
restrictions, to fully involve regional stakeholders, and
to consider regional production chains and economic
cycles. Multiplier effects and the success of innova-
tive project ideas rely fundamentally on the ability of
motivating or integrating respective target groups on
a broad basis. Further conducive factors are ongoing
enhanced acceptance by creating awareness and pro-
ving the (economic) feasibility of project ideas.
Results of the analysis fve years post-initiation showed
that successful landscape management, as well as
innovative regional development strategies depend on
the positive perception of spatial planning instruments
such as biosphere reserves. Sustainable innovative
strategies are more easily realised in large protected
areas where the gap between inside and outside
perspective is not too great. The study showed that
expectations of local residents and their assessment of
concrete implementation measures concerning the Bi-
osphere Reserve policy should not diverge. The author
pointed out that, in accordance with the integrative
paradigm of nature conservation, it is essential to
accompany evaluation and acceptance-enhancement
of Biosphere Reserve as a mental construct both on
the inside and from outside. Discussion and positive
results of this study have shown that perception of
landscape management can be a useful instrument
for evaluating landscape development projects. An
important point raised by the plenary was the need
to implement a truly participative process in order to
achieve truly bottom-up management. Taking into
consideration the needs of the local population and
local agents was found to be a key step towards ge-
nuinely sustainable conservation management.
Marc Zebisch (Institute for Applied Remote Sensing,
European Academy Bozen/Bolzano, Italy) & Manuela
Hirschmugl (Institute of Digital Imaging Processing,
Joanneum Research, Graz, Austria):
How can remote sensing support landscape planning
and landscape management in mountain regions?
A joint presentation by Marc Zebisch and Manuela
Hirschmugl focused on Remote sensing and its appli-
cation for monitoring at the landscape level to use a
different approach and explore state of the art tech-
niques that may help to promote our understanding
of relationships in ecosystems and to visualise relevant
processes in landscape management as outlined in the
objectives of this conference.
Remote sensing has a long tradition in landscape
planning and landscape management. Particularly the
39
the international context e.g., as role model for rural
regions)?
what is the outside perspective of the Biosphere Reser-
ve Groes Walsertal? Does this view conform to the
paradoxical perception internationally typical for pro-
tected areas (outside ones own settlement area they
are rated essential, while they are rated non-essential
in ones own surroundings)?
What kind of inside perspective exists in the region after
the frst fve years of the Biosphere Reserve? What do the
local populations mental maps look like and what recom-
mendations can be deduced for the future development
of the Biosphere Reserve in combination with the results
at different research levels?
3.2.3. How can remote sensing support
landscape planning and landscape
management in mountain regions?
Manuela Hirschmugl (Institute of Digital Imaging
Processing, Joanneum Research, Graz, Austria)
Marc Zebisch (Institute for Applied Remote Sensing,
European Academy Bozen/Bolzano, Italy)
Keywords
remote sensing, landscape planning, monitoring, scale
Remote sensing has a long tradition in landscape planning
and landscape management. Particularly the use of aerial
photography for mapping land cover and landscape ele-
ments is a widespread approach and an excellent supple-
ment of feld work. Today, recent satellite-based sensors
offer new opportunities for remote sensing applications in
various spatial and temporal scales.
One beneft that satellite data can offer is the opportunity
for semi-automatic image interpretation. Satellite data
not only provide visual images of landscapes but contain
quantitative physical information about the refectance
of landscape objects. Only this digital and quantitative
information enables the interpretation and classifcation
of satellite data with semi-automatic, computer-assisted
processes that are reproducible, time and cost effective,
and allow the integration of additional data as well as
expert knowledge.
The very short update intervals of satellite data constitute
a second advantage. Depending on resolution and type
of the sensor, data are available typically every 1 30
days. In combination with semi-automatic interpretation
methods, this allows monitoring dynamic landscape pro-
cesses, a point which is becoming increasingly important
42
Internet, for example via Google Earth. In a decision-ma-
king context, models are not only used to represent an
existing situation, they are also used to predict and assess
the effects of potential changes (Bishop & Lange 2005).
In his framework for landscape planning, Steinitz (1990)
distinguishes between representational models (e.g.
maps, visualisations), process models (e.g. climate change
models), evaluation models (e.g. evaluation of landscape
qualities), change models (e.g. scenarios), impact models
(e.g. evaluation of impacts of proposed changes) and
decision models (e.g. how to reach a decision).
The modelling process itself can involve modelling both
visible and invisible features and processes. Modelling
outputs can be communicated in abstract (e.g. tables) or
realistic format (e.g. 3D visualisation).
Landscape modelling and visualisation as instruments for
planning and decision-making (Swiss National Research
Programme Landscape and Habitats of the Alps, NRP 48)
In order to show the potentials and limitations of model-
ling applications in planning and decision-making in the
synthesis phase of the NRP 48, all contributions in the
feld of landscape modelling were reviewed and assessed
in terms of their potential for application to decision-ma-
king in planning processes (Walz et al. 2007). Modelling
contributed to a wide range of aspects of landscape re-
search, e.g., driving forces, patterns and processes as well
as impacts of landscape change, and also when it came to
linking models and techniques (fg. 7).
Micro-simulation of alpine landscape transition due to
local agent behaviour and climate change experiences
to support qualitative foresight scenarios from the
Montafon Region, Austria (proVIsIon research programme)
Modelling land-use change often refers either to areas in
which change turns out to be related to human activi-
ties, or related to environmental changes without human
interference.
The approach applied on the Montafon region tried to
cope with these issues through simulating landscape
transition by an agent-based model. Agents (households,
farmers, entrepreneurs) change land use actively through
construction activities or passively through extensifcation
of agriculture in steep or remote terrain. The gIsmo model
(fg. 8) further adds some mapping and GIS-functionality
to the authors Repast-ABM environment (http://repast.
sourceforge.net) developed earlier (Loibl & Peters-Anders
2003, Loibl et al. 2007). The actor-agents are here hidden
below the model surface but occur as activity results the
agents on the models landscape are visible as additional
buildings due to home-building and tourism activities,
and as additional forest patches due to decline of cattle
breeding. The transition of land use is thus triggered by
land-use change probability surfaces out of a set of topo-
graphic and topologic criteria. Climate change in general
directly contributes to landscape changes by increasing
the frequency of natural disasters, shifting the timberline
and changing economic conditions for (winter) tourism,
which relies on certain climate conditions.
Fig. 7: Frame from an animated virtual walk towards the propo-
sed Schatzalp building (Walz et al. 2007)
Fig. 8: User interface for the gIsmo model showing the Montafon
model site (Loibl, proVIsIon)
Points for discussion
The two examples from Davos by Ariane Walz (Insti-
tut fr Schnee- und Lawinenforschung slF/wsl, Davos,
Switzerland): Landscape modelling and visualisation as
instruments for planning and decision-making) and the
Montafon region by Wolfgang Loibl (Umweltplanung,
ARC Seibersdorf research GmbH, Seibersdorf, Austria):
Micro-simulation of alpine landscape transition due to
local agents behaviour and climate change experiences
The actual synthesis phase extended existing approaches
by implementing a modelling procedure including the
formulation of use cases by transferring the application
of an existing agent-based model (Cavens et al. 2005,
Gloor et al. 2003) to a new use case in Davos. Further-
more, through stakeholder involvement, expectations
and thoughts on modelling applications in planning and
decision-making were identifed.
43
to support qualitative foresight scenarios from the Mon-
tafon Region, Austria) to which landscape modelling was
applied generate a number of questions such as
what are the specifc modelling tools needed in plan-
ning practice and for decision-making?;
what is the role of modelling and visualization in
decision-making?;
should modelling be linked stakeholder involvement?;
what level of accuracy is required in an often time-
constrained decision-making process?
Conclusions
Experimental approaches via landscape modelling can
help to increase our knowledge base in the feld of spatial
and landscape planning and can assist in decision-making.
Simulation models can be represented as virtual worlds
where experiments can be conducted and the effect of
alternative scenarios demonstrated.
Modelling fulfls functions such as knowledge genera-
tion, communication and information, evaluation and
also helps in understanding systems to improve decision
making.
In a participatory planning context, it is of particular
importance that the modelling output can be understood
by the end-user. It must also be rememberd, however,
that models are often characterised by a (high) degree
of uncertainty due to underlying base data or the actual
modelling process itself. However, data availability and
accessibility has been improving and the functionality
and interfaces of models are becoming more sophisti-
cated. The question should also be raised why models
and resulting data are typically not made available to the
public even though many research projects are fnanced
by publicly-funded research agencies.
Outlook
Models will become increasingly important in assisting
complex decision-making processes in landscape and envi-
ronmental planning. However, models are often designed
for a specifc purpose. That is why it is often quite a com-
plex task to transfer models to different regions and / or
scales and to integrate them with other models that were
most likely created for a different purpose, region and
scale. Improved data availability and modelling function-
ality, wider accessibility as well as easier-to-use interfaces
will help to overcome these obstacles.
References
Bishop, I. & E. Lange 2005 (eds.): Visualization in Landscape and
Environmental Planning. Technology and applications. Taylor &
Francis, London, New York.
Cavens, D., C. Gloor, E. Lange, K. Nagel & W. A. Schmid 2005:
44
and outsiders) in alpine landscape decision making,
is the SEA a suitable tool to take this dimension into
account?
Benedetta Castiglioni provided in her input presentation
(SEA and regional planning: the place of landscape chan-
ge in the alpine region) some reference points concer-
ning both SEA and landscape (frstly from the European
Landscape Convention), in order to point out the context
in which to consider their relationship.
In particular, landscape-change evaluation plays a very
important role in a strategic assessment aiming at
sustainability. The presentation drew attention to how
different approaches to landscape evaluation arise from
different theoretical and methodological approaches
to landscape (in synthesis: landscape as a sectorial or a
holistic concept; landscape in its strictly visual aspect or as
an empirical manifestation of territory; exceptional place
or ordinary landscape; conservation and protection or
change management; lite or democratic landscape;
landscape as a commodity or as a resource for living). The
presentation underscored that landscape critical analysis
and evaluation could usefully be inserted in SEA processes
because it is a useful tool to ensure coherence among
various aspects (i.e. in the Environmental Report); it
strengthens the possibility of including and making visible
different agents points of view; it encourages imaginative
scenarios; and, fnally, it can help placing territorial and
environmental analysis and participatory processes into
useful relationships.
The second input presentation was held by Viviana
Ferrario (Universit IUav di Venezia, Italy) on Post-rural
landscapes in the Alps in contexts of abandonment,
mountain agriculture and leisure Evaluation: perceptions
and decision-making. She presented a case study in the
alpine region concerning an ongoing process of landscape
change and its evaluation.
Researchers are well aware of the fact that the rural Alps
are at the intersection of two global processes, i.e., the
decline of mountains as life spaces and the decline of
agriculture as an economic activity. The decline of the tra-
ditional alpine agro-pastoral economic system has visible
consequences, i.e. in the guise of slope abandonment,
reafforestation, urbanisation of the valley foor, industriali-
sation of agriculture.
In the Veneto mountains (and in many other parts of
the Alps), this process expresses itself particularly in the
aspects of abandonment and transformation of rural
sloped areas and of historic rural buildings considered no
longer useful to rural activity. Planners usually approach
the issue of abandoned rural buildings in the context of
heritage conservation of the traditional rural landscape.
However, such buildings are not only relicts of a dead
world. Their increasing re-use as weekend homes and
mostly the transformation of their rural context into leisu-
re landscapes seems to suggest the existence of a new
way to relate to rural mountain territories. This may be
refected by major landscape changes, often creating local
conficts (between the different agents involved local
inhabitants, owners, tourists, local administration, etc.
but also with the environment and heritage conservati-
on agencies), and a demand for specifc policies for these
new territories. The creation of such policies requires
a refned assessment effort in which landscape changes
must be considered not only as regards their physical
components, but also as regards the transformation of
public perceptions, ideas and the different aspirations of
the public concerning landscape, in the new sense given
by the European Landscape Convention. A case study in
the Veneto mountains (Comelico Valley) was presented in
this workshop to simulate a possible use of the landscape
notion in the assessment process.
Landscape evaluation group gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. Shared
criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 list
Local identity 14 4 1 3 6 1 1 4 5 7 2 1 2 2 1
Biodiversity 1 5 12 2 15 9 3 2 1 1 4 4 4 5 2
Cultural heritage conservation 4 3 3 9 5 5 2 3 6 6 14 7 5 6 3
Hydro-geological stability 6 6 11 1 1 10 8 1 9 2 3 6 9 11 4
Participation of stakeholders 3 10 10 5 13 3 9 6 10 10 5 2 11 1 5
Social impact 5 11 5 7 4 7 11 9 3 8 15 8 10 3 6
Aesthetics 7 1 4 11 16 2 4 11 8 13 13 13 1 4 7
Information of stakeholders 2 9 9 4 14 10 10 5 4 9 6 3 13 12 8
Demographic stability 12 12 2 6 11 6 13 8 7 11 1 5 10 7 9
Panorama 9 2 6 12 9 4 7 13 11 3 16 16 3 10 10
Noise 11 7 7 13 2 8 6 16 15 4 10 14 8 15 11
Tourist attractiveness 8 15 15 10 12 13 12 7 9 14 8 12 6 8 12
Smell 15 8 8 14 3 12 5 15 16 5 11 15 7 16 13
New jobs 13 16 14 8 7 14 14 10 12 12 12 11 16 9 14
Income increase 10 13 16 16 8 16 16 14 13 15 7 10 15 13 15
Land rent increase 16 14 13 15 10 15 15 12 14 16 9 9 14 14 16
Fig. 9: Scale of Obliged Priority
45
After the two input presentations, participants were
involved in the creation of a SoOP (Scale of Obliged Pri-
ority) concerning landscape evaluation criteria. They frst
proposed a theoretical, graded list of priorities arising
from the discussion of small groups and summarised in
a shared list. In the table (fg. 9) the different columns
present the opinion of the small groups and the shared
list (assigning 1 to the most, 16 to the least important
criteria).
In the ensuing discussion the list was applied and com-
pared with the hypothetical lists (priorities hypotheti-
cally given by different local territorial agents) standing
beneath the different landscape-change choices presented
by V. Ferrario for the case study.
The workshop discussion focused on the general question
of landscape evaluation rather than on technical aspects
of the SEA; different positions arose concerning lands-
cape evaluation criteria, probably linked also to different
landscape contexts in the alpine region each participant
referred to.
In this sense, it would probably be very useful to have a
wider discussion on these topics, not to force a standar-
dization of criteria, but to achieve a higher and shared
awareness of the complexity of landscape issues, both in
their theoretical and applied aspects.
3.3.4. Cooperation in European mountains
the example of the Alpine and
Carpathian Conventions
Workshop 3/4
Moderator:
Harald Egerer (Interim Secretariat of the
Carpathian Convention, United Nations
Environment Programme, Vienna, Austria)
Leading questions
What are the main substantive (research) areas in need
of / with potential for cooperation, within the Carpathi-
ans and between the Carpathians and other mountain
ranges? How can research partnerships between moun-
tain regions be encouraged? What are possibilities for
public-private partnerships and possible funding sources?
These questions were discussed by a panel with con-
tributions by Regula Imhof (Permanent Secretariat of
the Alpine Convention, Innsbruck, Austria), Gianfranco
Tamburelli (Institute for International Legal Studies IsgI,
National Research Council CNR, Rome, Italy), Marc Ze-
bisch (European Academy eUrac, Bozen/Bolzano, Italy) and
Jacek Kozak (Jagellonian University, Krakow, Poland).
Conclusions
The Workshop was organized at the ForumAlpinum 2007,
which is the leading symposium on research in the Alps
organized by Iscar (International Scientifc Committee on
Research in the Alps). The Workshop was mainly attended
by some of the leading European institutions for remote
sensing, satellite imagery and 3D modelling in the Alps,
who express a major interest in becoming active in the
Carpathian mountain range.
A frst consideration was that there is a lack of Pan-Car-
pathian, and of panalpine mountain research as well. As
there is a growing interest in research in the Carpathians,
there is considerable potential for research cooperation
between the Alps and the Carpathians. In the case of the
Carpathians, it seems currently easier to strengthen re-
search cooperation between mountain ranges than within
one mountain range.
Political processes (including e.g. Alpine and Carpathian
Conventions, Conventions under development) should
aspire to defne main needs of research and coordinate
research efforts. For this, a research agenda needs to
be defned by the Conventions. Convention secretariats
cannot keep large databases but could act as spiders
in the web and maintain minimum harmonised data-
sets. Research agendas for mountain ranges should be
mutually interlinked and never loose sight of the pan-Eu-
ropean agenda (InspIre etc.). Research networks need to be
enhanced, e.g. a research network for the Carpathians is
required and cooperation with the Forum Alpinum for this
purpose should be sought.
Recommendations
create a research mailing list for the Carpathians,
organize a meeting in Vienna, link it to upcoming ESF
and cost research workshops;
build up a Carpathian Network of Scientists by or-
ganising an open science meeting on research in the
Carpathians (ForumCarpaticum);
prepare a Carpathian Research Agenda;
develop the idea of a Carpathian or Alpine-Carpathian
Research summit (e.g. in conjunction with COP2);
create a voluntary informal partnership aiming at
enhancing the Carpathian research agenda and its
interrelations with the Alps, with other mountains in
Europe, and with the rest of the world;
create a complete baseline of the Carpathians
before transition (e.g. 2005) based on remote sensing
/ satellite imagery / 3D modelling of, in particular, land
cover information of the Carpathian mountain range;
used this baseline to analyse mid and long-term
changes of land cover in the Carpathian Mountains,
a major indicator for almost all sectors concerning a
territorial Convention.
46
47
4. Plenary Session 4:
Landscapes role in a
changing society
4.1. Summary
Moderator:
Hans Karl Wytrzens (Institut fr nachhaltige
Wirtschaftsentwicklung, Universitt fr
Bodenkultur boku, Vienna, Austria)
The concluding Plenary Session focused on interactions
between landscape development and societal change.
From a socio-economic perspective, this focus was an
essential complement. While, in the course of the forum,
numerous contributions addressed on valuation and
analytical tools to monitor landscape development in
mountain areas, specifc societal objectives as such were
not explored. A more rounded and more easily compre-
hensible impression of how to qualify landscape changes
can only emerge if societal values and needs related to
landscape become part our considerations. The Plenary
Session therefore specifcally examined interrelations
between the demand for landscape and land(scape)-use.
In doing so, a shift in temporal perspective occurred, from
more retrospective analyses towards a primarily forward-
looking view. Accordingly, presentations used various
approaches to explore landscape as an object of societal
demands, as a negotiable resource and, fnally, as a multi-
functional space.
Using results from research projects such as the EU-fun-
ded sensor Project for the development of sustainability
impact assessment tools for environmental, social and
economic effects of multifunctional land use in Europe-
an regions, and using results of integral research pro-
grammes such as the Swiss National Research Programme
48 Landscapes and Habitats in the Alps, presenters
traced, analysed and projected current trends in landscape
development. Their ultimate goal was to fnd answers to
the perhaps somewhat dramatic key question of the signi-
fcance of mountain landscapes in future societies.
In this context and in a process of free association, various
subordinate questions imposed themselves:
Does our society actually perceive landsape primarily
as that proverbial stage on which the great play of
the world is enacted?
Is and will landscape remain a record of all human ac-
tivities that was not originally or deliberately shaped or
perceived, and that has its own very strong dynamics?
Is landscape increasingly being transformed into a
designable resource?
Will the mountains in the heartland of Europe be re-
48
Bernard Lehmann (Institut fr Agrarwirtschaft IAW,
ETH Zrich, Switzerland):
Landscapes: from by-product to resource selected
conclusions from the Swiss NRP 48 Landscapes and
Habitats of the Alps
Similarly, Lehmann discerned two contrasting sides to
the phenomenon of landscape, whose position seems
to be shifting from scarcely registered by-product
to separately appreciated resource whose valuation
prompts new questions, in particular that of who shall
own what rights in this complex landscape-generating
system. In the course of the discussion, the funda-
mental question was raised of whether the concept of
landscape as merely a construct of the human mind
might not overlook the fact that landscape develop-
ment occasionally escapes human infuence, with
natures own dynamics imposing itself.
Norbert Kruchi (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest,
Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf,
Switzerland) & Katharina Helming (Leibniz-Centre for
Agricultural Landscape Research ZalF, Mnchenberg,
Germany):
Assessing land-use impacts on landscape goods and
services the specifc case of mountain landscapes
The principle of multifunctionality simultaneously con-
siders a variety of social, economic and environmental
goods and services related to land use. It is thus a key
to sustainable development of land and rural areas.
Land-use planning and policy-making seek to sup-
port the economic competitiveness and sustainable
development of rural areas. Effcient Impact Assess-
ments require policy makers to be given tools for
assessing anticipated policy impacts on a wide range
of sustainability issues across European regions. The
EU-funded Integrated Project sensor develops ex-ante
Sustainability Impact Assessment Tools (sIat) to support
decision-making on policies related to multifunctional
land use in European regions. This paper provides an
overview on the analytical approach in sensor and
documents preliminary results focusing specifcally on
mountain landscapes. Special attention will be paid to
identifed shifting key issues in mountain regions and
the need for better coordination and dissemination of
experiences between regions and countries.
Kruchi and Helming addressed impacts on sustaina-
bility that society should expect from various land-use
options. They presented the main features of a model
that permits running through various impact parame-
ters to assess their landscape-changing effects. The
model provides information for decisions on future
landscape development, information that is required
more and more urgently because of a notable shift in
the fundamental relationship between humans and
landscape, insofar as a casual co-product is trans-
5u
4.2.2. Landscapes: from by-product to
resource selected conclusions from
the Swiss NRP 48 Landscapes and
Habitats of the Alps
Bernard Lehmann (Institut fr Agrarwirtschaft,
IAW, ETH Zrich, Switzerland)
Keywords
Land use and adding value, change, perception, policies,
virtual representation
NRP 48 was launched in 2000 with fve main topics to be
developed simultaneously in order to
show and understand processes of change affecting
landscapes and habitats; and identify main reasons
and drivers [change];
show and understand how landscapes and habitats
are perceived; and identify reasons for differences in
perception among various segments of the population
[perception, appreciation];
show and understand what institutional frameworks
can identify needs for action and design collective
goals of landscape development; and how approp-
riate policies can be implemented in a participatory,
consensual process [policies, incentives];
show and understand what potentials of adding value
have existed, and continue to exist, considering the
increased relevance of landscape [land use and adding
value];
6u
Finding innovative and shared solutions to face socio-
economic decline and its consequences in peripheral
rural areas of the Alps is another challenge the Alpine
Space Programme has tackled effectively. The migration
of young and dynamic people and the resulting rising
proportion of ageing alpine populations, often leads to
the dismantling of public services and existing spatial
structures in many areas of the Alps.
The project AlpCity (Local endogenous develop-
ment and urban regeneration of small Alpine towns)
fosters the creation of a polycentric urban system and
a sustainable urban-rural relationship in fragile natural
environments of the Alps. It aims to raise awareness
of the revitalisation of small towns in the Alpine Space
area by sharing and improving common knowledge
and understanding on key issues. The project promo-
tes and supports local innovative actions and ap-
proaches by developing case-studies in the following
four topic areas: economic development, services and
quality of life, urban environment and cooperation
among towns. AlpCity endorses collection, exchange
and search of good and best practices in these areas.
Lessons learned represent the basis for the formulati-
on of recommendations and policy guidance.
Various projects, networks and institutions in the Alpine
Space are dealing with similar Alpine problems. In order to
bundle and make available existing data, knowledge and
best practice experiences, several projects have developed
shared indicators and tools for regional development.
In the context of DIamont (Data Infrastructure for the
Alps: Mountain Orientated Network Technology),
a network of specialists on Alpine development has
elaborated an Alp-wide information system, and per-
formed a selection of relevant Alp-wide indicators for
regional development. This process includes concrete
testing of the usefulness and relevance of selected
regional development instruments. In this perspec-
tive, workshops are held aiming to ascertain the main
stakeholders opinions on instruments provided. The
workshops promote public participation in policy ma-
king by involving stakeholders and citizens and thus
raising their awareness. These workshops are currently
being held within the test regions; the results will be
presented in autumn 2007.
The Alpine Space Programme 2007-2013
In the programming period 2000-2006, the partners and
regions developed stable networks, witnessing the strong
commitment of projects to fulfll the programmes major
target of a common sustainable development strategy.
The cooperation continues in the Structural Fund period
running from 2007 to 2013. The Interreg Community
Initiative has been upgraded to European Territorial
71
production, etc.)?
Where is it necessary to maintain a well-kept lands-
cape?
In addition to analysing the notion of landscape preserva-
tion, we will also identify landscape preferences now and
in a prospective trend.
Our approach combines two methods: a questionnaire
and qualitative interviews with a representative sample
of the population (farmers, foresters, residents, tourists,
administrative people, members of NGOs, etc.). Some
prospective points will also be discussed in focus groups.
Theoretically speaking, we consider the landscape as a
relative notion. It results from an interaction between
a subjective view and perceived physical space. There
is no one landscape but several landscapes, weighted
with emotions, values and projections. How landscape is
weighted varies according to social background and indi-
vidual identity. But in order to analyse how landscape is
perceived, qualifed and expected, it is necessary to refne
the notion of social group. Landscape representations
depend on the complex identity of social actors. Every
individual alternates between different identity contexts
and cannot be reduced to one of them. The notion of
attitude expresses this identity fexibility better. Landscape
representations depend on mobilised attitudes and on
values that inform them. Everybody sees different stakes
and values in one landscape according to his or her own
experience, competencies and social identity. For example,
residents very highly value the identity and habitat values
of a landscape. On the other hand, biologists attribute
greater importance to a landscapes environmental and
spiritual values.
Our objectives are to more precisely defne values inherent
in the different attitudes, more particularly in relation with
landscape preservation. We will also analyse compatibi-
lity or exclusivity between these different values. Finally,
we will propose different landscapes scenarios to the
appreciation of a representative sample of the population.
These different results aim to foster public debates about
landscape management, and to provide valid elements to
facilitate decision making by public authorities.
The CulturALP Project knowledge and
enhancement of historical centres and
cultural landscapes in Alpine space
Luisa Pedrazzini (Regione Lombardia, Milano, Italy
Today, living in mountains territories is no easier than in
the past and the historical settlement system mirrors the
adaptation of local communities, who by choice or from