In: Social Development ISBN: 978-1-60741-612-8
Editor: Lynda R. Elling © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 3
BIOSPHERE RESERVES AS LEARNING SITES
OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
(ACASE STUDY OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC)
Drahomíra Kušová*
, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš
Institute of Systems Biology and Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic,v.v.i. Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic
and
University of South Bohemia, Faculty of Agriculture,
Studentská 13, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic
ABSTRACT
Established under the UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme,
biosphere reserves represent protected areas intended to demonstrate well balanced
relationship between a high level of nature protection and an appropriate local
development, as articulated in the Seville Strategy and reinforced by the Madrid
Declaration. According to their definition, biosphere reserves are to simultaneously fulfill
four functions – conservation of biological diversity, ecological education, research and
promotion of sustainable forms of socioeconomic activities. They can be theoretically
considered learning sites of sustainable development. The chapter contributes primarily
to the discussion on social part of the relationship between nature protection and
socioeconomic development, namely on quality of life of local population living in
protected areas, problems of social acceptance of biodiversity conservation measures and
institutional arrangements applied when biosphere reserve concept is aimed to be
practically implemented. Comparative analysis was conducted in three selected Czech
biosphere reserves in order to challenge a cliché on nature protection and socioeconomic
development to be a priori in contradiction as well as the belief in state nature protection
being the exclusive leader in the process of the concept of biosphere reserve
implementation. Triangulation approach was applied as a fundamental frame for
empirical data acquisition and analysis, combining spatial analysis of data describing
socioeconomic parameters of particular municipalities, semi-standardized interviews with
key personalities, extensive questionnaire survey addressing general public, content
*
e-mail: draku@usbe.cas.cz
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš88
analysis of regional periodicals and case study analysis focused on success and failure
factors in the process of a concrete project implementation. The research results suggest
that biosphere reserves did not differ in quality of life of their inhabitants compared with
surrounding areas. In some cases, the existence of biosphere reserve was even seen as a
comparative advantage – certificate of high quality nature as a base for local tourism
development. In the Czech legislative environment, biosphere reserves are institutionally
associated with administration of protected landscape areas. Such an institutional
arrangement enables executing of state nature protection, providing public with
ecological education, and guaranteeing research on a satisfactory level. There are
problems, however, in supporting of sustainable forms of development. Goal oriented
network, projects driven, of engaged stakeholders is suggested as a more efficient
organizational form in this respect. Evidence of a still ongoing process of learning by
interacting, aimed at using biosphere reserve as a trade mark of some kind, indicates that
the biosphere reserves could as well in practical terms be considered learning sites of
sustainable development. The chapter intends to contribute to the debate on ideas of the
UN Decade on Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014.
Keywords: biosphere reserve, sustainable development, social learning, triangulation
INTRODUCTION
Nature protection has evolved over time, gradually stressing special themes – the
progress can be seen from those starting with protection of particular species to protection of
ecosystems until today, when an appropriate management of large scale landscape areas has
become a focal point. The focus on landscape scale has brought about also a shift in the role
local communities are expected to play in this type of nature protection – satisfaction of their
socioeconomic aspirations has begun to be perceived as an inevitable part of management of
protected areas. Such a tendency is evident in Central Europe, where areas having a status of
being protected cannot be considered pristine landscapes (Getzner & Jungamier, 2000;
Paavola & Adger, 2005). On the contrary, they are permanently populated cultural landscapes
having passed century long transformation by human activities. As a result modern nature
protection measures count with needs of local population in order not to make areas under
protection a priori disadvantaged from socioeconomic viewpoint (Těšitel et al., 2006). Very
important in this context is a definition of nature protection as it was formulated by IUCN in
its World Conservation Strategy. In fact it was anthropocentric as it considered nature
protection to be a management of air, water, soil, mineral resources and living systems,
including man, aimed at achieving sustainable quality of life (IUCN, 1980). Later on, the
strategic shift was reflected by the UNESCO concept of biosphere reserves as it was
articulated in the Seville Strategy and reinforced in the Madrid Declaration. According to its
guiding idea biosphere reserve is to strengthen general awareness of mutual interrelations
between humankind and biosphere by ensuring its four functions - enabling high-level
biodiversity protection1
, supporting research and education, and promoting sustainable forms
of socioeconomic development (UNESCO, 1996, 2001, 2002, 2008).
1
We are aware of the fact that the conservation function is a prerequisite for the biosphere
reserve existence, the chapter, however contributes primarily to the discussion on social
part of the relationship between nature protection and socioeconomic development.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 89
Multiplicity of functions associated with biosphere reserve refers to the concept of
sustainable landscape (Antrop, 2006). Though we can agree with the argument that the whole
notion of sustainable landscape development may involve some contradictions, merging
landscape and sustainability may yield at least two positive results. Discussion on
sustainability acquires spatial dimension (e.g. Price, 2002); on the other hand, the theoretical
concept of cultural landscape (Antrop, 2001; Naveh, 2001; Palang et al., 2005) is „translated“
into a more or less effective political scheme, suitable as a basis for practical decision
making. In this context, sustainable landscape can be considered as a landscape where tradeoffs
between nature protection and socioeconomic aspirations of local communities are
expected to be well balanced. In economic terms it presumes balancing three types of capital
– natural, social and cultural (e.g. Farina, 2000; Garrod et al., 2006). In the rhetoric of
sustainable development these capitals play the role of an internal potential of a particular
region (Jehle 1998), the potential that can be realized when it meets an appropriate external
context (e.g. Kušová et al., 1999; Těšitel et al., 1999).
An attempt to address the interdependence between human economies and natural
ecosystems has been articulated in ecological economics, among others, in terms of
ecosystem services (e.g. Costanza et al., 1997; Brock & Xepapadeas, 2003; Imhoff, 2004;
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Faber, 2008). Though we can consider ecological
economics to represent a paradigm shift (Kaval, 2006), it is evident that the discussion has
primarily a form of an academic debate. As already Constanza (1997) stated in one of the
pioneering articles in the field of ecological economics, because ecosystem services are not
fully �captured’ in commercial markets or adequately quantified in terms comparable with
economic services and manufactured capital, they are often given too little weight in policy
decisions. Since, only a little has changed. As a result, the historically rooted stereotype in
thinking, adopted by experts as well as general public presuming nature protection measures
to be in contradiction with socioeconomic development has been surviving. For nature
protectionists, "marketing" of protected areas is something "dirty", "commercial", not
"suitable" for the field of nature protection (Roth, 2007). On the other side, nature protection
in general and large scale protected areas in particular have a poor image as they are seen
mainly as a burden for regional development by local and regional entrepreneurs and general
public (e.g. van Kooten & Wang, 1998; Paiders, 2007)2
.
The UNESCO concept of biosphere reserve, in the first instance, is a policy objective
aimed at reconciling conservation of biodiversity and biological resources with their
sustainable use, backed up by internationally agreed upon conventions. The concept itself is
2
They are not only nature protection enthusiasts or developers, however, who view the
relation in terms of contradiction. Such a setting is sometimes taking for granted also by
people whose profession is to conserve the nature. The seminar organized by the Czech
Ministry of Environment in autumn 2004, as an event acompanying the film festival titled
„Ekofilm“ devoted to problems of environment annually organised in the towns of České
Budějovice and Český Krumlov in the Czech Republic, could be used as one of practical
examples. The issue to be discussed was a relation between nature protection and local
socioeconomic development. The point was that organizers, representing official position
of the top administrative body of nature protection, titled this event by use of the word
“contra” – “Nature protection contra socioeconomic development of local communities”.
As a result, notion of conflict was introduced at the very outset between representatives
of nature protection and local mayors participating in the seminar (Těšitel et al., 2005a).
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš90
appealing, however its practical application is a subject of wide range of institutional and
administrative challenges (e.g. Parto, 2005; Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2006). One might even
question whether the concept is compatible with the current institutional environment
premised on centralized control over nature protection. By promoting the idea that the
management of each biosphere reserve should be essentially formulated as a �pact’ between
the local community and the society as a whole, the concept invites all interested groups and
sectors for participation in a partnership approach. Doing so it acknowledges the fact that the
capacity (e.g. knowledge, power and resources) to solve complex problem related to the
implementation of the biosphere reserve concept is often widely dispersed across a set of
actors located on different scales (e.g. Imperial, 1999). Such and approach seems to fully
reflect the general tendency of the last decades embodied in the gradual shift from
government towards governance, where responsibility for policy-making spans public and
private sectors, promoting thus increased interest in networks as an organizational concept
when conducting joint action (Parto, 2005). Though networks are interpreted many ways (e.g.
Murdoch, 2000; Gunjan, 2005; Dredge, 2006), they are as a rule supposed to be open-ended,
often unusual, ad hoc arrangements that demonstrate remarkable problem-solving capacity
and open up opportunities for learning and change (Hajer, 2003 a). Policy making under the
new conditions has become a matter of defining an agreed upon package of actions to be
taken by variety of stakeholders, often supported by “soft law” such as conventions or
agreements (Hajer, 2003). In this perspective, network structures are built upon social
interactions and relationships which provide security and trust (e.g. Lowe, 1988; Tait & Lyall,
2004)3
. Biosphere reserves, fundamentally concerned with whole-of-landscape processes,
across a variety of land tenures and uses can be thus seen vehicles for managing the social,
cultural and institutional change and capacity-building at the multiple scales (Amin & Thrift,
1994; Storper, 1997; Maskel & Malmberg, 1999; MacLeod, 2001; Brunghorst, 2001).
Main ambition of the chapter is to challenge the two cliché - firstly that nature protection
and socioeconomic development are a priori in contradiction, and secondly that state nature
protection should be considered an exclusive leader in the process of the concept of biosphere
reserve practical implementation. In this context the discussion primarily addresses issues
related to quality of life of local population living in protected areas, mutual attitudes of local
inhabitants and administration of protected landscape areas, and institutional arrangements
applied when biosphere reserve concept is aimed to be practically implemented. Finally,
conditions under which biosphere reserve could be considered a learning site for practicing
rules of sustainable development are discussed (e.g. Price, 2002; Stoll-Kleemann et al. 2006;
Kušová et al., 2006, 2008).
Triangulation approach was applied as a principal scheme of the analysis. It can be
defined as a combination of concepts, methods and dates used in order to get several
viewpoints upon the topic to be studied (e.g. Olsen, 2004). It refers to the fact that reality is a
complex matter and you need more than one single explanatory framework or data set to
understand it at a reasonable level. The main advantage of triangulation approach lies then in
its ability to depict multifaceted picture of a reality at hand. In our case, we combined concept
of quality of life, issue of social acceptance of nature protection measures, and a problem of
3
The Madrid Declaration (UNESCO, 2008) in this context suggests forming of effective
partnerships through cooperation among state administration bodies, private sector,
media, local communities, and scientific and educational institutions.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 91
adequacy of biosphere reserve institutional arrangement as the main theoretical viewpoints.
Empirical data for the analyses were acquired by a set of respective research techniques. In
order to make a coherent picture, these techniques were not applied in isolated way. Step by
step process was used instead, which made individual techniques to complement each other
(Figure 1). We started with the content analysis of regional periodicals. Based on the
knowledge gained about medial image on the relationship between nature protection and local
development, structure of questionnaire was refined to address more precisely how local
public perceives its socioeconomic situation as well as to reveal attitude of local inhabitants to
nature protection representatives. Once main conflicts as well as examples of mutual
cooperation between nature protection and local inhabitants were identified, as reflected by
local public and media, one module of semi-standardized interview was structured with the
aim to address local key personalities and get their opinions on these issues. It was
complemented with another one asking about their experiences with practical implementation
of the biosphere reserve concept. Spatial analysis of local socioeconomic conditions was
relatively independent part of the research in this respect, framed however by the general
scheme of the concept of quality of life. Case study analysis was applied in the end to identify
concrete factors of success and failure in the process of practical implementation of a project
aimed at promotion of the concept of biosphere reserve in one of model area.
Figure 1. Scheme of the triangulation approach – a combination of concepts and techniques used to
address the research topic.
Three Czech biosphere reserves (BR) were used for the empirical analysis (Figure 2).
They were The Ĺ umava Mountains4
, Třebo�sko characterized by many wetlands5
and
4
The Ĺ umava Mountains represent the least damaged and best preserved mountain forest ecosystems and
peat bogs in Central Europe. In the course of the 20th century this area was peripheral and the main
economic activities were agriculture and forestry. The post-1948 period was characterised by the
presence of the "Iron Curtain" and establishment of a military training area which made the area
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš92
Křivoklátsko dominated by the valley of the Berounka River6
(Figures 3, 4, 5). They vary in
their natural parameters as well as in their latest socioeconomic history, representing thus a
relatively broad array of aspects to be taken into consideration when analyzing their
functioning. Institutionally they are associated with the administration of Protected Landscape
Areas (PLA), in the case of the Ĺ umava Mts. with administration of PLA and National Park
(NP).
Figure 2. Model areas – three Czech biosphere reserves.
almost inaccessable for 50 years. Marginality of the region has helped to sustain natural attractions,
and led to the designation of the Ĺ umava Protected landscape area in 1963 and the Ĺ umava National
park in 1991. The biosphere reserve was declared in 1990, and includes the National Park and the
Ĺ umava Protected Landscape Area (PLA), the total area being 1, 671 km2. Thanks to its
geomorphological characteristics and mainly glacial relics, the Ĺ umava Mountains area is listed in the
IUCN Red Book of Ecosystems and Ĺ umava wetlands are on the list of Ramsar Convention. Since
2004 most of the territory has become part of the European network Natura 2000.
(http://www.npsumava.cz)
5
This area was declared biosphere reserve in 1977, two years before Třebo�sko PLA was proclaimed. The
area of 700 km2 of drained lake basin includes a mosaic of varied wetlands as well as dry biotopes
with significant diversity of animal and plant species. The dominant landscape phenomenon consists
in 465 fishponds, more than 500 pools and old meanders of the rivers Lužnice and Nežárka. This area
has been under intense human management roughly since the 12th century but reached secondary
biological balance. This fact allows for unique close coexistence of internationally significant
wetlands protected by Ramsar Convention (Třebo� ponds and Třebo� peat bogs), and typical keeping
of traditional carp as well as other economic activities (extraction of raw materials, agriculture,
building construction). Since 2004 most of the area belongs to the European network Natura 2000.
(http://www.trebonsko.ochranaprirody.cz/)
6
The area of 628 km2
was named after the royal castle of Křivoklát, which dominates over the valley of the
Berounka River. Even nowadays, thanks to the fact that the territory belonged to the Czech crown till the 17th
century and was thus used mainly for hunting, large deciduous and mixed forests thrive in this area. Steep
slopes of the deep Berounka River valley are covered with natural vegetation of different communities, with
sporadic rock outcomes hosting xerothermic fauna and flora. Many localities host beautiful meadows of
different types, which occurred in the place of original forests and which represent an important part of
landscape due to their richness of species. The castle and game park in Lány, a residence of the president, is
connected with modern history of the Czech Republic. The factor influencing the land use in the biosphere
reserve is the vicinity of the capital city, Prague. Due to its qualities, Křivoklátsko area has been listed among
UNESCO biosphere reserves since the Czechoslovak proposal was accepted on March 1, 1977. One year later
the area was proclaimed PLA with its own administration. Since 2004 most of the area belongs to the
European network Natura 2000. (http://www.krivoklatsko.ochranaprirody.cz/)
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 93
Figure 3. Ĺ umava Mts. scenic view.
Figure 4. Fishponds – a typical feature of the Třebo�sko basin.
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš94
Figure 5. Berounka river valley – the axis of the Křivoklátsko biosphere reserve.
QUALITY OF LIFE
Quality of life has been acknowledged as one of important idicators measuring level of
sustainability of development, on local to national scales (e.g. Collados & Duane, 1999;
Wilson et al., 2007). Double optics should be applied when we study quality of life - the
objective and subjective ones. The former as a rule reflects social consensus on the level of
satisfaction of what is considered to be a standard of living. Objectivity in this case means
that the standard is defined externally. The latter, subjective one, on the other hand presumes
to represent personal experiences and aspirations of individual people. Both views can be
applied to describe situation of individual people, communities, and once spatial aspect is
considered, they can be used to give evidence about localities or regions (Mareš, 1999). It
refers to regional economic theories, in particular to the discussion on driving forces that may
lead to differentiation among particular regions during the course of their historical
development (BlaĹľek & UhlĂ­Ĺ™, 2002.). Our empirical research hypothesized that biosphere
reserves will differ in quality of life of their inhabitants from the surrounding areas7
. To test
the hypothesis, twenty two objective parameters were used as it can be seen in the legend of
figures 7 and 8.
Subjective dimension of life quality was defined in terms of physical, mental and social
wellness and wholesomeness, referring thus to the theory of subjective well-being (Massam,
7
Different approaches can be traced in pertinent professional literature on how to measure unevenness between
regions by use of objective statistical data. In order to identify poor regions in Britain, for example, eight
indicators were used. Townsend (1987) refers to another approach. It is based on measuring of degree of
poverty of regions as a degree of material deprivation, by use of five criteria. Analogically, Jarman (1984)
designs score of unprivileged regions by assigning individual indicators of deprivation by their specific
weights.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 95
2002). Empirical research tried to find out how practical implementation of nature protection
measures in the three concrete biosphere reserves is perceived to have affected the nine
respective aspects of quality of life of local population - physical well-being, mental wellbeing,
value system, place they live in, human relations, availability of services, everyday
activities, free-time activities, their career (Těšitel et al. 2005).
Data provided by the Czech Statistical Institute were used to describe the status of quality
of life objectively. All results were visualized by use of GIS technology. In order to test our
hypothesis on unevenness the model areas were extended to include also municipalities that
form their surroundings. It consisted of a stripe around studied protected areas having width
of 20 km. Municipalities of interest formed then three groups – lying completely within the
protected areas; being in between, i.e. intersected by borders of protected areas; and those
having its cadastres completely out of protected areas (Figure 6). Two sets of variables
describing our three biosphere reserves as well as their surroundings were used. The first set
consisted of ten variables representing type of land use, expressed in terms of share of
particular land-use categories within a basic statistical unit. The second set characterized
socioeconomic milieu in the territory by use of basic demographic variables - variables
describing material well-being of inhabitants as well as those on availability of infrastructure
and services. All variables were related to municipality level as the basic statistical unit.
Individual municipalities were twice processed by use of principal component analysis (PCA)
– according to the data on land use (Figure 7)8
and according to the relative socioeconomic
parameters (Figure 8)9
. Based on results of both ordinations a new variable - “normalized
socioeconomic status” of municipalities - was derived10
. It was then used to test the
significance of differences between protected areas and their surroundings. Values of the
variable were calculated for all the municipalities forming our broader model areas. The
difference between values assigned to municipalities inside the protected areas and those
8
Analysis of land use was done by use of PCA ordination. The first two ordination axes (PCA1 and PCA2) were used.
These axes account for 41% of variability of the data set. Two new parameters were calculated - “degree of
urbanization”, URBA = PCA1+PCA2 – describing a gradient from rural to urbanized areas, and "share of
agriculture” AGRI = PCA1-PCA2 – quantifying the position on gradient between prevailing forested areas to
prevailing agricultural land. An arbitrary division of the space of these variables was then used as a basis for
municipality classification.
9
The socioeconomic data were processed in an analogical way. One third of data variability was described by the first
ordination axis (PCA1), while the second one (PCA2) accounted for the next eleven per cent. Further decline was
smooth and continuous. Two factors appeared to explain the position of a municipality in ordination space formed
by two first axes – level of education and age structure. Four arbitrary classes were identified on this basis. The first
class can be characterized as one comprising “normal” municipalities with population living in relatively well
equipped local urban centers. The second one represents municipalities with an aging population, even “dying out
spots” in some cases. Municipalities of the third class are populated by relatively young people, not enough
educated, however, suffering from unemployment. The fourth class is composed of municipalities with young
educated and growing population.
10
The calculation of the normalized socioeconomic status was based on two principal presumptions. Firstly, we
presumed that land use types were related to the nature conditions of a particular locality and the character of a
municipality (formed by prevailing economic activity in both contemporary and historical perspectives), and
secondly that the socioeconomic conditions were influenced by land use practices. The relationship between land
use and socioeconomic parameters was searched for by use of correlations among several first axes for both
mentioned PCA ordinations. Thanks to the statistically significant dependence between the first ordination axis of
the socioeconomic parameters (PCA1) and degree of urbanization (URBA), it was possible to use, instead of the
score of the first ordination axis, the difference between its value and the value expected, which was calculated by
use of the linear regression model (for ith
municipality): PCA1i = (a + b URBAi) + ei, where “a” and “b” are
regression parameters and “e” is an error. Differences between real and expected values were then calculated as
values of variable DIF_PCA1 = PCA1 - (a + b URBA), that we called “normalized socioeconomic status” of a
municipality. The higher its value, the better living conditions occur in a municipality.
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš96
lying outside was tested by F-test in analysis of variance with a three-level factor:
municipalities within the protected area (group A), on the border of this area (group B) and
placed completely outside the protected area (group C). The difference proved to be
statistically insignificant. Based on this we can conclude that protected areas do not differ
from the “normal” surrounding areas as to socioeconomic conditions, at least those described
by the first ordination axes (Figure 9).
Legend: K - Protected landscape area Křivoklátsko, S - National park and Protected landscape area
Šumava, T - Protected landscape area Třebo�sko; protected areas are marked by black lines.
Municipalities were divided into three groups according to border of the protected area (A completely
within the area, B - on the border, C - surrounding of the area).
Figure 6. Model areas for testing differences between protected areas and their surroundings.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 97
Legend: Combined classes consist of first uppercase character for municipalities within rural landscape
(A), intermediate landscape (B) and urbanized landscape (C) - classes are derived from degree of
urbanization. Lowercase character represents agricultural land type (a) or forest land type (b).
Accompanying figure shows ordination biplot of first two PCA axes based on data (Czech Statistical
Institute, municipality statistic database, 2002): share of arable land (vr81), hop gardens (vr82),
vineyard (vr83), gardens (vr84), orchards (vr85), grasslands (vr86), forests (vr88), waters (vr89),
build-up areas (vr90), other plots (vr91).
Not filled units – white color: Data not available (military training area).
Figure 7. Classification of municipalities according to land-use data.
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš98
Legend: Municipalities are divided into classes A - with standard human population (PCA1 ≥ 0, PCA2
≥ 0), B - with aging population (PCA1 < 0, PCA2 ≥ 0), C - with young low-qualified population
(PCA1 < 0, PCA2 < 0), D - with growing "perspective" population (PCA1 ≥ 0, PCA2 < 0).
Accompanying figure shows ordination biplot of first two PCA axes based on relative data (original
data - Czech Statistical Institute, Census 2001): Calculated out of total number of houses:
permanently inhabited houses (dr02), houses owned by physical person (dr03). Calculated out of
total population size: number of persons having a car in the family (er04s), having a phone line in a
family (er08), having a mobile phone in the family (er10), having phone or mobile in the family
(er12), having a personal computer in the family (er14s), with recreational house ownership in the
family (er18), with possibility to use some recreational building (er20s), "well appointed" persons
(er22), youngs of 0-14 years old (or01), adults (or02), seniors above 64 years old (or03), peoples
without secondary level education (or08s), peoples reached second level education (or10s),
university graduates (or11), students commuting for a school (xr02). Relative change in inhabitants
number per year within period 1960-2000 (REL_REG). Calculated out of adult population size:
economically active peoples (vr78), unemployed peoples searching for job (vr79), peoples
commuting for a job (xr01), commuting at a long distance - out of the district (xr07s).
Not filled units – white color: Data not available (military training area).
Figure 8. Classification of municipalities according to socioeconomic parameters.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 99
Legend: The higher value of DIF_PCA1, the better living conditions in a municipality.
Not filled units – white color: Data not available (military training areas).
Figure 9. Classification of municipalities according to the normalized socioeconomic status.
The opinions of local population related to their everyday life and their attitude to the
administration of protected areas and, consequently to nature protection in general was
mapped by questionnaire survey technique. Adult people over fifteen permanently living in
the model areas formed the basic set. The sample was then derived by use of the combination
of quota and random sampling, the quota being based on the size of municipality. Altogether,
1 150 respondents were addressed. The share of the sample in the basic set was 1, 86%, which
made the sample representative enough for our purposes11
.
When analyzing the behavior of local people and their attitude to the locality they live in,
including its nature quality, level of their “rooting” proved to be one of key determinants.
Viewed from this perspective, people who live in our model areas can be characterized as
members of a stabilized population. They seem to be deeply rooted in the territory, most of
11
The field survey was conducted in summer 2004. Data were statistically analyzed by use of the first and second
order contingency tables method and graphical outputs were produced by Excel 2000 for Windows.
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš100
them have been living there for a long time, or they were even born there. Besides their
affinity to nature, it is primarily social relations that make them feel tied to the locality family,
friends, job opportunities, flat and ownership of real estate. After all, the majority of
them do not have to commute for a job or school out of the model area. They do not want to
move out of the territory at all (Figures 10 and 11).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Šumava BR Třebo�sko BR Křivoklátsko BR
relativefrequencies(%)
family ties nature friends and relatives job
flat sound environment quiet routine
my garden summer house something else nothing, in fact
Figure 10. Ties to the territory.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Šumava BR Třebo�sko BR Křivoklátsko BR
relativefrequencies(%)
yes no
Figure 11. Intention to leave the territory.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 101
The perception of the present socioeconomic situation as it is viewed by locals does not
differ from the picture drawn by official statistical data. When evaluating the quality of
facilities in their municipalities, most of them have been convinced that available services as
well as infrastructure are appropriate in the sense that they reflect the size of a particular
municipality and its history. As to their own current economic situation, the majority of
inhabitants seems to be content with it (Figures 12 and 13).
“Sound environment” and “well-preserved nature” can be considered as two principal
attributes of the territory. The present-day popularity of areas offering high quality
environment can be partly related to the need of modern people to live, or at least to relax,
within relatively unspoiled landscape, which is often explained by human phylogenetic
attachments to nature (e.g. Orians, 1980; Wilson, 1984)12
. Recognition of biosphere reserves
as tourist destinations means in fact setting them into the context of the nation-wide or
international market by use of which the internal potential of biosphere reserves can be
commodified. In parallel, these attributes were recognized as comparative advantage for
further socioeconomic development, when assessed from inside of the biosphere reserve. In
all the model areas there is a commonly shared positive opinion among people as to the role
of protected and certified environment in tourism development (Figure 14). The “tourist”
potential is perceived as not being fully exploited yet (see Figure 15). Once we agree with
locals and assume that sustainable tourism can be considered the base of the local economy in
protected areas, we can go even further in the defence of nature protection measures. As
sustainable tourism can be characterized, among others, as one that commodify local natural
capital of certain quality (Jenkins, 2001; Kušová et al., 2002; Ira, 2005; Nolte, 2005), we can
formulate a theoretical statement, to some extent paradoxical, that it is the nature protection,
as a guardian of certified nature, that can guarantee local economic development in long run
as it keeps promoting comparative advantage of an area (e.g.Bartoš et al. 1998, Těšitel et al.
1999, Sharpley, 2000, Vos and Klijn, 2000).
Based on the analysis both of objective data and subjective reflection of the situation by
local population we can generally conclude that there is no statistically significant difference
between protected areas and their surroundings in terms of objectively measured parameters
describing material well-being. Nor the inhabitants of protected areas feel themselves
handicapped. Natural capital in terms of “certified” nature, such as biosphere reserve, plays
an ambivalent role. The status of being protected can be seen simultaneously both as
limitation and comparative advantage. On one hand, nature protection really poses limits to
some economic activities as to their type, intensity or localization concerns.
12
This theme has also been taken up in the Czech professional literature, and in some studies aimed at explaining
our desire for outdoor recreation (Honzík, 1965; Librová, 1987, 1988; Maršálková & Todlová, 1983), where
home and countryside have been separated by urban expansion. The �escape from the city’ has now been a
phenomenon for several decades, as the constraints of time, money and transport have been relaxed, whilst
expanding urban areas have meant that people have had to travel further to escape city life. This has created
situations in which more people seek unspoiled landscape settings within a diminishing rural area. This
imbalance seems to result, at least in Czech conditions, in the increasing importance of preserved areas as a
recreational hinterland for towns.
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš102
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Šumava BR Třebo�sko BR Křivoklátsko BR
relativefrequencies(%)
appropriate inappropriate I do not know
Figure 12. Quality of services and infrastructure related to scale of municipality.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Šumava BR Třebo�sko BR Křivoklátsko BR
relativefrequencies(%)
yes, more or less no, more or less
Figure 13. Contentment with personal economic situation.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 103
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Šumava BR Třebo�sko BR Křivoklátsko BR
relativefrequencies(%)
yes no I do not know
Figure 14. Does the existence of protected area increase tourist attractiveness of the region?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Šumava BR Třebo�sko BR Křivoklátsko BR
relativefrequencies(%)
tolerable not tolerable I do not know
Figure 15. Tourist pressure on the region as perceived by local people.
On the other hand, these areas have been successful in converting the internal potential of
“certified” high-quality nature into a key agent in local tourism development. Furthermore,
thanks to the state policy of nature protection and regional development policy, protected
areas are eligible for special funds which cannot be applied for by other regions (e.g. Bartoš et
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš104
al., 1998). The success in such a trade-offs depends on many factors, including local
personalities and their activities. Anyhow, this ambiguity challenges the generally widely
spread cliché considering protected areas as ones being handicapped a priori as to the quality
of life of local population concerns (e.g. Zemek and Heřman, 1998; Bartoš et al., 2005;
Zemek et al., 2005).
SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION MEASURES
Public opinion can be considered an important factor in nature and environment
protection. It has changed evidently in the Czech Republic when we compare current situation
with that at the beginning of 90`s, shortly after the “Velvet Revolution”13
. At that time,
fundamentals of market economy as well as nature protection policy, which was then seen as
something quite important, started to be shaped. Quality of environment and necessity of its
improvement was being subject of public debate, and measures aimed at nature protection
were discussed within this context. After almost twenty years of practicing market economy
the situation has changed profoundly. Environment as such has definitely lost its
attractiveness of being a subject of political debate. Its measured parameters are supposed to
have already met desirable limits (e.g. OECD, 2005). As to the nature protection concerns, a
myth has generally spread that there is a clash of interests between nature protection and
socioeconomic development; public opinion being as a rule pro-development oriented (e.g.
Rolston, 1997; Těšitel et al, 2005).
Nature protection bodies seem thus to be caught in a bit paradoxical situation as to their
social status concerns – as a representatives of state administration they are in charge of
promoting measures that goes against value system of the most of the Czech society14
.
Cooperation should be thus desired modus operandi rather then power driven behavior which
is likely to trigger conflicts. Empirical research, in this context, was aimed at revealing of
attitudes local population had to the protected areas administration as well as at identifying of
the most representative examples cooperation or conflicts among these players. Mutual
behavior of local population and administration of the particular protected areas was
empirically analyzed by use of questionnaire survey technique already mentioned above,
combined with content analysis of regional periodicals aimed at identifying of medial image
of this relationship.
Results of questionnaire survey suggest that everyday life of local population in all the
studied areas does not seem to be much influenced by the fact that they lived in a protected
area. In fact, only a minority of inhabitants has encountered representatives of the protected
13
The "Velvet Revolution" (November 16 – December 29, 1989) refers to a non-violent revolution in
Czechoslovakia that saw the overthrow of the Communist government and intorduced democracy.
14
When evaluating social acceptance of activities executed by the state nature protection bodies, direct comparison
with other similar structures of state administration, specialized in other fields of expertise but facing in fact
situations of the same type (decisions, approvals, fines imposing, inspections, etc), such as the Police of the
Czech Republic, Czech Trade Inspection, Hygienic service, and others, may be misleading, Activities of these
institutions, though frequently criticized, correspond with public opinion. As being socially accepted as selfevident,
they can fully focus (and limit) their activities at execution of the state administration. Nature
protection bodies are facing much more complicated situation, compared to them. Besides performing state
administration itself there is a lot of other things they should do, aimed at shifting value system of the society
towards a “more friendly” perception of nature, and consequently to changing behavioral patterns
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 105
landscape area administration in person; they are as a rule those who have had to deal with
some legal or bureaucratic procedures in which the administration of PLA participates. On the
other hand, most people living in the area use some facilities run by the administration, and
participate in voluntary activities related to nature protection. They also highly appreciate the
fact that the “label” of a protected area increases tourist attractiveness of the whole territory
(Figures 16 and 14). As to their relationship to nature protection, they perceive it in a
“peaceful way”; in some cases they even have been able to find a way how to make some
kind of profit from it. The relatively “peaceful” coexistence is primarily based on the fact that
representatives of the municipalities as well as the administration of protected areas had a
time to overcome the initial contradiction, evident when protected areas had been established,
and have come to the point of building a joint vision of future coexistence. Sustainable
tourism, as an activity acceptable by both parties, seems to have become the key point of the
above mentioned common vision.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Šumava BR Třebo�sko BR Křivoklátsko BR
relativefrequencies(%)
advantage disadvantage I do not know
Figure 16. Role of protected area in regional development as perceived by local people.
Content analysis was based on the general presumption that the press reacts to real-life
problems, and is also an intermediary of social control of the institutions which are in charge
of it. Medial image is then supposed to represent a reflection of expected interest of the public
in particular problems (e.g. MacLuhan, 1991; DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1996; BlaĹľek, 1998).
Quantitative analysis, identifying frequency, ratio and context of a pertinent messages in
selected media, was complemented by qualitative content analysis that offered a more
detailed interpretation of the process in which media constructed reality in relation to
problems at hand (Disman, 1993). By use of this technique, comparative monitoring of the
regional periodicals was carried out in all the three model areas15
.
15
Daily newspapers were used as contextual units for content analysis. The period of monitoring was seven years,
from January 1998 to September 2004, and the main aim consisted in documenting “the medial presentation of
the relationship between nature protection and communal development”. It was made operable by use of the
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš106
Individual BRs proved to differ as to their medial image. Viewed from this perspective,
Třebo�sko and Křivoklátsko can be seen as areas where the problems of nature protection do
not stir public opinion. Content analysis documents “conflicts” between nature protection and
communities as usually belonging to the sphere of the routine administrative agenda. On no
account they do have a character of „fatal“ problem considering any of the parties involved.
In both areas, the image presented in the press includes more examples of successful
cooperation between nature protection authorities and communities. If we were to formulate a
hypothesis summarizing the situation, we could probably say that in the course of the
previous twenty years, “both the systems got accustomed to each other”. In this respect, the
area of the Ĺ umava Mts. is different compared to the above mentioned protected areas. It is
hardly possible to state that this area is free from medially presented conflicts. The consensus
between the Ĺ umava NP and the communities is hindered by a large number of various
circumstances. The national park came to the existence relative short time ago (in 1991);
furthermore its activities overlap with those of protected landscape area. The PLA, as well as
the NP, are situated on the territory belonging to two administrative regions; the final version
of the Act on the Ĺ umava National Park has not yet been accepted; the communities strive for
financial funding of their budgets and for compensations, and at the same time they struggle
to reduce unemployment. On the other hand, nature protection bodies have adopted
traditionally defensive strategy towards any potential economic activity as their general
communication pattern, referring to the principle of precaution (similar results see e.g. JenĂ­k,
2006). In this case, the conflicts presented in the press can be considered „fatal“. The decision
of one actor in a dispute can have serious consequences for the other actor involved16
. That is
why the relationships between both actors are tenser. However, here too, the points of view
are gradually converging. Tourism plays pivotal role in this process, more specifically its
sustainable forms whose development seems to be acceptable for both sites, making thus
platform for mutual communication (Kušová et al. 2005). The above mentioned hypothesis
could be thus slightly reformulated – How much time is needed for both systems to get used
to each other? Maybe in 20 years’ time the Šumava Mts. area will be presented in press in a
way resembling the current articles on Křivoklátsko and Třebo�sko – very much like an
“idyll”.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS OF BIOSPHERE RESERVE
Biosphere reserve is not recognized as a legal category of protected areas by the Czech
environmental legislation. The Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection Act does not
include biosphere reserve when defining six national protected area categories: national park,
protected landscape area, national nature reserve, national nature monument, nature reserve
and nature monument. Biosphere reserve is then perceived as an international label sticked on
an area already protected according to the national environmental legislation, that does not
have any legal support (Urban, 2006). Institutionally, the management of biosphere reserve is
following key words: Třebo�sko, Křivoklátsko, Šumava, Biosphere Reserve, communities, enterprise,
cooperation, support, coexistence and conflict. As recorded units, entire articles were used that contained the
name of a particular PLA or NP together with at least one of the remaining key words.
16
Reduction of the Park area versus preventing construction of a bridge over Lipno lake, for example.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 107
associated with the administration of protected landscape area, or national park. Due to low
compatibility of the concept of biosphere reserve with the Czech legislation the space to
manoeuvre of the protected area administration in its effort of the biosphere reserve concept
implementation is a relatively narrow one. The manoeuvreing space varies, however
depending on individual particular functions to be fulfilled as some of them are regulated by
law whereas the others not.
The technique of semi-standardized interviews was applied as the principal method for
information gathering on present institutional arrangements related to the management of
biosphere reserve. Altogether thirty four key informants were addressed in each model area
by use of semi-standardized interview, being staff members of protected areas administration,
mayors of local municipalities, key local entrepreneurs as well as experts in nature protection
and regional development. While in general, the interviews focused on their years lasting
experiences with practical implementation of all the four basic functions biosphere reserve is
expected to fulfill – nature protection, research, education and promotion of sustainable
development, main attention was paid to the last one.
Qualitative analysis of the empirical material gained by interviews suggests that the
administration bodies of the protected areas are employing plenty of legislation tools for
nature protection. Basically, these tools are of restrictive and compensational character. The
former still prevail in practical situations, which is also evident in a relatively long list of the
competences the administration has as an indisputable participant in territorial proceedings
(see the Act 114/1992 of the Law Code, on Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection).
However, the administration authorities are not dependent exclusively on restrictions. Since
1996 there has been the Programme of Landscape Cultivation, which is executed by the
administration on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment CR. Non-restrictive tools also
include the compensation of possible economic drawback caused by nature conservation. The
principle of compensation is just being tested but its operation aroused interest among
administration representatives as to expected improvement of their position in negotiations
with other land users. Generally speaking, the execution of state administration in nature
conservation is not hindered by any serious problems and runs relatively smoothly in the
framework of legislative rules and provisions. The space for administration to manoeuvre is
clearly and unambiguously defined and successfully utilized. In case there are conflicts in
communication, they can be mostly viewed as „normal“ interpersonal conflicts emerging due
to advancing of different interests.
Compared to nature conservation, the activities connected with education and training are
framed by legislation only in a general way. Each administration body chose a different
strategy to perform their tasks. In the Ĺ umava Mts. it is the national park that plays an
important part. Due to the fact that it runs its own public relation department, the national
park performs almost all educational activities including those pertaining to the
administration of the protected landscape area. The activities are varied – e.g. there are eleven
frequently visited well functioning information centers within the territory17
. Educational
activities of the protected landscape area are thus limited to founding and maintaining
educational tracks and information boards. As to Třebo�sko and Křivoklátsko Protected
Landscape Areas, apart from founding educational trails they focus on two types of
educational activities and programs. They combine issuing information brochures and
17
see www.npsumava.cz
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš108
running an information and educational centre. The brochures and other printed materials
target partly on visitors coming to the territory, and partly on local people. It can be said that
within the delimited space the administration bodies do their best. And the public highly
appreciate their effort (Kušová et al., 2005a; Těšitel et al, 2005).
As a matter of fact, the protected areas are subject both to internal and external research.
The situation in particular places of interest is practically the same. The internal research is
carried out in the form of more or less regular surveys conducted by the employees of the
administration authorities. These surveys mainly consist of monitoring or inventory. They are
usually done periodically in five-year intervals. All administrative authorities are well
equipped to carry out such internal surveys. However, the protected areas also fulfill the
functions of model areas for specific research projects and diploma theses elaborated by
various external institutions. These external subjects focus on their own research objectives,
which are reflected in the definitions of the themes. Considering the usefulness of results of
these projects for the protected areas administrative bodies, our results show that the
administration usually lacks relevant information on the results. The cooperation with
research institutions is mostly based on individual professional contacts with the colleagues
dealing with similar themes. There is a lack of systematic approach to scientific research. The
imbalance between scientific and social research represents another problem. The situation
has not changed since 1993, when the worldwide MaB session emphasized that man should
be in the centre of interest within the program, but in fact it is paid little attention (e.g.
Oszlányi, 2001). The scientific research still strongly prevails in the protected areas. Much
still has to be done in this respect, however social dimension of sustainability has already
started to gain recognition.18
Support of sustainable development is the fourth function to be fulfilled by the biosphere
reserves. Considering our model territories, the biosphere reserve is institutionally associated
with the administrative authority of the protected area. It allows for viewing this function as a
share of the administrative body activities on the life of the local community. Some activities
affecting the communal life were already mentioned. The execution of the state
administration definitely belongs to them as well as the educational activities. Nevertheless,
the discussed theme surpasses this framework and concerns the administration as engaged and
participating in „generally beneficial projects“, i.e. the projects which do not primarily focus
on nature conservation but more on the adequate socioeconomic development in the area.
While in many cases the results applicable to protected landscape areas did not differ from
those applicable to the national park, in the case of the participation of the protected areas
administration bodies in the projects it is reasonable to differentiate. At present the
administrative bodies of the protected landscape areas participate in development projects
mainly indirectly. Being experts in many aspects of the territory in question, their employees
provide the applicants with factual information. They provide their know-how during the
formulation of the project proposal and issue supportive references increasing the applicant’s
chances that the project is admitted. When the project is getting implemented, these experts
join the process as indisputable participants in administration procedures. However, this form
of participation seems to be limited in time. The main partners in the mentioned cooperation
18
It can be documented, among others, by the shift from the Long-term Ecological Research (LTER) to the Longterm
Socioecological Research (LTSER) with its focus on coupled socioecological system (Haberl et al.,
2006). Biosphere reserves are expected to play the role of research platforms within this program.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 109
system are communities and microregions, whose representatives have successfully acquired
the necessary skills or they hire professional agencies for the preparation of project proposals.
Direct participation in the development projects is problematic. When applying the BR
concept to practice we must face incomplete, poor compatibility with the system of Czech
environmental legislation. One of the consequences is thus the lack of unambiguous
legislative rules defining direct participation of the protected area administration, as a state
administration body, in such projects. Quite naturally it results in neutral, indifferent attitude
of the administrative bodies to the projects, which can be easily explained by their fear from
the conflict of interests if they were direct participants. Their representatives are afraid of the
situation when, in the competence of state administration, they might have to assume an
attitude towards themselves as implementing bodies. Another argument in favor of their
indifference is the ever busier state administration agenda. Besides that, individual
administrative bodies of protected areas are not legal entities. The status of legal entity
applies only to their headquarters. The Ĺ umava National Park (Ĺ NP) displays a different
situation. Firstly, it has a different legislative status compared to protected landscape areas.
Ĺ umava National Park is a sovereign subject having its legal identity. Secondly, as an
allowance organization, it can make its own decisions on the allocation of funds. The third
important difference bases on the fact that within the Ĺ NP organizational structure, the
execution of state administration has been separated from its other activities. Moreover, it has
established a public relation department. Besides that there are further „stimuli“ fostering its
pro-active approach. The Ĺ NP raises considerable financial means due to its right of forest
management. The funds can be subsequently invested in particular projects. At the same time,
all its activities are permanently “monitored” and checked by the public, which creates
permanent pressure in the broadest sense. The park administration has already realized
activities which can be called „good will projects“, the examples of such projects being „Our
Peatbog“, and „Cultural Heritage Renewal“. Considering the theory of cultural capital (e.g.
Bourdieu & Passeeron, 1990; Garrod et al., 2006), it is a gesture reinforcing the national park
administration in its effort to define its status towards other stakeholders in the territory.
Despite the differences in the status between the national park and protected landscape
area administration bodies it can be stated that all these authorities are primarily
representatives of the state administration which influences to a great extent their mode of
operation. The existing institutional setting motivates employees of these bodies only a little
to perform any activity beyond the scope of current legislation. Generally speaking, the
current institutional model ensures that they can actively carry out only three of four BR
functions – biodiversity protection, education and training and, to some extent, performance
of scientific research. The fourth function – support of sustainable development through
participation in activities improving socioeconomic standard of local communities – can be
accomplished only partially and indirectly. Active participation of protected areas
representatives in developmental activities, though sustainable, seems to be hardly possible
mainly due to the fact that these activities are perceived as being intermingled with the
execution of state administration (Kušová et al., 2007).
In addition we applied case study analysis to assess a project aimed at promoting
principles of the biosphere reserve concept in the Ĺ umava Mts. region, in terms of identifying
of success and failure factors of their practical implementation. More specifically we tried to
reveal if the way they were implemented could contribute to overcoming of the current
institutional limits and make the biosphere reserve a learning site of sustainable development.
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš110
The project titled „Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity through Sound
Tourism Development in Biosphere Reserves in Central and Eastern Europe“19
, rephrased in
the region as “Sound Tourism – A Chance for the Šumava Biosphere Reserve“ financially
supported by the UNEP-GEF, was initiated by the Ĺ NP administration and had actually a
form of a gesture. The end-user of the project outputs, however, was defined as the entire
territory of the Šumava Biosphere Reserve. The mission of the project was twofold – besides
producing outputs of its particular activities, it was intended to be a tool facilitating
communication between the protected area administration and other stakeholders involved in
the project. That is how it was functioning since the very beginning. The project proposal was
elaborated by a team consisting of the representatives of all local groups interested in relevant
fields - nature conservation, local entrepreneurs, communities, representatives of regional
governments and NGOs. Considering our point of view, it is important to mention the Local
Steering Committee of the project, comprising those who were in charge of the project
preparation. In the period of project implementation its members participated in the project
management as well as in lobbying for widening the scope of the project activities, and for
further fundraising.
The project could be considered a set of nine interlinked activities which span from those
having very practical outputs to activities producing strategic planning materials.
“Establishment of a System of Cross Border Tourist Trails”, “Training of Local Guides” and
“Identification of a Potential of the Šumava Biosphere Reserve for New Touristic Activities”
(Figures 17 and 18) can be seen as the most practical outputs of the project, having immediate
impact on the territory. There were two activities within the project directly supporting
sustainable forms of tourism – “System of Financial Incentives”, having a form of local grant
scheme aimed primarily at improving small scale touristic infrastructure (Figure 19), and
“System of Certification of Local Products and Services”20
. Among the strategic activities we
can count participation of the project in preparation of the “Concept of Sustainable Tourism
Development in the Šumava Region” (Figure 20), “Institutional Analysis of the Šumava
Biosphere Reserve” and designing of an electronic “Database on Cultural Heritage of the
Šumava Biosphere Reserve”. Designing of platform for information exchange among local
mayors, representatives of nature protection authorities and other key stakeholders became an
inseparable part of the project, manifested in the form of series of round tables and training
courses (Figure 21).
As indicated by the questionnaire survey and key informant interviewing, the relationship
between NP and PLA, and biosphere reserve is perceived as being confusing for many people
(Figure 22). Evaluated in this context, the project seemed to play a pivotal role in the process
of forming the notion of the biosphere reserve concept among local as well as regional public.
19
www.oete.de/tourism4nature/index.htm
20
www.domaci-vyrobky.cz
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 111
Figure 17. Potential of the Šumva BR for mountain biking (after Pavlásek, 2006).
Figure 18. Cover page of the study “Hippoturistics in the Šumava BR” elaborated within the project.
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš112
Figure 19. Educational trail in Dešenice built with the financial support of the grant scheme.
Figure 20. Cover page of the Concept of Sound Tourism Development in the Ĺ umava Mts., elaborated
with contribution of the project.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 113
Figure 21. Round table with mayors of the Ĺ umava BR municipalities, Modrava village, July 3. 2007.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Šumava BR Třebo�sko BR Křivoklátsko BR
yes no I do not know
Comment: The figure documents the situation before the project was implemented. Nowadays we can
presume that the awareness on BR is likely to be higher in the Ĺ umava Mts. as the UNEP-GEF
project was heavily informed about in the region by varied promotional materials, and circa 500
local personalities were, in some way, directly involved in the project implementation.
Figure 22. Do you think that the protected area has the status of biosphere reserve?
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš114
The scope of the project was to complex to be executed by one expert or institution. As a
result, one of its main “social by-products” was an establishment of several social networks,
partly overlapping, by use of which particular project activities were realized. Ĺ umava
National Park and Protected Landscape Area Administration, Regional Development Agency
Ĺ umava, Regional Environmental Centre Czech Republic, as well as NEBE Agency formed a
core of these networks, coordinated as a rule by the Institute of Systems Biology and Ecology
AS CR. In parallel to forming social networks, network of projects emerged around
individual activities. In this manner, the UNEP-GEF project was linked with two
INTERREG-type projects – PANet (Protected Areas Networks – Establishment and
Management of Corridors, Networks and Cooperation) and Certification of Local Products in
the Ĺ umava Mts., pooling thus experts, know-how and financial resource with the aim to use
them as much as effectively (Těšitel et al., 2007)21
.
The complexity of the problems solved by the projects has resulted in time chaining.
Viewed from this perspective, the projects network proved to be an efficient impetus to start
solving the problems, delivering however, neither financial sources nor time enough to
accomplish the task in its full extent. As the networks of interested partners has already been
established, some projects activities are expected to continue in the future, supported however
by another grants, both running and applied for. The projects network thus spans far beyond
the “lifetime” of particular projects, setting a base for a long term activities related to the
concept of biosphere reserve. In particular, the system of local guides (Figure 23) was
adopted by the Ĺ umava National Park Administration and included into its regular agenda.
Building of data base on cultural heritage (Figure 24) is expected to continue in terms of
integrating information sources from the Czech, German (Bavarian) and Austrian side,
financially supported by the South Bohemia regional government and EU Structural Funds.
It was a fortunate coincidence of facts that caused the network of projects fulfilled two
types of expectations – that it produced outputs excellent by themselves, and that contributed
substantially to the discussion on the notion of the biosphere reserve in the region, in fact
introducing the term into strategic planning documents as well as into more practical
discussions around tables.
First of all, the issue itself – sustainable tourism – has been a relatively consensual
theme22
. Secondly, the project yielded concrete and visible outputs, aimed at promoting of
sound forms of tourism development. Though the national park was an important project
partner, in fact it itself initiated formulation of the project and applied for it, officially the
project was coordinated by an independent body (the academician institute) and thus
perceived as not being directly linked to the national park and its rather restrictive policy.
21
For example, thanks to this cooperation, certification system ŠUMAVA–originální produkt® originally focused
on local products was extended to include as well services related to sound tourism. As a result, Ĺ umava Mts.
can be considered a region where the process of certification has been most advanced, compared to the other
regions within the Czech Republic where the system was implemented.
22
Tourism was recognized as key factor for local development as early as at the beginning of nineties, both by local
elite and general public (e.g. Těšitel et al., 2003, 2003a). As to the form, tourism has developed in a more or
less sustainable way in the Ĺ umava Mts., which is a fact valued by nature protection representatives.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 115
Figure 23. Leaflet promoting local guides in the Ĺ umava BR (2007).
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš116
Figure 24. Home page of the electronic database on cultural heritage of the Ĺ umava BR.
The “trade mark” of the biosphere reserve was used as being in “legislative vacuum”,
which was perceived as a weak point at the beginning of the project, namely by the
representatives of state nature protection. In the end, however, the legislative vagueness
proved to be an advantage as it “liberated” all the stakeholders from their bred-in-the-bone
schematic viewpoints. The project seemed to “break the behavioral stereotypes”, of particular
personalities involved. Being mentally “free” from a legal framework, they behaved rather
cooperatively, concentrating on achieving concrete output instead of pushing forward official
doctrines of particular institutions they were expected to represent. Formal independence of
the projects network from the Ĺ umava National Park and Protected Landscape Area
Administration led to the situation when all the partners, including representatives on nature
protection themselves, ceased to prejudice and started actively cooperate. The projects
network formed thus concrete out-of-official-policy-standing platform of cooperation among
experts, not biased by official doctrines. As a result, sound tourism ceased to be viewed as
being a-priori in contradiction with nature conservation. In this perspective the concept of
biosphere reserve itself proved to have a big potential of becoming a good trade mark.
Referring to the concept allowed representatives state nature protection “not to loose their
face” when discussing “developmental issues” with other stakeholders. The process of
achieving desired project outputs proved to be as much important as the outputs themselves,
in some perspective even more important, as it enabled linking stakeholders and forming
flexible alliances, both formal and informal. Gradual building and reconstructing of the
network-like arrangements could be thus explained in terms of learning by interacting process
(e.g. Lundvall, 1997; Gunjan, 2005; Kušová et al., 2008a) on mutual communication among
stakeholders involved about the innovative concept of biosphere reserve.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 117
Successful realization of the projects, more specifically the way the process of
implementation was guided, suggests that the project based management could yield success
in achieving the biosphere reserve functions, at least its fourth one – promotion of sustainable
development. Goal oriented network of interested stakeholders, permanently reconstructed,
seems then to be a more adequate organizational form to be applied when attempting to
implement the BR concept into practice.
CONCLUSION
On the Method
The mosaic depicted by the triangulation approach was rather complex. Picture about
quality of life in biosphere reserves drawn by use of objective statistical data did not differ
from that we got when analyzing the data gained by questionnaire survey. Both views,
objective and subjective ones, overlap to a great extent. Sustainable tourism as the most
promising factor fostering local development appeard as an output of content analysis of
media, questionnaire survey as well as key informant interviewing. While all the three model
areas can be viewed as similar in most aspects content analysis revealed fundamental
diferences between Ĺ umava BR and the remainig two model areas as to the relationship
between nature protection bodies and local communities. Different positions on the scale
between conflict and cooperation, occupied by particular biosphere reserves introduced a
question of time necessary in order local economic activities with nature protection to be
reconciled. By use of interviews and case study analysis we were able to analyze behavioural
strategies of individual stakeholders and assess effectiveness of institutional setting of
biosphere reserve, which led us to the suggestion of network like organizational arrangement
as a complement to an existing hierarchical scheme of state nature protection.
Biosphere Reserve as a Learning Site
Biosphere reserves are poised to take on a new role in nature protection. Not only they
are expected to be a means for the people who live and work within and around them to attain
a balanced relationship with the natural world. As they do not operate in isolation but form a
network of global scale, individual biosphere reserves are supposed to serve as pilot sites or
"learning places" to explore and demonstrate approaches to conservation and sustainable
development, providing lessons which can be applied elsewhere23
.
On the other hand, it is recommeded by the Seville Strategy that the general concept
should be implemented in many different ways in order to meet local needs and conditions. In
fact, one of the greatest strengths of the biosphere reserve concept has been the flexibility and
creativity with which it could been realized in various situations. Hence, each biosphere
reserve could be a context-specific experiment in sustainable development at varying scales.
Learning from each other, or to come to more general conclusions, seems thus to be to a
great extent dependent on level of similarity in terms of internal conditions as well as external
23
(http://www.unesco.org/mab/faq_br.shtml#functions
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš118
(regional and national) milieu particular biospheres share. When we are to asses our outcomes
from this perspective, it is necessary to point out two aspects.
Firstly, we have to state that, all the three biosphere reserves studied are embedded in a
very similar regional milieu, being situated in regions where serious social conflicts are not
present. This is mainly thanks to the relatively low unemployment rate occurring there
(Figure 25). This type of external milieu cannot be, however applied to the remaining three
Czech biosphere reserves that have to operate in regions facing more complicated
socioeconomic situation24
. As the attitude of people to nature, and consequently to nature
protection, is presumed to be dependent on particular socioeconomic situation, more precisely
on the level of satisfaction of what is perceived as appropriate level of material needs (e.g.
Ingelhart, 1990; Librová, 1994) we should be cautious when trying to generalize results and
apply them nation-wide.
Figure 25. Regional distribution of unemployment—Czech Republic, 31-12-2004 (after Ministry of
Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic).
Secondly, the BR concept builds upon cooperation among stakeholders in the locality or
region. Jointly shared vision on what could be considered common ground for discussion
around the future coexistence of biodiversity protection and acceptable forms of its
sustainable use can be viewed as condition necessary, making implementation of the concept
likely, at least. In our case, sustainable tourism has played the pivotal role, which, as a branch
of local economy, seems to be more flexible, compared to the more traditional and
conservative economic activities such as agriculture and forestry. The need for cooperative
approaches arises from a change in the competitive strategies that are influenced by the
volatility and sensitivity of tourism industry (Gunjan, 2005) that requires key actors to think
about which of their resources and activities are most sensibly combined (Crompton, 1990;
24
The Krkonoše BR, Bílé Karpaty BR and Dolni Morava BR are located in Liberecký region, Zlínský region and
JihomoravskĂ˝ region respectively
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 119
Palmer, 1998). Having this in mind we can conclude that the example discussed above should
be thought as being limited to sound tourism related activities as flexible networks are most
likely to appear there.
At the very end it can be stated, that the chapter indicated possibilities and limitations of
the BR concept implementation in the Czech Republic. Generally speaking, the concept
proved to be an efficient tool supporting platform of communication on local as well as
regional levels aimed at harmonizing of diverse interests. Viewing from this perspective,
presented results may become an inspiration for other biosphere reserves. As the chapter tries
to interpret biosphere reserve, among others, in terms of the process of social learning, it can
be seen as a contribution to the debate on ideas of the ongoing UN Decade on Education for
Sustainable Development 2005-2014.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study was based on the following research projects: Participative management of
protected areas – a key to minimization of conflicts between biodiversity protection and
socioeconomic development of local communities (VaV 610/3/03), funded by the Ministry of
Environment CR; Research project of the Institute of Systems Biology and Ecology –
AV0Z60870520 – Spatial and functional dynamics of biological, ecological and
socioeconomic systems in interaction with the global change of climate; Conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity through sound tourism development in biosphere reserves in
Central and Eastern Europe. Grant United Nations Environment Programme, Global
Environment Facility Medium Sized Project, GFL/2328-2714-4829, PMS: GF/4020-05-01;
PANet 2010-Protected areas network-Establishment and Management of Corridors, Networks
and Cooperation. INTRREG IIIB CADSES; Amenity migration as an emerging form of
global human migration (403/07/0714), funded by the Czech Science Foundation.
REFERENCES
Amin A. & Thrift N. (1994): Living in the global. In: Amin A. & Thrift N. (Eds.):
Globalisation, institutions and regional development in Europe (pp 1-22). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Antrop, M. (2001). The language of landscape ecologists and planners. A comparative
content analysis of concepts used in landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning,
55, 163-173.
Antrop, M. (2006). Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 75(3-4), 187-197.
Bartoš, M., Kušová, D. & Těšitel, J. (1998). Integrated endogenous regional development
concept and the role of Šumava National Park administration. Silva Gabreta, 2, 385–394.
Bartoš, M., Kušová, D. & Těšitel, J. (2005). Life in Large Scale Areas with Specific Regime.
Životné Prostredie, 39(2),76–79 (in Czech).
Blažek, B. (1998). Venkov, města, média [Countryside, cities, media]. Praha: SLON (in
Czech).
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš120
Blažek, J. & Uhlíř, D. (2002). Teorie regionálního rozvoje [Theories of regional
development], Praha: Karolinum (in Czech).
Bourdieu P. & Passeron J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Second
Edition. London: Sage.
Brock W.A, & Xepapadeas A. (2003). Valuing Biodiversity from an Economic Perspective:
A Unified Economic, Ecological, and Genetic Approach. The American Economic
Review, 93(5), 1597-1614.
Brunckhorst, D. (2001). Building capital through bioregional planning and biosphere reserve.
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 19-32.
Collados, C. & Duane, T. P. (1999). Natural capital and quality of life: a model for valuating
the sustainability of alternative regional development paths. Ecological Economics,
30(3), 441-460.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S. C., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M.
(1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387
(6630), 253-260.
Crompton J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of
Tourism Research, 17, 432-448.
DeFleur, M. & Ball–Rokeach, S. (1996). Teorie masové komunikace [Theory of mass
communication]. Praha: Karolinum (in Czech).
Disman, M. (1993). Jak se vyrábí sociologická znalost [Way to produce sociological
knowledge]. Praha: Karolinum (in Czech).
Dredge D. (2006). Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism. Tourism
Management, 27, 269-280.
Faber, M. (2008). How to be an Ecological Economist. Discussion Paper Series No. 454,
University of Heidelberg.
Farina, A. (2000). The Cultural Landscape as a Model for Integration of Ecology and
Economics. BioScience, 50(4), 313-320.
Garrod B., Wornell R. & Youell R. (2006). Re-conceptualising rural resources as countryside
capital: the case of rural tourism. Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 117-128.
Getzner, M. & Jungmeier, M. (2000). Conservation policy and the regional economy: the
regional impact of Natura 2000 conservation sites in Austria. Journal of Nature
Conservation, 10(1), 25-34.
Gunjan S. (2005). Relationships, networks and the learning regions: case evidence from the
Peak District National Park. Tourism Management, 26, 277-289.
Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy
Sciences, 36, 175-195.
Hajer, M. (2003 a). A frame in the fields: policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In:
Hajer, M. & Wagenaar, W., (Eds.), Deliberative Policy Analysis (pp. 88-110).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HonzĂ­k K. (1965). Tvorba ĹľivotnĂ­ho stylu [On the creation of lifestyle]. Prague: NPL (in
Czech).
Imhoff, Marc L. (2004). Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production.
Nature, 429(6994), 870–73.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 121
Imperial, M. T. (1999). Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem-Based Management: The
Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management, 24(4),
449-465.
Ingelhart, R. (1990). The culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton.
Ira, V. (2005). Sustainable development, quality of life and tourism. In: Hesková M., Šittler
E. & Dvořák V. (Eds.), Tourism, regional development and education. Reviewed
proseedings of the 10th International conference „Tourism, regional development and
education“, Tábor, 12–13. May 2005. Katedra cestovního ruchu Tábor, Jihočeská
univerzita České Budějovice, 51–56.
I.U.C.N. (1980). World Conservation Strategy: Living Resources Conservation for
Sustainable Development. Gland: I.U.C.N.
Jarman, B. (1984). Identification of Underprivileged Areas. British Medical Journal, 289,
1587-1592.
Jehle, R. (1998). Pojetí endogenního rurálního rozvoje a jeho zavádění do regionální politiky
České republiky. [The concept of endogenous rural development in the framework of its
introduction in the regional policy in the Czech Republic.] Zemědělská ekonomika, 44(1),
9-12 (in Czech).
Jeník, J. (2006). Polarita přírody a kultury v teorii a praxi. [Polarity of Nature and Culture in
Theory and Practice.] Životné Prostredie, 40(5), 234-237 (in Czech).
Jenkins, T. (Ed.) (2001). Integrated tourism: a conceptual framework, Deliverable 1, Ms.
Supporting and Promoting Integrated Tourism in Europe’s Lagging Regions, 64 pp,
online reference http://sprite.econ.upatras.gr/.
Kaval, P. (2006). Valuing Ecosystem Services: A New Paradigm Shift. Working Paper in
Economics 1/6. University of Waikato.
Kooten, C. G. & Wang, S (1998). Estimating Economic Costs of NatureProtection: British
Columbia’s Forest Regulations. Canadian Public Policy – Analyse De Politiques,
24(2),63-71.
Kušová, D., Bartoš, M. & Těšitel, J. (1999). Potential development of the right shore of Lipno
Lake area – comparison of landscape and urban planning documentation with ideas of
local inhabitants. Silva Gabreta, 3, 217–227.
Kušová, D., Bartoš, M. & Těšitel, J. (2002). Role of traditions in tourism development in the
Czech part of the Bohemian Forest. Silva Gabreta, 8, 265–274.
Kušová, D., Těšitel, J. & Bartoš, M. (2005). The media image of the relationship between
nature protection and socio-economic development in selected protected landscape areas.
Silva Gabreta, 11(2),123–133.
Kušová, D., Těšitel, J., Matějka, K. & Bartoš, M. (2005a). Nature protection and socioeconomic
development in selected protected landscape areas. EkolĂłgia (Bratislava), 24,
(Supplement 1), 109-123.
Kušová, D., Těšitel, J., Matějka, K. & Bartoš, M. (2006). Socio-economic conditions in
selected biosphere reserves. Silva Gabreta, 12(3), 157–169.
Kušová, D., Těšitel, J. & Bartoš, M. (2007). Možnosti využití konceptu biosférické rezervace
na Ĺ umavÄ›. [Implementation possibilities of the BR concept in the Bohemian Forest]. In:
Dvořák L., Šustr P., Braun V. (Eds.): Aktuality šumavského výzkumu III. [Research
actualities in Bohemian/Bavarian Forest], Správa Národního parku a Chráněné krajinné
oblasti Šumava, Srní, 4.-5.10. 2007, 139 – 143 (in Czech).
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš122
Kušová, D., Těšitel, J., Matějka, K. & Bartoš, M. (2008). Biosphere reserves – an attempt to
form sustainable landscape (A case study of three biosphere reserves in the Czech
Republic). Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(1), 187-197.
Kušová, D., Těšitel, J. & Bartoš, M. (2008a). Biosphere reserves – learning sites of
sustainable development ? Silva Gabreta, 14 (3), 221-234.
Librová, H. (1987). Sociální potřeba a hodnota krajiny. [Social need and landscape value.]
Brno: UJEP (in Czech).
Librová, H. (1988). Láska ke krajině?[Love for landscape?] Brno: Blok (in Czech).
Librová, H. (1994). Pestří a zelení: kapitoly dobrovolné skromnosti. [The colorful and the
green: chapters on voluntary modesty] Brno: Veronica (in Czech).
Lowe, A. (1988). Small Hotel Survival: An inductive approach. The International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 7(3), 197-223.
Lundvall, B. Ă…. (1997). Information Technology in the Learning Economy. Communications
& Strategies, 28, 117-192.
MacLeod, G. (2001). New Regionalism reconsidered: Globalisation, regulation and the
recasting of political economic space. Internatioinal Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 25, 804-829.
MacLuhan, M. (1991). Jak rozumět médiím. Extenze člověka. [To understand media. Human
dimension.] Praha: Odeon (in Czech).
Mareš, P. (1999). Sociologie nerovnosti a chudoby. [Sociology of unevenness and poverty.]
Praha: SLON (in Czech).
Maršálková, M. & Todlová, M. (1983). Podklady, informace a náměty pro další rozvoj
rekreace v ÄŚSR. [Information materials and proposals for further development of
recreation in the Czech Republic.] České Budějovice: ÚKE ČSAV (in Czech).
Maskell, P. & Malmberg, A. (1999). Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness.
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 167-186.
Massam, B. H. (2002). Quality of life: public planning and private living. Progress in
Planning, 58, 141 – 227.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Synthesis.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Murdoch, J. (2000). Networks – a new paradigm of rural development? Journal of Rural
Studies, 16, 407-419.
Naveh, Z. (2001). Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 269-283.
Nolte, B. (2005). Tourism in Biosphärenreservaten Ostmitteleuropas. Hoffnungen,
Hindernisse und Handlungsspielräume bei der Umsetzung von Nachhaltigkeit. Berlin:
Mensch&Buch Verlag.
OECD (2005). Report on policy, state and development of the environment: the Czech
Republic. Praha: Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic.
Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can
really be mixed. In: Holborn, Ormskirk (Eds.): Developments in Sociology. Ormskirk:
Causeway Press.
Orians, G. H. (1980). Habitat selection: general theory and application to human behavior. In:
Lockard, J.S. (Ed.), The Evolution of Human Social Behavior. New York: Elsevier.
Oszlányi, J. (2001). Research in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves as one of the elements of the
Seville Strategy. Ekologia (Bratislava), 20(Supplement 3), 36-45.
Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites of Sustainable Development 123
Paavola, J. & Adger, N. W. (2005). Institutional ecological economics. Ecological
Economics, 53, 353-368.
Paiders, J. (2007). How nature protection restrictions affect economic development? An
example of municipalities from the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve, Latvia. Working
paper, University of Latvia.
Palmer, A. (1998): Evaluationg the governance style of marketing groups. Annales of
Tourism Research, 25(1), 185-201.
Parto, S. (2005). “Good” Governance and Policy Analysis: What of Institutions?. Maastricht
Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology. MERIT-Infonomics
Research Memorandum series 2005-001.
Palang, H., Helmfrid, S., Antrop, M. & Alumäe, H. (2005). Rural Landscapes: past processes
and future strategies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 3-8.
Pavlásek, Z. (2006). Netradiční aktivity v Biosférické rezervaci Šumava (studie možnosti
rozvoje netradičních sportovních a turistických aktivit). [Non-traditional activities in the
Šumava Biosphere Reserve – study on development potential of non-traditional sport and
touristic activities]. Vimperk, České Budějovice: NP Šumava and ÚSBE AV ČR, v.v.i.
http://www.npsumava.cz/storage/setr_aktivity1.pdf (in Czech).
Price, M. F. (2002). The periodic review of biosphere reserves: a mechanism to foster sites of
excellence for conservation and sustainable development. Environmental Science
& Policy, 5, 13-18.
Rolston, H. (1997). Feeding People versus Saving Nature. In Gottieb, R. S. (Ed): The
Ecological Community (208-225). New York, London: Routlege.
Roth, S. (2007). Summary of Outcomes of the Workshop on NATURA 2000 and Tourism.
Bonn: Ecological Tourism Europe (ETE).
Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical
Divide, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8,1-19.
Stoll-Kleemann S., Bender S., Berghöfer A., Bertzky M., Fritz-Vietta N., Schliep R. &
Thierfelder B. (2006). Linking Governance and Management Perspectives with
Conservation Success in Protected Areas and Biosphere Reserves. Discussion paper 01 of
the GoBi Research Group. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität.
Storper M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy.
London: Guilford Press.
Tait, J. & Lyall, C. (2004). A New Mode of Governance for Science, Technology, Risk and
the Environment ? Innogen Working Paper 17 (November 2004).
Těšitel, J., Kušová, D. & Bartoš, M. (1999). Non marginal parameters of marginal areas.
Ekológia (Bratislava), 18(2), 39–46.
Těšitel J., Kušová D. & Bartoš M. (2003). Tourist’s reasons for visiting mountain areas: a
case study of the Šumava Mountains. Landscape Research, 28(3), 317 – 322.
Těšitel J., Kušová D. & Bartoš M. (2003a). Role of tourism in development of rural marginal
areas (region Ĺ umava Mts., Czech Republic). In: Banski J., Owsinski J. (Eds.):
Alternatives for European Rural Areas (81-91) Warsaw: European Rural Development
Network, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics, Institute of Geography and
Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences.
Těšitel, J., Kušová, D., Matějka, K. & Bartoš, M. (2005). Lidé v biosférickiých rezervacích
[People in biosphere reserves]. České Budějovice: Institute of Systems Biology and
Ecology, Academy of Sciences (in Czech).
Drahomíra Kušová, Jan Těšitel and Michael Bartoš124
Těšitel, J., Kušová, D., Matějka, K. & Bartoš, M. (2005a). Protected landscape areas and
regional development (the case of the Czech Republic). In: Florianczyk, Z., Czapiewski,
K. (Eds.): Rural Development Capacity in Carpathian Europe (113-126) Warsaw:
European Rural Development Network, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics,
Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences.
Těšitel, J., Kušová, D. & Bartoš, M. (2006). Rural areas development – local needs or
external forces. In: Florianczyk, Z., Czapiewski, K. (Eds.): Endogenous factors
stimulating rural development (87-97). Warzaw: European Rural Development Network,
Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics, Institute of Geography and Spatial
Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences.
Těšitel, J., Kušová, D. & Bartoš, M. (2007). Šetrný turismus v biosférických rezervacích –
nástroj formování sítí spolupráce: případová studie Biosférické rezervace Šumava.
[Sound tourism in biosphere reserves – a tool to form a network of cooperation: a case
study of the Šumava Biosphere Reseve.] Klagenfurt: Úřad vlády Korutan, (in Czech).
Townsend, P. (1987): Deprivation. Journal of Social Policy, 16( 2), 87-103.
UNESCO, (1996). Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of
the World Network. Paris: UNESCO..
UNESCO, (2001). MAB Report Series No. 69. Seville+5 International Meeting of Experts in
Pamplona (Spain, 2000), Proceedings. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO, (2002). Biosphere reserves: Special places for people and nature. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO, (2008). The Madrid Declaration. Paris: UNESCO.
Urban, F. (2006). Institutional and management frameworks in the Biosphere Reserve
Ĺ umava. Bonn: ETE..
Vos, W. & Klijn, J. A. (2000). Trends in European landscape development: prospects for
sustainable future. In: Klijn, J. A., Wos, W. (Eds.): From landscape ecology to landscape
science (13-30). Wageningen: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wilson, O. E. (1984). Biophilia - The human bond with other species. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Wilson, J., Tyedmers, P. & Pelot, R. (2007). Contrasting and comparing sustainable
development indicator metrics. Ecological Indicators, 7(2), 299-314.
Zemek, F., Heřman, M. (1998). Socio-economic potential of landscape integrated in GIS
frame. Ekológia (Bratislava), 17, (Supplement 1), 232–240.
Zemek, F., Heřman, M., Mašková, Z. & Květ, J. (2005). Multifunctional land use – a chance
or resettling abandoned landscapes? (A case study of the Zhůří territory, the Czech
Republic). Ekológia (Bratislava), 24, (Supplement 1), 96–108.