**3.1.3 Park planning and partnerships**

248 Studies on Environmental and Applied Geomorphology

was on beauty, on aesthetical, aspects, and the idea that the good and the beautiful went together and were to be found on the countryside and in nature, and the idea and the bad

The pre-war national parks movement drew its strength from the convergence of several traditions. There was the cause of protecting the most beautiful scenery that had its roots in the writing of Ruskin, Morris and Blake. But this strand of the national parks movement had a strong class bias and its leaders often feared, and sometimes opposed, the urban masses who wished to holiday in the Lake District for example. It thus contrasted with the democratic, even Marxist leanings of a second strand that was concerned with access, and the rights of the working man to enjoy the open moors and fells, principally around our northern industrial cities. The third strand behind the national parks movement was scientific; its origins can be traced back to the nineteenth century pioneers, like Charles Rothschild, the founder of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, and its aims

Only when these forces combined did they create a powerful political pressure for legislation, but it took the Second World War to create the conditions where such legislation could be enacted. Writing in 1947, Clough Williams-Ellis, the visionary who created Portmeirion, dedicated a book about the National Trust to all those beautiful natural and other places that had been destroyed during the war years – "a massacre of loveliness" he called it (William-Ellis, p. 7). Beauty was indeed the victim of wartime "collateral damage", inflicted daily on a huge scale around the country, and indeed across the world. The passions and outrage that this gave rise to among the public and the political elite, and the belief that the nation needed to offer its citizens a better physical environment after the war, made the famous 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act possible (see for a

The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which created the National Parks Commission which later became the Countryside Commission and then the Countryside Agency, provided the framework for the creation of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in England and Wales, and also addressed public rights of way and access to open land. Currently, 12 National Parks are designated, of which the South-Downs National Park is the last of the 12 areas, designated in March 2009. Their main goal is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas, in mostly poor-quality agricultural upland. Furthermore, since 2003 seven so-called Geoparks have been created in

The British National Parks were set up in a system of heavy-handed centralized planning. Development control by the National Park Authorities (NPA), that is the detailed system by which approval is sought for building and land use change, is one of the main instruments of park management. Protective measures and financial resources are provided by central government. Because the adopted system manifested major policy performance problems in the 1970s and 1980s the traditional role of the NPAs in controlling development shifted to one of influencing land management (Curry, 1992). The management of land by the NPAs

were to ensure that nature conservation was placed on a statutory footing.

history: Sheail, 1975; MacEwen & MacEwan, 1987; Evans, 1992).

the UK. The first one was the North Pennines Geopark.

**3.1.2 Centralized planning system** 

and the ugly were to be found in the city and industry.

In the particular and influential British tradition landscape planning has mainly been concerned with an agenda of protection, preservation, amenity and ornament. This focus has been important, but has remained peripheral to a wider agenda of sustainable development. In the first part of the twenty-first century, however, landscape planning seems to become identified more strongly with the core concerns of sustainable development and spatial planning. Through innovations such as the European Landscape Convention, landscape has become increasingly central to matters of sustainability and place-making. Currently, National Parks are positioned as models for sustainable development in the British countryside, and the National Parks are given money by the national government to encourage individuals and communities to find sustainable ways of living and working, whilst enhancing and conserving the local culture, wildlife and landscape.

The British landscape preservation tradition and its cornerstones, the National Parks, is opening up and hooked on debates about sustainable development across rural and urban domains. However, the failure of socio-economic partnerships within the Parks is a major stumbling block on the road to sustainable development. Since there is a need to seek a new balance between the protection of the natural beauty and the stimulation of the socioeconomic needs of park communities, recent initiatives in Britain increasingly respond to the challenge of sustainability in Category V protected areas. For instance, the newly established Scottish National Parks (2002) are to promote sustainable social and economic

<sup>3</sup> Section 62(1) of the Environment Act states that NPAs "shall foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so, and shall for that purpose co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development within the area of the National Park".

From Landscape Preservation to Landscape Governance:

change course.

planning.

**3.2.2 Bottom-up approach** 

their rural pays; at most their frame of reference was the province.

power was delegated back from central government to the regions.

European Experiences with Sustainable Development of Protected Landscapes 251

century many of the French people belonged, by language, outlook, and culture, only to

The modernization of rural and village France became a relative success: the rural culture was assimilated into the national culture, as well as regions and their *paysage*, and Paris developed into a capital city, overruling all other cities. However, around 1950 the planned socio-cultural and economic centralization had become so successful that their combined outcome tended to turn into a problem. France had indeed become a one nation state, with one broadly shared language, culture and identity. It also had become a nation completely dominated by the city of Paris. In 1950 almost 5,5 million people, more than 10% of the French population, lived in Paris, and the expectation was that this number would rapidly increase in the near future. The capital and its direct vicinity thrived. Every economic, political or cultural institution of any importance was located in Paris; every decision of any weight was taken there. The dominance of the central city and the central culture was so strong that the province, the other cities and other parts of the country, started to crumble, demographically, economically and culturally. Therefore, the French government decided to

Post-war planning effort in France, known as the 'amenagement du territoire', attempted to more evenly redistribute the French population across the country as a means, in part, of boosting its economy. Particular growth regions were designated, new administrative units bigger than the existing departments, evenly spread over the country. The intention was to stimulate the economic growth of those regions, improve their accessibility and attractiveness, and reduce the pressure on Paris. Motorways and high-speed rail would connect these regions, with each other and Paris. Each region would have its own main urban centre, with all the necessary services and cultural and natural facilities. This step was the first one towards a more decentralized policy, the first time in decades that (some)

Provincial and agricultural France, whose memory, cultural and landscape legacy was lost in the centralization efforts of the 19th and early 20th century, was in many ways rediscovered. The ambition to allow regions space to reclaim their own identity, and the first hesitant steps to cautiously promote these regional identities, became visible in the idea to establish so-called *Parcs Naturels Régionaux* (PNR), a concept formalized by law in 1967. These parks were designated by the central government in selected regions, and had to combine the protection of the valuable natural and rural patrimony with regional rural development. The underlying inspiration was "to contribute, in line with the general policy, to a better distribution of the population over the whole of the territory, and the human and economical revitalization of the rural zones" (Minister André Fosset, June 11, 1976). So, in a way, the parks were a plan-led effort to mitigate the negative side-effects of decades of modernization and centralization, processes that themselves had been object of state-led

From the beginning most regional parks employed very strict rules with regard to land and property development and architectural styles. They became breeding grounds for landscape architects and architects, specialized in 'critical regionalism' (Lefaivre & Tzonis,

development of the area's communities, next to the conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage (McCarthy et al., 2002).

Furthermore, a recent review report of the Welsh National Parks calls for a more integrated sustainable development approach in order to ensure a sustainable future for the (Welsh) National Parks. The report recommends a new park purpose to "promote sustainable forms of economic and community development which support the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas" (Land Use Consultants, 2004: iv). In order to act upon these new proposals, British park planning and management must be carried out in close partnership with the local community, private sector and relevant government organizations. According to Phillips and Partington (2005) recent innovative policies in Wales already use protected areas as places where sustainable forms of rural development are pioneered and promoted, giving substance to the British National Parks' new purpose.

#### **3.2 French parcs naturels régionaux**

#### **3.2.1 French conservation history**

The origins of the French landscape conservation movement that led to the creation of the *Parcs Naturels Régionaux* can be traced back to the late 19th century, when French politicians and administrators in the capital city of Paris developed their ideas about a centralized nation-state (Alard et al., 1992). The overall aim of the famous French centralization efforts of the 19th and early 20th century was to remould all aspects of regionally bounded life, socially, culturally, politically and economically (Weber, 1976). The aspiration was to reforge rural and village France with its small peasant farms, by destroying the benumbing diversity in regional languages and cultures, and create a new unity, a new 'imagined community', as Benedict Anderson has put it, by blending and sometimes inventing new identities, goals and preferences. A clear example is to be found in the explicit efforts to create the impression that there was and always had been an unique French identity, embedded in and symbolized by the French countryside and French farmer, a process very present in the work of the famous French historian Jules Michelet, 'the man who invented the idea of France' (Braudel, 1998), for instance in his *Histoire de France* (1883).

The explicit purpose of centralization and modernization was to destroy existing old local identities and cultures, in particular the strong and very old links between region, identity and culture. To mention just one example, all existing regions and 'pays' in France, some of which already existed since Roman times, were intentionally split up in new small administrative units: departments. The borders of those departments intentionally cut across pre-existing cultural and political borders. Before the modernization and centralization of rural and village France, there existed no such idea as a unified French identity; identity was locally bounded, so completely self-evident that there was no need to talk about it. Or to put it differently: rural populations had heretofore been in France but not of it. For most French peasants and farmers local identity was all encompassing, replicated in the daily activities, rooted in the natural environment, and mirrored by the cultural environment. It is no coincidence that the most common and oldest French word for farmer is 'paysan', and that for landscape is 'paysage'. Identity in France was that what connected farmer, landscape and country(side): paysan, paysage and pays. Until the late nineteenth

development of the area's communities, next to the conservation and enhancement of the

Furthermore, a recent review report of the Welsh National Parks calls for a more integrated sustainable development approach in order to ensure a sustainable future for the (Welsh) National Parks. The report recommends a new park purpose to "promote sustainable forms of economic and community development which support the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas" (Land Use Consultants, 2004: iv). In order to act upon these new proposals, British park planning and management must be carried out in close partnership with the local community, private sector and relevant government organizations. According to Phillips and Partington (2005) recent innovative policies in Wales already use protected areas as places where sustainable forms of rural development are pioneered and promoted, giving substance to the British

The origins of the French landscape conservation movement that led to the creation of the *Parcs Naturels Régionaux* can be traced back to the late 19th century, when French politicians and administrators in the capital city of Paris developed their ideas about a centralized nation-state (Alard et al., 1992). The overall aim of the famous French centralization efforts of the 19th and early 20th century was to remould all aspects of regionally bounded life, socially, culturally, politically and economically (Weber, 1976). The aspiration was to reforge rural and village France with its small peasant farms, by destroying the benumbing diversity in regional languages and cultures, and create a new unity, a new 'imagined community', as Benedict Anderson has put it, by blending and sometimes inventing new identities, goals and preferences. A clear example is to be found in the explicit efforts to create the impression that there was and always had been an unique French identity, embedded in and symbolized by the French countryside and French farmer, a process very present in the work of the famous French historian Jules Michelet, 'the man who invented

the idea of France' (Braudel, 1998), for instance in his *Histoire de France* (1883).

The explicit purpose of centralization and modernization was to destroy existing old local identities and cultures, in particular the strong and very old links between region, identity and culture. To mention just one example, all existing regions and 'pays' in France, some of which already existed since Roman times, were intentionally split up in new small administrative units: departments. The borders of those departments intentionally cut across pre-existing cultural and political borders. Before the modernization and centralization of rural and village France, there existed no such idea as a unified French identity; identity was locally bounded, so completely self-evident that there was no need to talk about it. Or to put it differently: rural populations had heretofore been in France but not of it. For most French peasants and farmers local identity was all encompassing, replicated in the daily activities, rooted in the natural environment, and mirrored by the cultural environment. It is no coincidence that the most common and oldest French word for farmer is 'paysan', and that for landscape is 'paysage'. Identity in France was that what connected farmer, landscape and country(side): paysan, paysage and pays. Until the late nineteenth

natural and cultural heritage (McCarthy et al., 2002).

National Parks' new purpose.

**3.2 French parcs naturels régionaux 3.2.1 French conservation history** 

century many of the French people belonged, by language, outlook, and culture, only to their rural pays; at most their frame of reference was the province.

The modernization of rural and village France became a relative success: the rural culture was assimilated into the national culture, as well as regions and their *paysage*, and Paris developed into a capital city, overruling all other cities. However, around 1950 the planned socio-cultural and economic centralization had become so successful that their combined outcome tended to turn into a problem. France had indeed become a one nation state, with one broadly shared language, culture and identity. It also had become a nation completely dominated by the city of Paris. In 1950 almost 5,5 million people, more than 10% of the French population, lived in Paris, and the expectation was that this number would rapidly increase in the near future. The capital and its direct vicinity thrived. Every economic, political or cultural institution of any importance was located in Paris; every decision of any weight was taken there. The dominance of the central city and the central culture was so strong that the province, the other cities and other parts of the country, started to crumble, demographically, economically and culturally. Therefore, the French government decided to change course.

Post-war planning effort in France, known as the 'amenagement du territoire', attempted to more evenly redistribute the French population across the country as a means, in part, of boosting its economy. Particular growth regions were designated, new administrative units bigger than the existing departments, evenly spread over the country. The intention was to stimulate the economic growth of those regions, improve their accessibility and attractiveness, and reduce the pressure on Paris. Motorways and high-speed rail would connect these regions, with each other and Paris. Each region would have its own main urban centre, with all the necessary services and cultural and natural facilities. This step was the first one towards a more decentralized policy, the first time in decades that (some) power was delegated back from central government to the regions.

Provincial and agricultural France, whose memory, cultural and landscape legacy was lost in the centralization efforts of the 19th and early 20th century, was in many ways rediscovered. The ambition to allow regions space to reclaim their own identity, and the first hesitant steps to cautiously promote these regional identities, became visible in the idea to establish so-called *Parcs Naturels Régionaux* (PNR), a concept formalized by law in 1967. These parks were designated by the central government in selected regions, and had to combine the protection of the valuable natural and rural patrimony with regional rural development. The underlying inspiration was "to contribute, in line with the general policy, to a better distribution of the population over the whole of the territory, and the human and economical revitalization of the rural zones" (Minister André Fosset, June 11, 1976). So, in a way, the parks were a plan-led effort to mitigate the negative side-effects of decades of modernization and centralization, processes that themselves had been object of state-led planning.

#### **3.2.2 Bottom-up approach**

From the beginning most regional parks employed very strict rules with regard to land and property development and architectural styles. They became breeding grounds for landscape architects and architects, specialized in 'critical regionalism' (Lefaivre & Tzonis,

From Landscape Preservation to Landscape Governance:

mission'.

somewhere else.

regional parks.

**3.3 German nature parks** 

**3.3.1 German conservation history** 

European Experiences with Sustainable Development of Protected Landscapes 253

diversity, and with preserving special landscapes and geological heritage-sites, while implementing a programme of social and economic development. PNRs evolved from a rather introspective organisation dedicated almost solely to the protection of the natural heritage and traditional ways of regional life to an outward-looking body determined to utilise local assets and communities involvement to achieve its goals. Furthermore, park authorities give advice to towns and villages regarding urban organization and the insertion of buildings in the landscape. Underlying is the idea that environmental protection and economic development are not mutually exclusive. Even more so, it is believed that economic decline could be harmful to the protection of the valued landscape and heritage. After all, in the French context, rural depopulation and marginalization are serious threads. As Buller (2000) has argued, the PNRs have made 'local economic revitalization their central

Since the late 1990s the French central government has committed itself to the idea that PNRs are perfect units for sustainable policy making (FPNR, 2007). The PNRs play a key role in contemporary regional rural development by applying the principles of sustainable development. Although some regional parks fail to implement the conservation objectives of park Charters, comparative studies on the British and French system have shown that the French regional parks surpass the British national park system in achieving a balanced regional development (Dwyer, 1991). According to LaFreniere (1997) the Park Chartres have had a moderating effect on the scale enlargement and intensification of agricultural practices and, furthermore, contributed significantly towards raising the awareness of local park communities regarding environmental impacts of economic development. The Charter model used by all French PNR to set goals, draw up action plans and measure both outputs and outcomes has proved particularly useful to involve local communities and indigenous attributes and resources, rather than on attempting to import economic success from

In 2007 there were 45 regional nature parks in total, covering 12% of France, involving 21 regions and more than 3 million inhabitants, and about 5% of the population (Historique de Parcs Naturels Régionaux, 2007). The regional parks have become icons of French landscape planning, of the possibility to combine protection and conservation of nature, landscape, culture and local identity with rural economic development and tourism. The regional parks give regions identity and attractiveness. They are key eco-tourism attractions, for the French themselves and for foreigners. This great emphasis on historicity, locality and rurality, however, also has its drawbacks. It limits the scope of possible development and tends to stiffen planning efforts. The emphasis in French planning on the physical aspects of spatial identity intensifies this process. The emphasis on locality also easily prevents the emergence of supra-local planning, for instance the realisation of ecological corridors between parks, and it easily confines interest for sustainable or responsible landscape development to

The German nature and landscape conservation movement, responsible for the German Nature Parks (*Naturparke*), was very much influenced by the concept of *Heimat*, home or

2004). In 1987 the idea of sustainable development was introduced. This resulted in 1988 in a reformulation of the main objective of the parks, namely: "to protect and manage the natural and cultural patrimony, promote economic and social development, and function as examples and places for experimentation and research". However, it was only in 1993 that the establishment and mission of PNR was legally formalized. Their formal mission became: "to contribute to the policy of environmental protection, land use, economic development and social and public education ... for the preservation of landscapes and the natural and cultural heritage" (Article 2, Loi Paysages, 1993). Environmental, economic and social issues were seen as mutually dependent, as were the ideas of preservation and development, and those of cultural and natural heritage.

Lessons with community participation and co-production of public and private partnerships can be learned from the French *Parcs Naturels Régionaux* (PNR) with their dual purpose of (1) preservation of the natural and cultural patrimony; and (2) economic development through more efficient agriculture, recreation, local handicrafts, and tourism. The French areal protection system also distinguishes national parks; these however are focused on biodiversity and nature conservation. The French regional parks have a history of developing the countryside while at the same time protecting the environment. This is reflected in the PNR emphasis on 'conservation through appropriate development' as Dwyer (1991) has argued. However, in contrast to the British parks, the French PNR lacks strong regulatory and enforcement powers. Consequently, a 'bottom up' rather than a 'top down' system has been developed that actively engages local park communities and organizations in a cooperative manner. The French PNR do not provide specific legislation for environmental protection, but instead functions through local coordination of existing land-use regulations.

Each French PNR is governed officially by a Charter, a statutory instrument which sets out its goals, the strategy designed to achieve them and a broad outline of the supporting actions. A 'chartered authority', made up of representatives of local, regional and national government stakeholders, is responsible for implementing the Charter. Consequently, the Charter, a contractual document that is approved by several representatives of local and regional agencies and NGO's, signs up Park plans. Under the Charter, rural communities accept the obligation to apply constraints to them selves concerning the treatment of the environment (Lanneaux & Chapuis, 1993). The chartered authority, a so-called *Syndicat Mixte*, enjoys planning powers at the sub-regional level relatively similar to those held by the National Parks Authorities in Britain. It will draw up a ten-year action plan. When that period is up, a review procedure examines the parks past accomplishments and if the park merits renewal of its charter, the objectives for the next ten years will be agreed by the authority and endorsed by the relevant regional environment directorate.

#### **3.2.3 Regional rural development**

Although in the early years (1970s and 1980s) the French parks mainly emphasized economic development of disadvantaged rural regions, from the early 1990s onward a shift in attitudes away from rigid economic utilitarianism can be observed. Currently, the French PNR develop strategies that either seek directly to support local economic activities or stimulate new socio-economic benefits that strengthen local cultural and natural heritage. Therefore, PNRs adopt a multi-functional approach: protecting both biological and cultural

2004). In 1987 the idea of sustainable development was introduced. This resulted in 1988 in a reformulation of the main objective of the parks, namely: "to protect and manage the natural and cultural patrimony, promote economic and social development, and function as examples and places for experimentation and research". However, it was only in 1993 that the establishment and mission of PNR was legally formalized. Their formal mission became: "to contribute to the policy of environmental protection, land use, economic development and social and public education ... for the preservation of landscapes and the natural and cultural heritage" (Article 2, Loi Paysages, 1993). Environmental, economic and social issues were seen as mutually dependent, as were the ideas of preservation and development, and

Lessons with community participation and co-production of public and private partnerships can be learned from the French *Parcs Naturels Régionaux* (PNR) with their dual purpose of (1) preservation of the natural and cultural patrimony; and (2) economic development through more efficient agriculture, recreation, local handicrafts, and tourism. The French areal protection system also distinguishes national parks; these however are focused on biodiversity and nature conservation. The French regional parks have a history of developing the countryside while at the same time protecting the environment. This is reflected in the PNR emphasis on 'conservation through appropriate development' as Dwyer (1991) has argued. However, in contrast to the British parks, the French PNR lacks strong regulatory and enforcement powers. Consequently, a 'bottom up' rather than a 'top down' system has been developed that actively engages local park communities and organizations in a cooperative manner. The French PNR do not provide specific legislation for environmental protection, but instead functions through local coordination of existing

Each French PNR is governed officially by a Charter, a statutory instrument which sets out its goals, the strategy designed to achieve them and a broad outline of the supporting actions. A 'chartered authority', made up of representatives of local, regional and national government stakeholders, is responsible for implementing the Charter. Consequently, the Charter, a contractual document that is approved by several representatives of local and regional agencies and NGO's, signs up Park plans. Under the Charter, rural communities accept the obligation to apply constraints to them selves concerning the treatment of the environment (Lanneaux & Chapuis, 1993). The chartered authority, a so-called *Syndicat Mixte*, enjoys planning powers at the sub-regional level relatively similar to those held by the National Parks Authorities in Britain. It will draw up a ten-year action plan. When that period is up, a review procedure examines the parks past accomplishments and if the park merits renewal of its charter, the objectives for the next ten years will be agreed by the

Although in the early years (1970s and 1980s) the French parks mainly emphasized economic development of disadvantaged rural regions, from the early 1990s onward a shift in attitudes away from rigid economic utilitarianism can be observed. Currently, the French PNR develop strategies that either seek directly to support local economic activities or stimulate new socio-economic benefits that strengthen local cultural and natural heritage. Therefore, PNRs adopt a multi-functional approach: protecting both biological and cultural

authority and endorsed by the relevant regional environment directorate.

those of cultural and natural heritage.

land-use regulations.

**3.2.3 Regional rural development** 

diversity, and with preserving special landscapes and geological heritage-sites, while implementing a programme of social and economic development. PNRs evolved from a rather introspective organisation dedicated almost solely to the protection of the natural heritage and traditional ways of regional life to an outward-looking body determined to utilise local assets and communities involvement to achieve its goals. Furthermore, park authorities give advice to towns and villages regarding urban organization and the insertion of buildings in the landscape. Underlying is the idea that environmental protection and economic development are not mutually exclusive. Even more so, it is believed that economic decline could be harmful to the protection of the valued landscape and heritage. After all, in the French context, rural depopulation and marginalization are serious threads. As Buller (2000) has argued, the PNRs have made 'local economic revitalization their central mission'.

Since the late 1990s the French central government has committed itself to the idea that PNRs are perfect units for sustainable policy making (FPNR, 2007). The PNRs play a key role in contemporary regional rural development by applying the principles of sustainable development. Although some regional parks fail to implement the conservation objectives of park Charters, comparative studies on the British and French system have shown that the French regional parks surpass the British national park system in achieving a balanced regional development (Dwyer, 1991). According to LaFreniere (1997) the Park Chartres have had a moderating effect on the scale enlargement and intensification of agricultural practices and, furthermore, contributed significantly towards raising the awareness of local park communities regarding environmental impacts of economic development. The Charter model used by all French PNR to set goals, draw up action plans and measure both outputs and outcomes has proved particularly useful to involve local communities and indigenous attributes and resources, rather than on attempting to import economic success from somewhere else.

In 2007 there were 45 regional nature parks in total, covering 12% of France, involving 21 regions and more than 3 million inhabitants, and about 5% of the population (Historique de Parcs Naturels Régionaux, 2007). The regional parks have become icons of French landscape planning, of the possibility to combine protection and conservation of nature, landscape, culture and local identity with rural economic development and tourism. The regional parks give regions identity and attractiveness. They are key eco-tourism attractions, for the French themselves and for foreigners. This great emphasis on historicity, locality and rurality, however, also has its drawbacks. It limits the scope of possible development and tends to stiffen planning efforts. The emphasis in French planning on the physical aspects of spatial identity intensifies this process. The emphasis on locality also easily prevents the emergence of supra-local planning, for instance the realisation of ecological corridors between parks, and it easily confines interest for sustainable or responsible landscape development to regional parks.

#### **3.3 German nature parks**

#### **3.3.1 German conservation history**

The German nature and landscape conservation movement, responsible for the German Nature Parks (*Naturparke*), was very much influenced by the concept of *Heimat*, home or

From Landscape Preservation to Landscape Governance:

more or less adhered to the ideologies of National Socialism.

governments set up nature parks (Ditt, 1996).

settle competing claims on German space by multiple parties.

European Experiences with Sustainable Development of Protected Landscapes 255

1920s as they felt that their ideals were always seen as a mere partial aspect at the conferences of the Heimat and historic monument conservationists. Heimatschutz and nature conservation moved even further apart after the First World War, yet the concerns of both movements were accounted for in the Weimar Constitution of 1919 and both historic monument preservation and nature and landscape conservation were adopted as national objectives. Over time, both the representatives of Heimatschutz and of nature and landscape conservation became receptive to the antidemocratic, racial and nationalist movements in the 1920s and 1930s, allowing themselves to be monopolized through legal measures and

Heimatschutz remained separated from nature and landscape conservation when work recommenced after the Second World War. Nature protection itself also witnessed a drawback because of the war and the following period of reconstruction. In 1950s and 1960s, however, both conservation bureaucracy and private groups, in particular the Nature Park Society (Verein Naturschutzpark, VNP, established in 1909 in Munich) led by Hamburg millionaire Alfred Toepfer, and the German Council for Land Cultivation (Deutscher Rat für Landespflege, DRL, established in 1962), presided over by Swedish-born Count Lennart Bernadotte, promoted the extensive conservation of nature and landscapes in Germanspeaking regions. On 6 June 1956 in the former capital city of Bonn at the annual meeting of the Nature Reserve Association, the environmentalist and entrepreneur, Toepfer, presented a programme developed jointly with the Central Office for Nature Conservation and Landscape Management and other institutions to set up (initially) 25 Nature Parks in West Germany. Five percent of the area of the old Federal Republic of Germany was to be spared from major environmental damage as a result. In the following years, the *Verein Naturschutz Park* won state and federal (financial) government support and different regional and local

For Toepfer, patron of Germany's nature parks, life and love of the outdoors was part and parcel of his combat against the perceived ills of modern society (Toepfer, 1957). Obviously, the pre-war Heimatschutz movement influenced Toepfer's view on nature and landscape conservation. The expanding cities of West Germany and their population had to be given space for recreation and leisure activities (walking, cycling, water sports, etc.). Furthermore, nature parks, had to provide opportunities for people to come face to face with nature. The ideal of Toepfer was to establish recreational 'oases of calm' in idyllic rural settings to offset the 'mechanization' of daily life in 'denatured' cities (Chaney, 2008). But as federal and state governments devoted more resources to spatial planning at the end of the 1950s, the nature park program also became a planning project overseen by technocratic experts who could

In the 1960s and 70s regional planners' involvement with nature parks forced socials conservationists like Toepfer to view nature parks not merely as scenic landscapes for rejuvenation but as "model landscapes" that might illustrate how to use the country's territory more efficiently and equitably. The emphasis on "model landscapes" was strengthened in the 1970s with the emergence of the ecology movement and the Green Party. As a result, the German nature parks, once commenced from a predominantly conservative, often nationalistic (Heimatschutz) cause, gradually became associated more clearly with the political left and the international movement to protect the global

homeland; a concept that – up until today – influences German society at large (Lekan, 2004). For instance, in 1984 the first eleven parts of a series called *Heimat*, written and directed by the German filmmaker Edgar Reitz, appeared on German television. The series was about the development of Germany (former Federal Republic) between 1919 and 1982. The successive members of a family, but above all their native region and village, their socalled *Heimat*, played the leading part. The series was about the tension between on the one hand the desire for identity, locality, security and belonging and, on the other hand, the craving for freedom, liberalization and cosmopolitanism.

The German concept of *Heimat* expresses a "feeling of belonging together" (Applegate, 1990). It has a connotation that roams somewhere between the French idea of *pays*, the English notion of *home* and the Dutch notion of *heimwee*. *Heimat* is about the myriad emotional ties that link up someone's identity with the identity of ones birthplace (i.e. home, village, and region), expressed by the landscape, nature, agricultural practices, handicrafts, dialects, people, history and customs of that place; in short: all the 'places, objects, practices and images' that generate and sustain those (nostalgic) emotions, in the first place the parental home and village. It refers simultaneously to a *état d'âme*, a sense of place, the place itself, and the objects and practices at that place.

In the late 19th century German people started to seek refuge in so-called *Agrarromantik* (dreams that glamorize rural live and the countryside). This trend was especially strong amongst the (new) urban middle classes, most notably amongst teachers, civil servants and the clergy (Bergmann, 1970). They developed a new vision on the good live, based on new ideas about belonging, wholeness, culture and identity; ideas that rooted in sentiments that opposed the city to the countryside, and the present to the past. They 'decided' that the heart of German identity was to be found in the *Heimat*, conceptualized out of a mixture of traditional pre-industrial rural regions, villages and landscapes. That (imagined) *Heimat* had to be taken care off, protected where that was needed, and restored where that was possible. Those ideas and sentiments were bundled by E. Rudorff in a new practice oriented concept, the Heimatschutz ('Protection of native country').

The motivation behind the Heimatschutz movement was based on emotions, ethics, and aesthetics (Rollins, 1997). The aim of Heimatschutz was to explicitly protect, study and strengthen the Heimat, in all its aspects. One important component, in fact a cornerstone, was the protection of the countryside and it's history-rooted customs, practices, architecture and landscapes: the parental country, 'home of the German soul'. This ambition was not to be taken lightly; it went beyond pure aesthetical considerations, as a Saxon Minister articulated strikingly in 1915: 'Heimatschutz is no game, but rather a far-reaching cultural movement, whose influence pervades every corner of the nation… no more and no less than the preservation and re-creation of the basis of all culture: the raising of the feeling of Heimat, the protection of beauty and of historical uniqueness, the artistic education of people to good taste, and thereby also the raising of the economic power of our people'.

In 1904, a number of associations dedicated to these conservation ideals merged to form the "Bund Heimatschutz" (homeland conservation alliance). It was difficult to achieve contextual unity and solidity within the alliance, one reason being the often regional and landscape-related self-conception of the member associations, and the alliance therefore became an umbrella organization. The nature conservationist groups split off in the mid-

homeland; a concept that – up until today – influences German society at large (Lekan, 2004). For instance, in 1984 the first eleven parts of a series called *Heimat*, written and directed by the German filmmaker Edgar Reitz, appeared on German television. The series was about the development of Germany (former Federal Republic) between 1919 and 1982. The successive members of a family, but above all their native region and village, their socalled *Heimat*, played the leading part. The series was about the tension between on the one hand the desire for identity, locality, security and belonging and, on the other hand, the

The German concept of *Heimat* expresses a "feeling of belonging together" (Applegate, 1990). It has a connotation that roams somewhere between the French idea of *pays*, the English notion of *home* and the Dutch notion of *heimwee*. *Heimat* is about the myriad emotional ties that link up someone's identity with the identity of ones birthplace (i.e. home, village, and region), expressed by the landscape, nature, agricultural practices, handicrafts, dialects, people, history and customs of that place; in short: all the 'places, objects, practices and images' that generate and sustain those (nostalgic) emotions, in the first place the parental home and village. It refers simultaneously to a *état d'âme*, a sense of place, the place

In the late 19th century German people started to seek refuge in so-called *Agrarromantik* (dreams that glamorize rural live and the countryside). This trend was especially strong amongst the (new) urban middle classes, most notably amongst teachers, civil servants and the clergy (Bergmann, 1970). They developed a new vision on the good live, based on new ideas about belonging, wholeness, culture and identity; ideas that rooted in sentiments that opposed the city to the countryside, and the present to the past. They 'decided' that the heart of German identity was to be found in the *Heimat*, conceptualized out of a mixture of traditional pre-industrial rural regions, villages and landscapes. That (imagined) *Heimat* had to be taken care off, protected where that was needed, and restored where that was possible. Those ideas and sentiments were bundled by E. Rudorff in a new practice oriented concept,

The motivation behind the Heimatschutz movement was based on emotions, ethics, and aesthetics (Rollins, 1997). The aim of Heimatschutz was to explicitly protect, study and strengthen the Heimat, in all its aspects. One important component, in fact a cornerstone, was the protection of the countryside and it's history-rooted customs, practices, architecture and landscapes: the parental country, 'home of the German soul'. This ambition was not to be taken lightly; it went beyond pure aesthetical considerations, as a Saxon Minister articulated strikingly in 1915: 'Heimatschutz is no game, but rather a far-reaching cultural movement, whose influence pervades every corner of the nation… no more and no less than the preservation and re-creation of the basis of all culture: the raising of the feeling of Heimat, the protection of beauty and of historical uniqueness, the artistic education of people to good taste, and thereby also the raising of the economic power of our people'.

In 1904, a number of associations dedicated to these conservation ideals merged to form the "Bund Heimatschutz" (homeland conservation alliance). It was difficult to achieve contextual unity and solidity within the alliance, one reason being the often regional and landscape-related self-conception of the member associations, and the alliance therefore became an umbrella organization. The nature conservationist groups split off in the mid-

craving for freedom, liberalization and cosmopolitanism.

itself, and the objects and practices at that place.

the Heimatschutz ('Protection of native country').

1920s as they felt that their ideals were always seen as a mere partial aspect at the conferences of the Heimat and historic monument conservationists. Heimatschutz and nature conservation moved even further apart after the First World War, yet the concerns of both movements were accounted for in the Weimar Constitution of 1919 and both historic monument preservation and nature and landscape conservation were adopted as national objectives. Over time, both the representatives of Heimatschutz and of nature and landscape conservation became receptive to the antidemocratic, racial and nationalist movements in the 1920s and 1930s, allowing themselves to be monopolized through legal measures and more or less adhered to the ideologies of National Socialism.

Heimatschutz remained separated from nature and landscape conservation when work recommenced after the Second World War. Nature protection itself also witnessed a drawback because of the war and the following period of reconstruction. In 1950s and 1960s, however, both conservation bureaucracy and private groups, in particular the Nature Park Society (Verein Naturschutzpark, VNP, established in 1909 in Munich) led by Hamburg millionaire Alfred Toepfer, and the German Council for Land Cultivation (Deutscher Rat für Landespflege, DRL, established in 1962), presided over by Swedish-born Count Lennart Bernadotte, promoted the extensive conservation of nature and landscapes in Germanspeaking regions. On 6 June 1956 in the former capital city of Bonn at the annual meeting of the Nature Reserve Association, the environmentalist and entrepreneur, Toepfer, presented a programme developed jointly with the Central Office for Nature Conservation and Landscape Management and other institutions to set up (initially) 25 Nature Parks in West Germany. Five percent of the area of the old Federal Republic of Germany was to be spared from major environmental damage as a result. In the following years, the *Verein Naturschutz Park* won state and federal (financial) government support and different regional and local governments set up nature parks (Ditt, 1996).

For Toepfer, patron of Germany's nature parks, life and love of the outdoors was part and parcel of his combat against the perceived ills of modern society (Toepfer, 1957). Obviously, the pre-war Heimatschutz movement influenced Toepfer's view on nature and landscape conservation. The expanding cities of West Germany and their population had to be given space for recreation and leisure activities (walking, cycling, water sports, etc.). Furthermore, nature parks, had to provide opportunities for people to come face to face with nature. The ideal of Toepfer was to establish recreational 'oases of calm' in idyllic rural settings to offset the 'mechanization' of daily life in 'denatured' cities (Chaney, 2008). But as federal and state governments devoted more resources to spatial planning at the end of the 1950s, the nature park program also became a planning project overseen by technocratic experts who could settle competing claims on German space by multiple parties.

In the 1960s and 70s regional planners' involvement with nature parks forced socials conservationists like Toepfer to view nature parks not merely as scenic landscapes for rejuvenation but as "model landscapes" that might illustrate how to use the country's territory more efficiently and equitably. The emphasis on "model landscapes" was strengthened in the 1970s with the emergence of the ecology movement and the Green Party. As a result, the German nature parks, once commenced from a predominantly conservative, often nationalistic (Heimatschutz) cause, gradually became associated more clearly with the political left and the international movement to protect the global

From Landscape Preservation to Landscape Governance:

**3.3.3 Model landscapes** 

authorities, takes care of.

sustainable use of natural resources.

**4.1 Converging conservation strategies** 

**4. Landscape conservation and sustainable development** 

European Experiences with Sustainable Development of Protected Landscapes 257

About 97 Nature Parks now cover about 25 % of Germany's area. They play a forwardlooking and important role in the protection of nature, landscape-based recreation and the conservation of Germany's cultural and geological important landscapes. Their contribution is therefore decisive for the identity, preservation and development of the regions. Since the late 1990s there is a growing governmental interest in the conservation and recreational use of Germany's Nature Parks. This attention has to do with a shift to a post-productivist rural policy, as well as with a renaissance of cultural and natural heritage issues, like regional identity. As a result, most Nature Parks are subject of special funding from the federal government. This money is used to cover the purchase of agrarian land, to fund special conservation measures, and as compensation for limitations of existing land use. In addition, money from the state government (Länder) is geared to funding particular

The German federal state currently sees Nature Parks as "model landscapes" with their aim to preserve unique landscapes for and with man and to contribute to a sustainable regional development (Deutscher Bundestag, 2007). Therefore, the Association of German Nature Parks (*Verband Deutsche Naturparke* [VDN]) is supporting Nature Parks in correspondence to their tasks by law in the promotion of an environmentally friendly and sustainable tourism, in the establishment of an ecological land use, which protects and recovers biodiversity and in proceeding regional development, which is maintaining cultural landscapes (VDN, 1995). To widen the possibilities of environmental education for visitors and the local population therefore is another task the Association, together with the help of the different park

In the parks emphasis is being placed on promoting regional agricultural and forestry products and tourism services and in this way encouraging appropriate variants of land use. In addition to nature and landscape conservation, German natural parks also play an important role in preserving local customs, traditional crafts, historical settlement patterns, and regional architecture. Different projects, therefore, attempt to guarantee the economic advantages deriving from rural economic renewal and the advantages of a rediscovered sense of regional identity. The management philosophy of most Nature Parks embraces the peaceful coexistence of nature conservation with sympathetic economic enterprise and

As the previous paragraphs shows, the origins, objectives and management of landscape protection systems throughout Western Europe differ significantly (see Table 3). In the Britain the case was, first and foremost, to conserve the most spectacular, wild or geomorphologic valuable landscapes by establishing National Parks. The establishment of National Parks reflected a particular aesthetic tradition, that was influenced by writerly and artistic conventions, and was applied to areas agreed by a relatively like-minded community of campaigners. It also affirmed the notion of British landscape as something which could be framed and separated from its less worthy surroundings. In France the main goal was to

conservation contracts with farmers to maintain cultural and natural heritage.

environment, though without losing its traditional base of support among social conservatives (up until today the sponsors of nature parks are usually clubs or local special purpose associations) and without completely abandoning its critique of modern civilization.

#### **3.3.2 Protection trough usage**

As shown, the original and central idea of Nature Parks was man's encounter with nature, the experience of the beauty of nature and scenery and the equal value of nature conservation and recreation. As was the case with the British national parks, German nature parks were mainly associated with public recreation. Emphasis solely was on stimulating public access of the German countryside, for instance by setting up visitor information centers. In keeping with this central idea, the tasks of landscape-based recreation were initially in the foreground: reasonable control of the increasing number of visitors, recreational facilities compatible with nature, and resolution of the conflict between nature conservation and recreation. The sociopolitical aspect of nature parks – to provide opportunities for recreation, especially for citydwellers – was considered very important too.

Although the parks were popular and had a positive image, nature conservationists and environmental groups lamented that they were poorly administered, since few restrictions were placed on use (farming and forestry were permitted). Furthermore, nature areas were inadequately protected. As a result, conservation goals got more important, especially since the introduction of the 1976 *Bundesnaturschutzgesetz* (Nature conservation law) which gave the nature parks a legal status. The definition of the category of Nature Park was laid down in federal law (§ 27 of the BNatSchG). Paragraph 27 of the BNatSchG determined that natural parks are large areas that are to be developed and managed as a single unit, that consist mainly of protected landscapes or nature reserves, that have a large variety of species and habitats and that have a landscape that exhibits a variety of uses. Basically all actions, interventions and projects that would be contrary to the purpose of conservation are prohibited. Nature parks are to be considered in zoning and must be represented and considered in local development plans. This is called an acquisition memorandum. They are binding and cannot be waived because of a higher common good.

From the late 1970s onward the aim of Nature Parks is to strive for environmentally sustainable land use. The underlying idea is "protection through usage". Self-evidently, the acceptance and participation of the population in the protection of the cultural landscape and nature is very important. In doing so the nature conservation and the needs of recreation users are linked so that both sides benefit: sustainable tourism with respect for the value of nature and landscape is paramount in today's Nature Parks. It was also in the late 1970s that management authorities were installed, trying to stand up for the best interests of the areas. Since then the regulation of the German Nature Parks are organised as a special purpose association (*Zweckverband*). However, they have been dominated by, for example, agricultural associations who opposed against land use regulations that would endanger their idea of agricultural modernization. Since 1995, following updated legislation and responses to international calls for sustainable development, most notably the Rio summit in 1992, as well as the reunification of West and East Germany, there has been a change in orientation towards much more active involvement of local stakeholders in the management of Nature Parks (Stoll-Kleemann, 2001).

#### **3.3.3 Model landscapes**

256 Studies on Environmental and Applied Geomorphology

environment, though without losing its traditional base of support among social conservatives (up until today the sponsors of nature parks are usually clubs or local special purpose associations) and without completely abandoning its critique of modern

As shown, the original and central idea of Nature Parks was man's encounter with nature, the experience of the beauty of nature and scenery and the equal value of nature conservation and recreation. As was the case with the British national parks, German nature parks were mainly associated with public recreation. Emphasis solely was on stimulating public access of the German countryside, for instance by setting up visitor information centers. In keeping with this central idea, the tasks of landscape-based recreation were initially in the foreground: reasonable control of the increasing number of visitors, recreational facilities compatible with nature, and resolution of the conflict between nature conservation and recreation. The sociopolitical aspect of nature parks – to provide opportunities for recreation, especially for city-

Although the parks were popular and had a positive image, nature conservationists and environmental groups lamented that they were poorly administered, since few restrictions were placed on use (farming and forestry were permitted). Furthermore, nature areas were inadequately protected. As a result, conservation goals got more important, especially since the introduction of the 1976 *Bundesnaturschutzgesetz* (Nature conservation law) which gave the nature parks a legal status. The definition of the category of Nature Park was laid down in federal law (§ 27 of the BNatSchG). Paragraph 27 of the BNatSchG determined that natural parks are large areas that are to be developed and managed as a single unit, that consist mainly of protected landscapes or nature reserves, that have a large variety of species and habitats and that have a landscape that exhibits a variety of uses. Basically all actions, interventions and projects that would be contrary to the purpose of conservation are prohibited. Nature parks are to be considered in zoning and must be represented and considered in local development plans. This is called an acquisition memorandum. They are

From the late 1970s onward the aim of Nature Parks is to strive for environmentally sustainable land use. The underlying idea is "protection through usage". Self-evidently, the acceptance and participation of the population in the protection of the cultural landscape and nature is very important. In doing so the nature conservation and the needs of recreation users are linked so that both sides benefit: sustainable tourism with respect for the value of nature and landscape is paramount in today's Nature Parks. It was also in the late 1970s that management authorities were installed, trying to stand up for the best interests of the areas. Since then the regulation of the German Nature Parks are organised as a special purpose association (*Zweckverband*). However, they have been dominated by, for example, agricultural associations who opposed against land use regulations that would endanger their idea of agricultural modernization. Since 1995, following updated legislation and responses to international calls for sustainable development, most notably the Rio summit in 1992, as well as the reunification of West and East Germany, there has been a change in orientation towards much more active involvement of local stakeholders in the

civilization.

**3.3.2 Protection trough usage** 

dwellers – was considered very important too.

binding and cannot be waived because of a higher common good.

management of Nature Parks (Stoll-Kleemann, 2001).

About 97 Nature Parks now cover about 25 % of Germany's area. They play a forwardlooking and important role in the protection of nature, landscape-based recreation and the conservation of Germany's cultural and geological important landscapes. Their contribution is therefore decisive for the identity, preservation and development of the regions. Since the late 1990s there is a growing governmental interest in the conservation and recreational use of Germany's Nature Parks. This attention has to do with a shift to a post-productivist rural policy, as well as with a renaissance of cultural and natural heritage issues, like regional identity. As a result, most Nature Parks are subject of special funding from the federal government. This money is used to cover the purchase of agrarian land, to fund special conservation measures, and as compensation for limitations of existing land use. In addition, money from the state government (Länder) is geared to funding particular conservation contracts with farmers to maintain cultural and natural heritage.

The German federal state currently sees Nature Parks as "model landscapes" with their aim to preserve unique landscapes for and with man and to contribute to a sustainable regional development (Deutscher Bundestag, 2007). Therefore, the Association of German Nature Parks (*Verband Deutsche Naturparke* [VDN]) is supporting Nature Parks in correspondence to their tasks by law in the promotion of an environmentally friendly and sustainable tourism, in the establishment of an ecological land use, which protects and recovers biodiversity and in proceeding regional development, which is maintaining cultural landscapes (VDN, 1995). To widen the possibilities of environmental education for visitors and the local population therefore is another task the Association, together with the help of the different park authorities, takes care of.

In the parks emphasis is being placed on promoting regional agricultural and forestry products and tourism services and in this way encouraging appropriate variants of land use. In addition to nature and landscape conservation, German natural parks also play an important role in preserving local customs, traditional crafts, historical settlement patterns, and regional architecture. Different projects, therefore, attempt to guarantee the economic advantages deriving from rural economic renewal and the advantages of a rediscovered sense of regional identity. The management philosophy of most Nature Parks embraces the peaceful coexistence of nature conservation with sympathetic economic enterprise and sustainable use of natural resources.
