CCRR Conference Dresden, May 27-29, 2013

Climate change and biodiversity in

outdoor recreation destinations – Perception of stakeholders and their

motivation to take action

Gerd Lupp1, Linda Heuchele2

Werner Konold2, Dominik Siegrist3

1Leibniz-Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Dresden

2Professorship for Landscape Management, Freiburg University 3Institute for Landscape and Open Space, University of Applied Sciences, Rapperswil,

Siwtzerland

Funded by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) with funds of the German Federal Ministry of the Environment (BMU)

Funding and Cooperation

Funded by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) with funds of the German Federal Ministry of the Environment (BMU) between 8/2011-3/2014

Leibniz-Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Dresden (IÖR)

Institute for Landscape Management, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg (D)

Institute for Landscape and Open Space, University Rapperswil (CH)

Co-operation with Biosphere Reserves and Nature Parks, Nature Conservation Areas and tourism agencies in case study regions

Challenge

Develop strategies to protect biodiversity and to integrate climate protection and adaption strategies for climate change sustainable development and joint action in model regions

Large protected areas in Germany like biosphere reserves and nature parks serve as model regions, institutionalized nature protection by providing park management or area manager, institutionalized tourism to ease work by having contact persons

Study Regions Biosphere Reserve Southeast-Rügen Nature Park Feldberg Lake District Feldberg-Belchen-Oberes Wiesental Allgäuer Hochalpen (for validation and student courses)

Vilm, Biosphere Reserve Southeast-Rügen

Schweingartensee, Nature Park Feldberg Lake District

Feldsee, Large-Scale Conservation Project Feldberg-

Belchen-Oberes Wiesental

Oytal Bildquelle: Wikipedia

Seealpsee, Nature Conservation Area Allgäuer High Alps

Methodology

Interaction Biodiversity, CC, Outdoor recreation (D, P)

Literature review on interactions between biodiversity-climate change-outdoor recreation

Key Stakeholders: analyses on their individual perception of the core topics climate change, tourism, biodiversity and their inter-relations; semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and regional workshops in three outdoor recreation destinations discussing main questions

Biodiversity in Outdoor recreation context

Climate change: Impact and mitigation/adaption

Cooperation between key stakeholders

Stakeholders were selected by choosing maximum contrast principle (Hunziker 2000)

Stakeholder Awareness (State)

In the context of outdoor recreation Biodiversity is mainly seen as different landscapes, colours and shapes, extreme habitats and some flagship species, but also some special interest visitors e.g. bird-watching

Megatrend hiking, less important biking, new trend E-bike (perceived mainly positive to reduce motorized traffic)

Low impact of recreation activities compared to agriculture, but impact of new trend activities (kite-surfing, geocaching) unknown or high, since these activities demand space and are often away from trails

Stakeholder Awareness (Impact)

All tested outdoor recreation destinations perceive that under climate change, they are in a winning position long summer season until late autumn in the future

Perception, that most species can adapt to different climate conditions

Skiing is already getting less important for mountain destinations and both tested regions perceive themselves being able to adapt by shifting snow activities to higher regions

Stakeholder Awareness (State)

High knowledge on climate change issues, climate changes are already visible for interviewees (increased extreme weather situations), severe changes are expected around 2050, but beyond all current investment turnovers (even cableways or buildings)

Some impacts of climate change on biodiversity were expected, intense agriculture and biomass production for energy however was seen as the real issue: “Tell your funders that the climate change issue draws off the attention from the real problems out there” (First statement made by three stakeholders in Feldberg Lake District workshop)

Stakeholder Awareness (State)

Nonetheless, initiatives to protect climate are seen necessary by all stakeholders like emission-free mobility (bike, E-bike, electric rental cars, public transportation), also environmentally friendly accommodation (zero-emission buildings) are expected by guests as state-of-the art but not gaining extra revenues for entrepreneurs

The consequences of the German energy revolution as a key strategy to reduce CO2 emission to limit climate change effects were discussed intensively by the stakeholders no consensus on wind energy opinions stretched from “turbine free zones” to “visitors expect outdoor recreation destinations being part of the Energy revolution”, biomass production (maize for biogas production is a big issue) was perceived extremely negative

Stakeholder Awareness (State)

Problems: difficult for scientists to precisely describe impacts of climate change on biodiversity, mainly modelling results question of potentials to adapt; impact of land use changes are currently more severe and intense

Extreme habitats will be affected for sure (e.g. Glacial relict species in mid-mountain ranges, bogs ...), they are also important for recreation purposes

Increased pressure on land-use by increased outdoor recreation and renewable energy production; infrastructure but also housing etc. increased efforts to protect biodiversity and to provide “Green Infrastructure” for migration corridors

Stakeholder Awareness (State)

A number of research projects were carried already concerning climate change ( “fed up with climate change issues”), current management problems (<10 years) are like land use changes, bio-energy are more urgent for stakeholders and therefore don´t feel understood

CC adaption actions: Forest management focus on changing tree species and mixed forest with high portions of potential natural vegetation as an adaption to future climate conditions

Management for water retention and raised bog restoration

Some exchange between stakeholders (not institutionalized) but no joint action for climate change issues, some actions and ideas for protecting biodiversity strong interest to act in this field, mainly concepts for visitor management

The reasons not to act...

“Non-action” can be understood by application of a motivation psychology concept (Reinberg 2002)

Person Action Results Benefits

Situation – Result – Expectation

CC: Situation is not perceived being a big problem in local context

Biodiv.: is seen a problem to be solved to some extent in local context

Perceived own ability for effective action

CC: low impact of

own actions

Expected results of own action

CC: limited own abilities

Biodiv.: abilities, but results will

be restrictions, not rewards

Expected benefit

CC: some stimuli by money for

renewable energy

Biodiv.: mainly non-monetary

values

Map Exercise (Impact Response)

Map exercise using scenarios developed from interviews and the discussion of the workshops

Basis: moderate climate change scenario (“+2°”), we

want to promote action and not resignation or fatalism (happened when we tried to discuss more extreme climate change scenarios)

Using flagship species: In context of tourism, they are the ones that are identified as most capable element of “biodiversity”; for the Black Forest, the capercaillie was used – correlates with an action plan with high political relevance. Also a suiting indicator species for colder high mountain climate and sensitive to human disturbance

Pressure of increased use of renewable energy and impacts on scenic qualities (“biodiversity” in tourism context)

Map Exercise (Impact Response)

We developed short stories about the climate conditions in all the study areas between 2021-2030 (Black Forest, correlating with “capercaillie action plan”) res. 2031-2040 for the other study regions

We developed 3 different tourism scenarios based on trends in tourism since all interviewees saw increasing visitor numbers

“Classic”

“Wellness”

“Adventure”

Short stories were developed to describe these scenarios

Map Exercise (Impact Response)

We presented the scenarios and the stories and then asked the stakeholders to plan and zone the study regions according to these demands by using maps

The map contained core zones for capercaillie protection according to results of research using moderate CC assumptions and core zones of a possible future biosphere reserve in the study region

Core spatial pressures of the scenarios to be considered in the map exercise

Impressions

Black Forest Workshop, November 21, 2012

Stakeholder Action (Response)

Stakeholders participated well and found the work with the maps inspiring

Agreements between different groups like nature protection, tourism and land users and broad acceptance of the results

Long discussions and exchange

“Important and interesting”

“Who is going to implement this planning and zoning?”

Someone from the region has to take these ideas and keep the contacts beyond the funding period of the project, still an issue after a third workshop who will be responsible and legitimating the stakeholders to take action

“Capacity-building” necessary

Thank you very much for your attention!

C.Renner

Dr. Gerd Lupp Leibniz-Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development Weberplatz 1 DE-01217 Dresden Phone: +49-351-4679-279 g.lupp@ioer.de