Examensarbeten i Vattenriket


Comparison of the management approaches in the biosphere reserves Schaalsee, Gremany and Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden

Författare: Franziska Solbring
University of Greifswald
Institute of geography and geology
Handledare prof. dr Susanne Stoll-Kleemann, Dr Lisen Schultz

Ladda ner arbetet (3,4 mb)

Abstract
The ongoing natural and human induced changes of social-ecological systems (SES) are a challenge for people who try to manage biodiversity and other natural resources. Biosphere Reserves (BRs) are thought to develop exemplary practices to reconcile the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity. An important element of the BR framework is the spatially zonation into core, buffer, and transition zones. The focus of the present study is on the buffer zones, which shall reduce human impacts that effect the core areas (UNESCO 2008), especially by sustainable forms of land use. Two BRs were chosen for a closer investigation: the BR Schaalsee in northern Germany and the BR Kristianstads Vattenrike in the very south of Sweden. They are covered by similar natural and cultural landscapes, which served as a reference point for the comparison of their management activities.

The main study aim is to compile important factors and conditions that determine the outcome of buffer zone management. Thereby, the management approaches of both BRs are specifically considered. The management members of the BR Kristianstads Vattenrike compiled the so-called ‘theme area approach’. It is a supplement to the existing zonation scheme and focuses on selected characteristic landscapes or land use types. In the course of this study, the advantages and
disadvantages of the theme area approach in contrast to the regular zonation scheme (applied by the BR Schaalsee) for buffer zone management are specified.
Generally, for reaching the integration of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in SES, co-adaptive forms of management are proposed. For a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms ruling in SES, the theoretical framework of social-ecological resilience (SER) sensu Resilience Alliance is consulted. Furthermore, the BR framework and the findings of this study are
reflected within the SER framework, in order to achieve an impression of the practicability of selected proposals in the context of both study sites. Since co-adaptive management bases on the collaboration with affected stakeholders, land users performing different types of conservative grassland use are considered as exemplary group additionally to the management members of both BRs. As the perspectives of these stakeholders are essential to reveal factors determining
management outcomes, a qualitative investigation with semi-structured interviews as main method was conducted.

The results show that both buffer zone as well as general BR management are affected from different political levels. On the EU level, the design of agrienvironmental schemes widely influences the possibilities and circumstances for conservative land use as important tool for buffer zone management. Furthermore, these schemes among others are perceived to be more decisive for the
outcome of buffer zone management than the design of the management approaches under study.

On the national and county level, legal conservation rules and national criteria for BRs influence both directly the framework conditions for buffer zone management, and indirectly the attitude of affected stakeholders. The latter is proved to have decisive implications both on buffer zone and general management outcomes. On the actual reserve level, the management body can – to a certain extent – influence selected issues that affect the stakeholders´ mindset and thus willingness to participate in BR matters. Namely these are the possibilities to access natural surroundings, the zonation and management approach and above all communication and information activities.

The comparison of both management approaches under study in addition to the elaboration of decisive factors revealed aspects worth to be considered both for the single BR management bodies as well as for the reflection and advancement of management in SES on the practical (BR framework) and theoretical (SER framework) level.


Tillbaka