LwG

Ga

b

a

ARRA

KLLNWDFL

I

imbrtntmsIszsaic

Wo

1h

Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (2013) 10– 21

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal for Nature Conservation

j our na l ho mepage: www.elsev ier .de / jnc

andscape management and landscape changes towards more naturalness andilderness: Effects on scenic qualities—The case of the Müritz National Park inermany

erd Luppa,∗, Werner Konoldb, Olaf Bastiana

Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, GermanyInstitute for Landscape Management, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Tennenbacherstr. 4, 79085 Freiburg, Germany

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 17 February 2012eceived in revised form 8 August 2012ccepted 15 August 2012

eywords:

a b s t r a c t

This paper analyses the consequences and effects of management towards more naturalness and wilder-ness, using the case of the Müritz National Park as an example. Planned management actions for enhancingnaturalness and providing space for wilderness are examined. The scenic qualities of the national parklandscape are analysed in terms of the management objectives and with the appropriate tools. For openlandscapes, we applied the Delphi survey method to forecast their appearances in 2020 and 2035. A forestgrowth simulator was used to describe the change in forest tree species composition over the coming

andscape changesandscape managementational Parkilderness

elphi Methodorest Growth Model SILVA 2.2andscape preferences and perception

decades, and well into the 22nd century. These forecasts are compared with the goals set in the NationalPark Plan.

© 2012 Published by Elsevier GmbH.

ntroduction

Maintaining biodiversity is one of the core challenges at thenternational, national and regional levels. It is central to the Ger-

an National Strategy on Biological Diversity (BMU 2007) adoptedy the Federal Cabinet in November 2007. All national parks areequired to comply with the IUCN Category II standards. In ordero meet the internationally accepted IUCN Category II standards,ational parks have to allow natural processes which will leado the establishment of a state of natural wilderness. However,

any of these designated areas also include valuable cultural land-capes, which are also worthy of protection. Thus, IUCN CategoryI parks can also host valuable traditionally used cultural land-capes to some extent. These are supposed to serve as a bufferone between intensively used areas outside the parks and thetrictly protected core zone (Dudley 2008). The IUCN category II

lso reflects the restoration of native biodiversity. In most regionsn Central Europe, the land has been intensively cultivated for manyenturies, and the landscapes and its habitats have been strongly

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 351 4679 279.E-mail addresses: g.lupp@ioer.de, luppg@gmx.de (G. Lupp),

erner.konold@landespflege.uni-freiburg.de (W. Konold),.bastian@ioer.de (O. Bastian).

617-1381/$ – see front matter © 2012 Published by Elsevier GmbH.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.08.003

affected by human intervention. Restoration efforts therefore playan important role for Central European national parks. Neverthe-less, questions such as the following ones can still arise: What arethe consequences in scenic terms of strategies to develop morenaturalness and wilderness over the short and long term? Willmanagement practices produce the intended effects and halt theloss of biodiversity, and can such goals be achieved quickly withina few years? Can prescribed management measures be imple-mented as intended? Will the change in scenic quality resultingfrom management strategies be accepted by visitors? Accordingto general ideas of preferred landscapes, as established in land-scape planning theories, the most attractive landscapes are smallscale and traditionally maintained cultural landscapes (e.g. Nohl2001). But they do not necessarily reflect the individual charac-ter of the landscapes and the real aesthetic demands expressed bylocal inhabitants (Hunziker et al. 2008; Schwahn 1990; Vorkinn& Riese 2001). Therefore, the work refers to the expressed land-scape preferences and perceptions of both residents and tourists,as key interest groups assessed in the Müritz National Park inthe German state of Mecklenburg-Hither Pomerania by Lupp andKonold (2008), and reflects landscape changes in this context. This

paper describes the possible impacts of management plans on thescenic quality as a consequence of striving for more naturalnessand “wilderness”.

G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (2013) 10– 21 11

üritz

SP

BHlfbPT“2zvdSumnMaibAtsdswcisn

witarA

Fig. 1. Map of M

tudy area: The Müritz National Park, Mecklenburg-Hitheromerania, Germany

The Müritz National Park is located some 100 km north oferlin, in the north-eastern-most German state, Mecklenburg-ither Pomerania (Fig. 1). With its 322 km2, it is the largest

and-based park in Germany. Over 70% of its area is covered byorests, while the eastern shores of Lake Müritz and a large num-er of smaller lakes add up to 13% of the park area. The Nationalark also contains bogs, meadows, fields and a few small villages.he Park consists of two parts, a larger “Müritz part” and a smallerSerrahn part”, separated by the town of Neustrelitz, with some5,000 inhabitants. Currently, 30% of the Park is already in the coreone. It protects ancient forests dominated by beech (Fagus syl-atica), bogs, wetlands and natural lakes. Two nearly completelyevastated and barely vegetated military firing ranges used by theoviet Army between 1945 and 1993 have been set aside to enablendisturbed natural forest regeneration. In the existing manage-ent zone (currently 2% of the area), traditionally structured, high

atural value meadows and reed beds on the shoreline of Lakeüritz are managed by domestic animal grazing, to secure resting

reas for migrating cranes (Grus grus). The major part of the parks still a development zone. Currently, the landscape is dominatedy vast pine (Pinus sylvestris) forests managed by intensive forestry.rable land is still being intensively farmed. The park authorities are

herefore planning a variety of measures that will affect the land-cape. Intense agriculture activities and forestry will be phased out,rainage measures and water pumps that were installed during theocialist era to increase and industrialise agricultural productionill be shut down, and bogs will be restored. In young, artifi-

ially established pine stands, forest management actions are beingmplemented to increase the speed of change towards beech (Fagusylvatica) and oak (Quercus robur, Quercus petraea) stands moreative to the area.

In the surrounding areas, socio-economic changes are under-ay. The transformation process towards a market-based economy

n eastern Germany after re-unification has fundamentally affected

he surrounding towns and villages. Employment in the traditionalgriculture and production sectors has diminished drastically. Theegion faces one of the highest unemployment rates in Germany.s a result, particularly well-educated young people have moved

National Park.

away, and the region lost 17% of its inhabitants between 1990 and2008 (Regionaler Planungsverband Mecklenburgische Seenplatte2010). On the other hand, tourism is increasing, and is already one ofthe main economic factors in the area. In the Müritz region, nature-based tourism drawing on the attractive natural features of theNational Park is seen as one of the key elements of this development(Regionaler Planungsverband Mecklenburgische Seenplatte 2010).Changing the appearance of landscapes has already led to intenseconflicts, e.g. in the Bavarian Forest National Park in Germany(Müller & Job 2009), and Müritz National Park authorities thereforestrive to avoid conflicts by identifying change effects beforehand,and developing adequate communications through visitor infor-mation and management strategies.

Management goals for the Müritz National Park

In both the state and the regional spatial development plans(Ministerium für Arbeit, Bau und Landesentwicklung M-V 2005;Regionaler Planungsverband Mecklenburgische Seenplatte 2010),the natural features of the National Park are among the most impor-tant factors for scenic attractiveness and economic development.Natural features, forests and the traditional cultural landscapeare especially relevant for protecting biodiversity, but also fortourism and as a site factor for businesses contributing to economicdevelopment. Typical landscape elements of the regions, such astree-lined avenues, pollarded willows and hedgerows, have to bepreserved, maintained and, when necessary, replanted. Bogs andwetlands also have to be protected and revitalised.

A number of management goals and resulting actions have beenexpressed in detailed management plans for the National Parkregion. Their goal is both conservation and restoration of traditionalcultural landscapes in some areas of the Park (NationalparkamtMüritz 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). Due to the high value of the naturalfeatures, the National Park is seen as a core area for nature-basedtourism and regional development to promote tourism. Hence,there is a need to balance increased recreational activity andnature-protection issues. For this reason, the demands for recre-

ation and preferred scenic qualities have to be analysed to developadequate working measures for visitor management. It is also help-ful for the park management to know in advance how changingscenic qualities could impact on the attractiveness of the Park, and

1 ure Co

teLiafafo

M

mtaMtlerdqaaatwdwsmfidoT

A

ipscffitptTjd

wsa(fivown

2 G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Nat

hen develop communications and information concepts, such asnvironmental education programmes. The results ascertained byupp and Konold (2008) have shown that beech forests contain-ng some deadwood, lakes and traditional small scale farm parcelsre the most favoured features. Preferred to a lesser extent areallow land and bogs, but communication could raise the level ofcceptance, as visitors from big cities are often unaware of naturaleatures and processes, particularly peat bogs in their initial stagesf revitalisation.

ethodology

To get an overview of the planned and proposed manage-ent actions and principles for the development of the Park,

he Management Plan (Nationalparkplan 2003a, 2003b, 2003c)nd regional planning documents (Regionaler Planungsverbandecklenburgische Seenplatte 2010) were analysed, as was the sec-

oral planning for forests within the Park’s boundaries. Agriculturaland and forests in the development zones were central to thexamination, as this is where management measures, includingestoration, take place. The goals and management objectives wereetermined, and the effects of these management plans on scenicualities evaluated. An interesting aspect of forests and open spacesre their differing time scales. Changes in open landscapes, such asbandoning land use and changing crops, have immediate effectsnd can alter scenic qualities within a few years. In forest ecosys-ems, both age-old and slow reacting, visually significant changesill take decades or centuries to become obvious. Therefore twoifferent approaches to coping with these different time scalesere applied. The current state of open areas within the Park and in

elected forest stands was analysed, and a prediction describing theost probable future development was carried out using the Delphi

orecast method described in the section below. To predict changesn forests, selected stands were analysed by using forest inventoryata and applying the forest growth simulator SILVA 2.2, devel-ped at the Institute for Forest Growth at the Munich University ofechnology.

gricultural land

Inside the park boundaries, only 7% of the land is used for farm-ng, since the soil qualities are too poor for intense agriculturalractices. The existing large fields and meadows in many openpaces inside the Park resulted from the collectivisation of agri-ulture during the 1960s, when the last private landowners wereorced to join large cooperatives. This is when individually ownedelds and meadows were consolidated and large units were formedhat were easy to manage with agricultural technology. Still, manylaces have a high level of nature conservation value. Some 5% ofhe Park’s area consists of meadows, and is used in various ways.he marshlands, wet meadows, extensively used grasslands anduniper heaths within the Park host a number of red-listed speciesependent on specific management activities (Voigtländer 1995).

Around 2% of the Park is currently covered by fields. Mainlyheat and rapeseed are cultivated, while a larger portion has been

et aside. This diversity of both more and less intensively usedreas offers attractive scenic qualities at different times of the yearStrobel & Pulkenat 1995). This combination hosts many habitatsor a variety of butterflies and ground beetles. These open spacesnside the park are considered to be among the richest for biodi-

ersity in north-eastern Germany. Many plant species adapted toceanic climate conditions have their easternmost occurrence here,hile the region provides the westernmost habitats for accompa-ying field flora adapted to a continental climate, such as gentians,

nservation 21 (2013) 10– 21

orchids and rare Carex (sedge) species (Nationalparkamt Müritz2003b; Voigtländer 1995).

Management goals and objectives

According to the National Park Plan (Nationalparkamt Müritz2003b), the cultural landscape should contribute to both scenic andbiodiversity quality. Historic land use patterns should be preserved,and management for supporting rare species should continue.However, in a national park where the undisturbed natural devel-opment of ecosystems is the primary goal, the pressure is to justifythese exceptions. Farming can continue on existing arable land sitesonly if practices are sustainable. Only small patches of farmland areto be left to succession in the coming years. According to the Plan,farming activities are to be carried out so as to protect outstand-ing cultural landscapes, to preserve scenic qualities, especially inthe surroundings of villages, and also to provide income for localinhabitants. In 2010, 66% of the farmland was classified as a “devel-opment zone”, while 34% was categorised as a “management zone”,where fertilisation is to be minimised and mineral fertilisers areforbidden. Of the grasslands, 72% were used in line with natureconservation standards, while 45% of the farm fields were managedaccording to organic farming standards.

All other farmland inside the park boundaries should be man-aged so as to avoid nutrient inputs in water bodies and to preservethe cultural heritage. Fields are to be set aside or convertedinto diverse permanent grassland. In particular, extensive grass-land is to be developed, especially around wetlands and bogs(Nationalparkamt Müritz 2003a).

An initial analysis of agricultural land inside the Park was carriedout based on study methods as described by Strobel and Pulkenat(1995). All sites were evaluated based on a matrix using these threecriteria: diversity of landscape structures; perceived state of nat-uralness; and, specific character. A three-step scale (low, mediumand high) for assessing scenic qualities was applied, followed bya brief description. Finally, suggestions were made for improvingthese areas in line with the goals of a national park. These were com-pared with the situation encountered in 2010, and to the proposedmanagement actions described in both the Strobel and Pulkenat(1995) study and Nationalparkamt Müritz (2003c). For this study, anumber of photographs were made, and these sites were revisitedbetween 2004 and 2010 to record and compare landscape changesby image matching (Hall 2001; McDougald et al. 2003).

Appearances in 2010 indicate that the agricultural land (Fig. 2)inside the park boundaries was often fallow. Improvementstowards more attractive scenic qualities according to the sugges-tions made in Strobel and Pulkenat (1995) and NationalparkamtMüritz (2003c), i.e., replanting trees along the roads, adding hedgesor small groves on unstructured land, or less intensive land useclose to waters, have not been fully implemented. Except for mil-itary firing ranges, spontaneous natural reforestation of arableland has been limited to some very small patches at the edges offields.

The Delphi forecast

A number of factors influence decisions on land use and thefuture development of scenic qualities. These are legal instrumentsand incentives, goals set in planning documents, and also the indi-vidual interests and goals of the farmers operating in the Park. All of

them influence future land use, and have to be considered. There-fore, a social-science approach was chosen to estimate land-useforms and to identify factors influencing these developments. Thequestions under consideration were:

G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (2013) 10– 21 13

d on a

1

23

aptoavhhsorbo

ro2narclo

ia

Fig. 2. Management actions implemente

. Which developments will influence agriculture inside the parkboundaries, and what will be the consequences for land use?

. Will scenery develop in line with national park goals?

. Can farmers benefit from tourism?

The Delphi Method described in Rowe and Wright (1999) was suitable forecasting method for achieving consensus on the mostrobable future park-landscape development. The advantage ofhis method is that persons can express their opinion freely with-ut interruption, and can revise their opinion after each round,s anonymity is maintained without interaction during the inter-iews. When the interviews of all the experts selected for the surveyave been concluded, results and opinions are summarised andanded back to interviewees. Based on this knowledge, the per-ons selected are asked to answer the same questions again, basedn knowledge gained from the previous round. Experts are able toevise an opinion or stick to answers given in previous interviews,y commenting and stating why they did not share the majoritypinion. This procedure can be carried out repeatedly.

To ensure good results, the group of interviewees selected mustepresent the entire range of views on a topic. However, the numberf people interviewed does not necessarily have to be high (Häder002). According to Brockhoff (1989), the quality of prognoses doesot differ significantly when persons with less expert knowledgere involved. In general, a minimum of three interview rounds areecommended (Häder 2002). For the survey, eleven people werehosen to be interviewed three times, representing a variety ofocal stakeholders involved in agriculture, and using the concept

f maximum contrasts (Hunziker 2000).

Two mayors of National Park municipalities with different polit-cal views were chosen, together with a district council member,nd the head of the local farmers’ association. Two employees from

gricultural land between 1994 and 2010.

the park authorities involved in park planning and nature pro-tection compliance programmes and an experienced researcher inlandscape ecology who has carried out research and fieldwork inthe past decades in the region were selected to represent the out-side view on agriculture. The interviewees from the farms were amanager from a large co-operative with 60 employees and 50 km2

of farmland, the owner of a medium-size farm which uses organicfarming methods, with six employees and 11 km2 of land, and asmall family owned farm with 3.5 km2 of land, which also providestourist accommodations and a restaurant. For a broader insight intoalmost all farms, a further expert who has monitored the farms wasinterviewed.

The interviews were based on a standardised questionnaire usedfor all three rounds. It applied a five-step non-parametric scaleranging from “very strong” to “not at all” for every question, pro-viding space for remarks. Some questions were added as a result ofa suggestion made by one of the interviewees in the first round.

First, the importance of farming for biodiversity, scenic qualityand for the identity of the region was surveyed. Also, the inter-viewees were asked to describe the future role of farms pertainingto these issues. In a second topic, external factors directly influenc-ing developments on arable land, or that might impact land use,were surveyed. Questions concerning incentives and regulationsat the EU, federal and state levels, as well as at the national parkauthority level, were posed, and the impacts and consequences forland use inside the Park were queried. In a subsequent series ofquestions, appropriate strategies for the future were surveyed. Aset of different strategies involving the cultivation of various crops,or the keeping of various domestic animals was offered, and ideas

given by interviewees were added in following rounds of the Delphiinterviews. One further topic was whether farmers already bene-fitted from tourism, or whether there might be possibilities for thatin future.

14 G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (2013) 10– 21

Table 1Delphi Expert Prediction for different land uses on arable land in the Müritz National Park.

Land use form In 2006 (%) Estimated share, 2021 (%) Trend

Meadows 60 53 Slight decreaseArable farmland 30 16 Strong declineEnergy crops 0 6 Small share, a possible new element in the landscape,

alapfP

D

nvswsotlpwwo

pgatacbkp

ostgffpwtte

F

tfwth(

Fallow land 10 16

Reforestation 0 9

Finally, the percentages of land uses from a 2006 survey by parkuthorities were taken the base line for predictions. Though abso-ute data for different types of land use, especially on fallow land,re somewhat uncertain, future tendencies are easy to predict. Theurpose of this method was to develop one most likely predictionor the expected percentages of various uses of farmland inside theark in 15 and in 30 years’ time.

elphi forecast results

According to the Delphi forecast results, some changes will beoticeable within the next decade, especially those affecting theisibility of the lakes. The share of meadows will stay almost theame during the next 15 years, while the farmland inside the Parkill be halved. The amount of fallow land will increase. Also, some

pontaneous reforestation will occur in the coming years, but notn a very large scale. Largely, sites along water courses and lakeshat are difficult to maintain will be affected. On some plots ofand, energy crops will be planted; however, the experts could notredict which species will be planted. For instance, intervieweesith agricultural backgrounds claimed to have no experience withoody biomass, and would therefore hesitate to cultivate coppice

n their fields (see Table 1).One of the main reasons for this predicted development is the

oor quality of the soil. Intensifying production was not seen as aood strategy, even by farmers. The huge input required to fertilisend irrigate the fields during the socialist period were described. Inhe face of the changed economic situation, the costs of these effortsre not covered by the surplus gained by irrigation. The expertslaimed that continuing current land use will depend on the farmseing able to survive by selling their products on liberalised mar-ets. An alternative was seen in nature conservation agreementrogrammes.

The ideas of providing niche products, supplying local marketsr establishing new sources of income from tourism was raised byome experts in the first Delphi round. However, they were notaken up by experts with an agricultural background. The reasonsiven by these experts were the low income in the region and theact that tourism is limited to the summertime. The intervieweesrom the agricultural sector saw few alternatives to the currentroducts – dairy, beef and fodder – since the soils are too poor. Itas claimed that the amount produced on the farms was too much

o be sold only on regional markets in the surrounding villages, andhat the agricultural enterprises are specialised in producing veryfficiently on a large scale.

orests

At present, 72% of the forests are dominated by pine. Huge por-ions are young, planted, even-aged stands shaped by the intensiveorestry of the socialist era. Until 1990, pines were tapped for resin

hen the trees were around 80 years old. Most of the stands were

hen clear-cut when they reached 110, and densely replanted withigh numbers of pines per ha, in order to gain high-quality timberPestel & Schäfer 1991).

especially if high growing or woody biomassIncreaseIncrease

Moreover, the vertically structured ancient mixed beech forests,with beech and oak trees as old as 250 years in the core zones,may change. Soil analyses show horizons that indicate ploughing,suggesting that even these remote areas were intensively manageduntil the early 19th century. Since then, beech may have becomeestablished in several stages below a light shelter of pine and oaktrees (Tempel et al. 2003).

An inventory of all forest stands was carried out in 1999, and thestatistical data set is updated every year automatically. It is acces-sible in the Datenspeicher Wald (Forest Database) of the NationalPark authorities. The 2004 data set was chosen for the purpose ofthe study. In all of the forest tracts covering the Müritz NationalPark, a good cross-section of forest types representing all differenttypes of forests was selected. However, only a few mixed stands inthe latter stages of transition towards beech or oak could be foundwith an understorey of beech or other broadleaf species, with diam-eters at breast height of greater than 7 cm, which was the thresholdfor being included in the forest inventory.

Management goals

After the Park was established, forest management actions wereconducted only outside its core zones. By 1998, a new state ordi-nance for national park forest management was implemented thatwas made mandatory for all public forests, and for some largerprivate forest owners. Interventions were only permitted to sta-bilise conifer stands, or to support the development of more naturalbroadleaf stands. All stands were classified within a category and atreatment programme. Category A comprises all broadleaf standsas well as old conifer stands, and the former military firing rangeswith natural succession, and constitutes 59% of the forest area. Nomore forest management actions are carried out here. Category Bstands cover 13% of the forests; these are middle-aged pine stands,where management was phased out in 2007. Category C includes28% of the forest, involving young pine stands that will be man-aged over the next decades (Nationalparkamt Müritz 2003b). Aforest inventory was carried out in 1999 in accordance with theordinance, which describes both existing (Fig. 3) and potential nat-ural forest communities (Fig. 4). The potential natural vegetationtypes are, according to soil and ground vegetation studies, mainlybeech-dominated forests, with greater shares of oak only in verydry stands.

To change the situation in the pine forests, authorities plan man-agement actions to enrich the proportion of oak and beech within amuch shorter period. Up to a stand age of 80, in artificially plantedpure pine forests, thinning is allowed to give space for beech andoak by reducing the canopy cover of Scots pine to 0.7.

SILVA 2.2 forecast

To forecast the future appearance of the forests, 100 stands rep-resenting a cross section of the forests in the Park were selected to

be modelled using the forest growth simulation programme. At thetime of application, two ready to run models at individual tree levelswere considered suitable for practical purposes (Spellmann 2003):SILVA 2.2 (Pretzsch 2002); and, BWINPro (Döbbeler et al. 2003).

G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (2013) 10– 21 15

F ationG n colc

TtSbdiSnafaclttatasdp

tot

artt

ow

12

ig. 3. Map of current dominating tree species in the Serrahn part of the Müritz Nreen colour: Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris). Red colour: Beech (Fagus sylvatica). Browolour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

hese models are based on the long-term observations of individualree growth principles in forest stands (Pretzsch 2002). Ultimately,ILVA 2.2 was chosen for application. Modelling the growth is doney specific competition among the different single trees in a three-imensional space (according to Biber et al. 2000). Only the most

mportant Central European tree species are parameterised in theILVA 2.2 programme. Models of the stands can be generated byaming the species, age, basal area per ha, diameter at breast height,nd height of the average tree. These data can easily be collectedrom forest inventory data. A simulation with silhouettes is created,nd they can be projected for up to 150 years into the future. Theompetition among different single trees for the resources water,ight and nutrients is simulated in the computer programme. Whenrees are in a position inferior to neighbouring trees for too long,hey disappear in the stand simulation (competitive mortality). Inddition to the simple stand images, diagrams can be generated forhe development of the most important stand characteristics, suchs dimensions, volumes, basal area, average heights and an index ofpecies mixture per ha. The goal of the simulation is to describe theevelopment of different stands by running the simulation over aeriod of 150 years.

For pine stands: it was analysed whether a transition towardsree species more natural to the region could occur over the coursef the next 40–50 years; the prediction for this range and theseendencies still seems to be viable.

Another problem of the model was that smaller trees situatedmong the taller ones were slightly more disadvantaged than in aeal situation, due to the fact that they are under-represented inhe actual long-term monitoring stands that were used to develophe programme (Obergföll 2000).

Creating a model of the stands enables different managementptions for the pine stands. For this study, four treatment versionsere chosen:

. No management action;

. Cessation of the thinning process at stand age 80, as prescribedin the National Park Plan;

al Park; derived from Data Source Forest of the Müritz National Park Authorities.our: Oaks (Quercus robur, Quercus petraea). (For interpretation of the references to

3. A treatment programme establishing broadleaf species in thesimulation;

According to national park foresters with long-term experiencein the region, a high mortality rate can occur due to beetles andbreakage under heavy wet snow, particularly with younger pinestands. Therefore, there is in addition a fourth version, under which,for each of the pine stands, an added amount of pine loss was cal-culated, to allow for at least some beeches or oaks to establish over150 years.

For the model-creation process, it was assumed that in all thepine stands a large number of beech and oak seedlings wouldemerge in the coming years, forming a dense understorey, althoughlittle natural regeneration in many of these selected stands wasseen even in 2010. One reason for this situation despite gamemanagement is intense browsing of deer, since there are no largepredators, and because enormous populations of red deer (Cervuselaphus) and fallow deer (Cervus dama) were maintained in thestate hunting preserves operated until 1990 by the East Germangovernment for its top officials (Nationalparkplan 2003a, 2003b,2003c), which covered a large part of the present National Park(Figs. 5–8).

Simulations show that the pine-dominated forests will persist,even in the long run. In almost all model runs, broadleaves have nochance to establish themselves without management. In general, tosecure beech and oak in the forests, management is vital and, takingout pines would be necessary after a stand age of 70 in nearly allcases of the types of forests being examined. To provide space forgrowing broadleaves and establishing some of them over the 150years of simulation, additional pine mortality is required, rangingbetween 16 and over 80 m3 per ha and decade continually.

This suggests that a change in tree species and a different qual-ity of those stands can be expected in the next forest generation.

Without severe thunderstorms to destroy or thin the current forestgeneration, a change in tree species will occur beyond the 150 yearsof simulation period. With more intense management, a change intree species can be enforced.

16 G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (2013) 10– 21

Fig. 4. Map of potential natural forest types in the Serrahn part of the Müritz National Park; derived from Data Source Forest of the Müritz National Park Authorities. Redcolours: stands dominated by beech (Fagus sylvatica). Brown and yellow colours: stands with beech and higher portions of oaks (Quercus robur, Quercus petraea). Blue colours:stands on moist soils dominated by European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and Black alder (Alnus glutinosa). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, thereader is referred to the web version of the article.)

Fig. 5. Stand simulation in the SILVA 2.2 programme, showing a typical pine trans-formation stand in 2004 (light green: beech, dark green: pine). (For interpretationof the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the webversion of the article.)

Fig. 6. The same stand expected after 75 years (year 2079) without any furthermanagement.

Fig. 7. Development of the stem volume of the the tree species [in m3] without anyfurther management in the next 150 years.

Fig. 8. The same stand expected after 75 years with thinning around vital beeches,cutting 100 m3 of pine per ha between 2009 and 2014.

ture Conservation 21 (2013) 10– 21 17

tilw1

D

rippsyaAtdtseditCsm(

Ft

Fgt

Fig. 11. The same beech stand after 75 years with only competitive mortality.

G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Na

The ancient beech forests in Serrahn will remain structured overhe next decades. After 80 years, the oldest trees in the stand will ben an inferior position competing for base area, nutrients, water andight, and will be replaced by younger trees. However, these forests

ill in all likelihood maintain a rich vertical structure during the50 years covered by the simulation.

iscussing the SILVA 2.2 forecast

The simulated model of the beech forests (Figs. 9–11) in the Ser-ahn part of the Müritz National Park matches direct observationsn the neighbouring 25 ha Heilige Hallen Nature Reserve outside theark boundaries (10 km east of Serrahn), which has been underrotection since the mid-19th century, and received strict reservetatus in 1938. The beech trees in this stand have reached 350ears, their natural age limit. It shows large portions of deadwoodnd extensive beech regeneration (Borrmann 2008; Jeschke 2003).ccording to the model created, the trees should drop out around

he same time as observed in the adjoining nature reserve. Naturalecay and new growth is a trait of the Serrahn beech forests; youngrees represent almost 55% of the forest. Therefore a rich verticaltructure and a broad mix of tree ages exist in these forests (Jenssent al. 2003; Tempel et al. 2003). Due to this rich structure andominance of beech, Oheimb et al. (2007) suggest that it is almost

mpossible for more light-demanding tree species to establish inhese stands. A tendency towards single-layered beech stands inentral European virgin forests, as described by Leibundgut (1993),

eems to occur during relatively short phases (Schnell 2004). Also,any two or three-layered stands have been described in Korpel

1995) in Central and Eastern European virgin forests (Fig. 12).

ig. 9. Development of the stem volume of the the tree species [in m3] with onehinning between 2009 and 2014 in the next 150 years.

ig. 10. Long time unmanaged core zone beech stand in 2004 (pale green: oak, lightreen: beech, dark green: pine). (For interpretation of the references to colour inhis figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

Fig. 12. Development of the stem volume of the the tree species [in m3] during thewhole simulation period of 150 years.

It is more difficult to evaluate the pine stands on sites that would– according to the soil and ground vegetation analysis carried outby the forest inventory activities in 1999 – be dominated by beech.In general, beech and oak are presumed to overtake pine in the longrun. However, as suggested by the model, they drop out without atleast one further thinning in most of the cases. Without forest man-agement, beech and oak will drop out due to their inferior positionin the competition for water, light and nutrients. The problem is toevaluate model results in well documented comparable situations.General succession models under observation could provide someinformation. Jeschke (1999) describes forest development on newemerging land due to costal changes of the Darß, a peninsula onthe Baltic coast around 130 km north of the Müritz National Park.According to Jeschke and Linke (2000), it takes around 400 years forbeech to dominate on this new emerging land. This might have rele-vance for the development of the devastated military firing ranges,where currently pines are establishing on a large scale in a firststage of reforestation.

Since the model only simulates competitive mortality, over thelong run, uncertainty increases due to the increased importance ofmortality by age, or severe weather extremes such as gales. How-ever, most of the stands are young, and even after 150 years ofsimulation time, they are far from their natural age limit. Most accu-rate results can be predicted only for the coming 30 years (Döbbeleret al. 2003, for a similar simulator).

Comparing the model results with reality, it can be shown thattaller trees have more preference in the model compared to thecurrent state (Lüpke and Spellmann 1997; Pretzsch 2001). Also, theecology of beech is not fully reflected in the model. The model sug-

gests that the decrease in growth is assigned to weak viability andis a driving factor generating mortality. However, beech can persistfor long periods in the shelter and understorey of larger trees with-out significant increment (Schröder 2004). In studies evaluating the

1 ure Co

qfK

rsopphtttec(ptTlac

tpftsam

vqortwmoatRvfscfasastwpgwi

hecTa(2r

8 G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Nat

uality of prognoses of forest growth models, there have been callsor further intensive research and development (Hanewinkel 1998;naufft 2000; Windhager 1999).

Climate change cannot be determined in the model for thisegion. The model does not offer plausible data even for moderatecenarios (e.g. described in Murach 2002 for the neighbouring statef Brandenburg), since the precipitation is already very low in com-arison with other locations in Central Europe; the model has noarameters for lower rates. Irrgang (2002) suggests that pine willave the least problems with lower precipitation during summer-ime and higher temperatures. For managed forests dedicated tohe production of wood, genetically diverse forests cope best withhe effects of climate change. Climate change and its impacts on for-st vegetation have been documented for Brandenburg in a studyonducted by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchRoeckner et al. 2006). Moderate scenarios predict a rise in tem-eratures of around 1.5–2 ◦C, and a reduction in precipitation inhe vegetation period by 50–100 mm (Gerstengarbe et al. 2003).he reaction of forest growth in these scenarios could not be ana-ysed by the SILVA 2.2 simulator, as existing parameters are alreadyt the bottom line, and entering these parameters would lead toompletely unrealistic model growth rates.

It is noteworthy that there are few papers describing a transi-ion from dominant Scots pine towards beech within one rotationeriod without forest management. Also, research on primevalorests in Eastern Europe provides almost no indications, sincehese are mainly pure beech stands or mixed mountain forests con-isting of silver fir (Abies alba), beech and Norway spruce (Piceabies), as described by Leibundgut (1993) and Korpel (1995), notixed stands containing pine and beech.Almost all reviewed literature dealing with pine to beech con-

ersation refers to managed forests, often focussing on timberualities. If timber qualities are considered bad, then the devel-pment is considered a failure, or “not working”, although theesulting forest stand might be stable in the long run. Accordingo Burschel and Huss (1997), only a few long-term research standsith two tree layers exist. Most of them originate from experi-ents with seed-tree regeneration or shelterwood-cutting, some

f them resulted from gales and then were monitored. Burschelnd Huss (1997) suggest regular thinning to achieve good quali-ies and high vitality for inferior trees in the shelter of larger trees.educed vitality is also described by Korpel (1995) in his obser-ations of primeval forests. Jenssen and Hofmann (2006) describeorest growth of even-aged mixed stands of pine and beech. On pooroils with lower than 580 mm annual precipitation, pine is able toompete with beech; while better soils and higher amounts of rain-all allow beech to outgrow and suppress pine when both are at ange of approximately 140. Lockow (1998) describes long term testtands of non-even-aged pine-beech stands close to Eberswalde,round 70 km southeast of the study area, and with somewhatimilar site conditions, and very similar to the current situation inhe Müritz National Park. In the test stands of Eberswalde, beechesere planted in 47-year-old pine stands in 1837. Various thinningrogrammes were carried out. Even in the least extensive pro-ramme, beech was able to become established, yet the crownsere deformed and less healthy. In areas without systematic plant-

ng, only a few broadleaves were self-establishing.Under climate change scenarios, beech will suffer more from

igher average temperatures and lower precipitation in the veg-tation period (Gessler et al. 2007). The even drier and warmeronditions in pine forests might inhibit the regeneration of beech.ogether with the emission of nitrogen, soils will acidify which,

ccording to current knowledge, affects beech particularly stronglyBurschel & Huss 1997; Heinsdorf 1998; Lasch et al. 2002; MLUV006). In neighbouring Brandenburg, many of the potential and cur-ent stands for beech will be a habitat for more dry-resistant oak

nservation 21 (2013) 10– 21

(Quercus petraea)/hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) or oak/lime (Tiliacordata) stands, if current climate scenarios accurately representfuture reality (Heinsdorf 1998; Hofmann 1995; Lindner et al. 1997).Some authors even predict an almost complete extinction of beechat the limit of distribution (Jump et al. 2006) and in northernGermany (e.g. Wagenknecht 1997).

To assess the naturalness of forests, the concept of “potentialnatural vegetation” first described by Tüxen and Preising (1956)for Central Europe is frequently applied. For the forest inventory, asimilar concept was used (LFG 1999a, 1999b). It describes a hypo-thetical picture of a forest stand which would self-establish on thesite described without human intervention. Often, the concept isused to evoke the image of a primeval forest (Scherzinger 1996).However, this author sees the reconstruction of a “natural” for-est as impossible, since there is not enough knowledge about thepast. Even to this day, forest research has been largely driven byeconomic needs. There also exists a lack of knowledge on for-est dynamics and tree ecology, especially for beech (Bode 2007;Lockow 1998). In past centuries, beech was a less favoured species,and was therefore reduced to smaller numbers than had beenpresent previously. Bode (2007) states that there is little knowl-edge of the real potential of beech, e.g. growing in poor soils. Alsothere is a lack of well-documented long-term research on forestgrowth (e.g. Lockow 1998). Statements by Kölling et al. (2007) andManthey et al. (2007) indicate that beech in general, or at leastcertain ecotypes (Schraml & Rennenberg 2000), seem to be moredrought-tolerant than had previously been thought, and that itwill therefore be able to dominate under the warmer, drier con-ditions expected in regional climate scenarios. Kramer et al. (2008)point out the adaptive potential of European beech, especially whenstands are unmanaged. Davi et al. (2006) even predict a slightincrease in net growth ecosystem productivity in beech forestsin a model stand under climate change conditions in the state ofHesse.

After cessation of regular forest management activities and con-version to forest types with high portions of beech, biodiversitycould decrease over the short and medium terms. According toSchmidt (2005), the absence of disturbances inhibits the estab-lishment of shade-intolerant shrub, tree and herb species. Morelight demanding species re-establish only after major natural dis-turbances such as gales do. Schäfer and Döring (2006) mention thatbeech stands transitioning from pine stands will not provide thesame biodiversity as old-growth beech forests, since microorgan-isms such as Mycorrhiza conenoses are still missing.

In the case of scenic qualities of forests in a transition from pineto beech, it can be suggested that for long periods, they are verydense and shady, with only a few shade-tolerant species (Schäfer &Döring 2006), and will thus have a different aesthetic quality thanthe multilayered Serrahn beech forests.

Discussion

These results match other studies and scenarios made for moremarket-oriented scenarios, e.g. Bastian et al. (2006) or Plieningeret al. (2007). The consequences of a stronger market orientationare: a loss in biodiversity; impacts on the water balance; and, a lossin scenic quality. In terms of pure numbers of species, ecosystemslike meadows contain more species than successional stages. Thetermination of management activities leads to a decline of openhabitats and the loss of characteristic species due to natural suc-cession. Many authors, e.g. among them Höchtl et al. (2005), for

example, have pointed to a decrease in the richness of flora speciesof the traditional cultural landscape, such as vineyards, chestnutgroves, meadows and pastures in the south-western Alps, due toland use abandonment.

ture Co

sasgatTitrlol2ffpssallm

C

plnt2pmf

ssnTsHwvvdPvtf

IppnsdtsHmthf

G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Na

Kowatsch and Fock (2004) recommend tourism as a suitabletrategy for the Müritz region. However, they note that large-scalegriculture and the existing structures of farm buildings are notuitable for nature based tourism. The large concrete buildingsenerally dating from around 1970 as a result of East Germangricultural industrialisation do not meet the romantic image thatourists seek for recreational purposes (Nolte & Steingrube 2002).he agriculture structures have to change completely, but thiss rather unlikely for the large co-operatives. Current trends likehe production of biomass for energy purposes support the cur-ent forms of agriculture in the park boundaries. However, evenarge co-operatives can benefit from cooperation with tourism. Oneption can be environmental or consumer education to raise pub-ic awareness for high-quality food production (Penker & Wytrzens005). Predictions suggest that fallow land will increase in theuture and difficult-to-maintain land will be allowed to return to aorest state, or will be planted with shrubs or trees. One exam-le for this development is a large block of fallow land in theouth western part of the park still existing in 2011, although theet-aside EU political measure and corresponding subsidies werebolished in 2008. It is still attractive for large farms to have fal-ow land on these sites that provide space for rare weed speciesike immortelle (Helichrysum arenarium) typical for dry sandy

eadows.

onclusions

In the landscape planning sector, a number of expert-basedrocedures exist for evaluating scenic qualities and for assessing

andscape changes. Many of them deal with the impacts of tech-ical structures, such as power lines (Gerhards 2003; Nohl 2001),ransport infrastructure and wind turbines (Adam et al. 1986; Nohl001). However, use changes in agricultural land set aside for thisurpose, large scale succession, and the gradual cessation of forestanagement activities (Hoisl et al. 2000) are especially important

or national parks.Landscape assessment procedures in Central Europe regarding

cenic beauty are often based on concepts of a small scale, richlytructured traditional cultural landscape (e.g. Brady 2006). Inational parks, such elements constitute only very small areas.herefore, the question arises as to whether these approaches areuitable for the purposes of a national park. Schwahn (1990) andunziker et al. (2008) point out that many landscape-planning asell as expert based approaches are not suitable for the proper

aluation of landscape aesthetics, as they do not consider the indi-iduality and uniqueness of the landscape and their inhabitants. Asescribed in Lupp and Konold (2008), users of the Müritz Nationalark prefer traditionally maintained cultural landscapes. They likeisibility on the lakes that are scattered throughout the Park, buthey also have a strong preference for structured, unmanagedorests.

Although forest treatment plans have to be developed to meetUCN standards, they have to be quite general to be applicable inlanning frameworks. On the one hand, national parks are sup-osed to protect biodiversity, natural processes and “let nature beatural”, which could be considered to apply, too, to planted pinetands. On the other hand, national parks are obliged to protect bio-iversity, and active management to restore natural vegetation ishe only strategic tool to achieve this goal quickly. In the case of pinetands, there is a number of good arguments for both strategies.owever, strategies striving towards more naturalness by manage-

ent or abandonment do not necessarily increase biodiversity in

erms of rare species. In the short and medium term, they can evenave negative impacts, as demonstrated, e.g. by Höchtl et al. (2005)

or open landscapes, and by Schmidt (2005) for beech forests.

nservation 21 (2013) 10– 21 19

Only marginal changes in forests will be visible within the nextyears, as they are a generally slow-reacting ecosystem. No matterwhat management programme is applied, pine will dominate in thecoming decades, and it will take a minimum of 20–30 years untila significant amount of beech will establish to change the visualqualities of pine forests. According to model results, the proposedtreatment plans for planted-pine forests have limited effects on treespecies composition and visual appearance for visitors, even in thelong run. The prescribed thinning process seems to have very littleeffect.

Regarding the development within a forest stand lifespanextending over centuries; there is not yet enough knowledge onforest development in Germany. There is a lack of well-documentedlong-term observations and monitoring for natural forest develop-ment, and there are few examples of long-term forest observation.Simulation forecasts can just state probable developments orscenarios based on current knowledge and data collected frommonitored research stands.

Therefore, other developments may be possible. Hence, a soundmonitoring programme to document developments accurately isdesirable, and is already being implemented in many nationalparks, at least to some extent. Collecting detailed data allows us tounderstand forest ecosystems better and to describe driving factorsfor these developments. Collected data can offer more accurate pre-dictions and contribute to improved forestry management supportsystems.

Strict IUCN guidelines will lead to forest management actionsbeing phased out in many areas in the National Park over thenext few years, a measure legally mandated for the largely public-owned forests inside the park boundaries. The crucial point is toconsider the amount of beech and oak providing seed for natu-ral broadleaf regeneration in pine stands. Assumptions made frommodelling have been somewhat optimistic, since in reality, moststands have no young beech or oak trees, or only a very few, accord-ing to the forest inventory. Also browsing by large deer populationsis an important factor for this lack of natural regeneration, althoughgame management actions have been implemented. Therefore,effects of the proposed management actions seem to be limitedto the overall visual appearance of the forest.

Although pine forests have dominated the appearance of theMüritz region for more than a century, broadleaved forests arepreferred by the general public. Due to management objectivesfor forest management and wetland restoration, deadwood areaswill increase significantly in the coming years. Smaller amountsof up to 20 m3 per ha as can be found in the Serrahn forests,are noted as positive features (Lupp et al. 2011). For the pub-lic to accept scenic qualities arising from such management – or“non-management” – measures they need more information andeducation, since the region is generally associated with lakes ratherthan bogs or unmanaged forests.

To some extent, high-value semi-natural grasslands, reed bedsand fields in the Müritz National Park are also protected, andwill require management in future, to conserve biodiversity. Inthese areas, especially the overall appearance of fields has changed,since many have become fallow. In general, fallow land has beenconsidered unacceptable. However, it is often not identified assuch in landscapes, since it has many different qualities anddiverse aspects, even over the course of only one year (Lupp &Konold 2008). Interviewees often associated it with the declineof agriculture, which was formerly one of the major sources ofemployment. Therefore it is negatively perceived, especially amongthe local people, and is not necessarily related to real scenic

qualities. In built-up areas, it could also be associated with brown-fields.

Abandoned meadows or fields close to lakes as predicted for thecoming years have negative impacts on scenic quality. Scenic views

2 ure Co

oP

nedtoitipmhMepetta“mpMbfAewr

lmdmcngcarm

A

a

R

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

0 G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Nat

verlooking the water, which are seen as the main attraction in theark, will diminish in future.

Evaluating the effects of park management, it can be shown thatot all goals were achieved, and they might not have the desiredffects on improving scenic qualities as much as on meeting theemands and even the expectations of the public, at least withinhe coming decades. In the short run, most of scenic changes willccur on agricultural land inside the Park. However, the goal ofmproving scenic qualities for developing a richly structured cul-ural landscape as a buffer zone may not be achieved in many areasn the Park. The reasons are the differing economic motivations ofrivate land owners. The suggestions for agricultural land improve-ents are usually not legally binding, and only a few measures

ave received funding and have been carried out. In the case of theüritz National Park, it can be shown that planning at various levels

ncourages a change towards more natural development. However,lanning and even dedicating an area as a national park has limitedffects on changing the landscape. This can be attributed to the facthat agriculture is privileged to a large extent, and only complieso soft and flexible “rules of good agricultural practices”, whichre mere “codes of conduct” for farmers (Hafner 2010, p. 374).Soft regulations” involving funding and nature protection agree-ent projects, as well as more communication, seem to be a more

romising way to develop higher biodiversity and scenic beauty.ore desirable developments in management zones reflecting

oth biodiversity issues and scenic qualities can be achievedor the future involving stakeholders and different user groups.lso more communication with the lay public seems necessary,specially in the case of such scenic qualities as large areas of dead-ood, bogs or succession processes on the former military firing

ange.The Müritz National Park has been popular for its tranquil-

ity, intactness and attractive biking and canoeing far away fromotorised vehicles. These factors also should be considered in more

etail in future. They can be regulated and should be consideredore intensively by all levels of future planning. Besides nature

onservation, the Müritz National Park provides destinations forature-based tourism and recreation in place of mass tourism. Therowing visitor numbers over the last years indicate that the appre-iation for these qualities is increasing, but could be endangered byn unregulated flow of visitors. The Park can help to preserve theseare qualities for coming generations through careful planning andanagement.

cknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Jost-Reinhold Foundationnd Müritz National Park Authorities for the support of our work.

eferences

dam, K., Nohl, W., & Valentin, W. (1986). Bewertungsgrundlagen für Kompensations-maßnahmen bei Eingriffen in die Landschaft. Düsseldorf: Ministerium für Umwelt,Raumordnung und Landwirtschaft Nordrhein-Westfalen., 399 pp.

astian, O., Lütz, M., Röder, M., & Syrbe, R.-U. (2006). The assessment of landscapescenarios with regard to landscape functions. In B. C. Meyer (Ed.), Sustainableland use in intensively used agricultural regions. Landscape Europe, Alterra reportno. 1338 (pp. 15–22). Wageningen.

iber, P., Dursky, J., Pommering, A., Pretzsch, H., Seifert, E., & Seifert, T. (2000). SILVA2.2 Benutzerhandbuch. Lehrstuhl für Waldwachstumskunde der TU München.,179 pp.

MU (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and NuclearSafety). (2007). National Strategy on Biological Diversity (178 pp.). Berlin.

ode, W. (2007). Und alle Jahre wieder: Rettet unsere Buchenwälder!. Natur und

Landschaft, 82(9/10), 431–435.

orrmann, K. (2008). Heilige Hallen aktuell. 70 Jahre NSG (1938–2008) (pp. 67–76).Labus.

rady, E. (2006). The aesthetics of agricultural landscapes and the relationshipsbetween humans and nature. Ethics, Place and Environment, 9(1), 1–19.

nservation 21 (2013) 10– 21

Brockhoff, K. (1989). Forschung und Entwicklung – Planung und Kontrolle (2ndexpanded edition). Munich, Vienna: Oldenbourg., 293 pp.

Burschel, P., & Huss, J. (1997). Grundriss des Waldbaus (2nd revised and edited edi-tion). Berlin: Parey., 487 pp.

Davi, H., Dufrêne, E., Francois, c., Le Maire, G., Loustau, D., Bosc, a., et al. (2006).Sensitivitiy of water and carbon fluxes to climate changes from 1960 to 2100 inEuropean forest ecosystems. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 141, 35–56.

Döbbeler, H., Albert, M., Schmidt, M., & Nagel, J. (2003). BwinPro – Programm zurBestandesanalyse und Prognose. Handbuch zur Version 6.2 (121 pp.). AbteilungWaldwachstum der Niedersächsischen Forstlichen Versuchsanstalt.

Dudley, N. (Ed.). (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories.(p. 86). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Gerhards, I. (2003). Die Bedeutung der landschaftlichen Eigenart für die Landschafts-bildbewertung dargestellt am Beispiele der Bewertung von Landschaftsbildverän-derungen durch Energiefreileitungen Culterra: Schriftenreihe des Instituts fürLandespflege der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg., 225 pp.

Gerstengarbe, F.-W., Badeck, F., Hattermann, F., Krysanova, V., Lahmer, W., Lasch, P.M., et al. (2003). Studie zur klimatischen Entwicklung im Land Brandenburg bis2055 und deren Auswirkungen auf den Wasserhaushalt, die Forst- und Land-wirtschaft sowie die Ableitung erster Perspektiven. PIK report Nr. 83 (92 pp.).Potsdam: Institut für Klimafolgenforschung.

Gessler, A., Keitel, C., Kreuzwieser, J., Matyssek, R., Seiler, W., & Rennenberg, W.(2007). Potential risks for European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in a changingclimate. Trees, 21, 1–11.

Häder, M. (2002). Delphi-Befragungen – Ein Arbeitsbuch. Wiesbaden: WestdeutscherVerlag., 237 pp.

Hafner, S. (2010). Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für eine an den Klimawandelangepasste Landwirtschaft. UPR (Umwelt- und Planungsrecht), 30, 371–377.

Hanewinkel, M. (1998). Plenterwald und Plenterwaldüberführung. Modellstudien zuplanungstechnischen, waldbaulichen und ökonomischen Aspekten am Fallbeispieldes Wuchsgebietes Schwarzwald Institut für Forstökonomie der UniversitätFreiburg., 308 pp.

Hall, F. C. (2001). Ground-based photographic monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-503 (340 pp.). Portland, OR, USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Heinsdorf, D. (1998). Zum Anbau der Rotbuche im nordostdeutschen Tiefland untergegenwärtigen und zu erwartenden Standortsbedingungen. Forstwirtschaft undLanschaftsökologie, 32(4), 155–164.

Höchtl, F., Lehringer, S., & Konold, W. (2005). “Wilderness”: What it means whenit becomes a reality – A case study from the southwestern Alps. Landscape andUrban Planning, 70, 85–95.

Hofmann, G. (1995). Wald, Klima, Fremdstoffeintrag – Ökologischer Wandelmit Konsequenzen für Waldbau und Naturschutz, dargestellt am Gebietder neuen Bundesländer Deutschlands. Angewandte Landschaftsökologie, 33(4),165–189.

Hoisl, R., Nohl, W., & Engelhardt, P. (2000). Naturbezogene Erholung und Landschafts-bild. KTBL-Schrift 389 (306 pp.). Darmstadt: Landwirtschaftsverlag.

Hunziker, M. (2000). Einstellung der Bevölkerung zu möglichen Landschaftsentwick-lungen in den Alpen. Birmensdorf, CH: Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt WSL.,157 pp.

Hunziker, M., Felber, P., Gehring, K., Buchecker, M., Bauer, N., & Kienast, F. (2008).How do different societal groups evaluate past and future landscape changes?Results of two empirical studies in Switzerland. Mountain Research and Devel-opment, 28(2), 140–147.

Irrgang, S. (2002). Klimaänderung und Waldentwicklung in Sachsen – Auswirkungenauf die Forstwirtschaft. Forstarchiv, 73(4), 137–148.

Jenssen, M., Hofmann, G., Rütz, A., & Stöcker, G. (2003). Ergebnisse waldkundlicherSelbstorganisationsforschung im NSG Serrahn mit Bedeutung für eine natur-nahe Waldbewirtschaftung. Natur und Naturschutz in Meckenburg-Vorpommern,(38), 38–51.

Jenssen, M., & Hofmann, G. (2006). Waldbewirtschaftung zwischen Waldnatur undForstkultur – Beiträge der ökologischen Forschung zur waldbaulichen Opti-mierung von Naturabweichungen in nordostdeutschen Wäldern. In MLUV (Ed.),Eberswalder Forstliche Schreiftenreihe XXIII BMBF-Forschungsverbund “Zukunft-sorientierte Waldwirtschaft” – Ökologischer Waldumbau im nordostdeutschenTiefland (141 pp.). Potsdam.

Jeschke, L. (1999). Buchennaturwaldreservate in Deutschland. In NUA Reckling-hausen (Ed.), Bewahrung des Europäischen Naturerbes, Seminarbericht (pp.233–244). Greifswald: Recklinghausen.

Jeschke, L., & Linke, C. (2000). Grundlagen der Waldbehandlung in denNationalparken von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Natur und Landschaft, 75(3),113–116.

Jeschke, L. (2003). In Umweltministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Ed.), DieNaturschutzgebiete in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Schwerin: Demmler, 713 pp.

Jump, A. S., Hunt, J. M., & Penuelas, J. (2006). Rapid climate change-related growthdecline at the southern range edge of Fagus sylvatica. Global Change Biology, 12,2163–2174.

Knaufft, F.-J. (2000). Entwicklung von Methoden zur GIS-gestützten Visualisierungvon Waldentwicklungsszenarien. Dissertation. Fakultät für Forstwissenschaftenund Waldökologie der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. Online source,<http://webdoc.gwdg.de/diss/2000/knauft/diss knauft.pdf> Accessed June

07.06.11.

Kramer, K., Buitevald, J., Forstreuter, M., Geburek, T., Leonardi, S., Menozzi, P.,et al. (2008). Bridging the gap between ecophysiological and genetic knowl-edge to assess the adaptive potential of European beech. Ecological Modeling,216, 333–353.

ture Co

K

K

K

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

N

N

N

N

N

O

G. Lupp et al. / Journal for Na

ölling, C., Zimmermann, L., & Walentowski, H. (2007). Klimawandel: Was geschiehtmit Buche und Fichte – Entscheidungshilfen für den klimagerechten Waldum-bau in Bayern. AFZ – Der Wald, 11, 584–588.

orpel, S. (1995). Die Urwälder der Westkarpaten. Stuttgart/Jena/New York: G.Fischer., 307 pp

owatsch, A., & Fock, T. (2004). Landwirtschaft in strukturschwachen Regionen –Analyse und Handlungsansätze am Beispiel der Region Vorpommern. Berichteüber Landwirtschaft, 80, 540–555.

asch, P., Lindner, M., Erhard, M., Suckow, F., & Wenzel, A. (2002). Regional impactassessment of forest structure and functions under climate change – The Bran-denburg case study. Forest Ecology and Management, 162/1, 73–86.

eibundgut, H. (1993). Europäische Urwälder – Wegweiser zur naturnahen Wald-wirtschaft. Bern, Stuttgart: Haupt., 260 pp.

FG (Landesamt für Forsten und Großschutzgebiete M-V). (1999a). Erläuterungenzu den forstlichen Standortkarten des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, TeilA. Wuchsgebiete und Wuchsbezirke, Vol. II. Malchin.

FG (Landesamt für Forsten und Großschutzgebiete M-V). (1999b). Erläuterungenzu den forstlichen Standortkarten des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, TeilB. Standortformen und Standortgruppen. Malchin.

indner, M., Bugmann, H., Lasch, P., Flechsig, M., & Cramer, W. (1997). Regionalimpacts of climatic change on forests in the state of Brandenburg, Germany.Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, (84), 123–135.

ockow, K. W. (1998). Langfristige Versuchsflächen Eberswalde – Der Kiefern-Lichtungsversuch mit Rotbuchenunterbau Schönholz 16. Forstwirtschaft undLandschaftsökologie, 32(4), 145–154.

üpke, v. B., & Spellmann, H. (1997). Aspekte der Stabilität und des Wachstums vonMischbeständen aus Fichte und Buche als Grundlage für waldbauliche Entschei-dungen. Forstarchiv, 68, 167–179.

upp, G., & Konold, W. (2008). Landscape preferences and perception of both resi-dents and tourists. A case study in Müritz National Park (Germany). In D. Siegrist,C. Clivaz, M. Hunziker, & pp. Iten (Eds.), Visitor management in nature-basedtourism – Strategies and success factors for parks and recreational areas (pp. 47–58).Rapperswil: HSR Hochschule für Technik.

upp, G., Höchtl, F., & Wende, W. (2011). “Wilderness” – A designation for CentralEuropean landscapes? Land Use Policy, 28, 594–603.

anthey, M., Leuschner, C., & Härdtle, W. (2007). Buchenwälder und Klimawandel.Natur und Landschaft, 82(9/10), 441–445.

cDougald, N., Frost, B., & Dudley, D. (2003). Photo-monitoring for better land useplanning and assessment. Rangeland Monitoring Series. ANR Publication 8067.Oakland, CA: University of California.

inisterium für Arbeit, Bau und Landesentwicklung M-V. (2005). Landesraumen-twicklungsprogramm Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (79 pp.). Schwerin.

LUV (Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz).(2006). Eberswalder Forstliche Schreiftenreihe XXIII BMBF-Forschungsverbund“Zukunftsorientierte Waldwirtschaft” – Ökologischer Waldumbau im nordost-deutschen Tiefland (141 pp.). Potsdam.

üller, M., & Job, H. (2009). Managing natural disturbance in protected areas:Tourists’ attitude towards the bark beetle in a German national park. BiologicalConservation, 142, 375–383.

urach, D. (2002). Kolloquium der Landesforstanstalt Eberswalde: Kohlenstoff-speicherung in Wäldern – Holz als Energieträger. AFZ – Der Wald, 20,1079–1082.

ationalparkamt Müritz. (2003a). Nationalparkplan – Bestandesanalyse (67 pp.).Hohenzieritz.

ationalparkamt Müritz. (2003b). Nationalparkplan – Leitbild und Ziele (150 pp.).Hohenzieritz.

ationalparkamt Müritz. (2003c). Nationalparkplan – Projektübersicht (102 pp.).Hohenzieritz.

ohl, W. (2001). Landschaftsplanung – Ästhetische und rekreative Aspekte. Berlin,Hannover: Patzer., 248 pp.

olte, B., & Steingrube, W. (2002). Entwicklung des Tourismus in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In J. Borghardt, L. Meltzer, S. Roeder, W. Scholz, & A. Wüstenberg

(Eds.), ReiseRäume – Touristische Entwicklung und Räumliche Planung. Dort-munder Beiträge zur Raumplanung 109 (Blaue Reihe). Institut für Raumplanung,Universität Dortmund, 372 pp.

bergföll, P. (2000). Modelle der Nutzungsplanung auf der Basis vonWiederholungsinventuren. Dissertation. Forstwissenschaftliche Fakultät,

nservation 21 (2013) 10– 21 21

Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (117 pp.). Online source, <http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/150/pdf/Modelle der NutzungsplanungObergfoell.pdf> Accessed 07.06.11.

Oheimb, G., Friedel, A., Bertsch, A., & Härdtle, W. (2007). The effects of wind throwon plant species richness in a Central European beech forest. Plant Ecology, 191,47–65.

Penker, M., & Wytrzens, H.-C. (2005). Scenarios for the Austrian Food Chain in 2020and its landscape impacts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71, 175–189.

Plieninger, T., Bens, O., & Hüttl, R. (2007). Innovations in land-use as response torural change – A case report from Brandenburg, Germany. In U. Mandler, H.Wiggering, & K. Helming (Eds.), Multifunctional land use – Meeting future demandsfor landscape goods and services (pp. 369–386). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

Pestel, C., & Schäfer, D. (1991). Waldbauliche Behandlungsvorschläge für dieKiefernbestände des Müritz-Nationalparks mit dem Ziel einer Überführung in natur-nahe Bestände (85 pp.). Diplomarbeit, Georg-August-Universität UniversitätGöttingen, unpublished.

Pretzsch, H. (2001). Modellierung des Waldwachstums. Berlin: Parey., 414 ppPretzsch, H. (2002). Grundlagen der Waldwachstumsforschung. Berlin: Parey., 341 pp.Regionaler Planungsverband Mecklenburgische Seenplatte. (2010). Regionales Rau-

mentwicklungsprogramm Mecklenburgische Seenplatte.Roeckner, E., Brasseur, G. P., Giorgetta, M., Jacob, D., Jungclaus, J., Reick, C., et al.

(2006). Klimaprojektionen für das 21. Jahrhundert (28 pp.). Hamburg: Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie. Online source, <http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/Klimaprojektionen2006.pdf> Accessed 07.06.11.

Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues andanalysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15,.353–.375.

Schäfer, M., & Döring, C. (2006). Artenvielfalt und Naturnähe im ökologischen Wald-bau. In P. Fritz (Ed.), Ökologischer Waldumbau in Deutschland. Fragen, Antworten,Perspektiven (pp. 82–123). Munich: Oekom.

Scherzinger, W. (1996). Naturschutz im Wald: Qualitätsziele ein dynamischen Walden-twicklung. Stuttgart: Ulmer., 447 pp

Schmidt, W. (2005). Herb layer species as indicators of biodiversity of managedand unmanaged beech forests. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 79(1/2),111–125.

Schnell, A. (2004). Die Mär vom strukturarmen Buchenurwald. LWFaktuell, 47,32–34.

Schraml, C., & Rennenberg, H. (2000). Sensitivity of different ecotypes of beechtrees (Fagus sylvatica) to drought stress. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 119,51–61.

Schröder, J. (2004). Zur Modellierung von Wachstum und Konkurrenz inKiefern/Buchen-Waldumbaubeständen Westsachsens. ForstwissenschaftlicheBeiträge Tharandt. Stuttgart: Ulmer., 271 pp.

Schwahn, C. (1990). Landschaftsästhetik als Bewertungsproblem – Zur Problematikder Bewertung ästhetischer Qualität von Landschaft als Entscheidungshilfe bei derPlanung von landschaftsverändernden Maßnahmen. Beiträge zur räumlichen Pla-nung, Schriftenreihe des Fachbereichs Landespflege der Universität Hannover.,190 pp.

Strobel, C., & Pulkenat, S. (1995). Landschaftsbild im Müritz-Nationalpark – Unveröf-fentlichtes Gutachten des Nationalparkamtes M-V, unpublished.

Spellmann, H. (2003). Sicherung einer nachhaltigen Waldentwicklung auf überbe-trieblichen Ebenen. Forstwirtschaftliches Centralblatt, 122(4), 250–257.

Tempel, H., Oheimb, G. v., & Friedel, A. (2003). Sukzessionsforschung in naturna-hen Buchenwäldern mit langjährig ungestörter Walddynamik im nordostdeutschenTiefland. Abschlußbericht: Universität Lüneburg, Institut für Ökologie undUmweltchemie., 368 pp.

Tüxen, R., & Preising, E. (1956). Die heutige potentielle natürliche Vegetation als Gegen-stand der Vegetationskartierung. Stolzenau: Selbstverlag der Bundesanstalt fürVegetationskartierung., 55 pp.

Voigtländer, U. (1995). Gutachten über die aktuelle Vegetation des Müritz-Nationalparks. – Unveröffentlichtes Gutachten im Auftrag des National-parkamtes M-V. Waren (Müritz), unpublished.

Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental concern in local context – The sig-

nificance of place attachment. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 249–263.

Wagenknecht, E. (1997). Waldbauliche Konsequenzen der Klimaänderung. AFZ/DerWald, 52(1), 9–11.

Windhager, M. (1999). Evaluierung von vier verschiedenen Waldwachstumssimula-toren (217 pp.). Dissertation. Linz: Universität für Bodenkultur Vienna.