Land Use Policy 28 (2011) 594–603 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol “Wilderness” – A designation for Central European landscapes? Gerd Lupp a,* , Franz Höchtl b , Wolfgang Wende a a Leibniz-Institute of Ecological and Regional Development, Research Area Landscape Change and Management, Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany b Alfred-Toepfer-Academy for Nature Conservation (NNA), Department of Training and Education, Camp Reinsehlen, D-29640 Schneverdingen, Germany article info Article history: Received 18 May 2010 Received in revised form 8 November 2010 Accepted 25 November 2010 Keywords: Wilderness Biodiversity Landscape perception Central Europe Lifestyle groups abstract The concept of “wilderness” has been intensively discussed as an approach for nature protection in Central Europe among managers of protected areas, decision makers, natural and social scientists. This paper discusses the various attempts for physical definitions for Central Europe. It examines, if “wilderness” a suitable expression for communicating different types of places designated “wilderness”, especially in the context of rising awareness and acceptance in all parts of society of the demands of the national strategies for protecting biodiversity. Literature surveys were carried out in order to find expert quotes on the physical definitions, spatial characteristics, and attributes of “wilderness”. For the analytical perception of the general public, a survey using opinion polls among visitors in the Müritz National Park in north- eastern Germany was carried out. A quantitative approach was chosen, and interviewees were selected on an objective, systematic basis. The paper demonstrates, that the wilderness discussion among experts in Central Europe lacks a common physical and spatial definition. It can be shown that there are strong ethical and religious, educational and cultural motifs in the demand for wilderness. For a broad range of laypersons interviewed in Müritz National Park, “wilderness” seems to be a suitable, positive label for wetlands, shorelines, large forests and remote mountain areas. Important key factors, aside from natural features, are few human traces, little infrastructure and few persons using an area, so that visitors experience a feeling of solitude. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Wilderness and the European mind – More than woolly thoughts? The concept of “wilderness” has been intensively discussed as an approach for nature protection and as a land management strat- egy in Central Europe among landscape managers, policy makers as well as natural and social scientists. However, no clear defini- tion for this term seems to exist, so that misunderstandings arise (Diemer et al., 2004; Höchtl et al., 2005b; Kirchhoff and Trepl, 2009; Hoheisel et al., 2010). It describes various types of nature, habi- tats and protection strategies, often subject to contradictory policy goals. A good example for this can be found in the German National Strategy on Biological Diversity, adopted by the Federal Cabinet in November 2007. A whole chapter is dedicated exclusively to the term “wilderness”, which describes visions and goals for 2020 (BMU, 2007). Despite the claim that wilderness areas are “exten- sive regions” (BMU, 2007, p. 40), the examples given on developing wilderness biotopes are mainly small-scale. On the one hand, the strategy demands strict protection and the absence of humans, * Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 351 4679 0; fax: +49 351 4679 212. E-mail addresses: g.lupp@ioer.de, luppg@gmx.de (G. Lupp), franz.hoechtl@nna.niedersachsen.de (F. Höchtl), w.wende@ioer.de (W. Wende). while on the other, it calls for access – to permit nature to be experienced – and even for designing the “wilderness”. In Central European countries, no legislation comparable to the US Wilderness Act exists, which clearly defines a “wilderness” as of a minimum area size, and designates places exclusively as such. Given these size definitions, it would be difficult to find places in Central Europe which could fulfil these American legislative stan- dards. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world’s largest global environmental network, has established a worldwide classification system for protected areas according to management objectives. A Category Ib “Wilderness Area” is defined as a large unmodified or slightly modified area that has retained its natural character. A primary objective is the long-term ecological integrity of natural areas, undisturbed by human activity (Dudley, 2008). Whereas Category Ia defines strict reserves with extremely restricted access, Ib allows some low impact visitation, research and educational activities. In Central Europe, very few IUCN Category I protected areas exist, since there are few areas that meet these high IUCN standards for state of naturalness. In most places in Central Europe, the land has been intensively used for a thousand years, and the country- side and its habitats have been strongly influenced by humans. The result of this ongoing impact has been a genuine, diverse and small- scale structured landscape. Even in remote areas of the alpine arch, 0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.11.008