Common transnational methodology - GreenNet Project

GREENNET 

PROMOTING THE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK IN THE 

CENTRAL EUROPEAN GREEN BELT 

3.1.1 COMMON TRANSNATIONAL METHODOLOGY

greennet - Promoting The Ecological Network In The Central European Green Belt 

AuftraggeberIn: 

Regionalmanagement Burgenland GmbH 

A-7423 Pinkafeld Technologiezentrum 

Projektleitung – AuftraggeberIn: 

DI Thomas BÖHM 

Projektleitung – Auftragnehmer: 

DI Dr. Hannes SCHAFFER 

Bearbeitung: 

DI Dr. Hannes SCHAFFER 

DI Claudia Lichtblau 

Wien, am 19.06.2012 

DI Dr. Hannes Schaffer 

Ingenieurbüro für Raum- und Landschaftsplanung 

Unternehmensberatung | EDV Dienstleistungen 

1130 Wien | Paul-Hörbiger-Weg 12 | Tel.: +43-1-526 51 88 | 

Fax: DW 11 

office@mecca-consulting.at | www.mecca-consulting.at 

mit Unterstützung von core-consult, Dresden 

2


INDEX 

1. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 4 

2. Workpackages 3, 4 and 5 in the greennet Project ....................................................................... 4 

2.1 Main Objectives of Workpackage 3 ......................................................................................... 4 



3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 8 

3.1 Basic Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 8 

3.2 Digression: The Gap Analysis of the Central European Green Belt ....................................... 8 

3.3 Steps of the Methodology ........................................................................................................ 9 

Step A) Definition of Core Areas ..................................................................................................................... 9 

Step B) Identification of Conflicts and Stakeholders ..................................................................................... 11 

Step C) Collection and Analysis of Further (Spatial) Data ............................................................................ 11 

Step D) Development of Possible Methods to Solve Conflicts...................................................................... 12 

Step E) Discussion with Stakeholders/Key Players and Identification of Possibilities for 

Implementation/Solving Conflicts .................................................................................................................. 13 

4. Short Description of Selected Pilot Regions ............................................................................. 14 

4.1 Definition of Pilot Regions ..................................................................................................... 14 

4.2 Pilot Region Grabfeld (DE) .................................................................................................... 14 

4.3 Pilot Region Česky Les/Oberpfälzer Wald (CZ/DE) .............................................................. 17 

4.4 Pilot Region Northern Weinviertel/Breclav/Jarovce-Rusovce (AT/CZ/SK)............................ 18 

4.5 Pilot Region Styrian-Slovenian Border – Kutschenitza-Mura (AT/SI) ................................... 21 

4.6 Pilot Region Southern Burgenland (A) .................................................................................. 22 

4.7 Pilot Region Julian Prealps Nature Park - Triglav National Park (IT).................................... 23 

5. Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 24 

6. ANNEX: List of Basic Functions of Existence and Possible Conflicts (developed by BOKU 

Vienna) .................................................................................................................................................. 25 

3


1. BACKGROUND 

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain 1989 and the reunion of Eastern and Western Europe this former 

border area now runs like a Green Belt of valuable landscapes and ecosystems throughout Europe, 

comprising of protected and non-protected areas over more than 12.500 km, bordering several Central 

European member states. Thus, this Green Belt offers the chance to create and conserve not only a 

unique ecological refuge but also to develop these peripheral rural areas in the heart of Europe in a 

sustainable and integrated way. 

greennet will contribute to this aim, not only by the protection of endangered species in certain areas 

but especially by the promotion of an interconnected and barrier free ecological corridor, especially 

between highly protected areas in the Central European Green Belt of outmost ecological importance 

(National Parks etc.). However, beside these regions of outmost ecological value, the Green Belt does 

also consist of a large amount of intermediate areas without any particular protection status but also of 

importance for the creation of an interconnected ecological network. Accordingly these areas with a 

non- or low protection status need to be included in the network by the development of sustainable 

and applicable conservation and management strategies, ensuring their important function as stepping 

stones between valuable habitats. 

greennet has the following general objectives: 

a. support and strengthen policies, strategies and approaches to safeguard an interlinked 

ecological network with a special focus on legally non- or low protected ecologically valuable 

areas in the Central European Green Belt, 

b. further enhance nature protection in six greennet pilot areas in the Central European Green 

Belt, 

c. apply local and regional tools, instruments and strategies to enhance nature protection, civic 

participation and public awareness, 

d. development and implementation of a joint transnational strategy for management and 

securing non- or low protected areas in the Central European Green Belt, 

e. contributing to the coherence of the Natura 2000 network by the closure of gaps between 

protected areas and finally 

f. conservation of an important natural and cultural heritage. 

The Regionalmanagement Burgenland is responsible partner for Work Package 3 „Inventory and 

Regional Survey in Selected Areas”. This methodology compiles the findings of several workshops 

and focuses on the following questions: 

How and why where certain pilot regions in the greennet project selected 

How and based on which criteria will the project define certain „Core Areas“ within the pilot 

regions 

How will the project define main problem areas / conflict areas within the „Core Areas“ 

where concrete action takes place (further called “spatial hot spots”) 

2. WORKPACKAGES 3, 4 AND 5 IN THE GREENNET PROJECT 

2.1 MAIN OBJECTIVES OF WORKPACKAGE 3 

Transnational activities and approaches of greennet are tested and applied exemplary in six greennet 

pilot areas. Those selected areas do serve as “greennet-lab”, being selected already in advance and 

serving as platform to apply and test management concepts and instruments to solve using conflicts 

and to establish a process of sustainable rural development. Pilot areas were defined following the 

criteria of low or non protected areas within the European Green Belt. These areas have an identified 

character of a “gap” and as such do constrain the creation of a coherent network. 

However, the pilot areas focus especially on rural areas in the Central European Green Belt. The 

reason for this pre-selection was the fact that direct solutions to overcome conflicts between nature 

protection and other forms of spatial land use in these certain areas will be rather difficult by nature of 

the conflicts. The pilot areas are reflecting dominating types of landscapes in the Central European 

Green Belt and in addition should bridge regional and even national administrative borders. 

4


Their selection during the project development was in most cases a direct result from the former 

INTERREG III B CADSES project Green Belt and the Green Belt Gap-Analysis. A special case was 

the selection of pilot region 1 South-Western Thuringia “Grabfeld”, which was based on a preceding 

stakeholders analysis during project development, and pilot region 6, which was identified during 

course of the project as a transfer region. 

Hence, the pilot areas are representing different types of landscapes but are showing general and 

comparable problem areas in the Central European Green Belt. They are exemplary for the general 

endangerments of low or non-protected areas in the European Green Belt. 

The selected pilot regions all are located alongside the former Iron Curtain: 

Pilotregion 1: Grabfeld (DE) 

Pilotregion 2: Cesky Les/Oberpfälzer Wald (CZ/DE) 

Pilotregion 3: Northern Weinviertel/Breclav/Jarovce-Rusovce (AT/CZ/SK) 

Pilotregion 4: Styrian-Slovenian Border – Kutschenitza-Mura (AT/SI) 

Pilotregion 5: Southern Burgenland (AT) 

During the course of the project, one further area of project activities should be identified as transfer 

region to contribute to action 5.3 of the approved application form (output 5.3.2). The area was 

identified during the 1 st semester of the project. The additional area of project activities will be: 

Transfer Region/Pilot Region 6: Julian Prealps Nature Park - Triglav National Park (IT) 

Based on the assessment of data collected and in order to minimize the spatial scale of these large 

pilot areas greennet project will define further core-areas in the pilot regions where certain action and 

further surveys and investigations will take place. 

Based on results of the CADSES project Green Belt and other investigations (e.g. CE Project 

TransEcoNet, ETC Alpine Space project EConnect) greennet will start with an in-depth analysis and 

survey within the core-areas. All inventories are based on a common transnational glossary and 

methodology (this document). Hereby, Work Package 3 activities in the core-areas are always built 

upon two pillars: on societal, economical and spatial surveys and additional ecological surveys in the 

core-areas selected. 

The overall aim of societal, economical and spatial surveys (land-use-, key-actor- and conflictanalysis) 

and of ecological surveys is the evaluation of regional and ecological potentials and 

weaknesses based on “hard facts”, here represented by quantitative data to be collected. The results 

of the quantitative surveys are consolidated in a common GIS – database (only quantitative data). 

Within the WP 3 the involved partners examine, which data are available in each country, how these 

data are available and how they may be used. The data collection is summarized in a commonly used 

database and visualized by GIS-applications and in a printed report. To the final end, the data basis 

visualized by a GIS gives an overview about the ecological, economical and spatial situation, problems 

and interest collisions along the CE Green Belt. 

However, the success of the greennet project depends even more on the collaboration of local and 

regional key actors and stakeholders in core areas selected. greennet will define those relevant key 

actors and stakeholders (qualitative data) and will address them continuously with the main aim to win 

them for future collaboration and co-operation within WP 4. 

It needs to be underlined, that the identification of general core problems and spatial conflicts based 

on regional and local stakeholders and the collection of qualitative data needs to be commenced 

simultaneously. The identification of core problems and spatial conflicts has direct effects to the 

structure of a GIS-database to be developed and vice versa. 

To the final end of WP 3 “spatial hotspots” will be defined within the core-areas. They are meant to 

be concrete localizations of spatial use conflicts in the core-areas. Spatial hotspots are the starting 

point for further concrete action and local solutions to overcome, minimize or at least reduce such 

conflicts identified. The sizes of spatial hotspots are flexible, depending on the problems to be solved. 

The size might range up to the size of the respective core-area. Solving strategies and the 

development of concrete instruments to solve conflicts will be carried out within WP 4 of the greennet 

project. 

5


Core outputs of WP3: Inventory and regional surveys in selected areas 

Common transnational methodology to be applied in all pilot areas 

Web based database with integrated GIS tool 

Spatial hotspots 

Main Actions of WP3: Inventory and regional surveys in selected areas 

3.1 Development of a common methodology and glossary 

3.2 Identification and involvement of key actors and stake holders 

3.3 Database and GIS application as decision support system 

3.4 Inventories and surveys in the greennet pilot regions 

3.5 Identification of core problems and spatial conflicts 

3.6 Transnational working group: Inventory and surveys 


Based on results from work package 3 work package 4 selects and develops suitable strategies 

supporting the maintenance of a coherent ecological network which is elaborated using the five pilot 

regions and involving the public and the relevant stakeholders. The character of the landscapes and 

the collision of spatial interests reflected in the selection of the pilot regions also determine the 

selection of appropriate safeguarding processes and instruments (see below) and civil participation 

models. In this framework civil participation should be understood as ongoing procedure in order to 

involve the public as early as possible in order to achieve a high level of mutual understanding and cooperation 

to reach a broad acceptance of safeguarded areas with a non- or low level protection status 

among local and regional stakeholders. 

The following list comprises fields of action and exemplary instruments in this sense to be examined: 

• land use planning (e.g. zoning and settlement development) 

• organization of innovative compensation strategies (e.g. area pools and eco-accounts) 

• establishing landscape identification processes (e.g. school of “landscape awareness”) 

• mitigation measures (e.g. assistance and grants ) 

• landscape development (e.g. negotiated environmental agreements) 

• land management (e.g. land consolidation) 

• awareness raising among relevant stakeholders (e.g. round tables, workshops, regional 

conferences) 

All results of WP 4 are evaluated in the framework of transnational project workshops and 

conferences. Results are summed up in a transnational greennet toolbox aiming at providing guidance 

and best-practice instruments in the field of land management and other approaches to promote a 

sustainable rural development and the creation and protection of a coherent ecological network. In 

WP5 the tools for safeguarding and lobbying are fed into policy, administrative and scientific networks, 

programmes and contracts in the field of nature conservation and landscaping. 

Core outputs of WP4: Bridging the gaps – processing and instruments 

Transnational analysis 

Development of tools for dissemination of results 

Development of tools for safeguarding ecological networks 

Transnational management and protection strategy 

Main Actions of WP4: Bridging the gaps – processing and instruments 

4.1 Transnational benchmarking of management instruments 

4.2 Participatory development of suitable strategies for solving conflicts 

4.3 Participatory conflict management 

4.4 Tools for safeguarding and dissemination of results 

4.5 Transnational working group processing and instruments 

6



WP 5 aims on the capitalization of project results in order to feed project results into different policy, 

administrative and scientific networks, programmes and contracts in the field of nature conservation 

and spatial- /landscape planning. Its task is to feed back results and outputs on the trans- and 

international level of nature conservation especially in the Central European Green Belt. Here, existing 

international networks such as the European Green Belt initiative, the Friends of the Earth (FoE) 

networks with its working groups and political background and the IUCN (World Conservation Union) 

is of outmost importance in order not only to inform the broader public on possibilities but also to 

establish sustainable structures and possibilities for the broader implementation of results and outputs 

from the greennet project on political, administrative and scientific level. 

However, beside the trans- and international level greennet also feeds its results back into the local, 

regional and national level of member states and regions. One central approach is to build up a 

network for political lobbying for the Central European Green Belt to bring the Green Belt and other 

eco-political themes like ecological networks in general (“Green Infrastructure for Europe”), 

sustainable land use etc. into policies, which means into political fora, programmes and directives. 

This includes extensive communication with politicians, key actors and decision makers on different 

local up to EU-level, eco-political steering groups of parliaments and parties. For the long term 

capitalisation of the project results concerning the nature conservation and historical level exploratory 

works is done for the nomination of the Central European Green Belt as UNESCO-World Heritage Site 

and to promote the European Landscape Convention (ELC). 

A feasibility study will point out if and how the Central European Green Belt will be suitable for a 

nomination. It is also of importance to feed the project results into the current scientific discussion 

taking into account the interdisciplinary background of the Central European Green Belt initiative 

covering a wide range from nature conservation, spatial planning, science of history and social 

sciences. Scientific conferences will be implemented and scientific fora will be used. It will be the main 

aim to secure the long term implementation of tools and strategies developed also beyond the project 

duration via well-proven and innovative ways of lobbying, dissemination and spreading of greennet 

results to stakeholders and actors identified in the field of nature conservation, ecological networking, 

spatial planning and rural development. Therefore the European Green Belt initiative and the created 

new networks will be of outmost importance to serve as disseminator. 

Core outputs of WP5: Capitalization – Lobbying for nature 

Target oriented lobbying 

Policy makers 

World heritage promotion 

Main Actions of WP5: Capitalization – Lobbying for nature 

5.1 Political lobbying and broader dissemination of results 

5.2 Feeding project results in current scientific discussion 

5.3 Promoting of regional implementation of greennet strategy 

5.4 Raising awareness on ecological networks in pilot areas 

5.5 Transnational working group: Capitalization 

7


3. METHODOLOGY 

3.1 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS 

The methodology developed is based on the existing gap analysis (Interreg IIIB Cadses-project) and 

defines regional goals and landscape quality objectives for the pilot areas. The pilot regions are too 

large (spatially) to work on all conflicts, to get in contact with all regional stakeholders and key-players 

and to develop possibilities to solve all problems. Therefore the methodology defines smaller core 

areas, representative for the pilot regions with main focus of action. 

The selection of the core areas is based on the identification of conflicts. They should be of importance 

for all the pilot regions. The focus lies with the development of methods to solve the conflicts in 

cooperation with stakeholders on the local and regional level. It is important that only a few conflicts 

per pilot region, which are defined as “Core Areas”, are chosen for further actions such as the 

development of possible methods to solve conflicts. Within those core areas spatial hot spots are 

selected for concrete actions. 

The proposed methodology is action-orientated and a framework, flexible enough to be further 

developed or adapted by new knowledge and special situations in the pilot region (following the 

method of verifying or falsifying hypotheses). 

Basically all steps of the methodology are conducted and recorded in a way which is transnational and 

transferrable to other transboundary regions, regions dealing with the long-term protection of 

ecological networks and regions along the European Green Belt. 

► Overall Concept of the greennet project: Following the transnational methodology spatial and 

ecological relevant data and data concerning local and regional stakeholders are collected and 

analysed. Methods to solve conflicts will be developed by combining analysed data and results of 

stakeholder inquiries with planning and funding instruments. Spatial hotspots are defined in which 

concrete suggestions for the implementation of the methods for solving conflicts will be implemented. 

3.2 DIGRESSION: THE GAP ANALYSIS OF THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN GREEN BELT 

The Gap Analysis of the Central European Green Belt was part of the Interreg IIIB CADSES-Project 

“GREEN BELT - Protection and valorisation of the longest habitat system in Europe”. The Green Belt 

Europe is separated in three main regions, one of them is the Central European Green Belt (Poland, 

Germany, Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia and Italy). 

Method 

In the project, a 50 m wide corridor on both sides of the borderline was analysed. The minimum length 

of structure and land use-types was 100 m. Single objects were not considered. A (more or less) 

homogeneous CORINE land use-type (CORINE land cover nomenclature, level 3) forms one section 

of the Green Belt. Land use types smaller than 100 m length were not registered as independent 

sections, but were subsumed until they exceeded the minimum length and were registered as 

complexes. 

Protection Status 

From the total length of both sides 1 of the Green Belt of 4190 km there are 1857 km (44,3%) not 

protected, neither in European (NATURA2000 system) nor in national nature conservation systems. 

Gaps in the Ecological Network 

Interruptions or impairments of the ecological network (by roads, railways, other artificial surfaces, 

dump sites, quarries) have a length of 40,29 km (0,96%). These land use types cross the Green Belt. 

Arable land (including permanent crops like vineyards and orchards) has a length of 851,5 km (= 

20,32% ), that means a fifth of the considered length is arable land. 

1 

The real length of the Green Belt in the participating countries is 2095km. Both sides of the Green 

Belt were taken into consideration to point out differences between the neighbouring countries. 

8


Very long sections with arable land can be found in Austria (325 km) and Hungary (270 km). 896,7km 

(21,4%) of the total length of both sides of the Green Belt are gaps in the ecological network. (Source: 

Gap Analysis – Central European Green Belt, Fact Sheet). 

3.3 STEPS OF THE METHODOLOGY 

Concept and Design: BUND - Project Office Green Belt, Melanie Kreutz, Nuremberg (2011) 

9


STEP A) DEFINITION OF CORE AREAS 

In larger pilot regions core areas are characterized by certain local gaps along the Central European 

Green Belt. To define further core areas within the pilot regions (PR) in the greennet project, several 

ways are suggested depending on the initial situation (nature protection status, achievable data and/or 

special knowledge about currently existing conflicts) of the pilot region selected. The way to define 

those core areas is to create intersections (of areas) to define areas with a (possible) need for action. 

It is useful (but not at all obligatory within the project) to define transboundary core areas by doing step 

A on both sites of the border and defining “twin-areas” or by doing step A from the beginning in a 

transboundary way. The core areas must have a clear reference to the Green Belt. They are 

flexible in size but should not range up to the size of a pilot area. 

Possible Opportunities 

A.1 Intersection of areas of high ecological value and areas which are not protected (nature 

conservation) and threatened/endangered. Within the Green Belt there exist gaps in terms of areas 

which are not protected and do not have a high ecological value at the moment (e.g. due to intense 

agricultural use). Such areas can, however, be of key importance for the coherence of the ecological 

network as well - “high ecological value” is to be interpreted in this sense: 

High ecological value 

CORE 

AREA 

No protection 

Endangered 

area 

Basis for this intersection can be the results of the gap analysis (areas of high ecological value and 

areas with no protection are defined). For this step it will be assumed that these core areas are 

threatened (because of no legal protection) or that there is a need for action concerning the 

preservation of the areas with high ecological value. 

In pilot regions, where the gap analysis was not implemented (like PR Grabfeld) other data sources 

can be used (e.g. habitat type inventory of the Green Belt Germany 2001/2002, other inventories or 

data from nature conservation agencies). 

A.2 Depending on the implementation and control of the legal nature conservation status of areas and 

on the way how strongly the areas are basically protected (referring to the protection category) 

endangerments for protected areas occur even if they have a protection status. Therefore this step of 

identifying core areas is needed: Intersection of areas with conservation status/protection and 

endangered areas (by interventions, abandonment of use or intensification of use etc.): 

Protected 

area 

CORE 

AREA 

Endangered 

area 

10


Criteria for being endangered: 

Endangerment can be mainly explained by conflicts with competing land use - see Step B) 

Identification of Conflicts and Stakeholders - respectively by low protection status and/or loss of 

funding or protection status. 

► Result A: Several (small) core areas within the pilot region with a possible or already concrete 

need for action. 

The scale of the core areas should be flexible, i.e. depending on what knowledge will be achieved 

within the next steps of the methodology (about conflicts, stakeholders, special land use etc.). The 

core areas should be able to be increased, narrowed or switched (to some extend). The core areas 

should have a reference to the Green Belt. This is also a preparation for the definition of spatial 

hotspots. 

STEP B) IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS AND STAKEHOLDERS 

As stated above, possible conflicts are mainly caused by conflicts with competing land use. The BOKU 

Vienna developed a list of possible land use, which defines economical, social and ecological basic 

functions (habitation, work, recreation, food supply, supply and disposal, transportation, 

communication and education – see chapter 0. 

11


ANNEX: List of Basic Functions of Existence and Possible Conflicts (developed by BOKU Vienna)). 

Taking into consideration these basic functions of existence main spatial conflicts between nature 

conservation and competing land use can be identified as well as groups of interests as a “pre-stage” 

for defining regional stakeholders. 

With the currently available data (results of the gap-analysis, other surveys or data collections, 

informal data etc.) and by having a closer look on the core areas the main fields of activities can be 

defined (current or future important land use, e.g. agriculture, forestry, leisure industry, infrastructure). 

Furthermore key actors and stakeholders involved in these fields of activities have to be identified, 

considering administration and economy representatives as well as civil society (e.g. farmers, 

foresters, residents, companies, agencies, politicians). Involving regional key actors and stakeholders 

enhances the chance of sustainability of activities undertaken to develop and implement management 

instruments in the field of nature conservation and rural development. 

First contact to stakeholders: 

The responsible project partners will get in contact with these stakeholders to gather more information: 

e.g. data could be collected by interviews (phone) or questionnaire (by post or email) about e.g. 

existing land use conflicts, their opinion about the future development of the area, existing 

transboundary activities. 

Therefore it could be useful to develop a common interview-catalogue/questionnaire to collect 

comparable information in all pilot regions. 

STEP C) COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF FURTHER (SPATIAL) DATA 

In order to produce results that are comparable among the pilot regions and transferable to other 

regions the collection and analysis of further (spatial) data and the subsequent development of 

a database needs special attention. The following parameters are important: 

Scale (level of pilot regions, core areas or spatial hot spots) 

Comparability (do we need comparison among the pilot areas or core areas) 

Complexity 

Availability 

Examples for relevant data are: 

Geographical position: area size, communities, superior administration unit, superior 

landscape unit etc. 

Population: number of inhabitants, population development (1990-2010/ 2010-2030), 

population density, age structure, development of households etc. 

Nature and environment: landscape structure, land use in open areas, valuable habitats and 

species, protected areas, waters and soil (quality) etc. 

12


Settlement structure: form of housing estates, settlement development (1990-2010), supply 

of necessary goods and services, secondary residences etc. 

Land-owner structure: public and private ownership, large estate, common property, rent 

and lease of land etc. 

Economic structure: enterprises (classification according to sectors), employees 

(classification according to sectors), unemployed persons, structure of commuters etc. 

Details of agricultural and forestry structure: number of farms, size of farms, type of 

production: animal breeding / arable crops, ecological / industrial production, intensive / 

extensive forestry, forest encroachment, forest enterprises etc. 

Details of touristic structure: tourism activities, size of tourism enterprises, recreation 

facilities, biking and hiking trails etc. 

Traffic, infrastructure and accessibility: railway and road infrastructure, public transport, 

biking and walk ways, secondary equipment (shopping facilities, tollhouses) etc. 

For the spatial representation of the pilot regions a GIS Database with a simple visualisation module 

via maps will be provided by the Lead Partner for all project partners. For the identification of problems 

in the core areas specific data will be provided by all the project partners. The database is a tool, 

which explains and supports decisions in the core areas. Not all data will be available at all levels. 

During the process of defining fields of activities, conflicts and stakeholders, it should be carved out 

resp. identified which further data is necessary to solve conflicts or to identify the background of 

conflicts resp. their appearance. 

By assembling existing and collected data the database is generated. Referring to the type of 

available data and the form (text, tables, digital maps, geo-referenced etc.) a common analysis 

system needs to be developed, which is also transferrable to other European Green Belt 

regions. This analysis will also contribute to the definition of spatial hot spots. 

Step B) Identification conflicts and stakeholders and step C) Collection of further data interact with 

each other. Collected information or the question “who can provide necessary information and how” 

can lead to new stakeholders (resp. information providers like agencies) and to new fields of 

action/conflicts. 

The general aim of the GIS-based database is to support “decision taking” in terms of identifying 

conflicts, stakeholders and possible fields of action by visualization of 

interests of regional stakeholders, 

efforts of funding (eg. agri-environmental programmes) 

and the value of habitats and efforts to secure habitats and migration corridors. 

It thus includes spatial information and visualizes interests and values in order to raise awareness and 

to share quick and easy information with the user. It is important to keep its handling as easy as 

possible to ensure its application by the project partners and in parts for the general public: for 

example by enabling access on every web compatible device and a visual appealing design. 

STEP D) DEVELOPMENT OF POSSIBLE METHODS TO SOLVE CONFLICTS 

By combining the results of the data analysis (step C) with landscape/spatial planning instruments, 

funding instruments (by EU, states or regions) and/or other instruments, suitable methods to 

solve main conflicts in the core areas of the pilot regions will be developed. 

Conflict-Strategies: 

- avoidance 

- cooperation 

- implementation / enforcement 

- accommodating / drawback 

- agreement / compromise 

13


Figure: Enhance Conflict-Strategies 

Enforcement 

Winner / Loser 

Cooperation 

Winner / Winner 

Compromise 

Loser / Loser 

Winner / Winner 

Avoidance 

Loser / Loser 

Accommodating 

Loser / Winner 

Source: Translation of the German original from: Gothe, Stefan (2006); Regionale Prozesse gestalten – 

Handbuch für Regionalmanagement und Regionalberatung 

The European Union’s commitment to the integration of nature protection is stated in the Council 

Decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development 

(programming period 2007 to 2013), which is the basis of the national strategies of the member 

states. The rural development policy focuses on three key areas, one of which is the environment. The 

new generation of rural development strategies and programmes is built around four axes, axis 2 

provides measures to protect and enhance natural resources, as well as preserving highnature value 

farming and forestry systems and cultural landscapes in Europe’s rural areas. 

The main focus should therefore be on the endeavour to integrate the concept of nature protection into 

strategies for sustainable rural development. The commitment to intact nature and to the unique 

landscapes of the Green Belt provides sound options for regional development particularly for 

recreational and touristic use. Strategies towards a sustainable rural development do not only rely on a 

pristine landscape but also on a high attractiveness of the settlement areas, on the guarantee for the 

services for the public, on the safeguarding of accessibilities, on the support of regional identities and 

thus on an integrated approach for regional development. 

STEP E) DISCUSSION WITH STAKEHOLDERS/KEY PLAYERS AND IDENTIFICATION 

OF POSSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION/SOLVING CONFLICTS 

The developed methods to solve conflicts (step D) will be presented to and discussed with 

stakeholders and key players in the core areas of the pilot region. The results of this step should lead 

to the identification of possible implementation of the methods or could show how to improve the 

methods to solve conflicts. 

Attention should be turned to the investigation in the pilot regions to what extent consistent strategies 

for nature protection and sustainable rural development can be worked out and initiated based on the 

concept of “regional governance”. A variety of coordination and communication tasks among the 

stakeholders of administration, of the economy and of civil society as well as cooperative decisionmaking 

processes are supposed to secure a sustainable rural development based on the endeavour 

to maintain the Green Belt in its integrity. 

14


4. SHORT DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED PILOT REGIONS 

4.1 DEFINITION OF PILOT REGIONS 

The definition of the pilot regions within the greennet project was basically based on the INTERREG III 

B CADSES Green Belt gap-analysis. Those gaps were summed up in certain national status reports 

which included the definition of certain major geographic areas along the Central European Green 

Belt. These areas were especially: 

Germany 

- Northern Bavaria especially with Oberpfälzer Wald (Upper Palatinate Forest) 

Czech Republic 

- North-Western Czech Republic with Czesky Lez (Northern Bohemian Forest) as well as the 

hillsides of Southern Moravia 

Austria 

- North-East Austria with the hillside of the ‘Nördliches Weinviertel’ (Northern Weinviertel) 

- South-East Austria with the hillsides of the “Burgenland” 

- Southern Slovenia with the transboundary landscapes of Mura river and Kutschenitza-Valley 

Slovenia 

- Southern Slovenia with the transboundary landscapes of Mura river and Kutschenitza-Valley 

Slovak Republic 

- South-West Slovakia with the metropolitan area of Jarovce/Rusovce 

A special case was the selection of pilot region 1, which was based on a preceding stakeholders 

analysis during project development, considering recommendations of national, regional and local key 

actors in the Central European Green Belt. 

Germany 

- South-Western Thuringia “Grabfeld” 

During the course of the project, one further area was identified as transfer region during the 1 st 

semester of the project. The additional area of project activities is: 

Italy 

- Transfer Region/Pilot Region 6: Julian Prealps Nature Park - Triglav National Park (IT) 

For further information on the CADSES Gap Analysis and its results see also chapter 3.2 Digression: 

The Gap Analysis of the Central European Green Belt. 

4.2 PILOT REGION GRABFELD (DE) 

Features of the landscape 

The Grabfeld is a peripheral rural area with a high agricultural land use. It is situated at the former 

inner German border, between the federal states Thuringia and Bavaria. The pilot region is located in 

the south of the Thuringian Forest; the landscape is a low mountain range with Keuper sediments and 

volcanic cones. The region is agriculturally used with fertile soils (partially loess coverage) and forests 

at the slopes. The structure of farms and of land differs between the federal states: in Bavaria there 

are family farms (part- and full-time), whereas on the bigger plots in Thuringia we find agricultural 

cooperatives. 

15


Figure: The pilot region Grabfeld 

In between intensively used fertile soils we find peaks, slopes and wetter parts of floodplains housing 

valuable habitats like wet and dry grassland, orchards or forests. The Green Belt is an important 

linking element between those valuable habitats. Discussions about sustainable land use and the 

protection of the Green Belt are reflected in the typical collisions of interests of different stakeholders. 

Only parts of the valuable habitats are legally protected. 

Strengths and gaps 

The regions strengths are a traditional and diverse cultural landscape with many cultural and natural 

highlights, its situation between the Nature Parks Thüringer Wald, Biosphere Reserve Rhön and 

Nature Park Haßberge, its closeness to “Straße der deutschen Einheit”, and the border museums 

Behrungen and Rappershausen. 

Gaps of the Grabfeld: 

The Grabfeld is a very peripheral rural area 

Demographic change, shrinking region (down to -20-24% until 2025 in scenarios) 

Unknown area/region 

Name of region “Grabfeld” is a problem (“Gravefield”) 

The main negative impacts to the Green Belt in some parts of the Grabfeld region are: 

Expansion of roads (highway on the Green Belt!) without green underpasses or green bridges 

for wildlife crossings) 

Intensive agricultural use (tight crop rotation, high use of pesticides and mineral fertilizer) or 

livestock farming (often-cut and intensively fertilized meadows, high stocking rate of cattle 

Slow break-up or active deconstruction of former patrol road made of perforated concrete 

slabs, which are important for landscape management and sustainable tourism and are a last 

barrier against ploughing up of the Green Belt 

The abandonment of land use in segments with poorer soils, where the border management 

has led to valuable open land habitats 

16


These negative impacts lead to several negative effects: 

Fragmentation and destruction of habitats and ecological networks 

Loss of biodiversity in parts of the Green Belt 

Impairment of nature and landscape for recreation 

Loss of the experience of a living monument of the local, German and European history and 

with it also a loss of a part of regional identity 

The chance for ecotourism and sustainable development decreases with the loss of these 

specific natural, scenic, cultural and historical characteristics. 

Main spatial conflicts: 

Traffic/ Transport: 

Expansion of roads (e.g. A 71) (without green underpasses or green bridges for wildlife 

crossings) 

Agriculture/ Forestry: 

Intensive agricultural use or livestock farming 

Abandonment of land use in segments with poorer soils 

Stakeholders/key actors 

Topic Organisation Main aim 

Agriculture Farmer’s associations Economic agriculture 

Traffic Street construction offices Faster transport 

Tourism County administration Offers for local, regional, 

national and international 

people, intact and diverse 

landscape 

Living County and community administration Work and income, intact 

landscape, education, offers 

Nature 

conservation 

NGOs (BUND, NABU, AHO) 

Nature Conservation Administration 

Landscape management association 

Grabfeld 

Intact landscape, protection of 

habitats and ecological 

networks, biodiversity 

Possible fields of action 

- Collection and evaluation of data, choosing hot spots 

- Evaluation of conflicts and aims in the hot spots 

- Contacting key actors 

- Improvement of funding policy – better income for extensive land use 

- Development of ecological network – looking for „bridges“ 

- Closing gaps in touristic infrastructure 

Instruments: 

- Funding extensive land use 

- Compensation 

- Instruments of land management 

- Purchase and development 

- Volunteers in measures of landscape management 

- Future conferences with all actors 

17


4.3 PILOT REGION ČESKY LES/OBERPFÄLZER WALD (CZ/DE) 

The criteria for choosing this area as pilot region are that it is defined as an area with gaps within the 

gap-analysis implemented in the INTERREG III B CADSES project GREEN BELT (2006-2008). On 

the Bavarian (German) side gaps are concerning the ecological network (mainly industrial used arable 

land) and there are only a few small nature reserves. On the Czech side the whole area is declared as 

protected landscape area. There is no gap but there are also some lacks of implementing the 

protection. Specific area of tension are different developments (e. g. settlements, development of 

population and infrastructure), impact on landscape, and common conflicts which are crucial in a 

trans-boundary way. 

Figure: The pilot region Český Les / Oberpfälzer Wald 


The Český Les/ Upper Palatinate Forest is a low mountain region which is divided between Germany 

(Bavaria) and Czech Republic. Its 80 km Green Belt area is situated between Tachov (CZ) and Bärnau 

(D), the northern border of Nature Park Nördlicher Oberpfälzer Wald in the north and Domazlice (CZ) 

and Furth im Wald (D) resp. Cham-Further Senke/low ground in the south, which is the natural border 

to the Šumava mountains. 

Strengths and Gaps 

The area is one of the less fragmented areas in CE, but it is threatened by new border crossings and 

intensive industrial agriculture. Large areas have no sufficient legal protection although there are a 

number of valuable habitats and species, like River Otter and Black Stork. The area is sparsely 

populated and economically less developed which especially applies to tourism. 

Almost the whole pilot region on the Czech side of the border is situated within the Protected 

Landscape Area (CHKO) Český Les, which was designated in 2005 and covers 473 square km. 

Nevertheless, the problems come out of the new status of PLA and Natura 2000 sites as well. 

Conservation status is generally weak. 

The German part of the pilot region is mainly situated within nature parks (Nördlicher Oberpfälzer 

Wald/Northern Upper Palatinate Forest, Oberpfälzer Wald/Upper Palatinate Forest). As well, this 

conservation status is very low and comprises nearly no protection, because there are just a few and 

small nature conservation and Natura2000-sites. 

18




Intensification of agricultural use (production of energy crops)- German Side 

Lack of use/extensive use – Czech Side 

Energy: 

Building of biogas plants 

Traffic/Transport: 

Interruption of the Green Belt (several Natura 2000-areas) by roads (D: A6/CZ: 5) 

Intensification of traffic (e.g. opening of border crossings for cars) 

Hunting and Fishing: These activities threaten wild animals especially carnivores (Lynx) and birds of 

prey and owls. Intensive fishery influences water ecosystems (ponds, rivers) in large extent. 

Stake holders/Key actors (preliminary) 

Government of Upper Palatinate, District Administrations (Cham, Schwandorf, Neustadt an der 

Waldnaab, Tirschenreuth), Regional Office of Pilsen Region, Government of the Czech Republic, 

municipalities 

State nature conservation bodies (Nature Parks Naturpark Oberpfälzer Wald and Northern Upper 

Palatinate Forest, Protected Landscape Area Cesky Les, Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech 

Republic) 

Landowners and farmers 

Farmer’s associations, hunting associations 

NGOs (Wildlife Foundation, LBV, BUND, CSO, CSOP) 

Possible Fields of action 

Initiate trans-boundary cooperation regarding landscape conservation (searching Bavarian 

farmers to work on sites in Cesky Les) 

Initiate a better/suitable conservation regime in protected areas (e. g. revitalisation of peat 

bogs and streams in Cesky Les) 

Development of alternative concepts for industrial agricultural use on Bavarian side (biogas 

plants) 

Development of suggestions/concepts for trans-boundary eco-tourism (hiking and biking) and 

regional development 

Suggestions for a better protection of valuable areas (official suggestions for new nature 

conservation areas on Bavarian side like Rehlingbachtal, core area Rozvadov-Waidhaus) 

Collection and evaluation of data 

Suggestions for management 

4.4 PILOT REGION NORTHERN WEINVIERTEL/BRECLAV/JAROVCE-RUSOVCE (AT/CZ/SK) 


The Northern Weinviertel (A) is a typical rural area, which is characterized by villages, agricultural use 

and only a few small towns. Agricultural land use dominates the area. Also viticulture plays a major 

role. Nature conservation is important in the small-scale cultivated landscape with mostly undulating 

areas, large proportion of plantations of fruit trees, farm tracks, stepped slopes, hedges, landslides of 

Loess. Dry fallows and (semi-) dry grasslands with their high proportion of endangered species are of 

utmost importance. 

The Czech part in South Moravia comprises the area between Mikulov and Znojmo and is 

characterized by high biodiversity including diversity of habitats in open landscape (dry grasslands and 

inland salt meadows) and cultural landscape. 

The Slovakian part of the pilot region is situated in the western and south-western part of Slovakia in 

the bordering zone with Austria and Hungary and in the orographic unit of Podunajská rovina (Danube 

flatland).The pilot region reaches approximately 30 kilometres along Slovak/Austria border between 

the Slovakia/Austrian border and the highway D2. 

19


The landscape structure of the pilot area is characterized by discontinuous urban fabric, road and 

railway networks, non-irrigated arable land, water courses, and broad-leaved forest. The Land use in 

open areas is agricultural. Protected areas of the pilot area are the Syslovské polia SPA, Protected 

area Jarovska Bazantnica, SCI Bratislava floodplains, and the SPA Danube floodplains. 

Figure: The pilot region Northern Weinviertel/Breclav/Jarovce/Rusovce 

Strengths, Gaps and Conflicts 

Main conflicts in the Austrian part of the pilot region are the lack of agricultural cultivation, 

management of valuable habitats, abandonment of cultivation (wet meadows), loss of fallow land, loss 

of landscape structures due to intensification of agricultural use, draining of arable land and loss of 

small structured agricultural land (mainly vineyards). 

The species rich habitats (plants, insects) of the Czech part of the pilot region are part of natural and 

cultural heritage. On the other hand we find intensive agriculture, giving up farming, fragmentation of 

ecosystems, lack of management of localities. Anyhow, with appropriate management, the situation 

could be improved relatively easy and quickly. Typology of spatial conflicts to be solved are intensive 

agriculture, giving up farming, fragmentation of landscapes and ecosystems, development of 

renewable and non-renewable energy supply systems, and low conservation status of localities. 


Agriculture/Forestry: 

lack of agricultural cultivation or landscape management of ecologically valuable habitats like 

dry grassland or wet meadows, that don’t allow intensive farming 

loss of fallow land due to intensification of farming 

loss of landscape structures due to intensification of agricultural use – specially loss of wet 

depressions (“Ackersutten”) 

draining of arable land (water-management) 

loss of small structured agricultural land 

change in forestry: planting out of not autochthonous tree-species 

Land Consolidation 

Land consolidation can cause loss of small-structured landscape 

Hunting/Fishing: 

Intensification of hunting and fishing (CZ) 

Land management by hunters (e.g. planting of (often neophytic) shrubs and trees in valuable 

open habitats) 

feeding gives nitrogen-input to poor valuable habitats 

hunters can be strong opponents to management of valuable habitats through removing 

bushes/trees or through sheep-grazing 

Energy supply: 

Wind mills, biomass production, photovoltaic 

20


Mining sites, water management and waste disposal: 

Mining of gravels, remediation of (old) mining sites 

Exploitation of groundwater 

Unregulated landfills 

Shale gas-Production planned 

Urbanisation 

construction of flats, shopping centres and administrative buildings 

Stakeholders/Key actors 

Austria: farmers and land owners, agricultural pressure groups, hunters (-associations), communities, 

regional development-associations, spatial planning, media 

Czech Republic: farmers, municipalities, state nature conservation bodies, nongovernment 

organizations 

Slovakia: State Nature Conservancy, the municipal offices of Bratislava Petrzalka, Rusovce, Jarovce 

and the Bratislava, NGOs involved in the Nature Conservancy and cultural heritage 

Possible fields of action and instruments on pilot-region level 

Austria: 

ecological survey of valuable habitats (= hot spots) 

definition of mission statements for the valuable habitats (= hot spots) 

communication with relevant stake-holder 

development of instruments 

raising awareness for needs (and benefits) of nature protection within agricultural pressure 

groups 

Czech Republic: 

Identification of valuable localities and their land-owners 

Suggestions of management 

Discussions with land-owners and presentation of subsidy programmes 

Preparation of particular projects 

Slovakia: 

to make appropriate agricultural and environmental measures- intensive arable land used 

areas within protected areas should be converted to natural structures like natural grassland 

with autochthonous species 

To realize the meetings with the owners and tenants of land to inform and solve the different 

conflicts as well as raising awareness for needs (and benefits) of nature through personal or 

round table discussions 

ecological survey with the aim enhance the ecological stability and connectivity 

suggestions of management 

raising awareness and public relations work 

First suggestions and need for new fields of action and new instruments are to increase awareness 

about the Green Belt. Round table talks with regional and local stake holder groups, events for the 

local population and presenting the Green Belt in local and regional media are tools to transport the 

idea of the Green Belt. In direct communication with relevant stake holders, strategies for preservation 

and management of valuable habitats along the Green Belt have to be worked out, meaning to 

present the nature protection as a chance for sustainable regional development. Legislative protection 

in the form of designation of protected territories could protect the Green Belt against the economic 

interests, which is especially relevant in Slovakia. 

21


4.5 PILOT REGION STYRIAN-SLOVENIAN BORDER – KUTSCHENITZA-MURA (AT/SI) 

The pilot region at the Styrian-Slovenian Border – Kučnica/Kutschenitza-Mura comprises three 

municipalities in Slovenia (Rogašovci, Cankova, Tišina) in the extent of 10.954 ha and three 

municipalities in Austria (St. Anna, Klöch, Bad Radkersburg Umgebung). 

Figure: The Pilot Region Kučnica/Kutschenitza 


The border area between Styria and Slovenia hosts large areas of alluvial forests, partly protected as 

a Natura 2000 site. The protection status under all three Natura 2000 sites show us that protection of 

species and habitats is very much connected with agricultural land use especially on grasslands but 

also in forests and on wetlands. The Slovenian Side of the border comprises 15 cadastral communities 

and three municipalities. 


The river habitat system which was largely regulated in the past is presently threatened by 

fragmentation due to planned large scale hydropower plants. 

Most of the Slovenian Green Belt area is protected (83%, another 1,4% are under proposal for the 

protection as Regional or Nature -Landscape park). Some of the former Yugoslavian military watch 

houses at the border are reconstructed and used e.g. as youth hostel, herb house or art centre. 



giving-up farming and thus lack of grassland management 

Energy supply and water management: 

biomass production, plans for hydro power plants on Mura river 

water management (water supply, thermal water) 

Settlement development 

22


Stakeholders/Keyactors 

Austria: 

Mayors of St. Anna (Johannes Weidinger), Klöch (Josef Doupona), Bad Radkersburg Umgebung 

(Heinrich Schmidlechner) 

Water management authority (Dipl.-Ing. Rudolf Hornich, Dr. Norbert Baumann) 

Nature authority (Mag. Johann Pfeiler) 

Natura 2000 (Ing. Dr. Andreas Breuss, Mag. Bernard Wieser) 

Austrian League for Nature Conservation Styria (Dr. Johannes Gepp, Dipl.-Päd. DI Marcus Ehrenpaar, 

Mag. Silvia Hödl) 

Slovenia: Farmers and Land Owners, State Water Management Agency (ARSO, Joze Novak, Emilija 

Obal, Anton Kustec), Municipalities, Mayors: of Rogašovci (Edo Mihalič), Cankova (Drago Vogrinčič), 

Tišina (Franc Horvat), Spatial Planners (ZEU Druzba za načrtovanje in inzeniring), Spatial impact 

assessment of municipality plans - OIKOS (Rogašovci), IEI (Tišina), MEARH (Cankova), Nature Park 

Goričko Public Institute, Slovenian Institute for Nature Conservation, Chamber for Agriculture and 

Forestry, Local Hunter Associations, Fishery Association 

Possible fields of action 

Collection and evaluation of water ecosystem data for joint water management and 

management plan of Nature Park Goričko 

Collection and evaluation of spatial data for spatial plans using by communities 

Communication with relevant stake-holder 

Suggestions for water management 

Revitalization with purchase of habitats/biotopes 

Suggestions for funding extensive land use 

Work with media 

Raising awareness 

4.6 PILOT REGION SOUTHERN BURGENLAND (A) 


The regions along the borders comprise several different major landscapes with habitats of enormous 

value with regard to nature conservation. There is a broad spectrum of landscapes. Since the political 

East-West-Opening the area has been exposed to a constantly increasing utilization pressure. 

Changes in agricultural forms of land utilization result in a growing loss of species and generate a 

uniform landscape. In non- or low protected areas the implementation of nature conservation 

objectives is based upon contractual nature conservation and mainly upon voluntary compliance. 

There is, however, a strong necessity of creating an overall concept, potential analyses and bottom-up 

implementation as, in particular, border regions are still extremely rich in nature conservation-relevant 

landscapes and species. 


The area’s strengths are a positive economical and tourism-development. Furthermore, the Nature 

Parks are an engine for regional development. Strengths are also many facilities for production of 

renewable energy, many organic farms and direct sales (farmer shops) in this region. 

The gaps are population decline, bad / poor accessibility (no railway connection) and a structural 

change of agriculture. Furthermore, there is increasing forestation, a loss of biodiversity, loss of 

landscape elements, abandonment of management of low-profit areas (fruit tree meadows / orchards) 

and a lack of sense for tourism in the population. 

Main spatial conflicts 

Recreation/ Tourism 

development and expansion of touristic facilities, near-to-nature leisure activities 

Water management 

use of groundwater, flood prevention (Raab) 

Agriculture/ Forestry 

Forestry (ownership-structure, intensive silviculture) 

23


Stakeholders/Keyactors 

Majors, Department of Nature Conservation, Burgenland, external expertise of botanists and experts 

for mussels, nature park associations, chairmen/foremen/representatives of nature parks, 

Wasserbauamt, spatial planning, Chamber of Agriculture, land owners/farmers, tourism sector, 

Maschinenring 

Fields of action 

Identification of ecologically valuable land 

Compilation of GIS-Data from the mapping 

Actions for habitat-improvement 

Accompanying Monitoring 

Awareness-raising measures in the population and in schools (nature park-schools in 

Burgenland, biodiversity monitoring with the population) 

Development of sustainable nature based tourism offers 

4.7 PILOT REGION JULIAN PREALPS NATURE PARK - TRIGLAV NATIONAL PARK (IT) 

This pilot area was identified during the course of the project, thus detailed information like strengths 

and gaps, spatial conflicts, and possible fields of action etc. is not available yet and will be defined 

during the course of project implementation following the general methodology of the greennet project. 


The sixth pilot region is situated along the Italian-Slovenian border involving the Municipalities of 

Chiusaforte and Resia (Italy) and Bovec (Slovenia). 

Figure: The pilot region Julian Prealps Nature Park - Triglav National Park 

The specificity of this area is the contact of three different biogeographic areas - Mediterranean, 

Illyrian and Alpine, which have caused an extraordinary biodiversity hotspot, with the presence of 

endemic and threatened species. 

Julian Prealps Nature Park and Triglav Park are often in contact because of many collaboration and 

European projects 

Stakeholders/Key actors 

Stakeholders Italian side Slovenian side 

Protected areas Regional Julian Prealps Nature Park Triglav National Park 

Local public authorities Municipality of Chiusaforte and Resia Municipality of Bovec 

Sport facility owners Promotur NN 

24


5. GLOSSARY 

In order to compare the different pilot regions to each other a glossary with the most important terms 

had to be developed. 

Pilot region 

Pilot regions do serve as "greennet-lab", being selected already in advance and serving as platform to 

apply and test management instruments solving collisions of land use interests. Pilot areas were 

defined following the criteria of Low or non-protected areas within the European Green Belt. These 

areas have the identified character of a "gap" and as such do constrain the creation of a coherent 

network. However, pilot areas focus especially on rural areas in the Central European Green Belt. Pilot 

areas reflect dominating types of rural landscapes in the CE Green Belt and were selected as areas 

bridging also regional and even national administrative borders. 

Core area 

The defined pilot regions are too large (spatially) to work on all conflicts, to get in contact with all 

regional stakeholders and key-players and to develop possibilities to solve all problems etc. To define 

core areas within the pilot region (PR), several ways are possible depending on the situation (nature 

protection status, achievable data and/or special knowledge about currently existing conflicts). The 

core areas have a clear reference to the Green Belt. 

Spatial hot spot 

The spatial hot spot is not a more specific spatial level for the analysis. The spatial hot spot is the 

“located conflict” – an intersection of “area” and “interest”. 

GIS- Database / GIS – Tool 

A geographic information system is a system designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, 

manage, and present all types of geographical data. A GIS-Database is an organized collection of 

GIS-data. The data are typically organized to model relevant aspects of reality, in a way that supports 

processes requiring this information. GIS tools allow users to create interactive queries (user-created 

searches), analyze spatial information, edit data in maps, and present the results of all these 

operations. 

Stakeholder & key actors 

A stakeholder is a person or party having legitimate interest in course and outcome of a process or a 

project. The key actors in a particular organization, region, or situation are the most important people 

involved in it. 

Spatial conflict 

A spatial conflict is caused by of different, contradictory utilization of or claim for an area. 

Ecological survey 

An ecological survey provides a snapshot outline view of what a particular area was like at the time of 

surveying. Ecological surveys should be in the context of the proposed development and the 

surrounding area and should consider the existing nature conservation resource, identify impacts and 

consider avoidance, mitigation, compensation and new benefits. 

25

Supply and disposal 

food supply 

recreation 

work 

habitation 


6. ANNEX: LIST OF BASIC FUNCTIONS OF EXISTENCE AND 

POSSIBLE CONFLICTS (DEVELOPED BY BOKU VIENNA) 

ÖN = economical, S =social, ÖL = ecological 

DGF Nr. Kat. problem areas / consequences 

W1 ÖN zoning for residential use and infrastructure development for residential areas 

W2 S residential areas (site, settlement type,...) 

W3 ÖL sealing of soil surface, immissions, emissions (soil, air) 

A1 ÖN intensification/extensification of hunting and fishing 

A2 ÖN exploitation of natural resources (quarries, gravel, peat, mining) and processing 

A3 ÖN forestry 

A4 ÖN employment infrastructure (plant, factory, traffic areas) 

A5 ÖN service provider, amongst others: retail 

A6 S land use pressure 

A7 S workplaces 

A8 S deterioration of the visual quality of the landscape 

A9 ÖL deterioration of environmental conditions 

EH1 ÖN development and expansion of the touristic offers 

EH2 ÖN (commercial) local recreation facilities 

EH3 ÖN 

intensification of traffic (motorized individual traffic, by foot, leisure bicycle traffic, regional air 

traffic) along the former border (also on waterways) 

EH4 S the use of near-natural landscape (hiking, hunting, fishing) 

EH5 S search for tranquillity, closeness to nature, intact landscape, space for movement, security 

EH6 S free accessibility for inhabitants 

EH7 ÖL enhanced land use pressure 

EH8 ÖL destruction of biotopes 

EH9 ÖL fragmentation of ecological systems (especially fauna and flora) 

EN1 ÖN 

making use of and intensifying farming activities (arable farming, livestock breeding, pasture 

farming) - leads to EN9 

EN2 ÖN development of regional umbrella brands 

EN3 

ÖN/ÖL agricultural extensification - leads to EN11 

EN4 ÖN area of tension between food production and energy supply 

EN5 ÖN loss of diversity in agricultural production -because of VE3 

EN6 S loss of landscape diversity (cleared landscapes) 

EN7 S giving up farming (also beekeeping) 

EN8 S affected by flood prevention 

EN9 ÖL ecological degradation (e.g. soil) - because of EN1 

EN10 ÖL potential risk to groundwater 

EN11 ÖL forest encroachment, loss of biodiversity - because of EN3 

VE1 ÖN use of groundwater 

VE2 ÖN centralization 

VE3 ÖN giving up autonomous systems (self-supply, cesspools, clarification pools, ...) - leads to EN5 

VE4 ÖN/S construction of supply lines 

VE5 ÖN 

development of renewable and non-renewable energy supply systems (wind, photovoltaic, biogas, 

geothermal energy, small-scale hydropower plants, (energy-) forests, biomass) 

VE6 S unregulated landfills 

VE7 ÖL fragmentation of landscapes and ecosystems 

26

miscell 

aneous 

institutional frame 

communication 

and education 

transportation 


V1 ÖN expansion of transport networks (roads, rail networks) 

V2 ÖN intensification of walking and bicycle traffic for recreational purposes 

V3 ÖN traffic on water (material transport, recreation) and regional air-traffic 

V4 S/ÖL increasing volume of traffic (growing burden of emissions and immissions) 

V5 S undermining the protection of areas (access easier) - also recreation affected 

V6 ÖL additional sealing of soil surface 

V7 ÖL fragmentation of landscapes and ecosystems (wildlife corridors, …) 

V8 ÖL endangerment and disturbance of wild animals 

KB1 ÖN development and expansion of relevant infrastructure (meeting places) 

KB2 S penetration into areas worthy of protection 

KB3 S 

low social appreciation of landscape history (worthiness of protection not adequately recognized - 

stigma of the Iron Curtain) 

KB4 ÖL increasing pressure by visitors 

R1 ÖN valorisation of environmental media / property (water, real estate, land) 

R2 ÖN vacancies 

R3 ÖN rights of use (e.g. hunting) 

R4 ÖN clarification of ownership structures 

R5 ÖN clarification of zoning regulations 

D1 S military establishments 

D2 S mine fields 

27

Common transnational methodology - GreenNet Project

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?