the Tourism Summits | first summit | abstracts

Back to the speakers'list
Back to the program

Protection of the countryside in very popular tourist regions : At what price ?
Paul TSCHURTSCHENTHALER - Economy Department, University, Innsbruck, Austria

Summary

The protection of the countryside in alpine tourist areas requires not only that cultivated rural landscapes are maintained, but also that some zones of intensive tourist exploitation are preserved. These two aspects have a price in terms of economy: the preservation of the cultivated alpine countryside as a tourist attraction involves sustainable support of alpine agriculture; that will divert means from other projects. Protection of the natural landscape has a price in terms of loss of income and jobs.

From a political and social viewpoint, the safeguard of agriculture is undeniable. Resources have been provided to this effect, but it remains to be seen whether under some circumstances the use is perhaps sometimes inefficient. Inversely, the cost of preservation of the natural countryside often appears too high to society, and it is this form of protection of the countryside that is then at risk. Finally, the concrete features of the countryside in these different forms of exploitation lead to prices that do not reflect the real shortages and the actual preferences, as practised in market economies, and are consequently distorted. A satisfactory use of countryside resources from a social and economic viewpoint is therefore impossible; development is generally given preference.

1. Protection of the countryside - an example of social contradiction

The protection of the countryside is one of those subjects dealing with social problems where society's contradictions are revealed. Here are some particularly representative examples of such contradictions :

Everybody (or nearly) wants peace - and there are wars ! There are even wars that are supposed to ensure peace !

Everybody wants a just distribution of wealth - and inequality is increasing ! Social inequalities are often seen as the basis of a more just distribution !

Everybody wants a clean environment, approves of protection of the environment and nature - but pollution is globally on the increase !

Everybody wants the countryside to be protected (here we come back to our topic) and yet, the pressure on the countryside is growing, and not only from tourism !

The above examples have a point in common: they contain ideas that are clearly positive - who can be against "peace", "social equality", "the cleanliness of the environment" or "protection of the countryside" ? The concrete content of these ideas is, however, rather vague : is the absence of physical violence always synonymous with "peace" ? What is "just" ? What does "a clean environment" or a "protected countryside" mean ?

Contradictions between the objective (difficult to define and impossible to substantiate) and the concrete result is first explained by the fact that on the one hand, all citizens do not benefit to the same extent from the goal to be reached, and on the other hand in most cases to reach this objective it is necessary to give up certain things. This sacrifice must be regarded as equally important as the cost; and furthermore will not concern all citizens. This imbalance necessarily causes some important conflicts of interest. The potential for conflict caused by this situation and the position of individuals in such a confrontation influences the behaviour of citizens.

However, it is not only the conflicts of interests nor the open or hidden conflicts that they provoke that prevent the realisation of the objectives.

It is perhaps more appropriate to speak of a series of negative trends in the protection of the environment, nature and the countryside, caused by citizens, as far as they are concerned, acting quite reasonably. Indeed, most ecological problems are caused by the sum of citizen activities and the influence of an individual on the quality of the environment is practically negligible. Therefore, if everybody - with some exceptions - behaves ecologically correctly, the goal is reached. As all citizens start from the principle that their contribution to the ecological problems is negligible and that all others put themselves out to protect the environment, we arrives at the ecological problem in the absence of a meaningful change in everyone's behaviour (1).

(1) Society is faced by a so-called prisoner dilemma: individual behaviour that does not take the behaviour of others citizens into consideration produces a result that is worse than a behaviour resulting from agreement. To obtain an optimum result according to Pareto's law, it is necessary for all citizens to co-operate. This co-operation may take many forms : from a spontaneous agreement to legal sanctions. For example, see Weimann, J. (1991), p. 47. or Feess, E. (1997), p. 13.

Finally, it is therefore individual behaviour, if left unmodified by society, that prevents the realisation of the objective, although each individually approves the objective in itself. While developing strategies to solve the problems, it is also necessary to modify people's patterns of behaviour.

This change could certainly occur spontaneously, but experience shows that changes in behaviour have to be more or less brought about by social institutions. Policies of peace, redistribution and environment protection are necessary institutions to reach objectives widely accepted by society.

2. Protection of the countryside - a new and/or old problem

In the alpine region, the debate about "over-exploitation of the countryside by tourism" and therefore on the "protection of the countryside" has already existed for more than 25 years (2) There are criticisms that are much older regarding the over-intensive use of countryside by tourism, but the first efficient and justified criticisms - from our present viewpoint - date from the first half of the 1970s.

Twenty-five years is always a good opportunity to review the past and to present successes and failures, with the emphasis naturally being put on successes. For the debate about the tourist overexploitation of the countryside the following points should be noted in particular :

Thanks to criticism, the protection of the countryside is accompanied by intensive scientific and particularly political discussion on this topic. A broad sensitisation of public opinion has occurred ; in a democratic society, this is a prior requirement to the creation and effective operation of institutions aimed at the protection of nature and the countryside.

Reasons for this tendency to over-exploit the countryside by application of the market economy (but also in the planned economy) were clearly established; they are therefore known and widely accepted (3)

Strategies have also been developed to solve these problems, but they are often limited to theoretical reflections; so far, a practical application of these theoretical concepts has hardly been possible (4). Herein lies the reason for the bitterness of this anniversary :

There are still no satisfactory and sustainable solutions to the problem of the protection of the alpine countryside - and it will remain so for some time! The responsibility for this situation is shared between the important role played by politics (which judges and evaluates, but which is exposed to lobbying) in the solution to the problem and the lack of objective facts on which political decision-making must be based (5).

Discussions concerning ecological problems caused by tourism in the Alps are essential: the environment and the countryside (natural or cultivated) are the best factors of production ; no tourist facility can do without the (6). The degree of use varies, however, according to the type of tourist activity. A classic ski resort is heavily used, whereas ecological tourism is much less intense. By "utilisation", we mean the physical exploitation of the countryside accompanied by technical interventions and/or enabling a certain number people to reach the site. It is undisputed that the degree of use of the countryside (I) depends on the one hand on the absolute number of users (N), and on the other hand, sometimes to an even greater extent, on their activities (A) and on the infrastructures necessary for these activities.

(2) Krippendorf J. (1975) has summarised the criticisms of the times. An international congress on the problems of alpine regions has also been devoted to this subject. See Hanns Ch. (1977) and Boesch M. (1977). The political commissions are also preparing papers on the subject, e.g. Danz W. Ruhl G. Schemel H. (1978)
(3) See Blöchliger H. Frey R. (1991), p. 27 and Tschurtschenthaler P. (1986), p. 144.

(4) For a description of a concept of this type, see Tschurtschenthaler P. (1992)

(5) The regional government in the Tyrol has defined a general concept for the installation of lifts, which fixes the cadre of all development projects. In spite of some weaknesses, there are references to environmental management concepts that make the political process foreseeable. Refer to the regional government departments in the Tyrol (1992 and 1996)

(6) Many empirical studies give the same impression. All questionnaires given to tourists in the Alps show the exceptional importance of natural resources in the wider sense. For example, see Dolnicar S. (1998). It is, however, worrying that there are no objective criteria to define "intact nature", a "clean environment" or "attractive countryside". Tourists are the only judges. It is possible to imagine that polluted nature would still be attractive for tourists.

I = f (N_A1, N_A2, ..... N_An) where dI/dN_A1 > 0 and dI/dN_A1 different of dI/dN_An

These relationships are, however, only indicative and qualitative; it is not possible to establish an exact and controllable function empirically. Only the number of users is quantifiable. It is no longer possible to give quantitative, and therefore objective, indications, for activities and in particular for the degree of use. A wide interpretation exists, which can be very different depending on the interests at stake. Decision-makers are therefore deprived of essential elements for decision-making and above all, they are not provided with an objective argument that has a decisive influence on the political applicability of the methods of countryside protection.

Problems do not start at the time of quantification: they originate with the definition of ambiguous concepts; it is with these concepts that we must begin, before discussing strategies for solutions.

3. The lack of objective and clearly definable concepts

To demonstrate the difficulty of finding a satisfactory solution with the help of objective criteria, it is sufficient to examine the title of this paper:

First, it is necessary to define what is meant by concepts of "countryside protection" and of "excessive use of the countryside" in the Alps.

We will then see the concrete content of the expression "region with a strong tourist development".

Finally, it will be necessary to ask oneself what is precisely meant by "cost". In everyday language, the "cost" is a sum of money that must be spent to acquire a particular item. This step always involves giving up something else. It is this giving up that is economically relevant and that can only partially be expressed in the financial terms in the case of the protection of the alpine countryside.

3.1. "Protection of the countryside" in the Alps

In the Alps, humans have always interfered with the countryside. First, there was the clearing of the alpine landscape to permit large populations to settle there. The clearing of forests to extend the arable land has also contributed to the spread of inhabited areas; today the resulting mountain pastures are the subject of protection of the countryside. The alpine countryside has therefore been exploited.

Through the interest of those living in the Alps, and probably also for lack of technical possibilities, a new ecosystem has appeared, that can still be called sustainable. It is precisely this "artificial" ecosystem that was the attraction of alpine tourism when it took off in the middle of the 19th century. It was therefore the exploitation of the alpine countryside - the use made of it - and not the protection of this countryside that was the basis of alpine tourism. Today, these relationships are - at least partly - reversed: the protection of the countryside is one of the conditions essential to alpine tourism.

For European alpine tourism today, in contrast to other mountain regions, the protection of the countryside means two things :

On the one hand, the original alpine landscape must be kept free from the technical developments caused by tourist installations (protection of the countryside in the narrow sense) ;

On the other hand, it is about protecting the cultivated alpine countryside thanks to the development of the mountain agriculture (protection of the landscape in the broader sense). The abandonment of cultivated land represents a detraction from the existing countryside and therefore a decrease in its attractiveness for alpine tourism. However, such abandonment also endangers the stability of the entire alpine ecosystem.

3.2. "Regions with strong tourist development"

A historical analysis also identifies the problems in this context: in the middle of the 1950s, experts in the field of Austrian tourism already saw restrictions to the development of heavily exploited regions. Today, these same regions have a tourist activity (in terms of overnight stays) that is 4 to 5 times higher, and represent the most prosperous tourist centres. However, "strong tourist development" is not the only difficult notion to define: it is also increasingly difficult to define the limits of the "tourist regions". Is a tourist region limited to a town, does it comprise several villages or even a country ? As the mobility of tourists in their holiday destination increases, the limits of regions are even more extended. The radius of action and the accessibility of neighbouring areas have increased in alpine tourism. The result is that relatively preserved areas that act as a balance against tourist pressure are coming closer to the area of influence of heavily developed tourist sites. The question is therefore asked whether it is the region itself that is very developed or only the heart of the region. The example of the Tyrol provides a categorical answer to this question: intensively developed tourist areas are found there, but only a few kilometres away, one feels at the heart of "unspoilt nature". The notion of "heavily developed tourist region" is therefore very difficult to define.

This observation directly provokes another question: within which geographical limits should provisions be judged. Proof of overexploitation is more obvious if the definition of the region's limits is minimised than if the limits of the investigation are wider. Since the nature and countryside conservation results in costs and advantages (which we will see later in more detail), a wider definition of the region also means a wider range of these effects, which can themselves be extensively distributed.

3.3. The question of the "price" of the protection of the countryside

In very general terms, price means "something given to get something else". For the purchase of goods, the price must be paid in the form of a sum of money. This sum will therefore logically not be available for the purchase of other goods. There are, however, prices that are not in a monetary form, as shown in expressions such as "Death was a high price to pay for the adventure" or "the victory in this armed conflict exacted a high price in the thousands of dead". The notion of price has therefore a very wide interpretation where even the sacrifice of human lives can correspond to a "price".

The necessity of paying a price can therefore be compared to abandonment. If no abandonment is necessary, one can no longer speak of price. For example, if there is no alternative use for the site of a landscape, i.e. if it is not necessary to give up any other form of exploitation, then the protection of the countryside does not cost anything (price = 0). However, as soon as another use competes with the protection of the countryside, there is a real price. The protection of the countryside then costs the abandonment of advantages that could arise from the other type of use. Prices correspond therefore to opportunity costs. The use of the countryside for ecological ends implies renouncing the advantages that could have been gained from another type of use. Inversely, this other type of use results in costs of opportunity insofar as benefits from the protection of the countryside can no longer be felt. The economic decision for or against the protection of the countryside is, at least in theory, clear: it is necessary to opt for the use of the countryside that entails the lowest opportunity costs, and therefore the lowest costs.

This enlightened concept, which helps decide the use to be made of limited natural resources, poses a big problem in practice. Indeed, opportunity costs or the price of the concrete use is anything but obvious. The determination of the price is more or less difficult depending on whether it is about :

protection of the countryside in the narrow sense (conservation of the natural countryside) or

protection of the countryside in the wider sense (conservation of the cultivated countryside).

The price of the protection of the countryside in the wider sense can be expressed in monetary terms, whereas in the case of the protection in the narrow sense it is often necessary to call on processes (questionable in their methods) to obtain monetary equivalents capable of expressing the "price" of this protection.

3.3.1. Price of the protection of the countryside in the wider sense: conservation of the cultivated countryside

If it is the cultivated countryside that one wants to preserve - market forces result in an increasing abandonment of mountain agriculture and hence in the deterioration of the cultivated countryside (7) - it is necessary to implement production resources (work and capital). These are therefore not available for other productions. From the point of view of the economy, the cancelled production corresponds to the cost of this form of protection of the alpine landscape; the loss represents the price of the protection in economic terms.

(7) For the situation of agriculture in the European Alps, see for example Bätzing W. (ed.,1996)

The concrete political priorities seem to aim to ensure the conservation of the cultivated alpine countryside, i.e. the protection of the countryside in the wider sense, through the intermediary of mountain agriculture. It is therefore very difficult to judge the economic relevance of costs. To evaluate these costs precisely, it would be necessary to know how many production workers would have left alpine agriculture without the maintenance tasks involved in the protection of the countryside, in what branches of production they would have been used and what profits would have been achieved by this production on the market. This lack of information prevents the possibility of clearly fixing the economically relevant price of this category of protection of the alpine countryside.

In spite of this absence, it is possible to indicate in monetary terms at least part of the socially relevant (but economically incorrect) price. The protection of agriculture in most alpine countries relies on a multitude of instruments whose proliferation is unequalled. They go from the support of agricultural product prices to the direct financial support for the conservation of the countryside. Whereas the agricultural price support only has an indirect effect on the protection of the countryside in the wider sense, the direct financial support is granted precisely with this objective (8).

(8) In practice, European agricultural policy gives increasing importance to direct payments. For a detailed description of the multiple estimations carried out in Alpine countries, cf. Broggi M. Kußtatscher K. Sutter R. (1997).

All these instruments must be considered as a whole. At the moment, the direct support paid in most alpine countries would surely not be sufficient to preserve the cultivated alpine countryside. These monetary equivalents do not express the social price of the protection of the countryside in the wider sense. It would be necessary to add to them the financial aid destined to support pricesthat correspond to the market value of products produced from alpine agriculture. Problems of co-ordination and difficulties of assessment produced by this method go without saying.

Therefore, the conservation of the cultivated alpine countryside entails costs for society, which cannot be accurately determined, but which make themselves distinctly felt. Payments of subsidies and direct payment for countryside conservation are taken from income tax. These sums are therefore no longer available for other public actions. Rather than paying a contribution to alpine agriculture, the tax rate could be lowered and therefore the income of the population increased. The resulting loss of consumer expenditure must then be compared with the price of conservation of the cultivated countryside.

Another facet of the organisation problem arises because the conservation of the cultivated countryside also means the ecological stabilisation of areas concerned. It would consequently be necessary to divide the price in two, as it basically concerns two products with at least partly different beneficiaries. It is necessary to take this into consideration when speaking of the price being upheld by the people directly concerned.

It is possible to indicate prices (opportunity costs) in monetary terms for the protection of the countryside in the wider sense; for the reasons mentioned, their economic fairness should be carefully questioned. The situation becomes even more complicated when it concerns establishing who must pay this price. In principle, people who benefit from the advantages of this policy must pay the price. However, if it is not possible to attribute benefits directly or if beneficiaries do not appear or behave like "profiteers", the assignment cannot be made directly. A higher social authority must then intervene when this very important social benefit must be made available.

In the alpine region - in areas of strong tourist development as elsewhere - the conservation of the cultivated countryside is part of the fundamental needs for conservation of the alpine economic and living area. This conservation has, however, features of collective goods: anyone can benefit individually and freely from the advantages of this policy. This is why individual citizens do not express their real preferences concerning their readiness to make the financial contributions connected with this policy. However, conditions are not sufficiently met to ensure this aspect of the protection of the countryside for a long time without political intervention.

Two problems appear from this situation :

1 - How much of these collective goods must be made available ? Decisionmakers have hardly considered this aspect of protection in the wider sense. It is certainly not imperative that all land cultivated until now must be cultivated in the future. The agricultural alpine policy starts, however, from this principle.

2 - Who should meet the costs and to what extent ? As mentioned earlier in the discussion, only public financing is currently foreseeable (9).

(9) In several alpine regions, there are traces of direct payments from tourism to agriculture, as a contribution to the maintenance of cultivated countryside. They only ever reach a modest level in relation to the sum required.

The situation is economically very unsatisfactory for several reasons :

The absence of objectives regarding the extent of the countryside to be protected means that from the economic point of view in some circumstances too many production resources remain in this sector. Here is the first reason for bad management of production resources.

The fact that property owners receive all public funds in the same proportion prevents comparative advantages coming into play. It is possible to imagine that in a competitive situation the same service - the conservation of cultivated countryside - could be obtained under more advantageous conditions, i.e. less expensive. This also leads to an allocation of production resources that is not optimal.

These two facts mean that the economic price of countryside protection in the wider sense is too high. Too many production resources are connected to this field, which are then unavailable for other possible uses.

Without considering institutional data in alpine countries, a better result would be achieved through a process with two stages :

First, the political institutions, as representatives of society, must decide the extent (or even the aspect) of the cultivated countryside conservation (10) Their decision does not rely on the observation of the market, but it carries the democratic legitimacy of the people's will.
(10) In this sense, the landscape architect, often derided even by ecological circles, has found an important position.

Then, an efficient procedure close to market conditions could be used. After a call for tender regarding the extent and content of the protection of the countryside, one would be able to choose the candidate who could perform these tasks for the lowest costs. One would then be reassured that the objective (desired by society and decided by political processes) is reached with the least economic resources, i.e. at the lowest price.

Proposals to solve the problem in this manner have until now failed because of existing property rights. Only landowners can decide who will take charge of the protection of the countryside; in most cases, it is the farmers themselves.

We have just seen that difficulties of countryside protection in the sense of conservation of cultivated alpine countryside are already big enough. In this aspect of protection, at least part of the costs can be quantified, even though the result is not quite correct; the benefits cannot be evaluated on the market. It is sometimes possible to use methods permitting advantages to society to be estimated, but their visibly mediocre quality prevents a more systematic use in political decision-making. Finally, the economic efficiency of the conservation of the countryside is not very good.

All these deficiencies must be borne in mind for the protection of the countryside in the wider sense. Problems are, however, greater for the second aspect of the protection, that of the conservation of the natural landscape.

3.3.2. Price of the protection of the countryside in the narrowsense: conservation of the natural landscape

In this form of alpine countryside protection, costs and benefits can only be evaluated through the use of more appropriate processes (11). Besides, people likely to benefit from advantages or bear the cost of countryside protection or manage the exploitation (tourist) of the countryside have very unequal odds at the start.

(11) For a complete view of the various processes, see Hampicke U. (1991), p. 107.

To illustrate the problem, we will take the example of the conflict that frequently occurs between the protection of a natural landscape and its possible development for winter sports. The question of the price of the protection is first asked, as mentioned earlier, in cases of competition for the use of a rural resource. In the absence of such a conflict, the problem is economically irrelevant; the protection of the landscape does not entail any cost of opportunity and can be therefore obtained at zero price.

If the landscape in question is under protection, the advantages that could have been obtained from an alternative use constitute the starting point in determining the price of protection. These benefits can vary greatly. The most frequent are jobs that have not been created or reduction in incomes. It is obvious that the exact quantification of these effects already encounters enormous problems.

It would be necessary to know about incomes and jobs that could have been created by a different development (12) Only this difference in incomes and jobs can be considered as the economically relevant price of the protection of the countryside.

(12) It is the "with and without" approach. In most cases, this approach is not applied in the political discussion. This situation does not only result from the inevitable empirical difficulties, but also from interest groups who are trying to consolidate their own position.

Inversely, it is of course necessary to notice that the development of the landscape also results in opportunity costs and that it is not therefore free. On the one hand, "capital" and "work" production resources are used ; the price that the market assigns them corresponds to the abandonment to other uses that one could have made of these factors. On the other hand, tourist exploitation consumes rural resources. Direct indications in the shape of price are missing here. The absence of price does not mean, however, that the use of resources by the development project is free. To judge the economic merit of a project correctly, it would be necessary to take into consideration the lost advantages of protection of the landscape that would then be impossible. It is obvious that the assessment again poses enormous problems. If this assessment is so difficult, it is largely because the price of the exploitation of the landscape is not the sum of the lost advantages, but the difference between the lost advantages and the alternative advantages. For example, if the landscape is no longer opened to visitors and if it is possible to use another natural landscape, the price of the development will correspond to the difference between the two, i.e. being able to visit this previously exploited site or the advantage of the other alternative natural landscape. The more rare the remaining landscapes become, the greater is this difference and the higher the price of the use of the landscape for development - if the preference for natural landscapes is maintained or reinforced.

In the conflict between the protection of the landscape in the narrow sense and development, it is necessary to choose the variant that has the lowest costs of opportunity, the lowest price. The problem is that opportunity costs, if they exist, are very difficult to measure and therefore to compare.

The political reality makes the following problems appear :

The cost of the protection of the countryside in the narrow sense comprises, in the first place, the lost income and the lost jobs. However, this statement is exaggerated, unless there is no alternative for this use of production resources. If alternatives exist, the price of the protection indicated is too high. The protection of the countryside can therefore naturally result in mistakes of management.

Conversely, development projects do not completely take into account opportunity costs of the landscape. However, it is necessary to note that alternatives to the potential creation of protected areas of the countryside must be taken into account so that the price of the exploitation of the landscape can be correctly evaluated. In reality, however, this price is generally evaluated as zero; the tendency to over-exploitation is therefore conditioned in advance.

The generally incorrect assessments have also become widespread because the loss of advantages resulting from the regional countryside protection appear to be very limited and because interested parties are well organised and can therefore put pressure on the political decision-makers.

Those who benefit from the protection of the countryside, however, are very dispersed, and their potential for organisation and possibilities for influence in the decision-making process is reduced.

The result of all these situations is that, without corrections by society, the individual economic initiative in market economy tends :

to under-estimate the protection of the countryside in the narrow sense as a whole,

to overestimate other types of development.

This means that, in political reality, the price attributed to the protection of the countryside is too high, or that, when an area is developed, the price of the use of the countryside is underestimated.

The fundamental problem of countryside protection arises from the countryside being considered as an economic possession: it is public property. Everyone can benefit from a protected area of countryside without having to pay.

Therefore, no region will make such goods available if there are other alternatives (13). The use of the countryside can have multiple forms, however, whether as protected areas or for technical development. Marketable possessions are produced by development as a result of the implementation of "work" and "capital" production resources combined with rural resources. The sale of these possessions produces an income.The root of the problem amounts to the fact that one can enjoy a private income while exploiting the countryside, whereas the creation of a protected area does not provide anything. An action for purely private economy reasons, from the point of view of society, results in the protection of the countryside being supported by a narrow section of society. Other decision-making processes must therefore be put in place in society to ensure that, in the economic process, the protection of the countryside in the narrow sense is accorded the importance that society believes it merits.

(13) For a detailed description of this problem and the associated behaviour, see Tschurtschenthaler P. (1997).

The problem of the responsible decision-maker is to establish criteria to determine the correct extent of the protection. The difficulties of assessment mentioned above then come into play. In a way, he floats in a "vacuum". In the light of his political responsibilities, he is obliged, however, to take decisions.

The most important task for protection in the narrow sense is to fix concrete objectives that can be checked regarding the extent of this protection. The challenge consists of putting in place a protection of the countryside not only in areas where there is no alternative. In those places, the preservation of the countryside takes place automatically; its price is - at least currently - zero. The decision to grant protected statusofficially to areas can, of course, make their possible ulterior development more difficult.

Decision-making is more difficult when divergent interests come into conflict. To take an informed decision, correct from an economic and social viewpoint, it would be necessary to have information previously mentioned : price / costs of opportunity of the development and the preservation of the countryside.

Another complication is added to the difficulties of assessment. The concrete effects of the distribution of protection of the countryside, like the real economic facts, tend to be in favour of development. In most cases, the local population bears the cost of the protection. It weighs especially heavy when the protection of the countryside concerns - as is often the case in the Alps - regions that only possess low job and income potential. The price of protection is paid by the regional population, who often finds the price too high. On the other hand, the benefits of countryside protection are distributed very extensively on a regional scale and often touch agglomerations that are economically very developed.

A way out of this dilemma could be for those who benefit from the protection of the landscape to pay compensation to the concerned populations. However, a direct transfer of this type is difficult to imagine for several reasons :

The large number and the geographical distribution of beneficiaries make their organisation impossible.

The protection of the countryside being a public property, the majority of beneficiaries behave as profiteers.

It is difficult to express advantages in monetary terms (14).
(14) In addition to reasons mentioned above, the difficulty of quantifying the benefits of countryside protection appears clearly when considering the multitude of components of these benefits. They extend from the pleasure of immersion in the natural milieu to the satisfaction of preserving this natural richness, via the maintenance of genetic diversity.

Inversely, the cost of the development is extensively distributed. There is a certain degree of organisation through countryside protection societies, capable of influencing development projects more or less strongly.

However, advantages from development benefit most strongly the immediate vicinities of the site concerned; the local population benefits most. The configuration of the respective effects of the protection of the countryside or its development leads to the commonly observed formula of refusing to allow "foreigners to decide". The tendency to develop is again reinforced.

4. A short summary

In reality, the protection of the landscape appears expensive to those directly concerned, especially if the site in question offers the possibility of another type of use. Under present conditions, only a political decision ensures minimum protection.

The necessity to preserve the cultivated countryside is widely accepted in the political debate. Funds receive by alpine agriculture make this possible. However, the question remains whether actions undertaken in this domain are not inefficient, and whether the price is not therefore too high in relation to benefits.

Inversely, the protection of the landscape in the narrow sense, i.e. the protection of the natural landscape, is far too mediocre. The political decision-maker plays a key role in the protection of the countryside and his influence is a determining factor. The situation that we described earlier concerning the economy and distribution brings in its turn a political situation unfavourable to the protection of the landscape.

Indeed, the price of countryside protection is also too high from the point of view of political decision-makers: it is simply a question of lost elections ! The rational calculation by the politician cannot therefore be the same as that of the economist. In addition to points mentioned in detail in this discussion, we will again mention the following arguments :

The thought and action of the political decision-makers are rather oriented toward the short term ; nature and countryside conservation is, on the other hand, a long- term project.

The democratic process does not allow sufficient sanctions with regard to the protection of nature and the countryside.Most often one votes for the global programme of a government; nature and countryside conservation takes a back seat in this programme.

Asymmetrical irreversibility speaks in favour of a more prudent management of development. Society, and therefore politics, does not show enough interest in this problem. The long-term price of the development of the countryside could well be revealed to be even higher than the short-term.

References

Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung (1992 und 1996), Seilbahngrundsatze des Landes Tirol mit Festlegung der Grenzen der Schigebiete in den Tourismusintensivgebieten, Innsbruck : Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung

Batzing W. (Hsg., 1996), Landwirtschaft im Alpenraum - unverzichtbar, aber zukunftslos ? Eine alpenweite Bilanz der aktuellen Probleme und der moglichen Losungen, Berlin-Wien : Blackwell

Blochliger H. - Frey R. (1991), Schützen oder Nutzen - Ausgleichszahlungen im Natur- und Landschaftsschutz, Chur-Zürich : Rüegger

Boesch M. (1977), Die Grenzen der Landschaftsbelastung durch den Fremdenverkehr, in : Roder Ch. - Engstfeld P. (Hsg., 1977), a.a.O., S. 123-138

Broggi M. - KuBtatscher K. - Sutter R. (1997), Okologisch motivierte Direktzahlungen in der Berglandwirtschaft des Alpenbogens, Berlin-Wien : Blackwell

Danz W. - Ruhl G. - Schemel H. (1977), Belastete Fremdenverkehrsgebiete, Schriftenreihe 'Raumordnung' des Bundesministers für Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Stadtebau Nr, 06.031, Bonn : Bundesministerium für Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Stadtebau

Dolnicar S. (1998), Gästebefragung Österreich - Tirol Bericht Sommer 1997, Wien : Österreichische Gesellschaft für angewandte Fremdenverkehrswissenschaft

Feess E. (1997), Umweltokonomie und Umweltpolitik, München : Vahlen Hampicke U. (1991), Naturschutz-Okonomie, Stuttgart : Ulmer (UTB)

Hanns Ch. (1977), Der gegenwartige Stand und die Zukunft des Fremdenverkehrs in den Alpen, in : Roder Ch. - Engstfeld P. (Hsg., 1977), a.a.O., S. 105-122

Krippendorf J. (1975, Die Landschaftsfresser, Tourismus und Erholungslandschaft - Verderben oder Segen, Bern-Stuttgart : Hallwag Pillmann W. - Predl S. (Hsg., 1992), Strategies for Reducing the Environmental Impact of Tourism, Wien : International Society for Environmental Protection

Roder Ch. - Engstfeld P. (Hsg., 1977), Probleme der Alpenregion, München : Hanns Seidel Stiftung

Tschurtschenthaler P. (1986), Das Landschaftsproblem im Fremdenverkehr, dargestellt anhand der Situation des Alpenraums, Bern-Stuttgart : Haupt Tschurtschenthaler P. (1992), Probleme der Umweltnutzung in hocherschlossenen alpinen Tourismusregionen, in : Pillmann W. - Predl S. (Hsg., 1992), a.a.O., S. 641-656

Tschurtschenthaler P. (1997), Umwelt und Destination Management in alpinen Tourismusregionen, in : Tourismus Journal, Nr. 3-4/1997, S. 535-562 Weimann J. (1991), Umweltokonomik - Eine theorieorientierte Einführung, Berlin-Heidelberg : Springer