1
Rapid Socio-Economic Assessment
for the Alps Ecoregion
Part I – Current Socio-Economic Development
in the Alpine Region
Part II – The Most Important Integrative Policy Levels in the Alpine Region
Prepared by Werner Bätzing
July 2000
WWF Alpine Programme
1
1
Rapid Socio-Economic Assessment
for the Alps Ecoregion
Part I – Current Socio-Economic Development
in the Alpine Region
Prepared by Werner Bätzing
July 2000
WWF Alpine Programme
Current socio-economic development in the Alpine region
The text tries to explain most of the specific Alpine terms used as concisely as possible. All specialist terms are explained in the "Kleinen Alpen-Lexikon" (Bätzing, 1997); for a more detailed explanation of the background to these terms and their specific interactive use, see "Die Alpen" (Bätzing, 1991).
Table of contents
1Overview of available data...... 2
1.1Basis and sources of data...... 2
1.1.1Statistical bodies...... 2
1.1.2Data sources...... 2
1.1.3Comparability...... 4
1.1.4Unofficial sources...... 4
1.1.5GIS dimension...... 4
1.1.6Bätzing Alpine database...... 5
1.2Measurement issue...... 5
1.3Data situation for important subject areas...... 6
1.4Periods of time...... 8
1.5Summary assessment...... 8
2Overview of current socio-economic structural change in the Alpine region and the most important development trends. 9
2.1Population development...... 9
2.2Building development...... 10
2.3 Agriculture...... 12
2.3.1Business and general development...... 12
2.3.2Cereals...... 13
2.3.3Cattle farming...... 14
2.3.4Special crops...... 14
2.3.5Alpine pastures/mountain mown pastures...... 15
2.3.6Summary assessment...... 16
2.4Forestry and hunting...... 17
2.4.1Forestry...... 17
2.4.2Hunting...... 19
2.4.3Storms...... 19
2.4.4"Death of the forest"...... 19
2.4.5Summary assessment...... 20
2.5Industry in the narrow sense...... 20
2.5.1Traditional structural change within industry...... 20
2.5.2Current possibilities/developments...... 21
2.5.3Regional economic cycles...... 23
2.6Towns and agglomerations...... 23
2.6.1On the quantitative significance of towns/agglomerations in the Alps...... 23
2.6.2Structural change within towns/agglomerations...... 24
2.6.3Typification of Alpine towns...... 26
2.7Tourism...... 26
2.7.1Quantitative significance of tourism in the Alpine region...... 26
2.7.2Four tourism markets...... 28
2.7.3Structural changes...... 29
2.7.4The ecological consequences...... 30
2.8Traffic...... 31
2.8.1Transit traffic...... 31
2.8.2Domestic traffic...... 32
2.8.3Touristic traffic...... 32
2.8.4Local traffic...... 32
2.9Culture...... 33
2.10Minorities and minority languages...... 33
2.11Hydrology and water usage...... 34
2.12Conservation areas...... 36
2.13Other...... 37
3.Research gaps...... 37
3.1Accessibility...... 37
3.2Family types as the basic units of trade and industry...... 38
3.3Comparable area analyses...... 38
4.Identification of priorities...... 39
4.1Basic considerations...... 39
4.2 Typification of socio-economic development in the Alps...... 40
4.3Socio-economic dynamism and biodiversity...... 41
5.Synergy possibilities...... 44
6.Overview of initiatives and projects with similar content...... 44
6.1Politics...... 44
6.2Science...... 45
6.3Other...... 45
7.Proposals for implementation...... 45
7.1What type of biodiversity?...... 45
7.2Project idea...... 48
7.3Implementation and acceptance issues...... 49
Translator's note51
1
1Overview of available data
1.1Basis and sources of data
1.1.1Statistical bodies
Around 98 % of the relevant data originates from the national statistical authorities (so-called official statistics). These are as follows (abbreviations for countries and regions as shown on car licence plates):
A: Österreichisches Statistisches Zentralamt/ÖSTAT in Vienna
CH: Bundesamt für Statistik/BFS in Neuchâtel
D: Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik und Datenverarbeitung (BLSD in Munich)
F: Institut National de la Statistique et des études économiques/INSEE in Paris
FL: Amt für Volkswirtschaft des Fürstentums Liechtenstein
I: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica/ISTAT in Rome
SLO: Statisticni urad Republike Slovenije in Ljubljana
Note: The multi-language institutions BFS (German-French-Italian) and ASTAT (Regional Office for statistics in Bolzano: German-Italian) can offer valuable help in providing the correct translation of specialist terms. The specialist terms themselves can vary significantly within the same official language of the country in question (e.g. different terms are used for the term "employed" in D, A, CH, and South Tirol; the same applies to I and TI/CH, F and AO/I).
The European Union central office of statistics, known as EUROSTAT collects the data from the EU member states but does not carry out any data surveys that are relevant for the Alps itself and is therefore not important for our purposes here.
1.1.2Data sources
Censuses generally take place every 10 years (with the exception of France: every seven years; in Germany the 1980 census was cancelled for political reasons and not carried out until 1987) and in each case at the beginning of a decade. The last census took place in 1990/91 (Exceptions here: France = 1999, Germany=1987), which means that the data they provide is not very up to date now. The next censuses are being prepared for 2000/2001 (not in Germany and France), however judging from experience it will take until 2003 to obtain the results. The censuses are the most comprehensive figures that are available in Europe: here figures are established for the number of persons (number, sex, age, status), employment activity (I, II, III industry measurement, in the case of multiple occupations, the most dominant activity is recorded, in the case of aggregated data a percentage weighting is given; residence and place of work), buildings and houses are counted (including so-called "empty properties" or second homes) and mobility is recorded (Moving in/out of an area, place of residence 10 years previously). It is particularly important that the data can be correlated within itself as it has come from the same source (survey of persons).
Business censuses (the names for this vary considerably) are partly carried out at shorter intervals, partly at the same time as the population censuses (not in Germany). As businesses and jobs are counted the results cannot be compared to the population censuses! Generally, this does not include Agriculture and Forestry. Businesses are differentiated in terms of size of business (number of jobs) and jobs are widely differentiated in terms of industries and sub-industries (there are often 20-units/economic sector).
Agricultural censuses are carried out in all countries at larger intervals. As they aim to record any activity that is in any way relevant to agriculture, the definition of "agricultural business" in terms of the amount of land used may be very low (often 1 ha). These surveys are therefore extremely varied and also make a large number of statements about the way that land is used (for details see Bätzing, 1996, p. XII-XIV). As the data are based on business surveys (personal information) they must be viewed with a certain amount of caution (in Italy, for example, they are fairly unreliable).
Tourism surveys: Important tourism data is usually published annually by the relevant state authorities and/or tourism industries (this is based on the number of guests registered in Hotels, Guest Houses etc. In Austria, Switzerland and Germany this information is reliable, in France it is relatively reliable, in Italy it is fairly difficult to assess (due to the "shadow economy").
Transport surveys: Every 4 – 6 years there are main statistics taken across the Alpine region for transit transport. In the intervening period the data is simply extended. The penultimate survey was carried out in 1994 (GVF, 1995), the results of the 1999 survey are not yet available at present. The GVF department (= abbreviation for overall transport issues) in the UVEK (= Swiss department for environment, transport, energy, communication) in Bern/Switzerland amalgamates the data from the individual states and publishes updated reports on the Internet (
Other sources: in order to close the gaps between the population censuses it is possible to use the population extensions that are carried out by the communities (the exception here is France where there are only estimates for the Départements made by the CEMAGREF in Grenoble). As the communities do not always make a clear distinction between main and second home, it is easy to over-estimate the number of inhabitants especially in communities that have a lot of tourism. In order to close the gaps in business surveys it is theoretically possible to refer to the annual data figures for the national insurance institutions; for reasons of confidentiality there are however considerable restrictions and problems with this.
1.1.3Comparability
All surveys mentioned correspond so strongly to the country in question that they may only be compared in exceptional cases. Practically speaking, it is important to always check the comparability very carefully beforehand. EUROSTAT does make considerable efforts to make the surveys of EU countries as homogenous as possible, but this has not proved very successful so far. What is more, there remain the non-EU states in the Alps, namely Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Slovenia which are only conforming slowly, if at all to the EU harmonisation attempts.
1.1.4Unofficial sources
These sources only play a role in a small number of specialist areas e.g. the annual skiing championships (marginal, partly questionable source, but nothing better exists), the O.I.T.A.F. ("Organizzazione Internazionale dei Trasporti a Fune" = International organisation for cable railways with data for all cable railways in the Alps but difficult to access), the Energy companies (hydroelectric power usage) etc. The EUROMONTANA (c/o SAB, Brugg, Switzerland) is building up a data resource for the mountain region industry in the Alps and in Europe.
The CIPRA has put together important data for the areas of nature/countryside conservation, leisure/tourism and transport plus relevant commentaries for the whole Alpine region in its 1st Alpine report (1998, p. 395 – 453). This valuable work shows how time-consuming this type of undertaking is.
1.1.5GIS dimension
Nowadays, all national data is generally available in electronic form as well, including its spatial dimension, which, however, means high costs particularly for GIS cartography. Note: the national GIS maps do not fit together at the borders in the Alpine region (different map projections and digitalisation criteria).
The GIS maps of the Alps that are almost always used nowadays are drawn up at the EUROSTAT NUTS-3 measurement level and do not correspond in any way to the real Alpine situation or a program of biodiversity.
1.1.6Bätzing Alpine database
Area purpose: at least 6,100 communities (whole Alpine region) with GIS geometry (community borders plus rivers, lakes, important extra-Alpine towns for orientation purposes). Data included: community name/-number, area, height above sea level, community centre, position of central location, number of inhabitants in 1870, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1996.
Also for 2,300 communities: number of people employed in Sectors I, II, III, commuters to/from area, number of tourist beds.
Manfred Perlik of the Geographisches Institut at the University of Bern also worked with this database and extended it by adding details of all agglomeration communities in the Alpine region. As this database may not be passed on or sold for copyright reasons, the best solution would be to arrange for the maps to be drawn up in Erlangen and then to publish them via the WWF using the Bätzing copyright.
1.2Measurement issue
Results of many years' work have shown very clearly that the community level is indispensable in order to be able to draw up a realistic picture of socio-economic development. Higher measurement levels distort the conditions because the important contrasts between a booming town in Becken-Tallage and the structurally weak backwaters of the side valley regions are completely lost.
The community is the lowest level for the purposes of official statistics, all relevant data is based on this (the exception here is France: due to the extremely large number of communities full data only exists for those communities with over 2 000 inhabitants, including "sondage à 75%" ( "75% survey" ).
At the same time the communities vary here (see here: BÄTZING 1993, p. 40-45) :
-Communities in the old settlement area of the Alps appear with statutes already in the Middle Ages, long tradition, mainly small in area; communities in the newer settlement area only appear in the 9th century, short tradition, often large in area.
-Where regional reform has been carried out (Bavaria, parts of Austria) the communities are very large.
-The higher up a community is situated in the mountains the higher the area of wasteland and therefore the larger its area. Average size of community: at 30-499 m = 22 km², 500 – 999 m = 31 km², 1,000 – 1,499 m = 48 km², 1,500 – 2,042 = 69 km² (BÄTZING 1993, p. 75).
-Only special case is Slovenia where the communities during the socialist period correspond to a "district". Recently there was a community reform here.
Despite these differences the communities throughout the Alpine region can be compared and analysed. It is merely important, when interpreting the data, to be aware of these differences and to take account of them.
Below the community level some countries carry out population surveys at the level of the hamlet and frazioni development units as part of the census, but do not produce economic data for these.
Central problem: the central measurement level used for socio-economic analysis, i.e. the community, is not the most appropriate unit of measurement for analysing biodiversity! For this reason it is necessary to work with different measurement levels at the same time. The question of how these measurement levels can then be integrated is the key question to be addressed by this project from the methodical-quantitative point of view.
1.3Data situation for important subject areas
Population: Data situation at its most simple (comparability is not a problem), largest possible amount of data (whole Alpine region in period after 1870). As economic and population development are usually closely intertwined the population development is the key indicator of socio-economic development! Countless publications on this subject exist.
Development: Data for different countries is not comparable! The value of the "development area" depends on the size of the "building gaps" (relevant differences in old/new development land) as to whether the land that is actually built upon is the area that is identified as a development area by the community (the development areas are usually far too large!) or if the potential development area is meant.
Land use: Not all national agricultural/forestry data is comparable! The reason: the wasteland (incolto sterile) is not treated in the same way (in the land register it is often shown as an area of extensive productive land): either all, some or none of the Alpine pastures and meadows (representing 25 – 50 % of the total Alpine area depending on the method of calculation) are included in the area used for production. In addition the boundaries for extensively used/unused forests are never defined exactly in the land register.
Agriculture: the business figures are comparable subject to certain restrictions. An analysis for the whole Alpine region based on this principle which is geared towards general key questions is available (BÄTZING 1996).
Forestry: The definition of what constitutes a "forest" varies considerably; for this reason the data for forests in different countries is not comparable.
Industry (II/III Sector not including tourism): Difficult situation: the basic national economy data (GDP/head, purchasing power etc) are derived by using representative samples. This means that they are only representative of larger area units, which is already problematical at the district level and unsuitable at the community level. In addition all analyses of economic competitiveness/ potential for innovation, development opportunities are based on detailed industry analyses which are not possible in this form for the whole Alpine region and can only be used with considerable limitations (see here: PERLIK 2000). The alternative: work with limited range of industries and correlate these with development employees/jobs.
Towns/agglomerations: This area, up to now representing the largest gap in socio-economic Alpine research, recently became an issue for the first time and was dealt with in detail by an international specialist conference (PERLIK/BÄTZING 1999) and by the dissertation by Manfred Perlik (PERLIK 2000). The latter put together comprehensive data for this purpose and produced qualitative and quantitative results.
Tourism: Comparability of data from different countries is very limited. Austria: overnight stays/Bed and Breakfast/Full Board, Germany: B & B only for businesses with more than seven beds, Switzerland: B & B only for hotels, not private hotels (approx. 50 % beds), France = as Switzerland but private hotels approx. 90 % beds, Italy: unreliable data. The result: "Beds" (as an indicator of beds/inhabitant) are the only tourism indicator that can be used across the Alpine region. The problem with private hotel beds: beds in private holiday homes (or rented on the black market) cannot be assessed, it is only possible to get an idea of this from the number of houses recorded by the population census, i.e. only estimates are possible.
Culture: This area cannot be assessed using quantitative data, although some data (e.g. number of people who have been added to the overall population over the last five years; age; status etc.) can also provide important clues and are contained in the census. There are no evaluations for the whole Alpine area however.
Language: surveys of the (native) language are always a political issue in the Alpine region, they serve specific political aims and are therefore never objective. In addition with minority languages it is never just a case of the mother tongue but it concerns certain forms of multi-lingualism which do not allow a purely quantitative analysis. For this reason there are virtually no data for the Alpine region for this issue that can be evaluated and only a few individual studies have been carried out.
Traffic: The last general assessment of transit traffic was carried out in 1994 (GVF 1995). At the same time continued development in transit traffic is fairly clear. The remaining traffic cannot be quantified in any way; there was only a rough estimate made by the CIPRA in 1994 and this too is disputed.
Land use by developments, economic structures and infrastructures as well as the isolation of open spaces are central important factors for the question of biodiversity, however it is precisely in this area that there is no comparable data available for the whole Alpine region. Here it is necessary to first check the data carefully. It is also important to check if it would be practicable to use the European CORINE model for this purpose.
1.4Periods of time
Only in the case of population figures is there a long period (after 1869 the beginning of modern census recording in Austria-Hungary, in the other countries this was earlier, in other words throughout the Alpine region from this year onwards) which can be evaluated in a comparative way.
For all other data there are only short periods (max. 20 years), as the data have either been collated only recently or because the data definitions have been changed so much that the old data cannot be directly compared to the new data. (E.g. the important sectoral and industrial structure within the economy). Here too "population development" again becomes a "key indicator".