Journal of Environmental Protection, 2011, 2, 609-619
10.4236/jep.2011.25070 Published Online July 2011 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jep)
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Socio Environmental Attitudes amongst the
Inhabitants of Border Mountain Regions Close to
the Former Iron Curtain: The Situation in the
Czech Republic
Lubomir Bartos, Martin Cihar
Faculty of Science, Institute for Environmental Studies, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Email: lubomir.bartos@centrum.cz, mcihar@natur.cuni.cz
Received March 23rd, 2011; revised April 28th, 2011; accepted June 7th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
A socio-environmental survey amongst the inhabitants of the Sumava National Park and of the Nove Hrady Mountains
took place in the summers of 2003 (Sumava), 2006 and 2007 (the Nove Hrady Mts.). The main aim of the study was to
record the opinions and attitudes of local inhabitants of the both regions towards environmental conditions, nature
conservation, tourism, and to carry out their subsequent comparison. The objectives included that of ascertaining how
and on which issues opinions and attitudes have the potential to be changed. The method of a structured interview and
a random selection of interviewees provided us with 200 questionnaires in Sumava and 150 questionnaires in the Nove
Hrady Mountains. The most noticeable differences between Sumava and Nove Hrady Mts. respondents were found with
respect to the following topics: assessment of environmental conditions; the attitude to potential public access to the
most endangered parts of the nature; perceptions about the influence of tourism on the cost of living. Similar reflections
were found in the assessment of personal profit from the tourist industry in the region.
Keywords: Local Inhabitants, Social Climate, Perceptions
1. Introduction
For the management of biologically valuable or protected
areas, there is a necessity for good quality relations and
agreement among the three key players: the conservation
management, the local inhabitants and the visitors/tourists.
This article deals with the opinions of local inhabitants
and with their reflections on selected aspects of nature
and area conservation and tourism in the area in which
they live.
Participatory management cannot work without efficient
communication with the public, which means communi-
cation with: the professionals, laymen, entrepreneurs and
stakeholders [1]. It is a generally accepted fact that the
public needs to be informed, educated and encouraged to
participate in the management and development of their
area. Such an approach helps in winning larger public
interest, support and responsibility for the area (conflicts
and problems often rise from a lack of knowledge). Both
residents and visitors should have easy access to infor-
mation on area management [1,2].
The basis of many studies dealing with the role of lo-
cal communities in nature conservation is formed around
the idea that the inhabitants who have been living in a
certain area for many generations use the available natu-
ral resources with regard to their natural renewal [3-5].
The autochthonous communities usually have a close re-
lationship with nature and a deep knowledge of ecologi-
cal processes [6]. This relative harmony between humans
and the landscape is generally accepted but its explana-
tion is still a subject of discussion. Is the equilibrium
caused by the deep knowledge of the environment shared
by the indigenous people and by their considerate farm-
ing methods or is it based on the low effectiveness of the
local technologies, the historically low density of popula-
tion and by limited access to the economic market [7]?
There is, however, a different point of view: one of the
basic problems of the protected areas is the fact that dur-
ing the process of their establishment, the needs and the
opinions of the local communities are usually not taken
into consideration. The residents then often feel it to be
Socio Environmental Attitudes amongst the Inhabitants of Border Mountain Regions Close to the Former
610
Iron Curtain: The Situation in the Czech Republic
unjust that someone who does not live in their region has
established a protected area and in this way can ban or
limit the activities which have been normal amongst the
local population for generations, without asking them.
Consequently, the existence of many conservation areas
is perceived by their inhabitants in a negative way [6].
Their reactions are often unhelpful, and even hostile.
Worldwide experience of the authorities from national
parks shows that the principle of “fences and fines”
which has been applied until recently, has failed to pro-
tect biodiversity and various territorial units [8]. The
most frequently used method of nature and landscape
conservation consisted of isolating and limiting use of a
particular area. The settlements and the local inhabitants
were the most affected when they were cut off from their
traditional means of subsistence. This aspect is still very
often sidelined or ignored when protected areas or na-
tional parks are established [6]. The traditional activities
of the local inhabitants in the newly established protected
areas then paradoxically become unwanted or even ille-
gal [9]. For that reason, we should change the paradigm
now, at least where it is possible. The modern concept of
a reserve should function as a cooperating organism, not
as an isolated segment [10].
The whole range of problems which we encounter in
conservation management is simply caused by a lack of
connection between the deciding authority and the needs
of the local community [11]. We still see situations when,
for example, regional planning corresponds neither with
the actual resources of the area, nor with the ideas of the
local inhabitants [12]. For those reasons, alternative ap-
proaches have been designed. These approaches accept
the needs of the local inhabitants. They are, for example,
Community-Based Wildlife Management (CWM) [13],
Ecosystem Management (EM) [14], Community-Based
Management (CBM) [15].
However, these newly introduced approaches can also
cause problems or conflicts. Practical experience shows
that the new approaches do not necessarily lead to shared
power but, on the contrary, to the strengthening of state
influence and control over regional and especially local
politics and management. The main cause is the fact that
in the process of asserting their interests, state institutions
always will be more effective than ordinary people [16].
It is therefore very likely that the existing conflict of
interest will persist - the effort of local inhabitants to
introduce new and productive technologies will collide
with the effort of biologically oriented conservationists to
conserve endangered ecosystems [7]. The above men-
tioned approaches not usually completely eliminate this
conflict. However they offer a more efficient and more
democratic approach to the problem. In reality, nature
conservation will probably always stand in the way of a
devastating exploitation of natural ecosystems and there-
fore in the path of fast technological and economic deve-
lopment in some parts of the world [15], any develop-
ment which is generated by the principles of democrati-
zation, commercialization, and the omnipresent globa-
lization.
Sustainable development of the landscape does not
require only its protection but, perhaps most of all, the
participation of local inhabitants in the process of its for-
mation and planning [17]. For this reason, social climate
is the key factor in the successful management of pro-
tected areas, and that is why there are growing numbers
of surveys dealing with the attitudes and opinions of the
inhabitants of these areas. The first works on the subject
started appearing in the late 1970s and early 1980s
[18-21]. Further studies followed and for illustration
purposes, there are some examples: [3-5,9,15,17,22-31].
So far there have been only a few cases where an indi-
vidual survey has become part of a study of trends or
even of systematic, long-term monitoring. For example
in the Czech Republic there has been a scheme since the
nineties which continuously monitors the social climate
in protected areas, large and small [32,33].
This article deals with the areas of the Sumava Na-
tional Park (well-known and traditional tourist destina-
tion) and the Nove Hrady Mountains (new discovered
tourist destination), where the establishment of Protected
Landscape Area has been intended for twenty
years—Have these differences influence on the mind,
perceptions and characteristics of the local people?
The Sumava National Park and Biosphere Reserve is a
bilateral national park (National Park Bayerischer Wald
on the German side of the borders) situated by the
southwest borders of the Czech Republic. It was estabi-
lished in 1991. Sumava is the largest mountain Czech
national park, its area is 690 km2. Objects of the pro-
tection are mountain forests, moorlands and meadows.
The Nove Hrady Mts. are situated by the south borders of
the Czech Republic. They form a natural border between
the Czech Republic and Austria. Its area is 162 km2, and
is continued in the south by a similar-sized Austrian re-
gion. The two oldest protected areas in Central Europe
are located here: Zofin Primeval Forest and Hojna Voda
Forest (1838). The current level of protection in the form
of a natural park (the primary purpose of which is to
protect landscape features) is from a long-term point of
view of Ministry of the Environment insufficient. Even
the listing of selected segments of local nature and land-
scape in the European conservation system NATURA
C
opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Socio Environmental Attitudes amongst the Inhabitants of Border Mountain Regions Close to the Former
Iron Curtain: The Situation in the Czech Republic
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
611
2000 is not adequate for the complex and balanced pro-
tection management required in the Nove Hrady Moun-
tains. For 20 years there has been an effort of conser-
vationists on the Czech side to establish a protected land-
scape area here. The area would be in category IV ac-
cording to IUCN—Habitat/Species Management Area.
The effort constantly meets with resistance from local
politicians and part of local people. Local people are
afraid of bans and restrictions on development of area,
restriction of entrance into the forest, drop in prices of
land. They do not believe Ministry’s promises of free
entry into forests, investments and grants. They would
like to have guarantees.
The number of registered commercial beds in Sumava
(not only in national park but in wider region) is appro-
ximately 18 801. One bed falls on 8.8 inhabitants of re-
gion. The most frequent forms of accommodation are
hotels and pensions. Visit rate of Sumava is approxima-
tely 600 000 visitors a year [34]. Total number of regis-
tered commercial beds in Nove Hrady Mts. region is ap-
proximately 1731, it is quite low number. One bed falls
on 30 inhabitants of region. There is the most frequent
forms of accommodation are objects for individual rec-
reation—cottages. Most of their owners originate from
Ceske Budejovice agglomeration [34]. There are large
differences in tourist infrastructure between traditional
tourist destination Sumava and new discovered tourist
destination—the Nove Hrady Mts.
2. Methodology
The surveys were of a qualitative character, and the top-
ics were focused on different aspects of protection ma-
nagement, tourism and as they were perceived by the
inhabitants of selected villages in the Sumava NP and the
Nove Hrady Mountains. A qualitative questionnaire sur-
vey method was selected for the purposes of the sub-
sequent generalization of the results for the whole popu-
lation of the area [35].
Qualitative research is a method of inquiry appropri-
ated in many different academic disciplines, traditionally
in the social sciences, but also in market research and
further contexts [36,37]. Qualitative researchers aim to
gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and
the reasons that govern such behavior [36,38]. The quali-
tative method investigates the why and how of decision
making, not just what, where, when. Hence, smaller but
focused samples are more often needed, rather than large
samples [37].
In the summer of 2003, the survey took place in Su-
mava villages: Borova Lada, Horska Kvilda, Kvilda, Mo-
drava, Srni and Prasily, 200 questionnaires were collected.
In the summer of 2006 and 2007, the study continued in
the Nove Hrady Mts.: Benesov nad Cernou, Nove Hrady,
Pohorska Ves, and Horni Stropnice with the hamlets
Hojna Voda and Dobra Voda. Altogether, 150 question-
naires were collected (see Figure 1). The relatively long
time gap between the data collection and their publishing
is due to the fact that the authors were intensely involved
in surveying and publishing data obtained from visitors
and tourists in the Czech Republic’s protected areas.
Thus, interesting data collected among the local popula-
tion has been slightly overshadowed and processed later.
Figure 1. Map of the survey localization.
Socio Environmental Attitudes amongst the Inhabitants of Border Mountain Regions Close to the Former
612
Iron Curtain: The Situation in the Czech Republic
They are only being published now.
The basic technique for data collection was the struc-
tured interview [39], allowing direct interaction with the
respondent. The tool used for the interview was a stan-
dard questionnaire. During the individual interviews, the
respondents could not influence each other. In this way
high-quality and representative data were obtained [3].
The respondents were personally involved in the issue
and their personal creativity could be used for gaining
additional valuable information and authentic views.
2.1. The Questionnaires and the Selection of
Respondents
Open, closed, semi-open, alternative, selective and scale
questions were used [39]. Communication with the in-
habitants and the sharing of information is another im-
portant role of the project [32,40,41]. The respondents
were chosen by simple random sampling (probability
sampling). It is presumed that every part of the popula-
tion had an equal chance to be involved in the selection
set [3,42]. Method of Random route sampling was used.
This method is used in research surveys—mainly for
sampling households, shops, garages and other premises
in urban areas [3,26,29].
It was not possible to make selection from electoral or
inhabitant’s register and selection from phone book is not
accurate. It was used different method of selection, after
arrival to village it was selected left or right part along
the main road by lot and consequently it was by lot se-
lected number from one to the five and then it was visited
every nth (first, second, third, fourth, fifth) address [3,26].
The questionnaires were filled in individually and ano-
nymously, the heading containing only the date and the
place name. The introduction contained condensed infor-
mation about the purpose of the survey.
The questionnaires were divided in the standard way
into several thematic blocks. The first block dealt with
the demographic characteristic of the respondent, next
block Environment and nature in the area with reflec-
tions about environmental management, environmental
conditions and their assessment. The third block was
called Tourism. It was focused on the assessment of the
economic effects of tourism and on the perception of the
intensity of tourism by the local inhabitants. The respon-
dents assessed the effect of tourism on the cost of living.
2.2. Data Processing
The results from the surveys, i.e. the individual answer
sheets were converted into a table program MS Access,
in which the primary data processing was carried out and
the frequencies of the answers calculated. The frequen-
cies and results of filtering were subsequently transfered
into the program MS Excel, in order to compose the ta-
bles and charts.
Further processing was carried out in the program
Statgraphics Plus, version 3.1. The statistically signifi-
cant differences in the spectra of answers from respon-
dents were tested using the chi square test χ2 at the signi-
ficance level of 0.05 (5%) [43].
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Data
Women predominated, both in Sumava group of respon-
dents (52.5%) and in the Nove Hrady Mountains group
of respondents (analogically 60%). There was no signi-
ficant difference between the answers from the groups (χ2
= 0.87; df 1; p = 0.3508).
Most of Sumava respondents came from the age group
of 25 - 39 years (35%), followed by the group of 40 - 59
years (33.5%). In the Nove Hrady Mountains group, the
structure was similar, dominated by the age group 40 - 59
(34%) years, followed by the 25 - 39 age-group (30.7%).
In the parallel age-group structures, next came people
aged 60 and over, then young people aged 18 - 24 years,
and finally the 15 - 17 age group. The statistical method
did not find any significant difference between the groups
(p = 0.8587).
The most frequent answer was secondary education,
37.5% in Sumava and 48% in the Nove Hrady Mts. The
Sumava group of respondents has a higher representation
of university graduates: 18.0%, as opposed to 14.7% in
the Nove Hrady Mts. There was no significant difference
between the groups (p = 0.5306).
The following Tables (1 and 2) compare the resulting
basic demographic characteristics of our respondents
with the overall population of the Czech Republic. From
the tables it is clear (at a probability level of 0.05) that
the population characteristics of the both respondents
group are in agreement with the characteristics of the
overall Czech population as far as the age groups are
concerned. On the other hand, large differences were
found in the gender and education structures.
The following Tables (3 and 4) show development of
number of population in surveyed villages in Sumava
and Nove Hrady Mts. Population of selected villages in
Sumava decreased between years 1991 (establishment of
national park) and 2008, in Nove Hrady Mts. we can see
increase. It could be caused by lack of job opportunity in
the Sumava National Park, or by restrictions for living in
national park. Increase in Nove Hrady Mts. could be
caused by longing to live in clean environment.
Figure 2 shows assessment of environmental condi-
tions in the areas in recent years (approximately from the
C
opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Socio Environmental Attitudes amongst the Inhabitants of Border Mountain Regions Close to the Former 613
Iron Curtain: The Situation in the Czech Republic
Table 1. Comparison of the respondents population from Sumava with the corresponding data for the Czech Republic.
Source: CZSO (The Czech Statistical Office), 2008.
Sumava
Percentage Whole CZ population
over 15 years
Respondents
population Sumavas T T' z0.05 Random difference ?
(T' < z0.05)
Sex
Male 48.4% 47.5% 0.035 2.07 2.00
1.96 no
Female 51.6% 52.5% 0.035 2.07 2.00
1.96 no
Age group
15 - 17 4.4% 2.5% 0.015 0.96 0.78 1.96 yes
18 - 24 10.9% 10.0% 0.022 0.62 0.50 1.96 yes
25 - 39 27.7% 35.0% 0.032 0.81 0.73 1.96 yes
40 - 59 32.9% 33.5% 0.033 0.29 0.21 1.96 yes
Over 60 24.1% 19.0% 0.030 1.17 1.09 1.96 yes
Education
Elementary 23.4% 13.5% 0.035 4.47 4.37
1.96 no
Trained 38.6% 24.0% 0.040 3.85 3.77
1.96 no
Secondary 25.3% 37.5% 0.036 6.38 6.29
1.96 no
Higher 3.5% 7.0% 0.015 1.65 1.43
1.96 yes
Graduate 9.1% 18.0% 0.023 2.40 2.25
1.96 no
Note: s, T, T' are the testing statistic coefficients for the representativeness checktesting statistic THD. The testing was carried out on the significance level
of α = 0.05.
Table 2. Comparison of the respondents population from Nove Hrady Mts. with the corresponding data for the Czech
Republic Source: CZSO (The Czech Statistical Office), 2008.
Nove Hrady Mts.
Percentage Whole CZ population
over 15 years
Respondents population
Nove Hrady Mts. s T T' z0,05 Random difference?
(T' < z0.05)
Sex
Male 48.4% 40.0% 0.041 2.07 1.99
1.96 no
Female 51.6% 60.0% 0.041 2.07 1.99
1.96 no
Age group
15 - 17 4.4% 6.0% 0.017 0.96 0.76 1.96 yes
18 - 24 10.9% 9.3% 0.025 0.62 0.48 1.96 yes
25 - 39 27.7% 30.7% 0.037 0.81 0.72 1.96 yes
40 - 59 32.9% 34.0% 0.038 0.29 0.20 1.96 yes
Over 60 24.1% 20.0% 0.035 1.17 1.08 1.96 yes
Education
Elementary 23.4% 8.0% 0.035 4.47 4.37
1.96 no
Trained 38.6% 23.3% 0.040 3.85 3.77
1.96 no
Secondary 25.3% 48.0% 0.036 6.38 6.29
1.96 no
Higher 3.5% 6.0% 0.015 1.65 1.43
1.96 yes
Graduate 9.1% 14.7% 0.023 2.40 2.25
1.96 no
Note: s, T, T' are the testing statistic coefficients for the representativeness check—testing statistic THD 5. The testing was carried out on the significance level of α = 0.05.
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Metals, Metalloids and Toxicity in Date Palms: Potential Environmental Impact
614
Table 3. Population of surveyed villages in Sumava; Source:
CZSO (The Czech Statistical Office), 2008.
SUMAVA 1991 2008
Borova Lada 364 273
Horska Kvilda 27 78
Kvilda 169 183
Modrava 53 55
Prasily 144 155
Srni 368 275
1125 1019
Table 4. Population of surveyed villages in Nove Hrady
Mountains; Source: CZSO (The Czech Statistical Office),
2008.
NOVE HRADY MTS. 1991 2008
Benesov nad Cernou 1137 1379
Horni Stropnice 1523 1567
Nove Hrady 2673 2558
Pohorska Ves 309 315
5642 5819
Figure 2. Assessment of the environmental conditions in
region in recent years (approx. sinc e 2000 ) .
year 2000) by local people. Statistical evaluation of the
answers showed a significant difference between the
groups in their answers to this question (p = 0.0006).
3.2. Environment and Nature in the Area
Majority of respondents (62%) in Sumava know about an
environmental problem, compared to 24.7% in the Nove
Hrady Mts. The most frequent answer in Sumava was
bark beetle, in the Nove Hrady Mts. was excessive log-
ging and absence of farming and forest management. The
groups showed a significant difference in this aspect (p =
0.0000). The predominant majority of Sumava respon-
dents cumulatively stated that access to the disputed re-
gions should not be made possible—72.3% (Figure 3).
Figure 3 Attitudes of the respondents to the issue of tourist
access to the most endangered parts of nature.
In the case of regulated access of tourists to such natural
areas, they would give preference to “access with a guide”
(55%), followed by “other way of regulation” (24.1%),
“time-limited access” (16.2%), and “introduction of a fee”
(4.7%). A smaller section (48.6%) of the Nove Hrady
Mts. respondents thought that access to the places with
most endangered environment “should probably be al-
lowed” or “should be allowed without restrictions”. More
than half (51.4%) of the same resource of respondents
had the opposite opinion. In the case of regulated access
of tourists to such natural areas, they would give prefe-
rence to “access with a guide” (66%), followed by “time-
limited access” (18%), “introduction of a fee” (9.3%) and
“other way of regulation” (6.7%).We can see a signifi-
cant difference in the answers to both questions, concer-
ning tourist access generally (p = 0.0000) and regulated
access (p = 0.0090).
Respondents in Sumava thought that the current state
of nature conservation in Sumava is satisfactory (35.7%),
17.9% of the same group answered that it is “rather
strict”, 16.8% assessed it as “rather soft”, 14.8% as “too
soft” and 9.2% as “too strict”. The remaining respondents
either did not know or did not have an opinion. The ma-
jority of Nove Hrady Mts. respondents thought that the
current state of nature conservation in the Nove Hrady
Mountains is satisfactory (46%), 22% of the same group
answered that it is “rather soft”, 12% that it is “too soft”,
according to 8% it is “rather strict” and only 0.7% chose
the answer “too strict”. 11.3% of the same group either
did not have an opinion or did not want to answer. With
this question also, a significant difference in answers be-
tween the two groups can be observed (p = 0.0162).
3.3. Tourism
Figure 4 shows, economic benefit of local people from
the tourist industry in the Sumava National Park and in
the Nove Hrady Mts. There was no significant difference
between the groups (p = 0.1075).
C
opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Socio Environmental Attitudes amongst the Inhabitants of Border Mountain Regions Close to the Former 615
Iron Curtain: The Situation in the Czech Republic
Figure 4. Economic benefit fr om the tourist industry.
According to the majority of Sumava respondents
(55.5%), the numbers of visitors in the region approxi-
mately around the time of the survey were increasing
rapidly or moderately. Similar situation is in the Nove
Hrady Mts. The majority of respondents (86%) thought
that, the numbers of visitors were increasing rapidly or
moderately. Figure 5 shows detailed results. There was a
significant difference in the answers to this question (p =
0.0000).
The majority of Sumava (67.8%) and Nove Hrady Mts.
(78.7%) respondents does not mind the intensity of tour-
ism on the tourist routes. The intensity of tourism near
the respondents’ residence was perceived in a similar
way: 68% of Sumava and 79.3% of the Nove Hrady Mts.
respondents did not find it disturbing. The groups showed
a significant difference in the intensity perception of
tourism on the tourist routes (p = 0.0173) and also in per-
ception of the intensity of tourism near the respondent’s
residence (p = 0.0217). According to Sumava respon-
dents the presence of tourists more likely (27.8%) or de-
finitely (46.5%) raises their cost of living in comparison
to other regions. According to Nove Hrady Mts. respon-
dents the presence of tourists more likely (35.3%) or de-
finitely (23.3%) raises their cost of living in comparison
to other regions. More in Figure 6.There is a significant
difference in the answers to this question between the
two groups (p = 0.0037).
4. Discussion
4.1. Environment and Nature in the Area
The majority of Sumava respondents chose the answer
“the environmental conditions have become worse”, fol-
lowed by “the conditions have improved”. The majority
of residents in the Nove Hrady Mts. reported that the
quality of the environment had not changed or had de-
clined over the past 10 years. A survey in the smaller
Podyji NP showed that the majority of local inhabitants
thought that conditions had not changed [33]. The situa-
Figure 5. Number of visitors in both regions.
Figure 6. Assessment of the influence of the presence of
tourists on the height of the cost of living.
tion in the oldest Czech national park (Krkonose) sounds
much more optimistic [44]. A possible explanation could
be based on the connection with both a subconscious and
a rational perception of the national park as an institution
primarily caring for the environment. This is too a large
extent connected to the virtual image of the large national
parks created by the media, while a certain part is also
played by the respondents’ need to believe and identify
with the media image, which is not always completely
realistic or accurate. Local people in Sumava perceive
negatively long-term disputes about solution to bark bee-
tle calamity. They do not agree with access of the na-
tional park management – holding of dead trees in forest.
Locals think that dead trees should be chopped down and
carried away.
They see dead standing trees that is why they think,
that environmental conditions have become worse.
Majority of respondents in Sumava knows about an
environmental problem, compared to the Nove Hrady
Mts., where only minority of respondents knows about
this problem. Locals in Nove Hrady Mts. reported the
lowest knowledge of a specific ecological problem from
the all monitored areas in the Czech Republic. For com-
parison: in the Podyji NP in 2000, 48.3% of the locals
new about a concrete environmental problem and in the
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Socio Environmental Attitudes amongst the Inhabitants of Border Mountain Regions Close to the Former
616
Iron Curtain: The Situation in the Czech Republic
Krkonose NP it was 57.1% [44]. The most frequent an-
swer in Sumava was problem with bark beetle, in the
Nove Hrady Mts. it was excessive logging and absence
of farming and forest management. Problems with bark
beetle are mentioned in media (TV, radio, press) very
often, so people know about it.
The predominant majority of Sumava respondents and
Nove Hrady Mts. respondents cumulatively stated that
access to the disputed regions should not be made. In the
case of regulated access of tourists to such natural areas,
they would give preference to “access with a guide”. A
smaller section of the Nove Hrady Mts. respondents
thought that access to the places with most endangered
environment “should probably be allowed” or “should be
allowed without restrictions”. In the case of regulated
access of tourists to such natural areas, they would give
preference to “access with a guide”. An interesting com-
parison is suggested by the survey in the Podyji NP,
where 62.2% of the inhabitants would allow tourists into
similar places [33] whereas, on the other hand, in Krko-
nose NP it was 55.9% against [44]. IUCN mentions tour-
ism as one of the largest threats to protected areas and
locals in Sumava and in the Nove Hrady Mts. have the
same opinion perhaps—they are against public access to
the most endangered parts of the nature [45].
Majority of respondents in Sumava thought that the
current state of nature conservation in Sumava is satisfa-
ctory or “rather strict”. The remaining respondents either
did not know or did not have an opinion.
The majority of Nove Hrady Mts. respondents thought
that the current state of nature conservation in the Nove
Hrady Mountains is satisfactory. In the Krkonose NP,
conservation management was sufficient according to
34% of the local respondents, and strict or too strict ac-
cording to 18.6 % [44].
4.2. Tourism
The majority of Sumava respondents did not report any
economic benefit from the tourist industry at the time of
the survey. The vast majority of the Nove Hrady Mts.
respondents did not report any economic benefit from the
tourist industry at the time of the survey too. This factor
makes it the best example of involvement of locals in
tourism related activities, although some opportunities
could be exploited more effectively.
The uneven distribution of revenues from the tourist
industry is a common problem, and frequently the profit
goes only to a few individuals or families [46,31]. On the
other hand, profit levels are usually connected to conser-
vation and environmental values and to the ability of
local people to accept such values. In the Podyji NP in
2000, only 11.6% of the local inhabitants indicated an
economic benefit [33]. A very different situation was
found in the Krkonose NP, where an economic benefit
was declared by 65.9% of the local inhabitants [44]. The
results from the Nove Hrady Mountains and Sumava can
be indirectly compared to the results from the Prespes NP
in Greece, where 49.5% of locals thought that the exis-
tence of the national park had no influence on their eco-
nomic situation, 27% of the respondents thought that due
to the existence of the NP their situation had worsened
and 15.8% of respondents indicated that their economic
situation had improved after the establishment of the NP
[3]. The local inhabitants in the Swiss nature reserve BR
Etlebuch viewed the existence of their BR as a driving
force for the development of the economy and job market
[4]. Locals in Sumava and in Nove Hrady Mts. should be
more enterprising and try to carry business in tourist in-
dustry.
According to the majority of Sumava respondents the
numbers of visitors in the region approximately around
the time of the survey were increasing rapidly or moder-
ately. Similar situation is in the Nove Hrady Mts. It could
be chance for local people and for whole region. They
could have economic benefit from tourism. The increas-
ing number of visitors was similarly indicated by the
majority of respondents (54.8%) in the Podyji NP [33].
We also cannot neglect the influence on the real number
of visitors coming to the area, of the increase in services
and the development of resorts i.e. the exploration phase
in terms of the destination life cycle. An increased fre-
quency of encounters with other visitors spoils the ex-
perience. The main principle of leisure activity in the
countryside is the feeling of privacy, which is disturbed
by the presence of other visitors [47]. The social toler-
ability of leisure activities in a certain area is character-
rized by a subjective feeling of “overcrowding” the area
with visitors. It is necessary to develop the areas sus-
tainable with an emphasis on mitigating of negative ef-
fects.
The majority of Sumava and Nove Hrady Mts. re-
spondents do not mind the intensity of tourism on the
tourist routes. The intensity of tourism near the respon-
dents’ residence was perceived in a similar way: respon-
dents did not find it disturbing. Results from the Podyji
NP also show that people mostly (77.8%) do not find
tourism disturbing [33], neither did the inhabitants of the
Krkonose NP, where 84.7% were not disturbed by tou-
rists on tourist routes. Majority of respondents (86%)
were not disturbed by tourists near their homes in Krko-
nose [44]. It is necessary to note that overcrowding of the
area by tourists can, for the local inhabitants, lead to the
feeling of being “foreigners in their own land”, which
can subsequently cause enmity towards the visitors. For
C
opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Socio Environmental Attitudes amongst the Inhabitants of Border Mountain Regions Close to the Former 617
Iron Curtain: The Situation in the Czech Republic
comparison, similar surveys in Finland show that only
11.8% of inhabitants living near protected areas have a
negative attitude towards tourism [29]. No significant ne-
gative attitude towards tourist traffic in Sumava or in the
Nove Hrady Mts. was found. But locals in the Sumava
NP felt disturbed a bit more. It is logically, because in
Sumava there is much bigger visit rate than in Nove
Hrady Mts.
A different point of view on the interaction between
the visitors and the local inhabitants is revealed by a
more economically focused question dealing with the
projection of the presence of the visitors’ group onto the
level of prices and the cost of living of the local inhabi-
tants’ group (among other things the prices in shops,
prices of services, etc.). According to Sumava and Nove
Hrady Mts. respondents the presence of tourists more
likely or definitely raises their cost of living in compari-
son to other regions. In other national parks the majority
of the locals also thought that the presence of tourists
increased the cost of living in the area. In the Podyji NP
it was 59.1% [33] and in the Krkonose NP, the NP most
affected by the tourism and leisure industry, it was 94.1%
[44].
But it is real fact, that prices in shops in tourist areas
are higher than prices in other regions of the Czech Re-
public. It is caused by high demand and low competition.
5. Conclusions
The outputs from the work should contribute to the colle-
ction of the national monitoring of reflections, opinions
and attitudes which has been carried out in the environ-
mental areas, namely in the national parks and in the bio-
sphere reserves, from the mid-nineties to the present day.
The second aim of the survey was to map the current
situation in the selected Czech border regions from the
point of view of the socio-demographic data of a sample
of local inhabitants of the Nove Hrady Mts. and the Su-
mava NP, their authentic reflection of natural and envi-
ronmental conditions, as well as the assessment of the
existing conservation management. The next targets of
our study were the attitudes of this important group to-
wards the tourist industry in their area: towards its eco-
nomic and environmental consequences. The following
findings have been selected as being the most important:
Very similar or identical reflections were found in the
assessment of personal profit from the tourist industry in
the region and in the demographic characteristics of the
respondents: sex, age structure, education.
A significant difference in opinions and attitudes be-
tween Sumava and the Nove Hrady Mts. inhabitants was
seen in their opinions on the state of the environment in
recent years (since approximately the year 2000), aware-
ness of a specific environmental problem in the area,
their attitude to public access to the most endangered
natural areas of the Sumava and the Nove Hrady Moun-
tains (both respondent groups would prefer access with a
professional guide), and their opinions on the current
level of conservation management. Additional differences
were in the perception of the numbers of visitors, the
psychological tolerability of the area—the intensity of
tourism along the tourist routes and near the respondents’
homes (neither group of respondents found it disturbing),
and in the influence of tourism on the cost of living.
Nove Hrady Mts. area is milder probably because of
the fact that the Sumava NP is much larger, is visited by
many more tourists as well and it is better known to the
general public. It is clear that the mind of local inhabi-
tants in the traditional tourist destination Sumava is diffe-
rent from the mind of local inhabitants in the new dis-
covered tourist destination—the Nove Hrady Mts. These
results could start new discussion about establishment of
the Protected Landscape Area in the Nove Hrady Mts.
The whole range of problems which we encounter in
conservation management is simply caused by a lack of
connection between the deciding authority and the needs
of the local community. There is, however, a different
point of view: one of the basic problems of the protected
areas is the fact that during the process of their estab-
lishment, the needs and the opinions of the local commu-
nities are usually not taken into consideration. The resi-
dents then often feel it to be unjust that someone who
does not live in their region has established a protected
area and in this way can ban or limit the activities which
have been normal amongst the local population for gene-
rations, without asking them. The main result should be
an improvement in the standard of living of local inhabi-
tants and their pride in living in a protected territory. It is
a generally accepted fact that the public needs to be in-
formed, educated and encouraged to participate in the
management and development of their area.
REFERENCES
[1] A. D. Williams and G. Shaw (Eds.), “Tourism, Leisure,
nature Protection and Agritourism: Principles, Partnership
and Practice,” European Power Electronics and Drives,
University of Exeter, Exeter, 1996, p. 188.
[2] C. C. Konijnendijk, “A Decade of Urban Forestry in
Europe,” Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 5, No. 2,
2003, pp. 173-186. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00023-6
[3] D. Trakolis, “Local People’s Perceptions of Planning and
Management Issues in Prespes Lakes National Park,
Greece,” Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 61,
No. 3, 2001, pp. 227-241. doi:10.1006/jema.2000.0410
[4] A. Wallner, N. Bauer and M. Hunziker, “Perceptions and
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Socio Environmental Attitudes amongst the Inhabitants of Border Mountain Regions Close to the Former
618
Iron Curtain: The Situation in the Czech Republic
Evaluations of Biosphere Reserves by Local Residents in
Switzerland and Ukraine,” Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning, Vol. 83, No. 2-3, 2007, pp. 104-114.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.006
[5] E. T. Byrd, H. E. Bosley and M. G. Dronberger, “Com-
parisons of Stakeholder Perceptions of Tourism Impacts
in Rural Eastern North Carolina,” Tourism Management,
Vol. 30, No. 5, 2009, pp. 693-703.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.10.021
[6] J. Beltran (Ed.), “Indigenous and Traditional People and
Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies,”
The World Conversation Union, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK and WWF International, Gland, Switzer-
land, 2000, p. 133.
[7] B. B. Faust and R. C. Smardom, “Introduction and Over-
view: Environmental Knowledge, Rights and Ethics:
Co-managing with Communities,” Environmental Science
& Policy, Vol. 4, No. 4-5, 2001, pp. 147-151.
doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00025-9
[8] A. N. Songorwa, “Community-Based Wildlife Management
(CWM) in Tanzania: Are the Communities Interested?,”
World Development, Vol. 27, No. 12, 1999, pp. 2061-2079.
doi:10.1016/S0305-750X( 99)00103-5
[9] A. Gbadegesin and O. Ayileka, “Avoiding the Mistakes
of the Past: Towards a Community Oriented Management
Strategy for the Proposed National Park in Abuja-Nigeria,”
Land Use Policy, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2000, pp. 89-100.
doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(00)00005-3
[10] M. Hockings, S. Stolton and N. Dudley, “Evaluating Effec-
tiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of
Protected Areas,” The World Conversation Union, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2000, p. 121.
[11] Y. Lü, L. Chen, B. Fu and S. Liu, “A Framework for
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Protected areas: The Case
of Wolong Biosphere Reserve,” Landscape and Urban
Planning, Vol. 63, No. 4, 2003, pp. 213-223.
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00193-7
[12] D. Kusova, M. Bartos and J. Tesitel, “Potential Develop-
ment of the Right Shore of Lipno Lake Area: Compari-
sion of Landscape and Urban Planning Documentation
with ideas of Local Inhabitants,” Silva Gabreta, Vol. 3, No.
3, 1999, pp. 217-228.
[13] E. H. Zube and M. L. Busch, “Park-People Relationships:
An International Review,” Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1990, pp. 117-131.
doi:10.1016/0169-2046(90)90030-6
[14] G. E. Pavlikakis and V. A. Tsihrintzis, “A Quantitative
Method for Accounting Human Opinion, Preferences and
Perceptions an Ecosystem Management,” Journal of En-
vironmental Management, Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003, pp.
193-205. doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00067-7
[15] F. Bowcutt, “Ecological Restoration and Local Communi-
ties: A Case Study from Sinkyone Wilderness State Park,
Mendocino Country, California,” Human Ecology, Vol.
27, No. 2, 1999, pp. 359-368.
doi:10.1023/A:1018733529690
[16] A. P. Castro and E. Nielsen, “Indigenous People and
Co-management: Implications for Conflict Management,”
Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 4, No. 4-5, 2001,
pp. 229-239. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00022-3
[17] G. E. Pavlikakis and V. A. Tsihrintzis, “Perceptions and
Preference of the Local Population in Eastern Macedonia
and Thrace National Park in Greece,” Landscape and
Urban Planning, Vol. 77, No. 1-2, 2006, pp. 1-16.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.12.008
[18] A. Pizam, “Tourism Impacts: The social Costs to the
Destination Community as Perceived by Its Residents,”
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1978, pp.
8-12. doi:10.1177/004728757801600402
[19] R. Varley, “Tourism in Fiji: Some Economic and Social
Problems,” University of Wales Press, Cardiff, 1978.
[20] F. J. Belisle and D. R. Hoy, “The Perceived Impact of
Tourism by Residents: A Case Study in Santa Maria, Co-
lumbia,” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1980,
pp. 83-101. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(80)80008-9
[21] L. Vusoniwailala, “Tourism and Fijian Hospitality: In
Pacific Tourism as Islanders See It,” R. Crocombe and F.
Rajotte Eds., Institute of Pacific Studies, University of
South Pacific, Suva, 1980.
[22] B. Andressen and P. E. Murphy, “Tourism Development
in Canadian Travel Corridors: Two Surveys of Resident
Attitudes,” World Leisure and Recreation, Vol. 28, No. 5,
1986, pp. 17-22.
[23] A. Milman and A. Pizam, “Social Impacts of Tourism on
Central Florida,” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 15,
No. 2, 1988, pp. 191-204.
doi:10.1016/0160-7383(88)90082-5
[24] E. A. Fiallo and S. K. Jacobson, “Local Communities and
Protected Areas: Attitudes of Rural Residents towards
Conservation in Machalilla National Park, Equador,” En-
vironmental Conservation, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1995, pp.
241-249. doi:10.1017/S037689290001064X
[25] B. P. Kaltenborn, H. Riese and M. Hundeide, “National
Park Planning and Local Participation: Some Reflections
from a Mountain Region in Southern Norway,” Mountain
Research and Development, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1999, pp.
51-61. doi:10.2307/3674113
[26] F. Yuksel, B. Bramwell and A. Yuksel, “Stakeholder
Interviews and Tourism Planning at Pamukkale, Turkey,”
Tourism Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1999, pp. 351-360.
doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00117-4
[27] M. Bonaiuto, G. Carrus, H. Martorella and M. Bonnes,
“Local Identity Process and Environmental Attitudes in
Land Use Changes: The Case of Natural Protected Ar-
eas,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 5,
2002, pp. 631-653. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00121-6
[28] K. S. Rao, S. Nautiyal, R. K. Maikhuri and K. G. Saxena,
“Local Peoples’ Knowledge, Aptitude and Perceptions of
Planning and Management Issues in Nanda Devi Bio-
sphere Reserve, India,” Environmental Management, Vol.
31, No. 2, 2003, pp. 168-181.
doi:10.1007/s00267-002-2830-4
C
opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
Socio Environmental Attitudes amongst the Inhabitants of Border Mountain Regions Close to the Former
Iron Curtain: The Situation in the Czech Republic
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP
619
[29] A. Törn, P. Siikamaki, A. Tolvanen, P. Kauppila and J.
Ramet, “Local People, Nature Conservation, and Tourism
in Northeastern Finland,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 13,
No. 1, 2008, p. 18.
[30] A. Diedrich and E. García-Buades, “Local Perceptions of
Tourism as Indicators of Destination Decline,” Tourism
Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2009, pp. 512-521.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.10.009
[31] S. Richardson, “Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Tourism
and Hospitality as a Career Choice,” International Jour-
nal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2009, pp.
382-388. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.10.006
[32] M. Cihar, Z. Tancosova and V. Trebicky, “Narodni Park
Sumava a Vybrane Aspekty Jeho Udrzitelneho
Rozvoje—Hodnoceni Mistnimi Obyvateli/obce Borova
Lada, Horska Kvilda, Kvilda, Modrava, Filipova Hut,
Srni a Prasily. (The Sumava National Park and Selected
Aspects of Its Sustainable Development—Evaluation by
the Local People/Communities of Borova Lada, Horska
Kvilda, Kvilda, Modrava, Filipova Hut, Srni a Prasily),”
Silva Gabreta, No. 5, 2000, pp. 195-216.
[33] M. Cihar and J. Stankova, “Attitudes of Stakeholders
towards the Podyji/Thaya River Basin National Park in the
Czech Republic,” Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 81, No. 3, 2006, pp. 273-285.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvma n.200 5.11.00 2
[34] CZSO (The Czech Statistical Office), “Population, Housing
and Household Data—Czech Republic,” Prague, Czech
Republic, 2008.
[35] P. Gavora, “Introduction to Educational Research,” Brno,
Paido, Edition of Pedagogical Literature, Czech Republic,
2000.
[36] N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, “Handbook of Qualita-
tive Research,” 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, 2000.
[37] M. Q. Patton, “Qualitative Research & Evaluation Meth-
ods,” 3rd Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
2002.
[38] M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, “Qualitative Data
Analysis,” Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1994.
[39] M. Disman, “How We Produce Sociological Knowledge,”
Prague, Czech Republic, 1993.
[40] M. Cihar, V. Trebicky and J. Novak, “Selected Indicators
of Sustainable Tourism in the Central Part of the Sumava
National Park and Biosphere Reserve,” Silva Gabreta, No.
6, 2001, pp. 295-304.
[41] S. Stoll-Kleemann, “Barriers to Nature Conservation in
Germany: A Model Explaning Opposition to Protected
Areas,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21,
No. 4, 2001, pp. 369-385. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0228
[42] I. Pecakova, I. Novak and J. Hermann, “Acquisition and
Data Evaluation in Public Opinion Polls,” Prague, Faculty
of Informatics and Statistics, Prague, University of Eco-
nomics, Czech Republic, 2000.
[43] J. Hendl, “Prehled Statistickych Metod Zpracovani Dat:
Analyza a Metaanalyza Dat,” Praha, Portal, Czech Re-
public, 2006.
[44] M. Cihar et al., “Vybrane Ukazatele Udrzitelneho Tur-
ismu v Centralni Casti KRNAP a Jejich Monitoring (Se-
lected indicators of sustainable tourism in the central part
of the Krkonose National Park and Biosphere Reserve),”
Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, unpub-
lished report, 2004.
[45] IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Na-
ture), “World Heritage Twenty Years Later,” Compiled by
J. Thorsell, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 1992.
[46] S. Gössling, “Ecotourism: A Means of Safeguard Biodiver-
sity and Ecosystem Functions?,” Ecological Economics,
Vol. 29, No. 2, 1999, pp. 303-320.
doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00012-9
[47] P. Deadman and R. H. Gimblett, “A Role for Goal-Oriented
Autonomous Agents in Modeling People-Environment
Interactions in Forest Recreation,” Mathematical and
Computer Modelling, Vol. 20, No. 8, 1994, pp. 121-133.
doi:10.1016/0895-7177(94)90236-4