Advertisement

Human Ecology

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 489–496 | Cite as

Volunteer Management in German National Parks—from Random Action Toward a Volunteer Program

  • Sina Bremer
  • Peter GraeffEmail author
Brief Communication

Introduction

Without the commitment of volunteers, it would have never been possible to realize many aims of nature conservation in Germany. Though volunteers have been active in nature conservation for decades, research in the field of volunteer management has only recently gained importance.

In the framework of the “International Year of Volunteerism” in 2001, the volunteer component in nature conservation in Germany was examined for the first time. Since then, a few other investigations have been undertaken, mainly concerning volunteerism in nature conservancy associations. A closer look at the situation of German national parks is still lacking. Little is known about the extent to which volunteers are used in national parks, and there is no tradition of volunteer management in nature conservation in Germany. This study analyzes the conditions and structure of volunteer management in German national parks to develop improved means of matching volunteers’ interests with national...

Keywords

Protected Area National Park Volunteer Work Volunteer Program Volunteer Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the interview partners in the national parks for their support and assistance. Without them, this work would not have been possible. We are grateful to Mr. Rolf Porst from the Center for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA) in Mannheim, Germany, for his valuable comments on methodological aspects.

References

  1. Bachert, S. (1991). Acceptance of National Parks and Participation of Local People in Decision Making. Landscape and Urban Planning 20(1–3): 239–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berkes, F. (1987). Cooperation from the perspective of human ecology. In Berkes, F. (ed.), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development, Belhaven, London, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  3. Brandon, K., Redford, K., and Sanderson, S. (1998). Introduction. In Brandon, K., Redford, K., and Sanderson, S. (eds.), Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and Protected Areas, Island/The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Braun, J., and Klages, H. (eds.), (2001). Freiwilliges Engagement in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der Repräsentativerhebung zu Ehrenamt, Freiwilligenarbeit und bürgerschaftlichem Engagement. Bd. 2: Zugangswege zum freiwilligen Engagement und Engagementpotenzial in den neuen und alten Bundesländern, 2. Aufl. Schriftenreihe des Bundesministeriums für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (BMFSFJ) 194.2. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  5. Clary, E. G., Snyder M., and Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ Motivations: Findings from a National Survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 25(4): 485–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diepolder, U. (2004). Nationalpark—ein Luxusartikel? Projekt Landnutzungskonzepte für das 21. Jahrhundert. (LaNuK 21) des Bundes der Ökologen Bayerns e.V. und des Verbands Weihenstephaner Forstingenieure e.V. 1998. web-adress: www.vubd.de/lanuk/kapitel2.html#2-1.
  7. Gaskin, K., and Davis Smith, J. (1995). A New Civic Europe? A Study of the Extent and Role of Volunteering, Volunteer Center UK, London.Google Scholar
  8. Harthun, M. (2004). Der Nationalpark Kellerwald-Edersee. Hessens schwieriger Weg zum Buchenwald-Nationalpark. Natur und Landschaft 79(11): 486–493.Google Scholar
  9. Hecker, R. (2000). Beginn der Umsetzung einer Identifikationsstrategie für die Großschutzgebiete in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern am Beispiel der Einführung eines einheitlichen Erscheinungsbildes. Natur und Landschaft 75(3): 124–127.Google Scholar
  10. Heiland, S. (1999). Voraussetzungen erfolgreichen Naturschutzes. Individuelle und gesellschaftliche Bedingungen umweltgerechten Verhaltens, ihre Bedeutung für den Naturschutz und die Durchsetzung seiner Ziele. Schriftenreihe Angewandter Umweltschutz, Landsberg, ecomed.Google Scholar
  11. Ivy, T. G., Lee, C. K. E., and Chuan, G. K. (1998). A Survey of Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour of Students in Singapore. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 7: 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, K. A., and Nelson, K. C. (2004). Common Property and Conservation: The Potential for Effective Communal Forest Management within a National Park in Mexico. Human Ecology 32(6): 703–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kegel, T. (2002). Gute Organisation vorausgesetzt. Aufgaben für das Management von Volunteers. In Rosenkranz, D., and Weber, A. (eds.), Freiwilligenarbeit. Einführung in das Management von Ehrenamtlichen in der Sozialen Arbeit, Juventa, Weinheim, pp. 89–101.Google Scholar
  14. Keupp, H. (2000). Die schlafenden Reserven des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements und wie sie geweckt werden können. Natur + Umwelt 2: 2–7.Google Scholar
  15. Kipps, H. C., Bush, B., Glenn, J., and Lang, E. (1991). Volunteerism: Directory of Organizations, Training, Programs and Publications, 3rd edn., R. R. Bowker, New Providence, NJ.Google Scholar
  16. Lippert, A. (ed.), (2000). Der Naturschutzhelfer, Bonn, DNR.Google Scholar
  17. Lohmann, S. O. (2000). Die neuen Freiwilligen—Ehrenamt im Wandel. Grünstift 9–10: 12–17.Google Scholar
  18. McCay, B., and Acheson, J. M. (eds.), (1987). The Questions of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  19. McNeely, J. A. (1994). Protected Areas for the 21st Century: Working to Provide Benefits to Society. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitlacher, G., and Schulte, R. (2005). Steigerung des ehrenamtlichen Engagements in Naturschutzverbänden. Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Skript No. 129, Bonn.Google Scholar
  21. Nassar-McMillan, S. C., and Lambert, R. (2003). The Relationship Between Volunteers’Work Behaviors and Background and Preparation Variables. Journal of Adult Development 10(2): 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Park Service (n.d.). How to Succeed with Volunteers-In-Parks. 60-Minute Module Series.Google Scholar
  23. Norgaard, R. (1994). Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Co-evolutionary Revision of the Future, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Papageorgiou, K. (2001). A Combined Park Management Framework Based on Regulatory and Behavioural Strategies: Use of Vistors’ Knowledge to Assess Effectiveness. Environmental Management 28(1): 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Papageorgiou, K., and Brotherton, I. (1999). A Management Planning Framework Based on Ecological, Perceptual and Economic Carrying Capacity: The Case Study of Vikos-Aoos National Park, Greece. Journal of Environmental Management 56: 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roggenbuck, J. W., Williams, D. R., and Watson, A. W. (1993). Defining Acceptable Conditions in Wilderness. Environmental Management 17: 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenbladt, B. von (ed.), (2001). Freiwilliges Engagement in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der Repräsentativerhebung zu Ehrenamt, Freiwilligenarbeit und bürgerschaftlichem Engagement. Bd. 1: Gesamtbericht, 2. Aufl., Schriftenreihe des Bundesministeriums für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (BMFSFJ) 194.1, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  28. Sawhney, P. (2003). People–park Interaction: A Case of Bandhavgarh National Park, India. Ecology and Development Series No. 5, Cuvillier, Goettingen.Google Scholar
  29. Seabrooke, W., and Miles, C. W. N. (1993). Recreational Land Management, 2nd edn., E & FN Spon, London.Google Scholar
  30. Stoll, S. (1999). Akzeptanzprobleme bei der Ausweisung von Großschutzgebieten. Ursachenanalyse und Ansätze zu Handlungsstrategien. Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 42, Ökologie, Umwelt und Landespflege, Bd. 24, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  31. Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001a). Barriers to Nature Conservation in Germany: A Model Explaining Opposition to Protected Areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(4): 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001b). Opposition to the Designation of Protected Areas in Germany. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(1): 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson, M. (1976). The Effective Management of Volunteer Programs, Volunteer Management Associates, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  34. Zimmer, A., and Nährlich, S. (2000). Zur Standortbestimmung bürgerschaftlichen Engagements. In Zimmer, A. (ed.), Bürgerschaftliches Engagement und Nonprofit-Sektor. Bd. 1: Engagierte Bürgerschaft. Traditionen und Perspektiven, Leske & Budrich, Opladen, pp. 9–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BonnGermany
  2. 2.Dresden University of TechnologyDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations