Enhancement of Cultural Heritage through Environmental Planning and Management - CHERPLAN

(SEE/0041/4.3/X)

WP5 – Environmental Planning in Pilot Projects

D5.3.3 – Pilot Project Environmental Management Plan - Hallstatt

Short Version (Language: English)

Country: Austria

Authors: BOKU -University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna

Municipality of Hallstatt

Completion Date: 30/6/2014

List of Authors

University for Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna Sandra Nicolics, Laurent Richard, Reinhard Perfler Institute of Sanitary Engineering and Water Pollution Control Municipality of Hallstatt Alexander Scheutz, Frank Höll, Cornelia Huis

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 2 of 33

Table of Content

Table of Content ...... 3 List of figures ...... 5 List of tables ...... 5 Executive summary ...... 6 1 Background and objectives ...... 7 2 The CHERPLAN integral Environmental Planning approach ...... 9 3 Institutional and organisational embedding of planning activities ...... 9 3.1 During the CHERPLAN project: focus on Hallstatt Municipality ...... 10 3.2 After the CHERPLAN project: extension to the World Heritage Region? ...... 10 4 System Analysis ...... 11 4.1 Socio-economic, infrastructural and environmental characteristics of the communities .... 11 4.2 The World Heritage Region Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut ...... 11 4.2.1 UNESCO World Heritage Site ...... 11 4.2.2 Protected properties in Hallstatt ...... 12 4.3 Main legal and institutional baselines of cultural heritage management, infrastructure and community development ...... 12 4.4 Stakeholder Environment ...... 12 4.5 Strategic assessment ...... 13 5 Vision and scenario development: main results ...... 14 5.1 Soft facts ...... 14 5.2 Hard facts ...... 16 5.2.1 Past and current development ...... 16 5.2.2 Future development (scenario based) ...... 18 6 Discussion and selection of field of actions ...... 22 6.1 Demographical development ...... 22 6.2 Overnight tourism ...... 22 6.3 Day tourism ...... 23 6.4 Public infrastructure / services ...... 23 6.5 Selection of field of actions ...... 24 7 Preparation for the implementation of selected field of actions ...... 25 7.1 Expected costs ...... 25

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 3 of 33

7.2 Possible funding sources ...... 25 7.3 Proposition for the implementation of selected field of actions ...... 26 7.4 Proposal for monitoring the implementation of selected activities and updating the list of field of actions ...... 28 References ...... 30 Annex ...... 31

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 4 of 33

List of figures

Figure 1: Delimitation of the UNESCO Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape (UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2008) ...... 8 Figure 2: View of Hallstatt and its landscape (Richard, 2013) ...... 8 Figure 3: Day tourists in Hallstatt (Richard, 2013) ...... 8 Figure 4: CHERPLAN Environmental Planning approach for the development of Cultural Heritage Sites in South-East Europe ...... 9 Figure 5: Proposal for a management structure for implementing the CHERPLAN integrated planning approach in the World Heritage Region (Municipalities of Hallstatt, Obertraun, Bad Goisern and Gosau) ...... 10 Figure 6: Overview of stakeholders relevant to Hallstatt’s development (non-exhaustive list) ...... 13

List of tables

Table 1: Overview of thematic fields and associated visions ...... 15 Table 2: Estimation of population size, number of overnight stays and number of day tourists in 2023 according to the 3 scenarios defined in this study ...... 19 Table 3: Costs estimation for the collection and disposal of public solid waste for the year 2023 (staff costs are not considered here) ...... 20 Table 4: Estimation of costs and revenues for Hallstatt’s public toilet facilities for the year 2023 ...... 20 Table 5: Estimation of costs and revenues for Hallstatt’s water supply for the year 2023 and for each scenario ...... 22

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 5 of 33

Executive summary

An Environmental Management Plan for the Municipality of Hallstatt was elaborated based on activities carried out in the frame of the CHERPLAN project (2010-2014) in cooperation with representatives of the Hallstatt Municipality and a project team from the University of Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU). The CHERPLAN project is an initiative financed by the South East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme (a programme co-funded by the European Union).

The full version of the Environmental Management Plan was written in German and is available on the project website (http://www.cherplan.eu/). The plan describes:

1. the background and objectives of the CHERPLAN project in general, and the structure of the management plan document specifically, 2. the CHERPLAN integral Environmental Planning approach, 3. the institutional and organisational embedding of the planning activities, 4. a system analysis of not only Hallstatt but also of the three neighbouring World Heritage Municipalities of Obertraun, Bad Goisern and Gosau, 5. the main results of participative planning activities in Hallstatt and complementary analyses of data collected during the project (including scenarios development), 6. propositions for selected field of actions, including activity and business planning The extensive annex of the german management plan moreover provides background data and further information on each of the six main chapters.

The present document is a short version of the Environmental Management Plan and was written in English. It provides short descriptions of each chapter of the Environmental Management Plan. These descriptions do not reflect the full content of the Environmental Management Plan as some parts have been considerably summarised, but it will provide an insight into the document for non-German speakers. An overview of the workshop series and related project events is provided in the annex of the present document.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 6 of 33

1 Background and objectives

The Municipality of Hallstatt is in the core zone of the UNESCO Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape, along with 9 other Municipalities of the Federal States of Upper Austria and Styria. This Cultural Landscape is located in the Eastern Alps and is famous for a complex cultural landscape consisting of numerous lakes, caves, mountain ranges and historic art treasures. The site was inscribed in 1997 on the UNESCO World Heritage List.

Together with the neighbouring municipalities of Obertraun, Gosau and Bad Goisern, Hallstatt built the so-called “Welterberegion Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut” (WELTERBEREGION, 2014) (“World Heritage Region Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut” in English) which includes most of the core zone of the UNESCO Cultural Landscape and is located in the Federal State of Upper Austria. Among these municipalities, Hallstatt (788 inhabitants in 2014, BUNDESANSTALT STATISTIK ÖSTERREICH, 2014) is the most touristic and is facing several challenges, such as population decline or a rapid increase in the annual number of day tourists, which makes it an interesting site for testing innovative planning approaches such as the one developed during the CHERPLAN project.

The CHERPLAN Environmental Planning approach is in essence an integrated approach for the development of communities with Cultural Heritage with a strong focus on active public participation and the consideration of various stakeholders’ interests and perceptions. For these reasons, the Municipality of Hallstatt was invited and accepted to participate in the CHERPLAN project for implementing and testing the CHERPLAN planning approach.

Although the project activities were focused on Hallstatt, the document also includes information on the other municipalities because planning activities aiming at Hallstatt’s development only fully makes sense when the regional context has also been considered. Nevertheless, the thematic focus of the management plan revolves around problems and solutions identified in Hallstatt and is therefore only applicable to Hallstatt. In the future, the CHERPAN Environmental Planning approach could be applied to the neighbouring municipalities, to the World Heritage Region as a whole and/or to the whole UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The authors of the environmental management plan are Sandra Nicolics, Laurent Richard and Reinhard Perfler from BOKU University as well as Alexander Scheutz (Mayor), Frank Höll (municipality staff) and Cornelia Huis (freelance consultant for the project) on the behalf of Hallstatt Municipality. Most of the document’s content is based on the outputs of 8 workshops carried out with the active involvement of a project working group involving several members of Hallstatt’s community.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 7 of 33

Figure 1: Delimitation of the UNESCO Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape (UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2008)

Figure 2: View of Hallstatt and its landscape (Richard, 2013)

Figure 3: Day tourists in Hallstatt (Richard, 2013)

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 8 of 33

2 The CHERPLAN integral Environmental Planning approach

This chapter provides an introduction to the CHERPLAN Environmental Planning approach. The basic idea of the present planning approach is the integration of a participatory method (Soft System Methodology) with multi-disciplinary planning tools and documents. Combining “soft-facts”, derived from a moderated participatory process, with technical or scientific “hard-facts” (on socio-economic and environmental aspects), should allow for more comprehensive planning and assure a demand- driven planning perspective. The framework of the planning process is the development of an Environmental Management Plan for communities and their cultural heritage. A management plan is an integrated planning and action framework giving guidance on goals and measures for sustainable development of the sites and their community.

Figure 4: CHERPLAN Environmental Planning approach for the development of Cultural Heritage Sites in South-East Europe

3 Institutional and organisational embedding of planning activities

This chapter provides information on the organisational and institutional embedding of the planning process during the CHERPLAN project (focus on Hallstatt Municipality) as well as a proposal for institutional and organisational embedding after the end of the project (possible extension of planning activities to the World Heritage Region).

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 9 of 33

3.1 During the CHERPLAN project: focus on Hallstatt Municipality During the CHERPLAN project, the planning process was coordinated by staff members of Hallstatt Municipality and researchers from the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna. Their work was supported by a steering committee, which was established in the autumn of 2011 and included various members of Hallstatt’s communities. During the project, the coordination team and the steering committee met frequently (8 workshops organised between 2011 and 2013).

3.2 After the CHERPLAN project: extension to the World Heritage Region? This subchapter provides a proposal for the institutional and organisational embedding of environmental planning activities extended to the 4 municipalities of the World Heritage Region (see chapter 1).

The planning process is meant to be spearheaded and coordinated by an Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) coordinator, while the orientation and implementation structures should be supported through a steering committee to be built up through official representatives of the municipalities concerned. Thematic contributions and the implementation of activities should be carried out through an “extended working group” involving a broad range of relevant stakeholders from the four communities (e.g.: local resident representatives, civil society organizations, cultural associations, local gastronomy/hoteliers, local businesses, museum, tourism association, private owners of historical monuments, cultural preservation agency). Depending on the respective activity/thematic focus, the compilation of the working group may differ.

Figure 5: Proposal for a management structure for implementing the CHERPLAN integrated planning approach in the World Heritage Region (Municipalities of Hallstatt, Obertraun, Bad Goisern and Gosau)

The actual working mode of the people/organisations involved in the planning process will have to be discussed at the beginning of the project. It will also be necessary to determine as early as possible the monitoring and reporting structures required to follow-up the implementation of the

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 10 of 33

activities that will be selected at the end of the planning process. This is essential for assuring efficiency, accurateness and correctness of the planning outcomes.

4 System Analysis

This chapter provides a compilation of background and baseline information about Hallstatt and the neighbouring municipalities of Obertraun, Gosau and Bad Goisern. Altogether, these municipalities form the World Heritage Region “Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut”.

Socio-economic, infrastructural and environmental characteristics of the communities, a description of the unique value of the World Heritage site and protected properties, an overview of the main legal and institutional baselines of cultural heritage management, infrastructure and community development, a stakeholder map and a strategic assessment of the community and its heritage site should help to set-up and also align the planning process.

4.1 Socio-economic, infrastructural and environmental characteristics of the communities The municipality of Hallstatt has to be considered in the context of, or in relation to the neighbouring communities of Obertraun, Bad Goisern and Gosau. Natural environment, demographic development, economic statistics, traffic infrastructure, education, culture and economic activities as well as agricultural development of the four heritage communities vary from one community to the next but all communities have in common a certain natural and cultural prosperity.

4.2 The World Heritage Region Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut

4.2.1 UNESCO World Heritage Site Together with the neighbouring municipalities of Obertraun, Gosau and Bad Goisern, Hallstatt built the so-called “Welterberegion Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut” (“World Heritage Region Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut” in English) which includes most of the core zone of the UNESCO Cultural Landscape. The site was inscribed in 1997 on the UNESCO World Heritage List due to the following criteria (UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CENTER, 1996):

The landscape is exceptional as a complex of great scientific interest and immense natural power that has played a vital role in human history reflected on the impact of farmer-miners over millennia; in the way mining has transformed the interior of the mountain and through the artists and writers that conveyed its harmony and beauty.

Criterion (iii): Humankind has inhabited the valleys between huge mountains for over three millennia. It is the mining and processing of salt, a natural resource essential to human and animal life, which has given this area its prosperity and individuality as a result of a profound association between intensive human activities in the midst of a largely untamed landscape.

Criterion (iv): The Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut alpine region is an outstanding example of a natural landscape of great beauty and scientific interest which also contains evidence of fundamental

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 11 of 33

human economic activity. The cultural landscape of the region boasts a continuing evolution covering 2500 years. Its history from the very beginning is linked primarily with the economic history of salt extraction. Salt mining has always determined all aspects of life as well as the architectural and artistic material evidence. Salt production on a major scale can be traced back in Hallstatt to the Middle Bronze Age.

Integrity: The property appropriately retains all of the elements linked to evidence of salt mining and processing, associated timber production, transhumance and dairy farming, and still retains the harmony that attracted the 19th century artists and writers. It has not, and does not; suffer from the adverse effects of modern development. Authenticity: Because of its special historical evolution, this cultural landscape has retained a degree of authenticity in nature and society that is outstanding in the alpine region. Resulting from a harmonious interaction between man and environment it has preserved its spatial and material structure to an exceptionally high degree. This quality and context has been further endorsed by a large number of visiting artists whose many canvases and representations are additional fitting testimony to its value.

4.2.2 Protected properties in Hallstatt There are two major groups of protected properties. On the one hand, there are several historical craftsmen houses and wooden huts for traditional vessels and on the other hand, there are the archaeological excavation zones.

4.3 Main legal and institutional baselines of cultural heritage management, infrastructure and community development Considering the legal and institutional environment for cultural heritage protection, infrastructure and community development, a complex - sometimes even conflicting - interplay of legal requirements becomes obvious. Institutions on several levels (national, federal, regional/local) are directly or indirectly involved in heritage preservation and community and infrastructural development in Hallstatt. There have been and still are a number of public and private initiatives targeting in the development of the cultural landscape and/or the regional and local development (for more information, see the CHERPLAN deliverable 3.1 “Regulatory Framework Report” available for download on the project website).

4.4 Stakeholder Environment An overview of stakeholders which are relevant to Hallstatt development is given in Figure 6. This figure provides an idea of how large the number of stakeholders involved is and, how complex the system is.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 12 of 33

Figure 6: Overview of stakeholders relevant to Hallstatt’s development (non-exhaustive list)

4.5 Strategic assessment Strengths and weaknesses of the communities are balancing one another. Thus, intensified cooperation between the municipalities could be provident for the region as a whole, but also for each community individually.

Given the size of Hallstatt, the municipality offers its inhabitants infrastructure and services of high quality. However, the municipality faces several challenges; the most important is very likely to be the aging and the constant decline of its population. On the one side, the fast growing number of day tourists (“hit & run tourists”) offers opportunities for local businesses; on the other side, it also poses challenges for the municipality as it adds extra costs for infrastructure and service provision (e.g.: solid waste management at public places) and impacts (negatively) the life quality of local residents.

When it comes to the strategic assessment of Hallstatt and of the other municipalities of the World Heritage Region, it becomes obvious that there is a potential for optimising the use of strengths and minimizing or balancing out the weaknesses of each community – e.g. through more intensified intercommunal cooperation.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 13 of 33

5 Vision and scenario development: main results

A main feature of the CHERPLAN approach is to systematically distinguish between “soft” and “hard” facts. Whereas “soft facts” refers to the various points of view (perceptions/understandings) of stakeholders and subjective assessments identified during the participatory process, “hard facts” refers to the data collected and analysed in parallel and which are used complementary to the outcomes of the participatory process.

This “twofold” perspective should allow the covering of different “point of views” and “interests” present in a complex system such as Hallstatt’s community, while not losing track of the situation from a more objective angle. Based on scenario development and discussions, opinions, ideas and visions are aligned with “the reality” and effects of specific activities are evaluated.

5.1 Soft facts The following thematic fields were identified during the participatory process in Hallstatt. This process encompassed a series of 8 workshops with the steering committee, a student project, a population survey and a public world café round:  Tourism development in Hallstatt – Costs, benefits and limits,  Communication and transparency of municipal administration, local residents and other relevant stakeholders,  Leisure time facilities,  Living space,  Gastronomic offers for local residents and tourists,  Labour market,  Cultural heritage protection in relation with nature protection and community development,  World Heritage Cultural Landscape – opportunities for intercommunal cooperation

For each thematic field, visions were formulated. We caution here that the point of views raised during the CHERPLAN project are solely focusing on the perceptions of members of Hallstatt’s community and therefore cannot directly be applied to the three other heritage communities.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 14 of 33

Table 1: Overview of thematic fields and associated visions

Thematic field - Tourism development in Hallstatt – Costs, benefits and limits Vision 1 Evaluation of costs and benefits generated by tourism and day tourism („Hit-and-run tourism“) – Focus on costs and benefits for the Municipality Vision 2 Evaluation of limits to tourism development in Hallstatt –Not only the capacity of tourism infrastructure (e.g. number of beds) should be considered here but also positive and negative impacts on the local population resulting from tourism activities (e.g. tourism as a driving force for the local economy or (mass) tourism leading toward the deterioration of life quality of local residents) Vision 3 Creation of compensation mechanisms for the local population (considering the deterioration of life quality of local residents resulting from mass tourism) Vision 4 Greater involvement of the Municipality in the development of tourism– cost recovery for infrastructure and services based on the “user pays principle” Vision 5 Increase transparency/collect more detailed information on the costs for the community generated by secondary residences - cost recovery based on the user pays principle

Thematic field - Gastronomic offers for local residents and tourists Vision 6 Increase quality standards in the tourism sector by improving training and education of tourism industry staff Vision 7 Boost training of local workers in the tourism sector in order to offer high quality and local tourist products and to create stronger links to the World Heritage Region Vision 8 Improve the catering offer (for local people) through better coordination between catering establishments (and hoteliers) in terms of opening times, quality and diversity of products offered Vision 9 Creation / use of synergies between hosts by (improved) coordination of their activities (opening period, distribution of peak load, seasonal adjustment)

Thematic field - World Heritage Cultural Landscape – opportunities for intercommunal cooperation Vision 10 Exploit the full potential of inter-municipal cooperation Vision 11 Fair distribution across all 4 Municipalities of costs and benefits induced by being part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site

Thematic field - Labour market Vision 12 Promote activities to attract new companies in Hallstatt and in the region (toward a diversification of the local labour market) Vision 13 Set-up of economic cooperation between local handcraft establishments

Thematic field - Cultural heritage protection in relation with nature protection and community development Vision 14 Simplification and transparency of decision-making in overlapping jurisdictions Vision 15 Adapt funding instruments and processes leading to funding decisions with regard to cultural heritage conversation to make those clearer and more comprehensible to the population

Thematic field - Leisure time facilities Vision 16 Extend the range of leisure activities for young people by taking more of their interests into consideration and involving local initiatives/associations Vision 17 Improving relationships between students of Hallstatt’s technical school and local young people to minimise conflict risks and increase chances of success for local initiatives

3

Thematic field - Living space Vision 18 Creation of affordable housing for young families by maximising the use of the local existing building stock Vision 19 Creation of affordable housing for young families by providing subsidised starter homes

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 15 of 33

5.2 Hard facts

5.2.1 Past and current development Based on the thematic fields identified during the participatory process and the prioritization of topics raised during the workshop series, further data collection and analyses were focused on the following aspects:  Demographic development  Tourism development (overnight and day tourism)  Development of selected public infrastructure (management of public solid waste, public toilets and drinking water supply)

Most of the data used for the analyses has been provided by the Municipality but also by the Tourism Association and the Federal State of Upper-Austria.

5.2.1.1 Demographic development Hallstatt faces a continuous population exodus since the late 50ies, which got even more severe at the beginning of the 90ies. Between 1951 and 2013, Hallstatt lost about half of its population and, between 2001 and 2011, Hallstatt’s population decreased by 15,5%. In 2012, 794 people were living in Hallstatt (main residents). This negative trend contrasts with the positive demographical development observed at the regional level (i.e. within the political district of Gmunden and within the Federal State of Upper-Austria) but is, for the last decade at least, consistent with the fate of almost 40% of Municipalities in Upper-Austria (see LAND OBERÖSTERREICH, 2011 for more information). These Municipalities have in common that they are located relatively far away from economic areas and political centres. Therefore, some of their inhabitants emigrate towards bigger cities or their surroundings (process of suburbanisation).

5.2.1.2 Tourism development Overnight tourism: The annual number of overnight stays has increased significantly during the last decade and especially in the past five years. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of overnight stays has raised from about 68.000 to 95.000 per year. At the same time, the average length of stay of tourists staying overnight in Hallstatt has decreased from about 1,8 days to 1,6 days. More tourists come to stay overnight in Hallstatt but, on average, they stay for a shorter time. Tourists visiting Hallstatt come from various countries with Austria being the first country of origin (12.700 overnights in 2012), followed by Germany (6.700), China (4,500), USA (4.400) and the Czech Republic (2,600) (BUNDESANSTALT STATISTIK ÖSTERREICH, 2014).

Day tourism: The number of day tourists is not precisely known but can be roughly estimated based on data collected from Hallstatt’s parking space management1. The number of day tourists has increased significantly during the last 7 years, with a strong increase since 2009. It was estimated that between May and October 2013 up to 550.000 day-tourists came to visit Hallstatt whereas in 2009 that number was estimated to be close to 320.000.

1 Parking in Hallstatt is very limited due to geographical constraints. The village centre is traffic free during the day time and the few parking spots available are reserved for the inhabitants of the village. Most of the visitors use one of the 3 paid parking areas located outside the village centre.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 16 of 33

Seasonality: The number of overnight and day tourists visiting Hallstatt reaches a maximum during the high season which is during the summer months of June, July and August. During this period, the monthly use of Hallstatt’s bed capacity2 is at its highest (75% in July and August compared to 10% in November). Further data analysis leads to the conclusion that the number of visitors during spring and autumn is also significantly on the rise which is beneficial to the local tourism industry. The period between May and November is considered as the tourist season.

5.2.1.3 Infrastructure development Hallstatt’s demographical development and the evolution of tourism in the region have an impact on the management of public infrastructure. Tourism is obviously a source of income for the community (e.g. incomes collected through local businesses, local taxes) but it can also generate extra costs (e.g. for the operation and management of public infrastructure and services), which can be an issue for a small community such as Hallstatt.

(Public) Solid waste management

More day visitors imply an increase in the quantity of solid waste to be collected from public collection facilities and disposed of. Between 2010 and 2013, the quantity of solid waste collected increased from 17,7 to 32,6 tons. Most of the waste is produced by day tourists and it can be estimated roughly that a tourist produces on average about 43g of waste per day3. The waste is collected in bins spread across the village (90 in total), by workers of the municipality. This rapid increase of waste quantity generates additional costs for the municipality. According to the Municipality, costs for the collection, transport and disposal of waste is approximatively 127 € per ton (staff costs for waste collection excluded).

Public toilets

There are 6 public toilets in Hallstatt although only 2 of them are frequently used by visitors. These 2 facilities are located in the village centre, and in 2012 and 2013 were equipped with automatic barrier systems. The systems were installed to prevent people who would not pay the fee (0,5 €) from using the toilets. Based on data of the Municipality, it could be estimated that roughly 140.000 people have used the toilets in 2013 and that between 20 and 25% of day tourists are using these facilities each year. Before the installation of the automatic barrier systems, the costs induced for the maintenance of the public toilets were twice as high as the revenues generated by the collection of fees, whereas, after installation, the costs were completely covered and a benefit was generated.4

Drinking water supply

Until 2013, the only water source used by Hallstatt for the drinking water supply of the community was a spring located on one of the surrounding mountains (karst). To improve the drinking water supply system, the Municipality, together with public financial support in 2012 and 2013, invested in

2 887 beds during the summer and 632 beds during the winter 3 for comparison, a 0,5 litre PET bottle weights about 25g 4 Data from the Municipality: Costs for public toilets in 2011 and 2013 (23.000 and 73.000 €) Fees collected at the public toilets in 2011 and 2013 (47.000 and 50.000)

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 17 of 33

the construction of 2 wells in the village, a new drinking water reservoir and pipe rehabilitation works.

In 2013, the total annual water consumption in Hallstatt was estimated to be around 69.000 m3. Between 2004 and 2014, the total annual water consumption has increased due to a slight increase of the water consumption in hotels and private accommodations. It was estimated that tourists consume on average 170 litres of water per overnight stay. The quantity of water consumed by households (120 litres per day, per capita), industry and diverse services (about 18.500 m3 per year) has remained relatively constant. The influence of the increasing number of day tourists on water consumption could not be concluded.

The net water price (€ per m3) in Hallstatt is based on a minimal price given by the Federal State of Upper-Austria and an additional fee of 0,25 € per m35. The gross water price includes an additional 10% added value tax.

5.2.2 Future development (scenario based) In this chapter, possible population and tourism developments in Hallstatt as well as possible economic impacts on selected public infrastructure/services (management of public solid wastes, public toilets and drinking water supply) were evaluated. These infrastructure/services are directly managed by the Municipality and were selected based on the outcomes of the CHERPLAN participation process and discussions with the Municipality. The results presented in this chapter are simple estimates that aim at providing a first insight into possible developments in Hallstatt. However, further and more detailed research would be necessary to provide more reliable estimates.

5.2.2.1 Demographic and tourism development – definition of 3 scenarios Based on a study focused on Hallstatt’s developments during the last 10 years, 3 possible development scenarios (until the year 2023) were defined:

 Scenario 1: “Extreme development” Decrease of the population by 2% every year; increase in the number of overnight stays by 5% every year; increase in the number of day tourists by 10% every year

 Scenario 2: “Moderate development” Decrease of the population by 1% every year; increase in the number of overnight stays by 2,5% every year until 2016 (after 2016, the number of overnight stays remain constant); increase in the number of day tourists by 5% every year

 Scenario 3: “Intervention in Hallstatt’s development through the control/limitation of the community’s demographical development and tourism development” Increase of the population by 0,5% every year; increase in the number of overnight stays by 0,5% every year until 2016 (after 2016, the number of overnight stays remain constant); increase in the number of day tourists by 1% every year

5 The Federal State of Upper-Austria allows municipalities to apply this additional fee only when, in the previous budget year, the municipal expenditures were higher than receipts.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 18 of 33

The results of the scenarios in terms of population size, number of overnight stays and day tourists are given in Table 2.

Table 2: Estimation of population size, number of overnight stays and number of day tourists in 2023 according to the 3 scenarios defined in this study

Tourism: Number of day Tourism: Number of Population size tourists overnight stays/tourists (2013: 785) (estimation for 2013: (in 2013: 94.855) 550.000) Scenario 1 (2023) 642 154.509 1.421.552 Scenario 2 (2023) 710 102.148 892.748 Scenario 3 (2023) 825 99.706 605.410

5.2.2.2 Impacts on infrastructure development For each scenario defined above, costs and revenues development for solid waste management, public toilets and drinking water supply were estimated. These estimations are partly based on the analyses carried out previously (see chapter 5.2.1).

(Public) Solid waste management

Further assumptions:  Daily waste production (to be collected and disposed of by the Municipality): 43g per tourist, per day  Solid waste collected in Hallstatt’s public bins are only produced by day tourists  Costs for waste collection and disposal: 127 € per ton (staff costs are hence not considered here)  Adjustment of costs to inflation: +2,5% per year (i.e. cost for waste collection and disposal will reach 163 € in 2023).

The costs estimated for the year 2023 are given in Table 3. These values must be considered as lower estimates of the real costs that the Municipality will bear because of staff costs (e.g. for the emptying of bins) and possible further investment (e.g. for the upgrade/extension of the collection system) were not considered here. The costs will increase significantly in scenarios 1 and 2 and moderately in scenario 3. Solid waste management does not generate revenues and therefore these additional costs must be recovered by other budget positions of the Municipality.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 19 of 33

Table 3: Costs estimation for the collection and disposal of public solid waste for the year 2023 (staff costs are not considered here)

Amount of solid waste in public bins (tons) Cost in EUR (2013: 32,62 t) (2013: € 4.142) Scenario 1 (2023) 82 € 13.331,-/Year Yearly increase in the number of day tourists +10% Scenario 2 (2023) 43 € 6.991,- /Year Yearly increase in the number of day tourists +5% Scenario 3 (2023) 31 € 5.310,-/Year Yearly increase in the number of day tourists + 1%

Public toilets

Further assumptions:  User fee: 0,5€  25% of day tourists are using the public toilets  For scenario 1: costs increase following further investments required for the extension of facilities (due to the sharp increase in the number of day tourists). The corresponding costs were roughly estimated based on an extrapolation of the costs trend observed between 2004 and 2013 (increase by 64% between 2013 and 2023)  For scenario 2: no costs were estimated  For scenario 3: no further investment required (due to the moderated increase in the number of day tourists) – slight cost increase (increase of only 3% between 2013 and 2023)

Costs and revenues estimated for the year 2023 are given in Table 4. The estimations for scenario 1 and 3 show that costs are recovered and that even benefits are generated. However, caution is required because the costs could only be roughly estimated and the real costs may be higher. It would very likely be the case, if, for instance, a new public toilet facility had to be created.

Table 4: Estimation of costs and revenues for Hallstatt’s public toilet facilities for the year 2023

Estimation Estimation Estimation Number of user during Revenues in EUR Costs in EUR the tourist season (2013: 72.051) (2013: 49.133) (2013: 144.102) Scenario 1 (2023) Yearly increase in the number of day tourists 355.388 177.694 80.764 +10% Scenario 2 (2023) Yearly increase in the number of day tourists 223.187 111.593 NA +5% Scenario 3 (2023) Yearly increase in the number of day tourists 151.353 75.676 50.401 +1%

Drinking water supply

Further assumptions:

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 20 of 33

 Cost development: at first a sharp increase from 57.811 € in 2013 to 137.441 € in 2023 due to the investment costs incurred by the upgrade of the water supply system (see chapter 5.2.1.3) followed by a decrease of 1% every year for scenarios 1 and 2 (current estimations by the Municipality), and an increase of +2,5% every year for scenario 3 (scenario 3 to be considered here as a worst case scenario)  Possible additional costs resulting from a potential increase of the peak water demands (daily and hourly) are not considered here  Increase of the net water price by 2,5% every year (adjustment to inflation)  Average water consumption: 120 litres per capita, per day (local population), 170 litres per overnight stay, other users such businesses, industries, services, schools, etc.: 18.592 m3 per year). These figures remain constant until 2023

Costs and revenues estimated for the year 2023 and for each scenario are given in Table 5. Scenarios 1 and 3 lead both to an increase of the water consumption while in scenario 2, the total water consumption will be lower in 2023 than in 2013. Costs are higher than revenues until 2019 for scenario 1 and until 2021 for scenario 2. After that, and despite the overall decrease of water consumption in scenario 2, the benefits generated every year will be higher than the costs incurred in both scenarios. The results of scenarios 1 and 2 are explained by the favourable assumptions made for costs and water price developments and by the fact that, with regard to water consumption, the decrease of population is partly compensated by the increase of overnight stays in both scenarios. In terms of revenues generated by managing the water supply system, scenario 1 constitutes a better case than scenario 2 for the Municipality. Scenario 3, despite population growth and a moderated increase in the number of overnight stays, represents a worst case scenario for the Municipality because of the disadvantageous development of costs assumed (yearly increase by 2,5%). In this scenario, the costs every year will be higher than the revenues and there will be a growing deficit that will require an increase of the water prices. If we assume the same development of costs for scenario 3 as in scenarios 1 and 2 (i.e. a yearly decrease by 1%), the results for scenario 3 will be similar to the results of scenario 1.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 21 of 33

Table 5: Estimation of costs and revenues for Hallstatt’s water supply for the year 2023 and for each scenario

Estimation Estimation Estimation Water consumption in Revenues in EUR Costs in EUR m3 (2013: 112.634) (2013: 57.811) (2013: 69.100) Scenario 1 (2023) Main assumptions: Yearly decrease of the population by 2% Yearly increase in the number of overnight stays 72.929 146.652 125.555 by 5% Yearly increase of water price by 2,5% Yearly decrease of costs by 1% Scenario 2 (2023) Main assumptions: Yearly decrease of the population by 1% Yearly increase in the number of overnight stays 67.051 134.832 125.555 by 2,5% until 2016 then constant Yearly increase of water price by 2,5% Yearly decrease of costs by 1% Scenario 3 (2023) Main assumptions: Yearly increase of the population by 0,5% Yearly increase in the number of overnight stays 71.683 144.147 171.644 by 0,5% Yearly increase of water price by 2,5% Yearly increase of costs by 2,5%

6 Discussion and selection of field of actions

6.1 Demographical development The population decline in Hallstatt is striking and represents an existential threat to the community. If the decline is not stopped, in a few decades the population size will only be a fraction of what it is today. Even with a steady moderate population growth, it would take several years for Hallstatt to again reach the level attained during the last population census in 2010. Actions are needed to stop this negative trend and continue to ensure the existence of the community. This has been expressed many times by local inhabitants during the CHERPLAN participation process. There is also a fear that Hallstatt could become, in the future, an "open air museum", i.e. a site with beautiful old buildings, a magnificent landscape but empty of its inhabitants. In this case, it is also unclear how the conservation of the Cultural Heritage Landscape itself would be affected, especially in terms of maintenance of buildings and landscape.

6.2 Overnight tourism There was a significant increase in the number of overnight stays in Hallstatt during the last 10 years together with a steady decrease in the average length of overnight stay. From the perspective of hoteliers, a shorter length of stay for overnight tourists is in itself not economically problematic as long as the total number of overnight stays does not drop. For local shops (e.g. souvenir shops), a

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 22 of 33

higher tourist turn-over is beneficial. However, a too frequent exchange of visitors could be perceived as problematic for the local population.

The recent evolution in the number of overnight stays per month shows that Hallstatt is now attracting more and more visitors during the winter months. The peak season is however still taking place during the summer with a number of overnight stays still on its rise despite being close to reaching Hallstatt’s current bed capacity limit (632 beds in winter and 887 beds in summer, 2014). It is also unknown when the annual number of overnight stays will reach a maximum and how high that maximum will be. A longer tourism season would be beneficial for the tourism industry but it is unclear how it would be perceived by the local population and how the latter would really be affected (especially in terms of impacts on life quality). A future stagnation in the annual number of overnight stays or even its decrease cannot be excluded. In that case, it is also unclear how Hallstatt’s community will be affected.

6.3 Day tourism Despite the strong thematization of day tourism during public discussions, it is obvious that the availably of data and facts on the topic is actually very limited. During the project, the number of day tourists during the tourist season (between May and November) could be roughly estimated based on (vehicle) parking and traffic data provided by the Municipality. These estimates, despite being coarse, provide a clear picture of the current development of day tourism in Hallstatt. The number of day visitors is rising sharply and steadily (from 270.000 in 2007 to 570.000 in 2013). However, no figures are yet available for the winter months. The current increase in the number of overnight stays during the winter months could take place along a simultaneous increase of the number of day tourists which could be perceived as problematic by some of the population.

A very important point with regard to possible further development of day tourism in Hallstatt is the missing definition of "boundaries" (or limits) for its growth. Many questions are unanswered: How many day tourists can be received by Hallstatt? Is it possible to set a limit? How can a limit be set? Apart from the capacities of infrastructure (transport, parking capacity, capacity of gastronomy, location / space availability, etc.), to which extent should the opinion of the local population be considered? And even if a limit was set, how would it be possible to control and limit the flow of tourists? In the future a trend reversal (decrease in the number of day tourists) can also not be excluded. In that case, what would that mean for Hallstatt? Furthermore, it would be important to collect more information about the tourists coming to visit Hallstatt for less than a day as well as their needs. How will tourists react to a steady and sharp increase of tourism in Hallstatt? Will they still come despite the crowd? And how can mass tourism and Cultural Heritage Conservation fit together?

6.4 Public infrastructure / services The impacts of possible population and tourism developments on selected public infrastructure/services (management of public solid waste, public toilet facilities and water supply) have been evaluated during the project. Overall, the management of these infrastructures will be possible but challenging for the Municipality as the latter will have to adapt steadily to sudden

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 23 of 33

changes (e.g. increase in the amount of public solid waste produced, increase in the number of public toilet users). Impacts of tourism on public infrastructure currently appear to be not as negative as depicted sometimes during the participation process, especially with regard to cost recovery. There is however a big uncertainty with regard to the future development of costs and therefore caution is advised.

Negative effects of day tourism were found and estimated for the management of public solid waste. Public wastes are mostly produced by day tourists and generate additional costs for Hallstatt’s Municipality which must be covered by other budget positions of the Municipality. These costs are expected to increase significantly in the future.

The costs related to the management of public toilet facilities are expected to increase together with the number of day tourists. But in that case, the Municipality can recover the costs directly from fees collected from the users. In our estimation, the calculated revenues appear to be higher than the calculated costs. However, the uncertainty associated with the costs calculation is high and a sharper costs increase is not unlikely (e.g. beyond a certain number, additional facilities are very likely to be required). If necessary, the fee should be increased.

The example of water supply shows that, with respect to water consumption, the development of overnight tourism (increase) counteracts the current population decline observed in Hallstatt. Cost recovery is obviously significantly influenced by water prices, costs and their respective development. Based on the most likely forecast for the development of costs and prices (see scenarios 1 and 2 in chapter 5.2.2.1), and despite important investments made to improve Hallstatt’s water supply system, revenues will increase faster than incurred costs and therefore, in the medium or long term (10-25 years), costs will be recovered and some benefits will be generated.

6.5 Selection of field of actions Actions are required to serve Hallstatt’s main goals, which are to prevent further population decline, improve life quality of its inhabitants and create incentives to prevent (young) community members to emigrate and attract new members.

Research works and discussions carried out during the CHERPLAN participation process were focused mostly on tourism development in Hallstatt (associated costs, benefits and limits). For this topic, short-term and middle-term activities could be defined at the local and regional levels. These activities aim at serving Hallstatt’s main goals.

 Field of action 1 Definition of limits/capacities for tourism development in Hallstatt and control measures.  Field of action 2: Establishment of compensation mechanisms for the local population (with respect to possible nuisances resulting from mass tourism).  Field of action 3: Intensified coordination of activities dealing with the preservation and conservation of Cultural Heritage as well as with regional and local development.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 24 of 33

7 Preparation for the implementation of selected field of actions

This chapter presents propositions for the implementation of the 3 fields of actions selected during the CHERPLAN project. As previously mentioned these propositions are restricted geographically and thematically to the topics worked out during the CHERPLAN project in Hallstatt. The proposed activities and measures were elaborated based on the project results and are not to be considered yet as definitive but more as a basis for further discussions with stakeholders.

For each activity, the relevant stakeholders, their role and expected implementation costs are described (proposal for action and business plans). Moreover, options for funding and monitoring activities and structures are also presented.

7.1 Expected costs In order to implement the 3 field of actions previously mentioned, an Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) coordinator is required (see also chapter 3). Costs are expected for:

 coordination activities (staff salary, operating costs, travel costs, etc.),  additional expenditures for the Municipality of Hallstatt for the provision of data and support of coordination activities,  inputs/contributions (e.g. studies) of external experts

The costs required for the set-up of an Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) coordinator are not considered here.

7.2 Possible funding sources Possible options for the funding of selected field of actions and coordination activities could be:

 Combined funding by the Austrian Federal Chancellery (Division for the safeguard of Cultural Heritage and World Cultural Heritage), the Federal State of Upper-Austria (UNESCO Coordination Agency) and by local and regional funds (“Kulturlandschaftsförderung”, REGIS, etc.): set-up of the coordination agency and budget support for the implementation of selected activities  Own resources of the Municipality and accordingly increase of the resources (e.g. staff resources) allocated by the Federal State Upper-Austria for inputs/support of the coordination agency

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 25 of 33

7.3 Proposition for the implementation of selected field of actions

FIELD OF ACTION 1: DEFINITION OF LIMITS/CAPACITIES FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN HALLSTATT AND CONTROL MEASURES

Activity 1.1 Definition of limits/capacities for tourism development in Hallstatt Measure 1.1.1 Baseline survey and analysis focused on overnight and day visitors: length of stay, expenses, routes, interests, etc. Measure 1.1.2 Baseline survey and analysis focused on how tourists and tourism activities are perceived from the point of view of local residents and local economic stakeholders Measure 1.1.3 Baseline survey and analysis focused on the real capacities of touristic and public infrastructure (Availability of seats in restaurants, space availability in public places, tourists’ routes/flows, etc.) Measure 1.1.4 Baseline survey and analysis focused on the capacities (as described in Measure 1.1.3) in the neighbouring communities Organisations  World Heritage Coordination Agency involved  Municipality of Hallstatt (Data provision)  Tourism Association of the Inneres Salzkammergut (Data provision)  Municipalities of Obertraun, Bad Goisern and Gosau (Data provision)  External experts (Data collection and analysis) Cost estimation € 30.000-40.000 Implementation Short-term (1-2 Years) period

Activity 1.2 Estimation of (direct and indirect) costs and benefits generated by tourism for the Municipality Measure 1.2.1 Baseline survey and analysis focused on the benefits generated for the Municipality (Added value, local supply support, jobs, somewhat compensation of population decline – e.g. with regard to public services/infrastructure) Measure 1.2.2 Baseline survey and analysis focused on the costs incurred (additional load on infrastructure, peak loads, management of public solid waste, cleaning of public places, air and noise pollution resulting from intense bus traffic, etc.) Organisations  World Heritage Coordination Agency involved  Municipality of Hallstatt (Data provision)  REGIS (Data provision)  Local businesses (Data provision)  External experts (Data collection and analyses) Cost estimation € 40.000-50.000 Implementation Short-term (1-2 Years) period

Activity 1.3 Development of measures for controlling tourism development Measure 1.3.1 Definition and evaluation of scenarios related to the possible development of the tourism industry and local businesses Measure 1.3.2 Presentation and discussion of results with the tourism industry and local businesses Measure 1.3.3 Collection and analysis of comments from the tourism industry and local businesses and discussion of further procedure

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 26 of 33

Organisations  World Heritage Coordination Agency involved  Administration of Hallstatt Municipality  Representatives of Hallstatt’s population  Representatives of the Tourism Association, tourism industry and local businesses (e.g.: carried out by DISCHGU)  REGIS (e.g. for support during the implementation)  External experts (Data collection and analysis, moderation of discussion groups) Cost estimation € 10.000-20.000 Implementation Medium-term (2-5 Years) period

FIELD OF ACTION 2: ESTABLISHMENT OF COMPENSATION MECHANISMS FOR THE LOCAL POPULATION

Activity 2.1 Elaboration of selected revenue models Measure 2.1.1 Baseline survey and analysis focused on day tourism (see also Measure 1.1.1) Measure 2.1.2 Proposals of possible compensation mechanisms (organisation in charge, processing, first estimation of costs and revenues) Organisations  World Heritage Coordination Agency involved  Municipality of Hallstatt (Data provision)  REGIS for external expertise)  External experts (conception/proposal of mechanisms and costs/benefits models)  Other organisations may be involved depending on compensation mechanisms (e.g. PEB, HTL, Catering businesses etc. Cost estimation € 10.000-20.000 Implementation Short-term (1-2 Years) period

Activity 2.2 Expansion of inter-municipal cooperation to balance cost-benefits generated by tourism activity (resulting from the World Heritage status of the site) Measure 2.2.1 Baseline survey and analysis focused on status and potential development in the Municipalities of the World Heritage Region Measure 2.2.2 Identification and evaluation of compensation options Measure 2.2.3 Conception of implementation proposals (organisation in charge, processing, first estimation of costs and benefits) for selected compensation options Organisations  World Heritage Coordination Agency involved  Municipalities of Hallstatt, Obertraun, Bad Goisern and Gosau  REGIS Cost estimation € 10.000-20.000 Implementation Medium-term (2-5 Years) period

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 27 of 33

FIELD OF ACTION 3: INTENSIFIED COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES DEALING WITH THE PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE AS WELL AS WITH REGIONAL AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

Activity 3.1 Expansion/development of the round table of the World Heritage communities as existing instrument for the management of the World Heritage Measure 3.1.1 Discussion with team of the Federal State of Upper Austria for possible expansion/development of the round table Measure 3.1.2 Development of criteria for the evaluation of project proposals Organisations  World Heritage Coordination Agency involved  Municipalities of Hallstatt, Obertraun, Bad Goisern and Gosau  Round table chairman Cost estimation € 5.000-10.000 Implementation Medium-term (2-5 Years) period

Activity 3.2 Coordination of local and regional development initiatives, and funding agencies Measure 3.2.1 Set-up of regular meetings of various stakeholders for preparing round table sessions Measure 3.2.2 Formulation of common development strategies (e.g.: in coordination with existing instruments such as REGIS development strategy, Local development concept, etc.) Measure 3.2.3 Review and use of results generated during the implementation of activities supporting the development strategy Organisations  World Heritage Coordination Agency involved  Municipalities of Hallstatt, Obertraun, Bad Goisern and Gosau  REGIS Cost estimation € 5.000-10.000 Implementation Medium-term (2-5 Years) period

7.4 Proposal for monitoring the implementation of selected activities and updating the list of field of actions A key task of the EPM coordinator - ideally in cooperation with the steering committee and working groups - is to monitor the implementation of selected measures. As previously mentioned, the organization of monitoring activities should be set at the beginning of the planning process. In addition to regular meetings of the steering committee (e.g. once a year), the evaluation of the implementation status of measures may also take place in smaller discussion groups. The EPM coordinator should ensure that the work/discussions/cooperation between stakeholders/participants remains active (e.g. without long interruption) and that the whole process always remain transparent (especially with regard to information flow).

Besides evaluating the effectiveness of implemented measures, discussions should also be used to update and discuss the real impacts of these measures on the stakeholders (e.g. has their situation improved? Have the objectives been achieved? What should be done next? Have new needs for

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 28 of 33

actions been identified?). This document should therefore not be considered as a fixed plan but more as a document for building a framework for a progressive/dynamic planning and discussion process.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 29 of 33

References

BUNDESANSTALT STATISTIK ÖSTERREICH (2014) Ein Blick auf die Gemeinde - Hallstatt. Online in Internet: http://www.statistik.at/blickgem/gemDetail.do?gemnr=40709; June 2014

BUNDESANSTALT STATISTIK ÖSTERREICH (2014) Tourismusstatistik. Online in Internet: http://www2.land- oberoesterreich.gv.at/stattourismus/TOUR_Ergebnis.jsp?GemNr=40709&kat=GEM&Gemeindeauswa hl=ja, 14.6.2014

LAND OBERÖSTERREICH (2011) Leben in Oberösterreich. Ergebnisse der Registerzählung 2011 in Oberösterreich. Abteilung Statistik des Land Oberösterreich. Online in Internet: https://www.land- oberoesterreich.gv.at/cps/rde/xbcr/ooe/Leben_in_Oberoesterreich_Bevoelkerungsentwicklung.pdf, 30.11.2013

UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CENTER (2008) Map “UNESCO World Heritage Cultural Landscape Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut”, scale 1:50000, Online in Internet: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/806/multiple=1&unique_number=952, 19.9.2013

UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CENTER (1996) World Heritage List Hallstatt-Dachstein No. 806, Online in Internet: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/806.pdf, 14.6.2014 WELTERBEREGION Hallstatt – Dachstein/Salzkammergut (2014): Modellprojekt Inneres Salzkammergut. Online in Internet: http://www.welterberegion.at/welterbe-informationen/orte/, 14.2.2014

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 30 of 33

Annex

Workshop series and related project events

PP2 BOKU and PP3 Municipality of Hallstatt

During the 1st CHERPLAN workshop, the Regional Start-up workshop, held in Hallstatt on Oct. 17th, 2011, the CHERPLAN project and its objectives were presented to a project “working group”. The project group consists of a pool of residents from different age groups and social and professional backgrounds selected and invited by the Municipality. The idea of specifically inviting local residents to be part of the working group members was supported by the idea so far their “voice” in community and heritage site development was predominated by the tourism business sector, cultural heritage authorities or other external institutions.The main idea of this workshop was to introduce and discuss potentials and advantages of participatory approaches as a basis for community development and enhancement of cultural heritage. Structures, stakeholders and problems present in Hallstatt in context of its cultural heritage were discussed in the working groups in order to prepare first “rich pictures”.

The 2nd CHERPLAN workshop held in Hallstatt on Nov. 24th 2011 was dedicated to the Environmental Methodology, , was dedicated to an intensive discussion of problem situations in Hallstatt as perceived by the project group members. A participatory methodology was presented by BOKU expert Helmut Jung to be applied in Hallstatt and adapted to the project needs – the Soft-System- Methodology. The declining population, unsatisfactory regulated, fast-growing day-tourism and a therefore compromised life quality for local residents were pointed out as main issues. The workshop participants also expressed the wish to organise a population survey to give every resident a chance to express his/her opinion. The support of an expert was requested to elaborate the survey together with the Hallstatt project team.

During the 3rd CHERPLAN workshop held on January 16th, 2012, Mr. Jung (BOKU) proposed to build up a Hallstatt project team built up by a “steering committee” (representatives of the municipality and a project coordinator) and a number of committed citizens. Mr. Jung emphasized on the importance of the participation of community representatives in form of a project group for the project’s success. Main content of the workshop, however, was the presentation on population surveys as element of participative (environmental) management and planning projects held by BOKU expert (Prof. Pröbstl) from the Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning. Moreover, she proposed possible topics for the survey. Mrs. Pröbstl came up with the idea of involving students (in form of student projects related to her lecture). After the presentation, the workshop participants discussed Mrs. Pröbstl’s proposals.

In the 4th CHERPLAN workshop in Hallstatt, held on March 5th, 2012, Mrs. Pröbstl presented some topics for the population survey. Moreover, she proposed to further elaborate these topics and potential questions for the survey in form a of a student project. The student project should be used for preparing and adapting contents of the main population survey. Mrs. Pröbstl proposed some focus topics for the students which were discussed and adapted by the working group members.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 31 of 33

Following a kick-off lecture and preparatory research in Vienna, the student project was carried out in Hallstatt between March 26th-30th 2012.The students elaborated focus topics for the survey, interviewed local experts and presented their main outcomes and ideas in a public presentation on March 30th, 2012.

 Group 1 “Image of Hallstatt as World Heritage site – oppressed or supported” identified different conceptions of the town (differentiation of internal and external image trough interviews in Vienna and Hallstatt) Based on that, ideas for an image changes were developed.  Group 2 “School and Future” worked out some proposals for extending the school’s importance for employment and local craftsmanship. Moreover they considered the idea of establishing a youth center more closely.  Group 3 “Tourism and Spatial Planning” carried out tourist trackings in order to classify different kinds of tourists in Hallstatt. Based on that, proposal for innovative tourist packages were elaborated.  Group 4 “Hallstatt in the World Heritage Region” focused on the identification of strengths and weaknesses of the current regional cooperation and pointed out the importance of fostering a closer and more target-oriented cooperation of the communities in the region.  Group 5 “Mass-tourism vs. classy tourism” looked at the characteristics of Hallstatt’s day- tourism more closely and specifically elaborated ideas and proposals in relation to day- tourists arriving with the bus. During the 5th CHERPLAN workshop, on May 14th, 2012, the results of the student project were presented. Mrs. Pröbstl continued with a proposal of the questionnaire for the up-coming general population survey. This proposal not only incorporated outcomes of the student projects, but also topics of previous workshops of the project group. The questionnaire was discussed and further adapted in a group discussion.

The population survey was carried out in Hallstatt in January and February 2013 and aimed at evaluating life quality, tourism and cultural heritage, as well as potential development strategies in Hallstatt from the people’s perspective. In total, 36% of the 720 questionnaires sent to Hallstatt community members were completed and sent back to BOKU. This good return rate as well as the large attendance at the public meeting prove the interest of the population for the CHERPLAN Project and moreover for the future development of the community.

In the 6th CHERPLAN workshop on the 15th of April, 2013, the Pilot Project Development Workshop, key-outcomes of the population survey were presented. A main result of the survey shows that although the majority of the population is proud of Hallstatt, and of its fame worldwide attracting many foreign tourists (tourism is acknowledged as the main component of the local economy), the majority of respondents also resent the high number of tourists as having a negative impact on their life quality. Not all, but many of the respondents also wish for a shift in tourism patterns that would imply an increase in the number of overnight tourists together with a decrease in the number of day tourists. The presentation was followed by a general discussion on the survey’s outcomes dominated by the topics of tourism, heritage protection and Hallstatt and its qualities as “place of residence”. After the general discussion, the project group was asked to provide feed-back on the presentation

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 32 of 33

and its contents in order to actively prepare a public presentation of the survey (planned for May 7th, 2013) where the results of the population survey should be discussed in public. Specifically, the following questions were discussed in a moderated group discussion: which results have been surprising? Which ones could be the most interesting for the inhabitants? Have all contents and the style of the presentations been clear? Has there been missing something? Which method should be used for a public discussion (“activity planning”) on the survey’s outcomes and further steps in the community to address issues raised during the survey?

On May 7th, 2013, a public presentation of the population survey’s outcome was held followed by a discussion of the presentation. After that, people were invited to join a public Action Planning World Café Workshop. In the discussion directly following the presentation, the potential impacts of a shift of the tourism patterns on the community and the possible management procedures that could lead toward it were discussed thoroughly. Moreover, the different interests of local residents and representatives of the gastronomy got obvious as well as the tension between them. During the second part of the public meeting, the public was invited to participate in a World Café session where ideas concerning following topics could be shared by the participants: employment, hostelry and accommodation, building and living in Hallstatt, leisure and youth. Possible actions to address some of the key-issues were elaborated in small groups and afterwards presented to the other tables for another general discussion.

For the 7th CHERPLAN workshop held in Hallstatt, the second Pilot Project Development workshop, a list of objectives and sub-targets was elaborated by BOKU using the outcomes of WS 1-6, the student project and the population survey. Based on the list, fields of action were prioritized and concrete pilot projects planned by the working group members. A guideline prepared by BOKU guiding through objectives and sub-targets with questions like e.g. “Objective A is based on which world view?”, “Who would be profiting?”, “What are the first steps for achieving this target?”, “Who would need to get active for that?”, “Who could be negatively impacted by that?”, “What other circumstances/prerequisits have to be taken into account?” Initially, this task was proposed to be carried out in form of a role-play, in order to also discuss interests and perceptions of players not involved in the working group. However, only a few working group members attended the workshop. Thus, the methodology was switched to an open group discussion. The group prioritized the following two project activities: (1) Concept development for local value creation and transfer of financial benefits from day-tourism to the community (Vouchersystem) (2) Concept development for adaptation of the parking space management and tariffs.

CHERPLAN / D5.3.6 Page 33 of 33