Péter Szabó
1447-CUL-SZA-HU
Management of Mixed Cultural and
Natural World Heritage Sites in East-Central Europe: A Case Study of
Visegrád
Draft Research Paper
NB. As the final paper is intended to
be a comparative as well as a case study for Visegrád, the
present version cannot, by definition, be more than a reflection of the
stage of the work I am in at the moment. This holds true in two
respects. Firstly, I am continuously conducting research on
Visegrád itself, which involves a number of repeated meetings
with those involved in policy decisions at the site. Each individual
meeting can – and often does – alter my understanding of the situation.
Secondly, although I do have some knowledge of the Polish and Czech
situation, I have not visited the chosen World Heritage sites yet,
therefore true comparison in these cases is not possible at present.
Also, at this stage of research, I am mainly focusing on the management
of the cultural landscape and less on the built heritage, which is
reflected in the disproportionate handling of these matters in the
piece below. Some of the points are more elaborate, some are merely
touched upon. The final work will treat all aspect in depth and will
contain some more issues not included here.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: World Heritage and Management Plans
2. World Heritage in East-Central Europe
3. Management of WH Sites in EEC, Visegrád and Pilis: A
Case-Study
a. Introduction to Visegrád and Pilis
b. The Historical Aspect
c. The Natural Aspect
d. Ownership
e. Management
f. Inter-Agency Relations
g. Finances
h. Visitor Management
4. Conclusions
1. Introduction: World Heritage and
Management Plans
What is UNESCO World Heritage? According to the official definition, it
is „cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of
outstanding value to humanity .”1 What it really is is
a high
prestige collection of those sites that each country values most. Being
on the List has tremendous effects: allegedly one third of world
tourism is directed to World Heritage sites. The List has a history of
more than three decades, and has gone through many changes. As a sign
of the ‘maturity’ of the system, managing inscribed and potential
UNESCO World Heritage sites has recently become a topical issue.2
For many years after its foundation (1972), the World Heritage
Convention was engaged in establishing and then balancing the list of
sites, while, although the possibility of deletion from the list
existed, what happened to the actual sites was of little concern in the
overall mechanism of the Convention. Changes in this general attitude
started in the 1980s, but it was as late as 1997 that the States
Parties (those countries that have adhered to the Convention) agreed
that they would provide Periodic Reports on the conditions of their
sites and on the application of the World Heritage Convention.3
The compulsory Periodic Reports brought the question of management
plans to the centre of attention. It has become clear that only those
sites will be able to successfully keep up their standards that have
well-designed management plans. A management plan, in any case, should
also be necessary because the Periodic Reports need a baseline to which
to compare the changes, positive or negative. The World Heritage
Committee soon admitted that this problem needed consideration. It also
realised two important factors. Firstly, that the earlier unregulated
practice lead to many World Heritage Sites not having a management plan
at all. In fact, even the very simple question whether a management
plan was necessary before a property could be inscribed on the List was
undecided. Secondly, that the problem of management plans was a policy
issue that required decision by the World Heritage Committee.
The new policy of the World Heritage Convention is that all sites
nominated for inclusion on the List must have management plans. In the
exceptional other cases, a date must be supplied when the management
plan will be available. This will apply also to those sites that are
already on the List but lack management plans or traditional
management. The Committee also recognised that there should exist
examples and models of management plans of different sites to help the
preparation of plans for other older and newer sites. The next session
of the WH Committee (2004) will discuss a proposal for the preparation
of guidance documents for the protection of WH properties that would
supplement the Operational Guidelines. These could include management
of certain types of properties and case-studies of best practices.
The present study forms part of the above general trend, and aims at
analysing the current management practices of mixed cultural and
natural World Heritage sites in East-Central Europe in order to help
the preparation of a management plan for the tentative WH listed site
of the Medieval Royal Seat and Parkland in Visegrád, Hungary.4
2. World Heritage in East-Central
Europe
East-Central Europe may have many definitions, but for the present
study it means four countries: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
and Hungary.5 These countries are fairly
well-represented in the
List: 12, 12, 5, and 8 sites, respectively. It is obvious that the size
of the country and the number of sites are in no close relation: The
small Czech Republic has as many sites as the vastly larger Poland.
However, if one is interested in mixed cultural and natural sites, or
cultural landscapes,6 the choices are not too wide.
The Czech have
one site: The Lednice-Valtice cultural landscape; Poland has two
cultural landscapes that are really designed parkscapes and the famous
Bialowieza forest; there is nothing in Slovakia; while, surprising as
it may be, Hungary has three proper cultural landscapes on the List
(Lake Fertő, Hortobágy, and Tokaj) and two cultural sites with a
significant landscape component. In other words, Hungary pays much more
attention to cultural landscapes (at least as far as the World Heritage
is concerned) than any other country in the region.
On the Hungarian Tentative List of ten sites, there are three more
cultural landscapes, the Medieval Royal Seat and Parkland in
Visegrád being one of these. As the site may be nominated for
inclusion into the World Heritage List in 2005 (this depends on far
more factors that the present author can be accounted for), there is a
need for an adequate management plan to be prepared. I have decided to
study the two representative sites from East-Central Europe: Bialowieza
forest in Poland/Belarus and the Lednice-Valtice cultural landscape in
the Czech Republic. Given the common history of the East-Central
European region, I hope to gain important insights from how these sites
are managed and what kind of problems they face from everyday
operations to broad legal concepts. I have also decided to study some
English examples, for an entirely different reason. Management is
universal, regardless of World Heritage status. England is certainly
the best place in Europe for the management of cultural landscapes.
Both the knowledge of the history of the landscape (which is crucial to
proper management) and practical management are highly advanced, and,
as opposed to other countries, attention is paid that information be
made available to the public. Another significant reason for involving
English examples is that Visegrád (and the surrounding parkland
called Pilis) have close historical parallels in England. The whole
problem of medieval Royal Forests (which will be discussed later) is
best acknowledged and researched in this country.
3. Management of WH Sites in EEC,
Visegrád and Pilis: A Case-Study
a. Introduction to Visegrád and Pilis
Pilis (this historical name includes what are nowadays called Pilis and
Visegrádi mountains) is a cultural landscape. As such, its
history was formed by three forces: nature (the community of plants and
animals), authority (through some administrative form), and people
living there. The focal point of the territory is Visegrád,
where there are extensive remains of a medieval royal centre: a castle,
a royal palace with its gardens, and a Franciscan friary.7
The Medieval Royal Seat and Parkland in Visegrád is one of the
last European remains of a Royal Forest. Such a Forest was a territory
set aside from common law and preserved for royal hunting (primarily of
deer).8 This resulted in an unconscious policy towards what
would
be termed today as ‘nature conservation.’ At Visegrád, this
policy has been continuous for a thousand years. Forests were also to
express the sacred nature of royal power, therefore they often
incorporated monastic houses or hermitages associated with the royal
house. A Royal Forest includes built heritage – the royal residence,
and natural heritage – the hunting ground. Royal rights were rarely
exclusive, most Forests had common rights attached to them, therefore
Forests evolved as exceptionally complicated systems with consequently
intricate landscapes. All elements in such landscapes were of equal
importance, which is why Royal Forests are extremely rarely preserved
fully intact.
Visegrád is a significant cultural landscape in the above
context. While the castles, palace, garden, Franciscan friary and
National Park themselves do not – with the exception of the palace,
which has the firsts products of Renaissance outside Italy – represent
unique values, and are preserved in and restored to various conditions,
their combination makes them an outstanding monument of the kind of
landscape structure that was prevailing for half a millennium and
created the richest cultural landscapes we know. What enhances the
value of this group of landscape elements is that they were – by
European standards – untouched until the nineteenth century, therefore
their medieval features were corrupted by deterioration rather than
early-modern restructuring.
In 2000, a World Heritage nomination was prepared for Visegrád,
although the Hungarian State, after all, withdrew this application
before actually handing it in. Nonetheless, the WH experts’ reports on
the document are available. Visegrád was put on the Hungarian
tentative list of WH Sites, and at present negotiations are held, in
which the Hungarian WH Secretariat expressed its will to hand in a new
version of Visegrád’s application in 2005. The proposed
core area consists of the royal palace and castle within the town of
Visegrád together with the whole outer territory of the town
encompassing ca. 3000 ha of woodland. The buffer zone is identical with
the territory of the Pilis part of the Duna-Ipoly National Park.
b. The Historical Aspect
The essence of cultural landscapes is their historical development.
Without understanding how they evolved, it is impossible to manage them
properly. In other words, first we must understand what we have, and
only then can we start thinking about what we should do with it. This,
however, is not a simple task to achieve. Landscapes are far more
difficult subjects than buildings, for example. Not only do they
involve the activities of civilisations long gone and civilisations
that did not care to write, but they also incorporate the workings of
nature, which, at the moment, are understood only superficially. The
study of the combination of human and natural activities has a rather
short history,9 and the future of the world’s cultural
landscapes
depends on how quickly advances are made in this field, and how quickly
the knowledge thus acquired is put into policy practice and practical
management.
According to a widely accepted theory - which nonetheless explains the
dimly-lit beginnings of Hungarian history, and therefore will never be
aptly proven – around the year 1000, when the Kingdom of Hungary was
formed, uninhabited and lordless lands went into the possession of the
king. Pilis was one of these, and until the end of the Middle Ages the
sources talk about it as „the king’s own Forest”.10
Initially, this
more or less wooded area was a royal hunting ground, several hunting
lodges were built to serve the needs of the royal family and their
friends. The king himself hunted sometimes in person, yet if it was for
venison, he mostly relied on the people called „erdőóvó”
(Forest-guard). Then, in the thirteenth century, alongside with the
changes that transformed the whole kingdom, this system was also
altered. As more and more land went out of royal possession, Pilis,
which had been regarded as an oversized private estate, achieved a
proper administrative form, and became one of the counties of the
kingdom. This county, however, was different from other ones due to the
fact that it was mainly wooded: certain characteristics of ordinary
counties were entirely missing, certain people (such as the
Forest-guards) replaced ordinary folks. A Royal Forest, as it was
mentioned in medieval sources, is not to be imagined as an oversized
wood: it certainly had more tree than the neighbouring regions, but it
was an administrative unit, not a biological one.
The transformation of the royal estate into the Royal Forest went
parallel with the transformation of the hunting lodges into monastic
houses. This is a speciality of Pilis: there were four monasteries
within the Forest: three Pauline (Szentlászló,
Szentlélek, Szentkereszt) and a Cistercian (near Kesztölc).
Pilis provided them with the most suitable location possible: secluded
from the mundane world, yet within a day’s walk from the most important
centres of the kingdom: Buda, Visegrád, Esztergom, or
Fehérvár. The Paulines are especially interesting in the
respect that this order is the only Hungarian-founded monastic
movement, which, as far as they their knowledge went, sought its
origins in Pilis Forest.
Another event of the highest significance in the history of Pilis was
the construction of the castle of Visegrád in the mid-thirteenth
century. There had been a castle in Visegrád before, built upon
the ruins of a Roman fortress on Sibrik-hill,11 the
focal place of
the ancient Co. Visegrád. This fell from use by the early 1200s,
for the county centre moved to Esztergom. While hunting residences
gradually became out-of-date and the Forest was in need of some new
function, Queen Mary (wife of King Béla IV) apparently driven by
her own ideas, started to build a castle above the old fortress,
financed by selling her own jewels. The new castle was at least partly
ready by 1251.
The settlement system of the area also reflects this basic development
pattern, yet has its own peculiarities. Today one will find relatively
few nucleated villages with high population where there used to be many
more smaller settlements. We know of one hundred medieval settlements,
thirty-seven of which has its name preserved in documents. The smaller
ones without known names are characteristic of the
Árpádian age (1000-1301), they represent an age when
there was constant tension between royal rights and settlements
encroaching upon royal land. In the fourteenth-fifteenth centuries,
there existed about thirty larger villages. It is remarkable that the
boundary of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve preserves the boundary of the
Royal Forest almost intact, as can be worked out from the settlement
system: namely the Royal Forest was most probably the territory
surrounded by the settlements.
This system was dramatically altered by the Ottoman occupation of the
area in the mid-sixteenth century. Not only did the monasteries
disappear, but the whole settlement structure was also demolished (all
but four settlements were depopulated for some time at least). When the
kingdom was liberated in the late seventeenth century, Pilis was
practically empty. New settlers had to be brought mainly from the
Slovak regions, though for example Szentendre still preserves some of
its Serb population and culture. In the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries Pilis was partly royal possession, and partly private holding
of magnates and that of the monastic orders that reappeared after the
Ottomans had gone. Most of the wood in this period went to supply the
Habsburg garrison in Pest-Buda. In the twentieth century Pilis is taken
care of by the state, through the Pilis Parkforestry and, more
recently, the Duna-Ipoly National Park.
c. The Natural Aspect
In close connection with the historical development outlined above,
Visegrád and Pilis preserve many rare and interesting aspects of
wildlife. In consequence, they are part of the Duna-Ipoly National
Park, formed in 1997. Pilis is also one of the UNESCO Biosphere
Reserves since 1981.12 There are two core-areas of the
Biosphere
Reserve in the proposed World Heritage area and further eight in the
buffer zone. In the recently established Forest-Reserve Programme of
the Nature Conservation Authority of the Ministry for Environment, the
buffer zone features two reserves: Pilis-peak and
Prédikálószék, the latter of which has a
common boundary with the core area of the proposed World Heritage
site.13 Rare plants and animals in the region range
from Linum
dolomiticum, a small and fragile plant, which is not found anywhere
else in the world, through Ferula sadleriana on top of Pilis-peak,
which grows in altogether six places in Europe, to the more familiar
Pulsatilla grandis, red and roe deer and wild swine.
d. Ownership
Research carried out so far has demonstrated that ownership is a
crucial question in the effective management of sites. It is essential
that the ownership of any given place is free of complications. This is
an especially burning issue in East-Central Europe, where fifteen years
ago the old system of land-ownership was swept away together with
communism. In Hungary, for example, a firm and working order of land
ownership has yet to be established through processes that change ever
so often. Visegrád is a good example of this.
When designating the core area for the 2000 application (which I was
taking part in), we tried to include only such territories that should
present no problems as far as ownership is concerned. This lead to a
practical, if somewhat arbitrary solution: in addition to the royal
monuments in the town of Visegrád itself, we decided to include
only the lands within the boundaries of Visegrád. As this would
have been difficult to explain in any other than strictly materialistic
terms, the proposed buffer zone included the whole of the Pilis part of
the National Park. This structure still seems reasonable today. Is it
as simple as it seems? I shall give one detailed example to illustrate
the problem. 14
The woodland that belongs to the core area seems to be the property of
the Pilis Parkforestry, Ltd. In fact, however, it is state owned,
through the Treasury Property Directorate (Kincstári
Vagyonigazgatóság). The Parkforestry only manages the
area. Being a limited company, however, the Parkforestry is a legal
body in its own right. This matters far more than it might seem at the
first sight. The Parkforestry is taken to have a different legal
position in different cases. When approaching one of the largest pools
of money available in Hungary: state funding, the Parkforestry is
understood as a state owned institution, and is ruled out in the first
round for being ineligible.
On other occasions, however, the Parkforestry acts as a perfectly
normal legal body. A very strange example of this is the upper castle
at Visegrád. The royal castle at Visegrád has two parts,
the lower one properly belongs to the local museum, but the upper one,
for one reason or another, is the property of the Parkforestry. Here
property is understood literally. The upper castle is not state owned
and managed by the Parkforestry but simply belongs to it. In effect,
the Parkforestry, which originally has to do with trees, does not „own”
a single tree, but does own a castle. At the moment, negotiations are
held to transfer the castle to the state so that it could enjoy the
status of all other territories managed by the Parkforestry, mostly
because the company is not rich enough to provide adequate means to
maintain the castle.
How far is this characteristic of other sites in East-Central Europe?
This needs to be clarified through further research.
Good examples of clear ownership are to be found in England. Hatfield
Forest, for example, belongs to the National Trust, which is a
registered charity and completely independent of government. They have
an Act of Parliament, therefore their properties are inalienable by
law. The ownership of Hatfield therefore is very simple: it belongs to
one legal body and cannot be taken away from it under any pretext.
Burnham Beeches are another good example. This site is owned by the
Corporation of London. This legal body is also registered charity, and
also has its own Act of Parliament that makes its properties
inalienable. The Corporation is indeed older than the Parliament
itself, therefore has a very long tradition of being independent. These
examples, however desirable, are unrealistic in East-Central Europe,
mostly because the tradition of long-established independent agencies
with heritage management as their main focus do not exist. A more
similar example to that of Visegrád is the New Forest, which
almost entirely belongs to the Forestry Commission, a
governmental department. The Forest has recently been declared a
National Park, which puts it into a situation quite like
Visegrád and Pilis. The effects of this event, however, are yet
to be seen.
e. Management
An important factor to be considered at any heritage site is the legal
protection the territory has. This is especially so in the case of
World Heritage sites, because being on the World Heritage list does
not, in itself, give any formal protection. (It is unlikely, however,
that a site without any protection could ever make it to the List.)
The built heritage in Visegrád is protected as Historical
Monumental Environment, and several buildings are protected
individually as well. This, given the presence of the local museum,
works very well, although there are oddities, such as the upper castle
mentioned above. Any improvements – as laid out in the development plan
for the city – can only be carried out with the consent of the Museum.
As for the woods, the whole area is part of Duna-Ipoly National Park,
and thus is protected. This is apparently enough to avoid serious
problems, but how is the protection implemented?15 It
should, in
theory, be carried out through the management plan of the National
Park. This, however, does not exist, and will remain non-existent in
the foreseeable future. Why is this so? Although the management
plan should exist by law, at the moment the National Park Directorate
is unable to produce it. Four people work in the Pilis branch of the
National Park (on some 20 000 ha!) and their capacities are fully used.
To prepare a full management plan would, in their estimate, involve a
team of 10-odd people working for years. External funding to hire a
consulting company is not available.
For the moment, the substitute for the missing management plan of the
National Park is the forestry management plan of the Pilis
Parkforestry. This, nonetheless, puts nature protection in a passive
situation. They have to countersign every operation that goes on in the
woodland, but they cannot actively make the Parkforestry do anything
they do not want to do. For example, a well-known fact in habitat
management is that meadows need mowing (or at least grazing) so as not
to lose their characteristic plants.16 If the
Parkforestry wants to
mow one of the beautiful upland meadows in Pilis, the National Park
will certainly not object. If, however, the Parkforestry would not mow
the meadow, the National Park cannot do anything to make the mowing
happen, and in consequence the plants will be lost.
Furthermore, it is obvious that once the management plan of the
National Park is ready, a strange situation will occur: the same
territory will have two management plans. Can this really be the
situation the parties wish to achieve? A recent policy document of the
Nature Conservation Authority of the Ministry for Environment, entitled
“The forestry concept of nature protection and its long-term
development strategy”17 attempted to address this
problem. This
70-page work was born out of the pressure laid both on foresters and
nature conservationists to work towards woodland management that would
meet the standards of the twenty-first century, and is mostly
applicable to the situation in Visegrád. It describes how those
woods within nature protected areas should be managed. It also
acknowledges that it is close to impossible to have state-owned limited
companies with economic pressures on them running woodland management
in nature reserves and expect them to manage those woods putting
conservation in the first place (which is exactly the situation in
Pilis). The solution this document offers is that the whole system of
woodland ownership should be transformed and the limited companies
should rather be budgetary agencies with proper state subsidies. (This
is how the Pilis Parkforesty would wish things to be). The document
also proposes that it would be best if the National Parks overtook much
of the woodland in their respective territories, however, this would
create another problem: there would be no control over the National
Parks in how they manage their lands. Management plans are also
discussed, but in a somewhat vague manner, pointing out some of the
difficulties, but avoiding frankly asking whether two management plans
for the same area are necessary. Instead, close co-operation is
suggested between foresters and nature conservationists. Not a word is
written about how a piece of land could be managed two ways at the same
time.
The document described above will most probably directly influence the
management of the proposed World Heritage area. Some of its points are
reasonably close to what appears to be the best solution at the moment,
but some are evasive. Pressure should be laid on policy makers to come
up with a workable solution for the problem of management plans.
f. Inter-Agency Relationships
Another highly relevant issue in the management of Visegrád,
already touched upon several times, is the relationship between
different agencies and authorities in the area. As we could see, their
territorial competences often overlap. This is not only true for the
Parkforestry and the National Park. The latter oversees the local
Museum as well (because the Museum buildings and all the protected
monuments are within the town of Visegrád, which is entirely
part of the National Park). It is also obvious the Local Government of
Visegrád cannot be left out of any decision that affect the
future of the site. It is therefore essential that all parties involved
maintain at least a good working relationship.
Although everybody I have ever heard talking complained about the
National Park to a certain extent, in general the situation seems to be
better than expected. Even where the most problematic situation could
be imagined – between the Parkforestry and the National Park – no very
serious conflicts are known. The National Park sympathises with the
Parkforestry and understand that they have meaningless, but nonetheless
strenuous, economic pressures on them. This is apparently due not to a
general understanding atmosphere between foresters and nature
conservationists, but is inherent in the site. Visegrád is a
small town where people know each other. Personal contacts have long
histories. Some of the staff of the National Park started their careers
at the Parkforestry.
g. Finances
Where does the money to finance an effective management come from?
Virtually all of it from the institutions that are directly involved in
the management: the National Park, the Parkforestry, the King Matthias
Museum, and the Local Government. To the best of my knowledge, no
substantial money comes from outside this circle. The general financial
situation is therefore restricted. Money, on the other hand, is very
short. Probably the single most irritating problem of the National Park
is the lack of money. They do not even possess proper offices. The
number of staff should also be at least doubled. However, as long as
the only source of income is the central budget, slow improvement can
be hoped for at the most.
Money, however, plays a part in the development of the area not only
through incomes, but has more subtle ways of influencing the situation.
The Parkforestry again will serve as an example. Game-keeping in the
area is a highly profitable business. The more deer and wild swine live
in the area, the higher the income from hunting – but the worse for the
regeneration of plants. As the Parkforestry is a limited company with
economic pressures on it, however much they would like to lower the
numbers of game, they cannot afford it. These numbers are set in a
separate law, however, the numbers there are expressed as ’from a X to
Y in a given territory’, which leaves far too much room to move whose
interest it is to maintain unnaturally large numbers of deer and swine.
The Parkforestry claims that hunting should not be a commercial
activity in a National Park, but first they would have to be a
budgetary agency rather than an economic company to be able to give up
the incomes from hunting.
h. Visitor Management
This aspect of the site will have to explored in depth. Visegrád
is one of the main tourist destinations in the country, comfortably
close to Budapest to attract even weekend visitors to Hungary. The
possible inclusion of the site in the World Heritage List would most
probably double this number,18 which is a problem all
parties
involved seem unprepared to handle.
4. Conclusions
At the present stage of research, it would be too early to draw
conclusions. The individual aspects of the management of the site need
to be explored in more depth, more aspects need to be included, and the
necessary comparative data must be collected and processed.
Footnotes
1. http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=160
2. Bernard M. Feilden and Jukka Jokilehto, Management Guidelines for World Cultural
Heritage Sites (Rome: ICCROM, 1993).
3. For more on Periodic Reporting, see
http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=172.
4. The Tentative List is the official pool of sites in any given
country from which those sites to be actually nominated for inclusion
into the World Heritage List are chosen.
5. In the spirit of Jenő Szűcs, Les
trois Europes (Paris: Editions L’Harmattan, 1985).
6. Definitions are not obvious. For a long time a site had to be
either natural or cultural, now (within the cultural part) cultural
landscapes are recognised, however, definitions being restrictive as
they are, many sites would never exactly fit them. Bialowieza (see
later in connection with Poland) is a good example. It is inscribed as
a natural site, and it is only recently being discovered how much of a
cultural landscape it really is.
7. József Laszlovszky, ed., Medieval Visegrád (Budapest:
ELTE, 1995).
8. Oliver Rackham, The Last
Forest (London: Dent, 1989).
9. The first larger study was probably Colin R. Tubbs, The New Forest: An Ecological History (Newton
Abbot: David and Charles, 1968). Note that this was also about a Royal
Forest.
10. For more on the history of Pilis, see Péter
Szabó, Woodland and Forests
in Medieval Hungary (Oxford and Budapest: Archaeopress and
Archaeolingua, forthcoming).
11. Mátyás Szőke, Visegrád:
Ispánsági központ (Visegrád: county
centre) (N. p.: TKM Egyesület, 1986).
12. Károly Janata, Beszámoló
jelentés a Pilis Bioszféra Rezervátumról
(Report on the Pilis Biosphere Reserve) (unpublished, 2004).
13. Ferenc Horváth, Katalin Mázsa, and Géza
Temesi, “Az erdőrezervátum-program” (Forest reserves programme
in Hungary), ER 1 (2001):
5-20.
14. The following is based on discussions with Péter
Erdős, leader of the Visegrád unit of the Pilis Parkforestry.
15. The following is based on discussions with Miklós
Papp, leader of the Pilis branch of the Duna-Ipoly National Park.
16. William J. Sutherland and David A. Hill, ed., Managing Habitats for Conservation
(Cambridge: University Press, 1995), 197-230.
17. A
természetvédelem erdészeti szakmai
koncepciója és távlati fejlesztési
feladatai.
http://www.kvvm.hu/dokumentum.php?content_id=295§ion_id=2
18. Myra Shackley, ed., Visitor
Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites (Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000).