Regional dynamics in mountain areas and the need for integrated policies

15

tourism activities or other exchange relations to outside regions were expressed extraordinarily. The
shifts in the social structure itself, together with a new understanding of the inter-relation of the
regional economy to other areas, meant that mountain areas are not any more the idyllic place as
many urban people had wished them to stay for ever. New rural functions have emerged not at least
because of the decreasing of local resources and the increased insertion into the “global” economy
and global division of labour (Persson 1994, p. 140). New uses in mountain areas are looked for as
a necessity to grasp the limited options available but they correspond also to a much enlarged
concept of amenity-based development (Dax 1998b). The discussion with regard to this point has
moved on in the last years, particularly backed through the deepening of the issue of sustainability.
Yet, the doubts about actual environmentally sound (rural) development (see, e.g. Greer 1992)
continue to be relevant, as application of the concept is hardly advanced.

The future for development of mountain areas will be particularly shaped by the values of different
groups, both inside the regions and outside. Through an increased bias on consumer demands new
conditions for development and a wide variety of activities have been established. Although in many
cases such initiatives started from the wish to extend the farm-based income they could expand to
other sectors as well and had a significant effect on the local economy (Loibl 1997). At the European
level it was in particular the LEADER Community initiative which deliberately aimed at using changes
which favour innovation in a rural context. The LEADER European Observatory found the following
three dimensions most relevant to rural innovation:

* “the diversification of local economies;

* the intensification of interactions between the local and global context;

* the strengthening of relations between local actors: toward new internal or local synergies”
(AEIDL 1997, p. 19 f.).

The factors are extremely important in the situation of (remote) mountain areas where either
difficulties in access or conflicts on restricted use potentials in a largely sensitive environment prevail.

6. Conclusions for policy design

“History ... tells us that regions which have been defined as marginal at one point in time often have a
quite different status at another point in time” (Andersson 1994, p. 215). This conclusion from the

<<   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   >>

More intriguing information