Recent analyses on the increasing movement towards mountain related activities, research and
policies could prove that significant changes of this traditional picture have occurred. The discussion
having started from issues of nature preservation, signified by catchwords like “mountain wilderness”,
has moved on to the concept of “ecological sensitive areas” (Dax 1998a) and culminated in the
notion of “cultural landscapes”. In the 90s the Alps are more and more conceived of as “model
region of Europe”. Setting the Alps into the “heart of the Europe of the regions” (CIPRA 25/1992,
p. 4 - c.f. Stremlow 1998, p. 233) indicates not a mere territorial, but also a symbolic dimension.
Assigning tasks of a “laboratory” to them means that the former image of a peripheral, structurally
weak region is taken from the Alps.
Mountain regions are characterised by large areas which nearly fall outside almost any (traditional)
economic use. Thus, when measuring the overall population density mountain areas are rather
sparsely populated. The Alps for example dispose of a density of about 50 - 60 inhabitants/km2, in
most of the national parts of the concerned countries (Schindegger et al. 1997, p. 28). Obviously at
a lower territorial level the variability of this indicator increases drastically. For Austria it can be
shown that population density in extremely peripheral locations is very low and considerably rising
for accessible communities also in the mountain areas (Table 1).
In Austria, Switzerland and South Tyrol as well, a density measurement has been developed which
takes into account the fact that only a small part of the surface in mountain areas can be/is used for
settlement. In general, through this measurement high alpine zones of rocks, glaciers etc. and other
“unusable” area, as well as forest area, is excluded. The remaining area accounts in the Austrian
mountains for 22% and in the most extreme parts of it such as the Tyrol for just 13%. On the other
hand, in the non-alpine part of Austria this share reaches 70% (Schindegger et al. 1997, p. 37).
Relating the population to this limited “settlement area” reveals that many areas in the mountain
regions are rather densely populated. An even more acute indicator for the scarcity of area and
intensity of use is provided if the “maximum of population density” is calculated (inhabitants and
tourist guests in the month with most overnight stays in relation to the settlement area). Table 2
illustrates that especially in the western part of the Austrian Alps the maximum population density of
the more remote areas lying higher up in the mountains is hardly lower than in the valleys. Touristic
use here leads - at least in the main season - to the two-fold intensity.