THE P AST AND PERSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF P ASTURING AND TOURISM IN THE MOUNTAINS: INSIGHTS FROM NORW AY AND SLOVENIA PRETEKLI IN PREDVIDEN RAZVOJ PLANINSKEGA P AŠNIŠTV A IN TURIZMA: VPOGLEDI V NORVEŠKE IN SLOVENSKE RAZMERE AUTHORS/A VTORJI dr. Kerstin Potthoff University of Life Sciences, School of Landscape Architecture, PO 5003 NMBU, NO – 1432 Ås, Norway and University of Bergen, Department of Geography, PO 7802, NO – 5020 Bergen, Norway kerstin.potthoff@nmbu.no dr. Aleš Smrekar Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si dr. Mateja Šmid Hribar Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia mateja.smid@zrc-sazu.si dr. Mimi Urbanc Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia mimi.urbanc@zrc-sazu.si DOI: 10.3986/GV92105 UDC/UDK: 338.483:636.083.314(23.01)(497.4+481) COBISS: 1.02 ABSTRACT The past and perspective development of pasturing and tourism in the mountains: insights from Norway and Slovenia The paper aims to analyse the characteristics and trends in pastoral farming, tourism and recreation in the Norwegian and Slovenian mountains and resulting landscape changes. These land uses and related driving forces have been scrutinised in the context of economic, social, and political aspects. While pasto- ral farming has a centuries-old tradition in the higher altitudes of both countries, interest in mountains for tourism and recreational purposes dates back only to the nineteenth century but has been increasing steadily ever since. The findings of the study, based on a literature review and secondary data, suggest that the social, economic, and especially the political situation in Norway and Slovenia have been different, 81 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020, 81–111 Reviews/Razgledi REVIEWS/RAZGLEDI vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 81 but the development of mountains in both countries in the field of mountain pasturing and tourism and recreation has shared more similarities than differences, although nuances and specificities should not be disregarded. It is evident that mountain pasturing in both countries is sensitive to societal changes. Further on, we can infer the synergy and the right balance between it and tourism and recreation can be an oppor- tunity for a viable mountain economic situation and would preserve the long traditions of cooperation between the two sectors. KEY WORDS livestock grazing, tourism, recreation, land-use changes, Scandinavian mountains, the Alps, Norway, Slovenia IZVLEČEK Pretekli in predviden razvoj planinskega pašništva in turizma: vpogledi v norveške in slovenske razmere Članek analizira značilnosti in trende pašništva in rekreacije ter posledične spremembe pokrajine v nor- veških in slovenskih gorah. Spremembe v  rabi zemljišč in z  njimi povezane gonilne sile smo preučili z ekonomskega, družbenega in političnega vidika. Planinsko pašništvo ima v obeh državah večstoletno tradicijo, zanimanje za gore iz turističnih in rekreativnih vzgibov pa se je začelo šele v 19. stoletju, ven- dar se od tedaj stalno povečuje. Ugotovitve te študije, ki temeljijo na pregledu obstoječe literature in sekundarnih podatkov, kažejo, da je bil družbeni, gospodarski in še posebej politični položaj na Norveškem in v Sloveniji sicer različen, vendar razvoj gorskih območij v obeh državah izkazuje več podobnosti kot razlik, pri čemur ne smemo zanemariti določenih razhajanj in posebnosti. Jasno je, da na planinsko paš- ništvo v obeh državah vplivajo družbene spremembe. Prav tako je očitno, da sinergija in ustrezno ravnovesje med planinskim pašništvom in turizmom ter rekreacijo nudita priložnost za vitalno gospodarsko stanje v gorah in obenem omogočata ohranitev dolgoletne tradicije sodelovanja med obema panogama. KLJUČNE BESEDE planinska paša, turizem, rekreacija, spremembe v rabi zemljišč, Skandinavsko gorovje, Alpe, Norveška, Slovenija The article was submitted for publication on June 14, 2019. Uredništvo je prispevek prejelo 14. junija 2019. 82 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc The past and perspective … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 82 1 Introduction Mountains provide considerable resources and sustenance (Price 2015). This is particularly true for the Scandinavian mountains and the Alps, which offer a wide range of assets owing to their landscape diversity (Hrvatin and Perko 2018). These include pastures, outdoor recreation, fore- stry, and hydropower production (Senegačnik 1985; Hveding 1992; Gabrovec and Kladnik 1997; MacDonald et al. 2000; Petek 2005; Mottet et al. 2006; Tappeiner, Borsdorf and Tasser 2008; Ringler 2009). Agriculture, traditionally a dominant activity in mountain regions, has experienced inten- sification of favourable and abandonment of marginal land (MacDonald et al. 2000; Mottet et al. 2006; Ringler 2009). Tourism and recreation, which have increased over the last century, can coe- xist with agricultural use at varying degrees (Eiter 2004; Kaltenborn et al. 2008; Ringler 2009; Rekdal and Angeloff 2012). Although abandonment of less-favoured land and an increase in tourism are widespread, the timing, extent, and reasons for changes may vary across areas. A comparison of land-use and the resulting lands- cape changes can reveal a pool of development trends and various drivers behind them. Understanding landscape dynamics in the past can facilitate informed decisions on the future use of mountain resour- ces and provide an insight into a landscape’s ability to provide ecosystem services (Ribeiro and Šmid Hribar 2019). The overall objective is to analyse the characteristics and development trends of resource use in the Norwegian and Slovenian mountains, focusing on pasturing, tourism and recreation. The paper aims to answer the following research questions: What has driven land use and consequent landscape changes in both countries? What are the main differences and similarities, and what are the reasons behind? What development trends can we expect based on past landscape dynamics? This paper makes use of the advantages of an in-depth analysis of two, at first sight, different moun- tain areas and pastoral farming, and tourism and recreation thereof. In Norway, mountain pasturing is spread throughout the country, but with significant regional and local differences, e.g., in the main livestock species, land use intensity, and its changes (Reinton 1955). Reindeer husbandry, mainly pre- sent in the North, is omitted, for it differs substantially from other types of livestock husbandry in terms of movement patterns and legal framework. Due to the occurrence of mountain pasturing throughout the whole country and the availability of data on a national level, no specific case studies have been chosen, and the national situation has given priority over local and regional specifics. By contrast, moun- tain pastoralism in Slovenia is primarily limited to the Alps; therefore, the Slovenian examples refer to two (out of three) mountain ranges in the Slovenian Alps (the Julian Alps and the Kamnik-Savinja Alps). Within the area which coincides with the submacroregion of Alpine High Mountains (Perko 1998), we selected two well-known tourist areas as proxies for development of the Slovenian Alps. The first one is the mountain pastures of Bohinj (the Julian Alps, Triglav National Park in north-western Slovenia) with a limited human intervention (Smrekar, Polajnar Horvat and Erhartič 2016). The second one is Velika planina (»Big Pasture Plateau« in the heart of the Kamnik-Savinja Alps in northern Slovenia) (Urbanc et al. 2021). 2 Methods 2.1 Data This study is based on a literature review and examination of secondary data, most of which con- sist of statistical information. Statistics are usually considered to be the most appropriate to identify trends, including those in agriculture and the tourism and leisure sector, but statistical data for inve- stigated geographical areas and fields of interest suffer from severe shortcomings (see more in 4.3). We 83 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Reviews/Razgledi vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 83 84 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc The past and perspective … Farming Landscape Tourism Social–economic–political situation Figure 1: Driving forces of landscape changes in mountains in a given social-economic-political situation. therefore searched thoroughly national bibliographic databases to find existing empirical studies which became valuable sources of information. The analysis was a demanding task since the information suffer from gaps, fragmentation, and nume- rous methodologies behind data collecting and processing. Nevertheless, data is rich enough and of sufficient quality so that it reveals the complexity of the development of both economic sectors in two historically, socio-economically, politically, and culturally different countries, and makes the investiga- tion scientifically sound. Further on, comparing dissimilar cases, even extremely diverse, is meaningful (Abel, Cumming and Anderies 2006; Walker et al. 2006; Paunović and Jovanović 2019). With caveats in mind, we made every effort to identify and justify trends and general process-related characteristics based on all possible information. Assuming that even unlike cases can contribute to general findings, we build on each country’s specific features. 2.2 Analytical framework A systematic analysis of driving forces of landscape changes (Figure 1) is a useful framework for analysing landscape dynamics (Eiter and Potthoff 2007; 2016; Plieninger et al. 2016; Bürgi et al. 2017). Bürgi, Hersperger and Schneeberger (2004) define driving forces as »forces that cause observed landscape changes«. In this paper, we understand forces as being always exerted by some- one or something (sources) to analyse landscape changes (Eiter and Potthoff 2007). The attraction of subsidies that may prevent abandonment of mountain pastures or the socio-economic pressure that leads to their abandonment is an example. This approach enables a consideration that sources may exert different forces. For instance, the protection of an area may boost tourism but may also repulse development. The diverse origins of forces can be assigned to domains (e.g., economics, envi- ronment). vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 84 3 Land use changes in the Norwegian and Slovenian mountains The Norwegian mountains belong to the mountain range that stretches over the entire Scandinavian Peninsula. 50.4% of Norway consists of mountains, plateaus, and bogland (Statistics Norway 2019a). Alpine landforms (i.e., areas exceeding 700m) and mountainous landscapes (i.e., between 400 and 700m) occur more or less throughout the country (Skoglund 2013). The Slovenian Alps are located in the South-Eastern part of the Alps. Alpine landscapes cover 42.1% of Slovenia and are further subdivided into Alpine mountains (35.8%), Alpine hills (54.6%), and Alpine plains (9.6%) (Perko and Ciglič 2020). The most remarkable features are high elevations, inclinations, landscape diversity, large forest areas, pastures, and existing common land. 3.1 Mountain pastures Mountain pastures are a specific form of land use in less-favoured areas, often collectively mana- ged (Petek and Urbanc 2007). They are used by local communities that have rights in a particular area (Sevatdal and Grimstad 2003). In the past, not only the owners but also wider communities were depen- dent on them (Petek and Urbanc 2007), and people were cautious not to deplete them (Rodela 2012). 3.1.1 The ownership situation An essential framework for the resource use of mountain pastures is the ownership structure. In Norway, mountain pastures spread within different types of commons. State commons are owned by the state, but farmers enjoy rights of use (Sevatdal and Grimstad 2003). Establishment of parish com- mons is connected with the selling of state commons (after 1660), some of which became private land, and others parish commons. The most frequent type is farm commons, i.e., an area jointly owned by several farms (Sevatdal and Grimstad 2003); both ownership and rights of use are linked to the respec- tive farms. About 26,200 km² (i.e., 8%) of the Norwegian mainland are state commons (Statistics Norway 2020), and according to Sevatdal (1998), 5,500 km² (i.e., 1,7 %) are parish commons, but the afore- mentioned references do not provide a figure for farm commons. In Slovenia, mountain pasture is a specific form of property, usually jointly managed by nearby farms, connected into a so-called agrarian community. In the past, ownership and the rights of use were not linked to the individual persons, but the holdings and were only passed on as a whole together with the holding (Cerar, Kliner and Papež 2011). The political and economic situation (within Yugoslavia) after the Second World War interrupted long-term practices. The Act on Agrarian Communities (Zakon o agrarnih … 1947) and the Act on Disposal of Former Agrarian Communities Property (Zakon o raz- polaganju … 1965) abolished agrarian communities and confiscated their land. The number of affected agrarian communities varies between about 1,000 (official estimates) and 1,500 (oral reports) (Cerar, Kliner and Papež 2011) or even 2,000 (Petek and Urbanc 2007). Interestingly, many of them continued their centuries-old practices by transforming into associations that rented their former property. After the turnaround in the 1990s, two laws were passed to regulate Slovenia’s common land. The Denationalization Act (Zakon o denacionalizaciji 1991) and the Act on the Reestablishment of Agrarian Communities and Restitution of Their Property and Rights (Zakon o ponovni … 1994) made the resti- tution of common land possible, albeit with nuances. The first law did not consider common land a unique property form, and allocated the land was to individual shareholders. The second law corrected defi- ciencies by allocating the property to agrarian communities. The first law required a complicated inheritance procedure, which often led to fragmentation and transfer of ownership to non-farmers, while the second law allowed for the effective restoration of beneficiary communities. In many cases, however, the most viable agrarian communities took the earliest opportunity, so that their applications were settled according to the rules of the first act and often ended up in bureaucracy. 85 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Reviews/Razgledi vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 85 In 2015, a new Agricultural Communities Act (Zakon o agrarnih skupnostih 2015) aimed to facilita- te managing common land. Despite considerable improvements, the main shortcoming remains; agrarian communities are not deemed to be special entities, but groups of individual persons and legal entities. This status consequently obstructs their operations. No data are available on the effects of the 2015 Act, but Premrl (2013) reports that by March 2013, 638 agrarian communities had completed the procedures and acquired a total of 77,486.47 hectares, i.e. 3.67% of the Slovenian territory (although the 2015 law requires them all to re-register). The Julian Alps are the area with the most restored agricultural communities. 3.1.2 The development of mountain pasture use Mountain pastures have been an essential agricultural resource in Norway (Bryn and Potthoff 2018) and Slovenia (Petek and Urbanc 2007). In Norway, they occur more or less throughout the country, in forested areas, in formerly forested areas, and above the tree line (Reinton 1955). Early traces of pastoral use date to the Late Neolithic (2400–1800 BC; Prescott 1999). A seasonal farming system gradually developed and became fully esta- blished with the transition from the Middle Ages to the Post-Medieval period (Reinton 1961). Figure 2 illustrates the development of seasonal farms (in the sense of seasonally inhabited sites). Farmland that is still grazed but not used for milk production/processing is not included in the statistics. Evidently, an increase in the mid-nineteenth century was followed by a decline, which was particularly pronounced after the 1950s. In 1995, about 97% of the seasonal farms that were in operation in 1850 had been aban- doned. Leaving aside a small increase between 1995 and 1996, the number of seasonal farms has been declining until today (Figure 3). The literature reveals several reasons for the development of mountain pastures in Norway. Reinton (1961) explains the increase in seasonal farms up to the 1850s with a rapidly growing population and an increasing number of farms and animals. After that, up until about the beginning of 1900, work oppor- tunities moved people from rural to urban areas (Almås 2004). Together with the migration to North America, this trend led to reduced availability of labour in agriculture (Gjerdåker 2004). At the begin- ning of 1900, the primary sector underwent significant social, economic, and technological advancement that affected the use of mountain resources (Almås 2002; 2004; Gjerdåker 2002). Lack of affordable workforce not only due to emigration but low pay as well negatively affected mountain pasturing (Funder 1916; Reinton 1961). Also, the availability of fodder and mineral fertilisers for cultivating pastures near permanently settled farmsteads reduced dependence on mountain pastures (Reinton 1961; Potthoff 2004; Eiter and Potthoff 2016). Establishing central village dairies made year-round livestock nearby necessary (Funder 1916; Reinton 1961; Potthoff 2004). Moreover, quality requirements made production on individual seasonal farms less suitable (Funder 1916). Finally, in some areas, competition with other economic activities occurred (e.g., forestry; Reinton 1961). The historical development of mountain pasturing in the Slovenian Alps is documented back to 973 AD (Melik 1950). It could be even older if one considers that humans have been present in moun- tain areas at least since 500 BC, but grazing is not documented (Zega 1985; Rejec Brancelj and Smrekar 2000; Ledinek Lozej 2012). Although mountain grazing has helped numerous small farms survive throughout history (Vojvoda 1967; Vojvoda and Tončič 1973; Mikša and Zorn 2016), it was restrict- ed by various laws that supported reforestation to meet the increased demand for wood from the iron and mining industries until 1750 (Melik 1950; Anko 1985). Similar to Norway, the earliest decline in the use of mountain pastures is between 1827 and 1900 due to the conversion from livestock grazing to livestock farming (Petek 2005). Vojvoda (1967; Vojvoda and Tončič 1973) reports 532 private or com- mon mountain pastures in the Slovenian Alps in the 1930s, but 34 of them were abandoned before the Second World War. The period after that was the most dynamic (Figure 4); another 249 pastures were abandoned. In contrast to Norway, the number of mountain pastures increased between 1995 and 2011 86 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc The past and perspective … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 86 87 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Reviews/Razgledi 10 000 , 20 000 , 30 000 , 40 000 , 50 000 , 60 000 , 0 Number of farms/seasonal farms Year 1723 1907 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1995 1850 Number of farms involved in farming seasonal Number of seasonal farms Figure 2: Number of seasonal farms and farms involved in seasonal farming in Norway until 1995 (Data source: Reinton 1961; Statistisk … 1962; 1982; Statens … 2006). 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 Number of farms/seasonal farms Year Number of farms involved in farming seasonal Number of seasonal farms 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Figure 3: Number of seasonal farms and farms involved in seasonal farming in Norway since 1995 (Data source: Statens … 2006; Data received from Statistics Norway). vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 87 Active mountain pastures 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 Year 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 1995 1973 1966 1941 1930 Figure 4: Number of active mountain pastures in Slovenia between 1940 and 2019 (Data source: Vojvoda 1967; Vojvoda and Tončič 1973; Schlamberger 1995; Služba … 2019). (from 249 to 266); however, after a relatively stable period until 2014, their number decreased to 230 by 2019. Some of the reasons for abandoning mountain pastures in Slovenia are similar to those in Norway: technological progress in agriculture, rural exodus (Senegačnik 1985), and the demands of the dairy industry (stable farming (Petek 2005)). The abolition of forest grazing rights in public and private estates (Vojvoda 1967) applies only to Slovenia, where the above factors were accompanied by a decline in the soft power of agriculture, as the professional standing of farmers deteriorated (Razpotnik Visković and Seručnik 2013). However, both post-war legal acts (1947 and 1965) had the most direct impact on agrar- ian communities. Slovenia’s independence was a new milestone. Both restitution laws (see section 3.1.1) most probably aroused new interest, although it was already too late for some overgrown pastures. A decrease in 2015 could reflect the uncertainty caused by the recent Act on Agricultural Communities (Zakon o agrarnih skupnostih 2015). In the past, common lands, including mountain pastures managed by agrarian communities, had mainly an economic function. More recently, common land has been widely recognised and valued for their contribution to biodiversity, the conservation of cultural landscapes, and, in particular, for their know-how and links to a specific way of governing and managing common-pool resources (Rodela 2012; Šmid Hribar, Bole and Urbanc 2015; Šmid Hribar et al. 2018). The most visible consequence of reduced use of mountain pastures (in Norway most likely combined with reduced use of other out- field resources such as firewood) is the forest re-growth of open land. There is no nation-wide overview of the extent of re-growth in Norway, but some case studies exist clearly stating the succession of wood- land (Bryn 2008; Olsson, Austrheim and Grenne 2000). Hemsing and Bryn (2012) estimate that forest regeneration could affect about one-fifth of all second homes in Norway through obstructed view and lost open hiking areas. In addition, reduced grazing pressure and changes in stand composition threat- en the biodiversity of subalpine semi-natural grasslands (Olsson, Hanssen and Rønningen 2004), and the expansion of forest cover may harm cultural heritage (Kuiper and Bryn 2013). Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc The past and perspective … 88 vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 88 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Reviews/Razgledi 89 In Slovenia, forests have been increasing since 1827, but this trend has been more pronounced since 1953 (Petek 2005; Gabrovec and Kumer 2019). Changes in land-use categories are not the only reason; other factors are prohibition of forest grazing, the use of coal instead of (fire) wood, and finally, techni- cal advancement in farming and the general transformation of the agrarian society from the 1950s onward. 3.2 Outdoor recreation and tourism in Norway and Slovenia The landscape is an essential resource for the tourism industry (Skowronek et al. 2018), especially in countries with a unique combination of natural and socio-cultural features. Due to a high degree of nat- uralness, mountains allow for a variety of outdoor recreational activities. Hiking and skiing are particularly emphasised in both the Norwegian and Slovenian mountains because they have the longest tradition and the most decisive impact on spatial development, although we are aware of other forms of recreation. The recreational use of mountains, which in both countries dates back to 1800 (Langdalen 1965; Pehani 2000; Rebolj and Malešič 2008), is based on open access to uncultivated land. In Norway, this right is guaranteed by the Outdoor Recreation Act (1957) (Ministry … 1996) and in Slovenia by the Act on Forests (Zakon o gozdovih 1993), the Agricultural Land Act (Zakon o kmetijskih … 2011) and in Triglav National Park also by the Triglav National Park Act (Zakon o Triglavskem … 2010). Important actors that facilitate outdoor activities in the mountains are the Norwegian Trekking Association (found- ed in 1868) and the Alpine Association of Slovenia (founded in 1893). Both associations service numerous mountain huts, which offer accommodation, and maintain an extensive network of trails. The literature reveals interactions between early hikers and dairymaids/herdsmen in both coun- tries. Due to the lack of commercial facilities, the first hikers in the Norwegian mountains found accommodation on seasonal farms (Eiter 2004; Flognfeldt 2004). In Slovenia, Velika planina is an excel- lent example of such relations. Around 1910, the pioneers of high mountain skiing appeared on the scene, and as early as 1924, Velika planina co-created the history of ski tourism in Europe, and it is fea- tured in the Ski Museum at Holmenkollen near Oslo. The number of skiers on Velika planina grew beyond the accommodation capacity of the Slovenian Alpine Club’s lodge, so herdsman’s huts filled the shortage. This practice – slightly altered – still exists: from June to September, the shepherds occu- py the huts and from October to May tenants (Sln. bajtarji). Skiing, which sparked tourism, is now completely overshadowed by mountaineering and hiking. The switch from winter to summer tourism happened around 2010 (Cigale and Lampič 2019). Attractiveness is based both on natural beauties and pastoral tradition and identity. The latter has been strengthened through various projects, such as In the footsteps of herdsmen (Internet 1) support the latter. In Norway, building of second homes for both summer and winter use reflects the development of outdoor recreation. It took a dynamic pace in the 1920s, but the tradition goes back to the nineteenth century (Flognfeldt 2004; Kaltenborn, Andersen and Nellemann 2007). Initially, the buildings were locat- ed close to seasonal farms, but later distance increased (Langdalen 1965; Flognfeldt 2004). After the 1950s, second homes became widely available, and mountain lodges and hotels were built close to sea- sonal farms (Langdalen 1980; Flognfeldt 2004; Kaltenborn et al. 2008). Although unofficial accommodation on seasonal farms lost its significance, its importance for mountain tourism has been reinforcing since the 1960s (Flognfeldt 2004). Famers’ offspring who moved away from rural areas, built second homes on seasonal farms (Flognfeldt 2004) and presumably took over outdated buildings. A construction of (high-quality) second homes and hotels in mountain tourism resorts is a new trend (Flognfeldt 2002; Kaltenborn et al. 2008). Moreover, the average size of second homes increased from about 60 m² in 1983 to more than 100 m² in 2009 (Statistics Norway 2019b). The development of mountain tourism is interlinked with easier access to mountain areas due to road construction. First routes for motorised traffic were built to ease traditional resource use, for exam- ple, of mountain pastures (Langdalen 1965). However, with increased tourism, access to mountain areas for recreational purposes became more important. vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 89 90 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc The past and perspective … Similarly, tourist infrastructure in the mountains on the territory of present-day Slovenia started developing at the end of the nineteenth century, but the most intensive period was shortly after the Second World War (Dobnik 2007). In the Bohinj mountains, the greatest boom in constructing huts took place between 1948 and 1955, at the same time as the first waves of mass visits (Dobnik 1991). In the same period, tourism development took momentum with a new tourist village away of shepherds dwelling in order to preserve the traditional cultural landscape. Between 1953 and 1970, three mountain lodges were built, which, together with the new cableway, stimulated tourist activities. Since the beginning of the 1990s, Velika planina is also accessible by car. This development is due to an improved standard of living of the country nationals and increased international tourist flows (Cigale 2012). Until the 1980s, 36.2% of the mountains in the Slovenian Alps were equipped with tourist infra- structure (Senegačnik 1985). This trend has continued, although it has been less expressed in protected areas. In addition, the area has faced an increase in the number of second homes. The longing for the mountains turned the Slovenian Alps into a region with the highest proportion of holiday homes in the country (Opačić and Koderman 2019). Transformation of seasonal farm edifices into second homes, construction of new second homes, and establishment of tourist resorts, including alpine skiing facilities, have changed the character of the Norwegian mountain landscape. In parallel, rural communities have felt social, environmental, and economic effects. Attitudes to the extent to which the development of second homes is acceptable may vary within rural communities (Rye 2011; Hidle 2013). From an economic point of view, tourism can enrich local income through land sales and the provision of goods and services during and after con- struction (Taugbøl et al. 2000; Flognfeldt 2002; Kaltenborn, Andersen and Nellemann 2007). From a protectionist point of view, tourist flocks and related changes may be perceived negatively due to direct use of space, congested traffic, increased energy demand, the impact on cultural heritage (e.g., old sea- sonal farm) and possible ecological consequences, especially for wild reindeer (Langdalen 1980; Taugbøl et al. 2000; Kaltenborn, Andersen and Nellemann 2007). In the Slovenian Alps, a similar ambiguity between development and protection exists. Outdoor recreation can help keep mountain pastures alive; for example, pasturing in Velika planina became more lucrative in the late 1980s due to tourist purchases (Rebolj and Malešič 2008). In some cases, howev- er, the development of tourism, recreation, and transport is followed by environmental degradation. Particularly problematic is the supply of mountain huts including sewage and other waste disposals in the Julian Alps. Moreover, income from tourism is unlikely to be able to cover operating costs. Senegačnik (1985) reports that the Bohinj Mountains, the region most heavily influenced by tourism, were already experiencing financial difficulties in the 1980s. In both countries, several factors related to transport and mobility contributed to boost tourism. In Norway, early access was facilitated by improved rail and bus transport, followed by personal vehicles (Flognfeldt 2004). Later, road construction and the use of milk trucks led to a tourism boom (Flognfeldt 2004). Higher incomes, available leisure time, and better mobility left more room for leisure activities (Langdalen 1980; Kaltenborn et al. 2008). Similar reasons can be found in Slovenia. With the advent of the railway in the 1850s, Alpine tourism began to flourish (Horvat 2004). After the Second World War, the development took a hesitant pace (Cigale 2010) but later gained momentum due to the same reasons as in Norway. The Slovenian Alps turned into one of the liveliest tourist areas in Slovenia (Cigale 2007). 4 Discussion 4.1. Driving forces of land-use and consequent landscape changes The use of mountain resources for grazing and tourism in both countries shows considerable sim- ilarities, including the timing of development trends. vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 90 The intensity of mountain pasture use is related to the general pressure on agricultural resources. Their use declined sharply in both countries in the second half of the twentieth century owing to social and economic changes in general and technological advancement in agriculture. As a consequence, moun- tain pastures have been re-growing with forests. The tourism use of mountain areas started in both countries in the nineteenth century and has been increasing steadily ever since. The reasons result from several socio-economic changes, including the desire for an active lifestyle and the pursuit of outdoor activities, which are encouraged by an improved work-life balance, a better family income, and increased accessibility of mountain areas. The most apparent difference between Slovenian and Norwegian mountain pastures is the histo- ry of ownership and its strong influence on their use. After the Second World War, the land reform went against several centuries of tradition in managing mountain pastures in Slovenia. In an effort to eliminate previous injustices, the reprivatisation law unintentionally generated new challenges. The expec- tations of former and re-legitimate claimants have changed in parallel with general social changes and transformations, as stakeholder engagement is closely linked to social values and individual value sys- tems. Therefore, different political systems are essential to induce differences in resource use between Norway and Slovenia (Table 1). Economics, politics and technology, which have been identified as rel- evant agents of land use and the resulting landscape changes, play a role in landscape changes also in other European countries (Eiter and Potthoff 2016). 4.2 Prospects for selected mountain regions in Norway and Slovenia The existing driving forces behind landscape changes are expected to be valid also in the future. Technological advancement, as well as the political and socio-economic conditions, will most likely remain relevant in both countries. For the Slovenian mountains, the socio-economic and political changes associated with the fall of communism and changes in ownership status will presumably impact the forthcoming management. The effective preservation of Alpine mountain pastures requires a systemic regulation of agrarian communities. A potential threat is posed by the legal framework, more precisely if it allows enlarging beneficiary groups with people with limited knowledge about resource use. The successful restitution and governance of common property indeed depend on the commitment of share- holders. Policy measures’ implementation ought to be all-inclusive and should understand stakeholders as a heterogeneous entity with diverse values and management strategies (Ferrario and Castiglioni 2015). Participatory approaches, which, however, suffer from weak civic engagement, especially in transitional countries (Nared et al. 2015) and limited decision makers’ willingness (Tiran et al. 2019), should be strengthened. In both countries, the use of mountain pastures is challenged by low income despite large subsidies (Ringler 2009; Bojnec and Latruffe 2013; Bye et al. 2017). Thus, the level of public payments is to play an essential role. It is unlikely this will change soon. Top-down economic instruments reflect- ing political commitment can act as a counterforce (Jones 2010) and exert frictions on the overall development; that is, the declining use of mountain pastures. A solution for future development can be found in an interplay between tourism and agriculture. The question is how sectors with different dynamics and driving forces are and will be able to capi- talise on each other’s infrastructure and services and support mutual interest to build on complementarity and exploit synergies. This was realised at the nascent stage of mountain tourism, but later, the devel- opment of tourism infrastructure and the decline of mountain pastures led to the separation of the two sectors. Examples of recent cooperation can be found in the production of cheese in some mountain pastures, especially in the Julian Alps (Petek 2005). In Norway, 0.9% of seasonal farms (registration peri- od 2009–2015) had tourism-related activities (Stensgaard 2017). Some evidence shows the benefits of a collaborative relationship beyond a merely economic one. For example, Čerpes, Pandol and Fikfak (2014) state that mountain pastures and herders’ huts can con- tribute to the safety of high mountains hikers. In addition, Genovese et al. ’s (2017) study in the Italian 91 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Reviews/Razgledi vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 91 92 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc The past and perspective … Table 1: Driving forces of mountain landscapes and social-economic-political changes in Norway and Slovenia (Legend: * after 1921, with inter- ruptions; ** it is a controversial issue with opposing arguments (Flere and Klanjšek 2015; Mihaljević and Miljan 2019); *** Internet 2, Zakon o gozdih 1930; # since beginning of 20th century; ## permits were needed for forest fruits picking; yes-- large change; yes- moderate change; yes+ moderate increase; yes++ large increase). Before WW2 After WW2 – late1980s/early 1990s After early 1990s NO SI NO SI NO SI POLITICAL SYSTEM (government) constitutional monarchy yes yes* yes no yes no republic no no no yes no yes totalitarism** no no no yes no no democracy*** yes # no yes no yes yes ECONOMIC SYSTEM capitalism yes yes yes no yes yes socialism no no no yes no no market economy yes yes yes no yes yes planned economy no no no yes no no OWNERSHIP OF MOUNTAIN PASTURES state commons / social property yes no yes yes yes no parish commons yes no yes no yes no farm commons / agrarian communities yes yes yes no yes yes NUMBER AND LOCATION OF MOUNTAIN PASTURES changes in number of active pastures yes-- yes-- yes-- yes-- yes- no changes in land use (forestation) N/A yes+ yes++ yes++ yes++ yes+ TOURISM hiking and skiing yes yes yes yes yes yes sharing accomodation yes yes no yes no no second homes yes yes yes yes yes yes mountain huts yes yes yes yes yes yes transport infrastructure for tourism no no yes yes yes yes transformation of former seasonal farm buildings to second homes no yes yes yes yes yes general access to mountain forest yes no ## yes yes yes yes vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 92 Alps proves that a collaborative relationship cannot only support both sectors but also enhance sustainable development. One possible vehicle for a more sustainable future of cultural landscape is strengthening organic farming, which is especially suitable for mountainous regions (Travnikar and Juvančič 2018). Although the cooperation could give a significant boost to both tourism and agriculture, it is not entirely problem-free: Mayer and Job (2010) report on conflicts and Ledinek Lozej (2013) on adverse impacts of tourism on alpine pastures. All in all, it seems reasonable to build on the potential for coop- eration, but one should consider reservations. Finally, however, we must acknowledge tourism is not a panacea for all possible challenges of mountain pasturing. 4.3 Challenges to the comparison of development trends A comparison of characteristics and trends in two countries, as presented in this paper, depends on existing statistics and other secondary material. We made considerable efforts to find all existing infor- mation that shed light on the matter. Collecting new data would otherwise require extensive research. However, the use of existing data poses some challenges in terms of their availability and quality. Statistical data have proven to be insufficient. In Slovenia, for example, no systematically collected data on mountain tourism capacities exist. The fact that each mountain area administratively belongs to the nearest permanent set- tlement, which is the smallest statistical unit, proved unsuitable, as it was impossible to yield separate data. Unbalanced data and, above all, the lack of reliable data impede to safeguard comparability and pro- duce meaningful time series. To illustrate: the number of mountain pastures in Slovenia varies from one author to another. A reason could be an imprecise definition of mountain pasture and changeability of the definition in different contexts. Although data are available and valid for compiling time series, the juxtaposition of development trends between countries is challenging due to different concepts, standards, and definitions on which national statistics may be based (see also Tappeiner, Borsdorf and Tasser 2008). For example, the use of mountain pastures in Norwegian statistics refers to individual seasonal farms, whereas Slovenian statistics include both individual and common mountain pastures. The second example concerns the definition of the main organisational unit. Norwegian statistics con- sider a seasonal farm to be abandoned when milking or milk processing has ceased, whereas Slovenian statistics deem pastures to be active as long as they are grazed. The data (un)availability dictated the selection of the examples presented within each country, which convey considerable diversity. We, therefore, refrain from using the term case study but rather take up the topic through examples. Furthermore, the presentation of both countries also depends on the social, political, and economic situation, which can make a particular landscape element or aspect unstable. One such example is Slovenia’s common land, which requires a thorough account of this aspect and its consequences. Finally, it should be noted that this paper points to only one of the possibilities of studying landscape changes, focusing on general trends and their broader applications. Undoubtedly, it would be interest- ing to examine what visible and concrete consequences general trends had in a micro space or concrete landscape. Literature is rich with examples and methodological approaches; from well-established ones such as analysis of photography (Gabellieri and Watkins 2019) and cartographic materials (Buterez and Cepraga 2018) to more innovative ones such as grounded historical geographies (McDonagh 2019). 5 Conclusions This paper analyses the characteristics and development trends of resource use in the Norwegian and Slovenian mountains, focusing on pastures and tourism and outdoor recreation. The major challenge has been to realign the unbalanced presentation of both countries due to the different data sets avail- able, and secondly, how to draw a meaningful comparison. 93 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Reviews/Razgledi vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 93 Technological progress, socio-economic and political conditions are essential for the land-use and the resulting landscape changes. The history of land ownership caused by different political systems is the main difference between the two countries. For Slovenia, legislation that provides clear guidelines for oper- ating agrarian communities is of central importance for the actual and future use of mountain pastures. For both countries, the economic driving forces will most likely be of particular relevance for the survival of mountain pastures. Subsidies – with political commitment behind – are a vital contribu- tion, but cooperation between the expanding tourism industry (although the coronavirus crisis in 2020 shows the situation can change rapidly) and the declining agricultural industry is also indispensable. A fruitful partnership requires animal husbandry as a prerequisite for the maintenance of attractive cultural landscapes and sustainable tourism. Given the fragility of mountain regions, we should not ignore these issues as they may pose a significant threat to sustainability in Europe as a whole (Polajnar Horvat and Ribeiro 2019) and specially to protected areas (Mavri 2018). Contrary to expectations, despite unlike socio-economic and political conditions in two countries, mountain areas in Slovenia and Norway are now undergoing similar processes: Decline in agriculture, overgrowth and rewilding abandoned mountain pastures, and increase in tourism. This observation suggests that mountains are specific and are sensitive to rapid socio-economic shifts and developments and that dissimilar context has similar outcomes. Admittedly, irrespective of the location, the Slovenian and Norwegian mountains bear more similarities than differences. Having said that, we should not dis- regard nuances and specificities. Even though comparing land-use and landscape changes in mountain areas of two different coun- tries is not entirely free of limitation, our results prove the usefulness of such an endeavour. Understanding the landscape dynamics of the past can strengthen the future decision-making process. Acknowledgement: The authors acknowledge receiving financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency, research core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101). 6 References Abel, N. D., Cumming, H. M., Anderies, J. M. 2006: Collapse and reorganization in social-ecological system questions, some ideas and policy implications. Ecology and Society 11-1. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/ 10.5751/ES-01593-110117 Almås, R. 2002: Norges Landbrukshistorie 1920-2000. Frå bondesamfunn til bioindustri. Oslo. Almås, R. 2004: Norwegian Agricultural History. Trondheim. Anko, B. 1985: Terezijanski gozdni red za Kranjsko 1771. Ljubljana. Bojnec, Š., Latruffe, L. 2013: Farm size, agricultural subsidies and farm performance in Slovenia. Land Use Policy 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.016 Bryn, A. 2008: Recent forest limit changes in south-east Norway: Effects of climate change or regrowth after abandoned utilisation? Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 62-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950802517551 Bryn, A., Potthoff, K. 2018: Elevational treeline and forest line dynamics in Norwegian mountain areas – a review. Landscape Ecology 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0670-8 Bryn, A., Dourojeanni, P ., Hemsing, L. Ø., O’Donnel, S. 2013: A high-resolution GIS null model of poten- tial forest expansion following land use changes in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 28-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2012.689005 Bye, A. S., Aarstad, P . A., Løvberget, A. I., Høie, H. 2017: Jordbruk og miljø. Tilstand og utvikling 2017. Oslo. Bürgi, M., Bieling, C., von Hackwitz, K., Kizos, T., Lieskovský, J., Martín, M. G., McCarthy, S., Müller, M., Palang, H., Plieninger, T., Printsmann, A. 2017: Process and driving forces in changing cultu- ral landscapes across Europe. Landscape Ecology 32. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0513-z 94 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc The past and perspective … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 94 Bürgi, M., Hersperger, A.M., Schneeberger, N. 2004: Driving forces of landscape change – current and new directions. Landscape Ecology 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-0245-3 Buterez, C., Cepraga, T . 2018: The ownership was based on club and stick’: the cartographic reconstruction of a  medieval monastic estate in the Buzău Region, Romania. Landscape History 39-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01433768.2018.1534461 Cerar, G., Kliner, P ., Papež, M. 2011: Prihodnost agrarnih skupnosti. Zelena dežela 102. Čerpes, I., Pandol, N., Fikfak, A. 2014: Upgrading the network of high mountain shelter as a method of restoring of demographically endangered settlements in the Slovenian Alps. European Countryside 6-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2014-0012 Cigale, D. 2007: Vplivi turizma v slovenskem alpskem svetu na vode. Dela 28. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.4312/dela.28.255-271 Cigale, D. 2010: Geografsko raziskovanje turizma in rekreacije v Sloveniji. Dela 33. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/ 10.4312/dela.33.97-110 Cigale, D. 2012: Development patterns of Slovene tourist destinations. Geografski vestnik 84-1. Cigale, D. Lampič, B. 2019: Razvoj turistične destinacije na primeru občine Kamnik. E-GeograFF 12. Ljubljana. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/9789610601760 Dobnik, J. 1991: Vodniki po planinskih postojankah v Republiki Sloveniji. Ljubljana. Dobnik, J. 2007: Vodnik po planinskih kočah v Sloveniji. Ljubljana. Eiter, S. 2004: Protected areas in Norwegian mountains: Cultural landscape conservation – whose lands- cape? Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 58-4. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00291950410009217 Eiter, S., Potthoff, K. 2007: Improving the factual knowledge of landscapes: Following up the European Landscape Convention with a comparative historical analysis of forces of landscape change in the Sjodalen and Stølsheimen mountain areas, Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 61-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950701709127 Eiter, S., Potthoff, K. 2016: Landscape changes in Norwegian mountains: Increased and decreased accessibility, and their driving forces. Land Use Policy 54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landuse- pol.2016.02.017 Ferrario, V ., Castiglioni, B. 2015: Hydropower exploitation in the Piave river basin (Italian Eastern Alps). Renewable Energies and European Landscapes: Lessons from the Southern European Cases. Dordrecht. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9843-3_9 Flere S, Klanjšek, R. 2014: Was Tito’s Yugoslavia totalitarian? Communist and Post-Communist Studies 47-2. DOI: https://doi.org//10.1016/j.postcomstud.2014.04.009 Flognfeldt, T. 2002: Second-home ownership: A sustainable semi-migration. Tourism and Migration: New Relationships between Production and Consumption. Dordrecht. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-017-3554-4_10 Flognfeldt, T. 2004: Second homes as a part of a new rural lifestyle in Norway. Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground. Clevedon. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.21832/9781873150825-017 Funder, L. 1916: Om høifjeldets utnyttelse. Kristiania. Gabellieri, N., Watkins, C. 2019: Measuring long-term landscape change using historical photographs and the WSL Monoplotting Tool. Landscape History 40-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01433768. 2019.1600946 Gabrovec, M., Kladnik, D. 1997: Some new aspects of land use in Slovenia. Geografski zbornik 37. Gabrovec, M., Kumer, P . 2019: Land-use changes in Slovenia from the Franciscean cadaster until today. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4892 Genovese, D., Culasso, F ., Giacosa, E., Battaglini, L. M. 2017: Can livestock farming and tourism coe- xist in mountain regions? A  new business model for sustainability. Sustainability 9-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112021 95 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Reviews/Razgledi vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 95 Gjerdåker, B. 2002: Norges Landbrukshistorie 1814-1920. Kontinuitet og modernitet. Oslo. Gjerdåker, B. 2004: Continuity and modernity 1815–1920. Norwegian Agricultural History. Trondheim. Hemsing, L., Bryn, A. 2012: Attgroing, hytter og sau. Sau og Geit 2. Hidle, K. 2013: Second homes in Norway – changing cabins, changing ruralities. Norway: Nature, Industry and Society. Bergen. Horvat, U. 2004: Tourism in Slovenia. Slovenia: A Geographical Overview. Ljubljana. Hrvatin, M., Perko, D. 2018: Morfometrični tipi pokrajinskih vročih in mrzlih točk v  Sloveniji. Geografski vestnik 90-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV90202 Hveding, V . 1992: Hydropower Development in Norway. Trondheim. Internet 1: http://www.velikaplanina.si/o-nas/projekt-po-stopinjah-pastirjev (2. 7. 2020). Internet 2: https://ourworldindata.org/democracy (2. 7. 2020). Jones, M. 2010: The heritage of landscape – driving force or counterforce? Landscape and Driving Forces. Strasbourg. Kaltenborn, B. P ., Andersen, O., Nellemann, C. 2007: Second home development in the Norwegian moun- tains: Is it outgrowing the planning capability. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 3-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17451590709618158 Kaltenborn, B. P ., Andersen, O., Nellemann, C., Bjerke, T., Thrane, C. 2008: Resident attitudes towards mountain second-home tourism development in Norway: the effects of environmental attitudes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802159685 Kuiper, E., Bryn, A. 2013: Forest regrowth and cultural heritage sites in Norway and along the Norwegian St Olav pilgrim routes. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 9-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.711774 Langdalen, E. 1965: Natur og menneskeverk i fjellet. Fjellbygd og Feriefjell. Oslo. Langdalen, E. 1980: Second homes in Norway – a controversial planning problem. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 34. Ledinek Lozej, Š. 2012: Planšarstvo: predstavitev primera paše in predelave mleka v visokogorski bohinj- ski planini Krstenica. Etnologija in slovenske pokrajine: Gorenjska. Ljubljana. Ledinek Lozej, Š. 2013: Grazing and dairying in the mountain pastures of Triglav national park: Cultural heritage and current questions. Traditiones 42-2. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.3986/Traditio2013420203 MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J. R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T ., Stamou, N., Fleury, P ., Gutierrez Lazpita, J., Gibon, A. 2000: Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and poli- cy response. Journal of Environmental Management 59-1. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0335 Mavri, R. 2018: Priporočila za trajnostno načrtovanje rekreacije na prostem v zavarovanih območjih Slovenije. Geografski vestnik 90-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV90103 Mayer, M., Job, H. 2010: Raumrelevante Konflikte zwischen Almwirtschaft, Naturschutz und Tourismus: Ergebnisse einer Befragung in den oberbayerischen Alpen. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 42-2. McDonagh, B. 2019: Landscape, territory and common rights in medieval East Y orkshire. Landscape History 40-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01433768.2020.1676043 Melik, A. 1950: Planine v Julijskih Alpah. Ljubljana. Mihaljević, J., Miljan, G. 2020: Was Tito’s Yugoslavia not totalitarian? Istorija 20. veka 38-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29362/ist20veka.2020.1.mih.223-248 Mikša, P ., Zorn, M. 2016: The beginnings of the research of Slovenian Alps. Geografski vestnik 88-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV88206 Ministry of Climate and Environment 1996: Outdoor Recreation Act. Internet: https://www.regjerin- gen.no/en/dokumenter/outdoor-recreation-act/id172932 (10. 5. 2019). Mottet, A., Ladet, S., Coqué, N., Gibon, A. 2006: Agricultural land-use change and its drivers in moun- tain landscapes: A case study in the Pyrenees. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114, 2-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.017 96 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc The past and perspective … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 96 Nared, J., Razpotnik Visković, N., Cremer-Schulte, D., Brozzi, R., Cortines Garcia, F. 2015: Achieving sustainable spatial development in the Alps through participatory planning. Acta geographica Slovenica 55-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1631 Olsson, E. G. A., Austrheim, G., Grenne, S. N. 2000: Landscape change patterns in mountains, land use and environmental diversity, Mid-Norway 1960-1993. Landscape Ecology 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008173628016 Olsson, E. G. A., Hanssen, S. K., Rønningen, K. 2004: Different conservation values of biological diver- sity? A case study from the Jotunheimen mountain range, Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 58-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950410002700 Opačić, V . T, Koderman, M. 2019: Interrelations between spatial distribution of tourism and the second homes in Croatia and Slovenia. Geografski vestnik 91-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ GV91103 Paunović, I., Jovanović, V . 2019: Sustainable mountain tourism in word and deed: A comparative ana- lysis in the macro regions of the Alps and the Dinarides. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4630 Pehani, A. 2000: The interest in mountains for recreational purposes. Personal correspondence, Ljubljana. Perko, D. 1998: The regionalization of Slovenia. Geografski zbornik 38. Perko, D., Ciglič, R. 2020: Slovenia’s landscapes. The Geography of Slovenia: Small But Diverse. Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14066-3_14 Petek, F . 2005: Spremembe rabe tal v slovenskem alpskem svetu. Geografija Slovenije 11. Ljubljana. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612545123 Petek, F., Urbanc, M. 2007: Skupna zemljišča v Sloveniji. Geografski vestnik 79-2. Plieninger, T., Draux, H., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C., Bürgi, M., Kizos, T., Kuemmerle, T., Primdahl, J., Polajnar Horvat, K., Ribeiro, D. 2019: Izzivi v turističnem sektorju: kako se evropske turistične desti- nacije soočajo s preturizmom. Geografski vestnik 91-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV91104 Potthoff, K. 2004: Change in mountain summer farming practices: A case study from Stølsheimen, Western Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift  – Norwegian Journal of Geography 58-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950410009181 Premrl, T. 2013: Analiza stanja agrarnih skupnosti v Sloveniji na podlagi podatkov upravnih enot. Raziskovalno poročilo, Gozdarski inštitut Slovenije. Ljubljana. Prescott, C. 1999: Long-term patterns of non-agrarian exploitation in souther Norwegian highlands. Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in Århus. Højbjerg. Price, M. F. 2015: Mountains. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford. Razpotnik Visković, N., Seručnik, M. 2013: Ugled kmečkega poklica in polkmetov v slovenski družbi po drugi svetovni vojni. Geografski vestnik 85-1. Rebolj, V ., Malešič, F . 2008: Zven časa na Veliki planini (časovna preglednica). Internet: http:/ /www.v-pla- nina.v-rebolj.com/teksti/zven_casa_vp.pdf (11. 4. 2019). Reinton, L. 1955: Sæterbruket i Noreg I. Sætertypar og driftsformer. Oslo. Reinton, L. 1961: Sæterbruket i Noreg III. Oslo. Rejec Brancelj, I., Smrekar, A. 2000: Gorska ranljiva območja – primer Triglavskega narodnega parka. Pokrajinsko ranljiva območja v Sloveniji. Geographica Slovenica 33-1. Rekdal, Y ., Angeloff, M. 2012: Jordvern i utmark. Sau og Geit 3. Ribeiro, D., Šmid Hribar, M. 2019: Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts on ecosystem services in two Slovenian rural landscapes. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-2. DOI: http://doi.org/ 10.3986/AGS.6636 Ringler, A. 2009: Almen und Alpen. Ökologie, Nutzung, Perspektiven. München. Rodela, R. 2012: Uvod v skupno lastnino in skupno upravljanje naravnih virov. Soupravljanje narav- nih virov: vaške skupnosti in sorodne oblike skupne lastnine in skupnega upravljanja. Wageningen. 97 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Reviews/Razgledi vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 97 Rye, F. J. 2011: Conflicts and contestations. Rural populations’ perspectives on the second home phe- nomenon. Journal of Rural Studies 27-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.03.005 Schlamberger, V . 1995: Planine in skupni pašniki v Sloveniji. Ljubljana. Senegačnik, J. 1985: Planinsko gospodarstvo v slovenskih Alpah. Elaborat, Inštitut za geografijo Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Sevatdal, H. 1998: Common property in Norway’s rural areas. Law and the Governance of Renewable Resources: Studies from Northern Europe and Africa. Oakland. Sevatdal, H., Grimstad, S. 2003: Norwegian Commons: history, status and challenges. Commons: Old and New. Trondheim. Skoglund, R.Ø. 2013: Physical geography, landforms and climate. Norway: Nature, Industry and Society. Bergen. Skowronek, E., Tucki, A., Hijebens, E., Jóźwik, M. 2018: What is the tourist landscape? Aspects and features of the concept. Acta geographica Slovenica 58-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.3311 Služba za register kmetijskih gospodarstev. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano. Ljubljana, 2019. Smrekar, A., Polajnar Horvat, K., Erhartič, B. 2016: The beauty of landforms. Acta geographica Slovenica 56-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.3039 Statens landbruksforvaltning 2006: Statistikk fra søknader om produksjonstilskudd i jordbruket. Internet: http://32.247.61.17/skf/prodrapp.htm (20. 1. 2006). Statistics Norway 2019a: This is Norway 2019. Statistics Norway. Oslo. Statistics Norway 2019b: 06952: Byggeareal. Fritidsbygninger, etter statistikkvariabel og år. Internet: https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/06952/ (26. 3. 2019). Statistics Norway 2020: Areal av land og ferskvatn. Internet: https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/ statistikker/arealdekke (02.07.2020). Statskogs eiendommer. Internet: https://www.statskog.no/ eiendom/statskogs-eiendommer (2. 7. 2020). Statistisk Sentralbyrå 1962: Jordbruksteljinga i Noreg. 20. Juni 1959. Tredje Hefte. Eige- og leigetilhøve, Arbeidskraft m.m. ved bruk med over 5 dekar jordbruksareal. Norges Offisielle Statistikk XII 71. Oslo. Statistisk Sentralbyrå 1982: Landbruksteljing. 20. Juni 1979. Hefte I. Eigedomstilhøve – Arealressursar. Norges Offisielle Statistikk B 258. Otta. Stensgaard, K. 2017: Hvordan står det til på setra? Registrering av setermiljøer i perioden 2009–2015. NIBIO Rapport 3. Ås. Šmid Hribar, M., Bole, D., Urbanc, M. 2015: Public and common goods in the cultural landscape. Geografski vestnik 87-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV87203 Šmid Hribar, M., Kozina, J., Bole, D., Urbanc, M. 2018: Public goods, common-pool resources, and the commons: The influence of historical legacy on modern perceptions in Slovenia as a transitional society. Urbani izziv 29-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-2018-29-01-004 Tappeiner, U., Borsdorf, A., Tasser, E. 2008: Alpenatlas, Atlas des Alpes, Atlante delle Alpi, Atlas Alp, Mapping the Alps. Society – Economy – Environment. Heidelberg. Taugbøl, T., Vistad, O. I., Nellemann, C., Kaltenborn, B., Flyen, A. C., Swensen, G., Nybakken, A., Lein, K., Sivertsen, J. B., Gurigard, K. 2000: Hyttebygging i Norge. En oppsummering og vurdering av ulike miljø og samfunnsmessige effekter av hyttebygging i fjell- og skogtraktene i Sør-Norge. Lillehammer. Tiran, J., Bole, D., Gašperič, P ., Kozina, J., Kumer, P ., Pipan, P . 2019: Vrednotenje družbene trajnostnosti malega industrijskega mesta: primer Velenja. Geografski vestnik 91-2. DOI: https:/ /doi.org/10.3986/ GV91204 Travnikar, T., Juvančič, L. 2018: Prostorski vzorec vključevanja slovenskih kmetijskih gospodarstev v eko- loško kmetovanje. Geografski vestnik 90-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV90203 Urbanc, M., Breg Valjavec, M., Ribeiro, D., Šmid Hribar, M. 2021: Distinctive cultural landscapes on karst terrain. Landscapes and Landforms of Slovenia. Cham. (in preparation) 98 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc The past and perspective … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 98 Vojvoda, M. 1967: Spreminjanje gospodarskih funkcij in fiziognomije sezonsko poseljenega pasu v slovenskih Alpah. Elaborat, Inštitut za geografijo Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Vojvoda, M., Tončič, L. 1973: Preobrazba gorskega sezonsko pastirsko poseljenega področja Slovenije. Elaborat, Inštitut za geografijo Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. W alker, B. H., Anderies, J. M., Kinzig, A. P ., Ryan, P . 2006: Exploring resilience in social-ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development: introduction to the special issue. Ecology and Society 11-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01573-110112 Zakon o agrarnih skupnostih. Uradni list Ljudske Republike Slovenije 52/1947. Ljubljana. Zakon o agrarnih skupnostih. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 74/2015. Ljubljana. Zakon o denacionalizaciji. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 27/1991. Ljubljana. Zakon o gozdih. Uradni list kraljevske banske uprave dravske banovine I-35/1930. Ljubljana. Zakon o gozdovih. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 30/1993. Ljubljana. Zakon o kmetijskih zemljiščih. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 71/2011. Ljubljana. Zakon o ponovni vzpostavitvi agrarnih skupnosti ter vrnitvi njihovega premoženja. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 5/1994. Ljubljana. Zakon o razpolaganju s premoženjem bivših agrarnih skupnosti. Uradni list Socialistične republike Slovenije 7/65. Ljubljana. Zakon o Triglavskem narodnem parku. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 52/2010. Ljubljana. Zega, D. 1985: Zgodovinski pregled. Triglavski narodni park: vodnik. Bled. 99 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Reviews/Razgledi vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 99 PRETEKLI IN PREDVIDEN RAZVOJ PLANINSKEGA P AŠNIŠTV A IN TURIZMA: VPOGLEDI V NORVEŠKE IN SLOVENSKE RAZMERE 1 Uvod Gore nudijo številne naravne vire in preživitvene možnosti (Price 2015). To še posebej velja za skan- dinavske gore in Alpe, zlasti zaradi svoje pokrajinske raznolikosti (Hrvatin in Perko 2018). Dobrobiti vključujejo pašnike, rekreacijo na prostem, gozdarstvo in hidroelektrarne (Senegačnik 1985; Hveding 1992; Gabrovec in Kladnik 1997; MacDonald in sodelavci 2000; Petek 2005; Mottet in sodelavci 2006; T appeiner, Borsdorf in T asser 2008; Ringler 2009). Kmetijstvo, ki je tradicionalna panoga v gorskih območ- jih, je doživelo intenzifikacijo lahko dostopnih in za obdelovanje primernejših območij ter opuščanje slabših in težje dostopnih zemljišč (MacDonald in sodelavci 2000; Mottet in sodelavci 2006; Ringler 2009). Turizem in rekreacija pa nasprotno beležita očiten napredek in različno uspešno sobivata s kme- tijsko rabo zemljišč (Eiter 2004; Kaltenborn in sodelavci 2008; Ringler 2009; Rekdal in Angeloff 2012). Čeprav je na splošno vse več opuščanja kmetijske rabe zemljišč z omejenimi možnostmi, turizem in rekreacija na drugi strani doživljata razcvet, vendar se dinamika, obseg in vzroki sprememb med seboj razlikujejo po posameznih območjih. Primerjava rabe zemljišč ter posledičnih sprememb v pokrajini lahko pokaže splet razvojnih smernic ter različna gonila v ozadju. Razumevanje dinamike pokrajine v pre- teklosti je ključno za sprejemanje tehtnih odločitev o prihodnji rabi naravnih virov v gorah ter omogoča celostno razumevanje pokrajine v luči zagotavljanja ekosistemskih storitev (Ribeiro in Šmid Hribar 2019). Naš glavni cilj je analizirati značilnosti in razvojne smernice rabe naravnih virov v norveških in slovenskih gorah, s poudarkom na pašništvu in turizmu ter rekreaciji. Članek poskuša odgovoriti na naslednja raziskovalna vprašanja: Kaj je v obeh državah poganjalo rabo zemljišč in posledične spre- membe pokrajine? Katere so glavne razlike in podobnosti ter kakšni so vzroki zanje? Kakšne razvojne smernice lahko pričakujemo na podlagi pretekle pokrajinske dinamike? Članek temelji na poglobljeni analizi dveh na prvi pogled različnih gorskih območij, natančneje pašništva in turizma ter rekreacije na teh območjih. Na Norveškem je planinsko pašništvo razširjeno po celotni državi, a z velikimi regionalnimi in lokalnimi razlikami, na primer v pasmah živine, inten- zivnosti rabe zemljišč ter njenem spreminjanju (Reinton 1955). Reje severnih jelenov, značilne za območja na severu, ne upoštevamo, saj se občutno razlikuje od drugih vrst in oblik živinoreje po vzorcih pre- mikanja ter pravnem okviru. Ker je planinsko pašništvo razširjeno po celotni državi in so podatki na voljo za vso državo, se nismo odločili za študijo primera, ampak smo raje kot lokalne in regionalne poseb- nosti skušali zaobjeti stanje na državni ravni. Nasprotno pa je planinsko pašništvo v Sloveniji prostorsko vezano predvsem na Alpe, zato analizo gradimo na primerih, ki se nanašajo na dve (od treh) gorovij v Sloveniji (Julijske Alpe in Kamniško-Savinjske Alpe). Na območjih, ki sodita v alpsko visokogorje (Perko 1998), smo izbrali dve znani turistični območji, ki odražata značilnost turističnega razvoja celo- tnih Alp. Prvo je območje bohinjskih planinskih pašnikov (Julijske Alpe, Triglavski narodni park), kjer so posegi človeka v naravo majhni (Smrekar, Polajnar Horvat in Erhartič 2016), drugo pa pokrajinsko območje Velika planina v osrčju Kamniško-Savinjskih Alp) (Urbanc in sodelavci 2021). 2 Metode 2.1 Podatki Članek temelji na pregledu literature in analizi sekundarnih gradiv, ki večinoma obsegajo statisti- čne podatke. Statistika je običajno najprimernejša za ugotavljanje trendov, tudi tistih v kmetijstvu ter 100 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc Pretekli in predviden razvoj … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 100 101 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Razgledi/Reviews turizmu in prostočasnih dejavnostih, vendar so podatki za obravnavana območja in preučevane dejav- nosti dokaj skopi (za več glej 4.3). Zato smo natančno pregledali nacionalne bibliografske podatkovne zbirke, da smo našli obstoječe empirične študije, ki so postale dragocen vir podatkov. Analiza je bila zahtevna, saj so podatki pomanjkljivi, razdrobljeni ter zbrani in obdelani po razli- čnih metodologijah. Kljub temu je podatkov zadosti in so dovolj kakovostni, da razkrivajo kompleksnost razvoja obeh gospodarskih panog v dveh zgodovinsko, družbenoekonomsko, politično in kulturno razli- čnih državah, obenem pa zagotavljajo znanstveno utemeljenost raziskave. Kot navajajo nekatere raziskave (Abel, Cumming in Anderies 2006; Walker in sodelavci 2006; Paunović in Jovanović 2019), je lahko tudi primerjava raznolikih primerov, celo izredno različnih, koristna. Ob upoštevanju ome- jitev smo si na podlagi vseh podatkov prizadevali določiti ter potrditi trende in splošne procesne značilnosti. Ob predpostavki, da lahko celo med seboj različni primeri prispevajo k splošnim ugoto- vitvam, raziskava temelji na posebnostih obeh držav. 2.2 Analitični okvir Sistematična analiza gonilnih sil sprememb pokrajine (slika 1) je koristen okvir za analiziranje pokra- jinske dinamike (Eiter in Potthoff 2007; 2016; Plieninger in sodelavci 2016; Bürgi in sodelavci 2017). Bürgi, Hersperger in Schneeberger (2004, 858) so gonilne sile opredelili kot »sile, ki povzročajo zazna- ne spremembe pokrajine«. Za potrebe analize pokrajinskih sprememb v tem članku razumemo, da sile vedno izvaja nekdo ali nekaj (viri) (Eiter in Potthoff 2007). Kot primer navajamo privlačnost finan- čnih spodbud za preprečevanje opuščanja planinskih pašnikov ter po drugi strani družbenoekonomski pritisk, ki povzroča njihovo opuščanje. Ta pristop temelji na predpostavki, da različne gonilne sile vpli- vajo na vire. Na primer, zaščita določenega območja lahko spodbudi turizem, a tudi preprečuje razvoj. Sile so različnega izvora, večinoma povezane z domenami ali sektorji (gospodarstvo, okoljevarstvo, načrtovanje). kmetijstvo pokrajina turizem družbenoekonomsko–politične razmere Slika 1: Gonilne sile pokrajinskih sprememb v gorah v določenih družbenoekonomsko-političnih razmerah. vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 101 3 Uporaba zemljišč v norveških in slovenskih gorah Norveške gore so del gorske verige, ki se razprostira prek celotnega skandinavskega polotoka. 50,4 % ozemlja Norveške obsegajo gore, planote in barja oziroma močvirja (Statistics Norway 2019a). Gorske reliefne oblike (oziroma območja nad 700 m nadmorske višine) in gorska pokrajina (oziroma območ- ja med 400 in 700 m nadmorske višine) se pojavljajo po celotni državi (Skoglund 2013). Slovenske Alpe so na jugovzhodnem delu Alp. Alpe pokrivajo 42,1 % ozemlja Slovenije, ki se naprej deli na alpsko visokogorje (35,8 %), predalpsko hribovje (54,6 %) in predalpske nižine (9,6 %) (Perko in Ciglič 2020). Najpomembnejše značilnosti tega območja so velika nadmorska višina, nakloni, pokra- jinska raznolikost, obsežna gozdnata območja, pašniki in obstoj skupnih zemljišč. 3.1 Planinski pašniki Planinski pašniki v obeh državah predstavljajo posebno obliko rabe zemljišč na manj ugodnih območ- jih, ki jih pogosto skupnostno upravljajo (Petek in Urbanc 2007). Uporabljajo jih lokalne skupnosti, ki imajo pravice na določenem območju (Sevatdal in Grimstad 2003). V preteklosti od njih niso bili odvi- sni zgolj njihovi lastniki, ampak tudi širše skupnosti (Petek in Urbanc 2007), zato so ljudje pazili, da jih niso preveč (iz)rabili (Rodela 2012). 3.1.1 Lastništvo Lastniška struktura je ključna za razumevanje rabe virov na planinskih pašnikih. Na Norveškem so planinski pašniki del različnih vrst skupnih zemljišč. Državna zemljišča so v lasti države, kmetje pa imajo pravico do njihove rabe (Sevatdal in Grimstad 2003). Ustanovitev župnijskih skupnih zemljišč je povezana s prodajo državnih zemljišč (po 1660), od katerih so nekatera postala zasebna, druga pa župnijska zemljišča. Tretja in najpogostejša oblika je zemljišče v skupni lasti več kmetij (Sevatdal in Grimstad 2003), pri čemer si le-te delijo tako lastništvo kot pravico do rabe. Približno 26.200 km² (ozi- roma 8 %) norveškega celinskega ozemlja pokrivajo skupna zemljišča (Statistics Norway 2020), od česar je po podatkih Sevatdala (1998) 5500 km² (oziroma 1,7 %) župnijskih skupnih zemljišč, vendar pa ni natančnejših podatkov za skupna zemljišča v lasti več kmetij. V Sloveniji so planinski pašniki posebna oblika lastnine, ki jo običajno skupaj upravljajo bližnje kme- tije, povezane v tako imenovano agrarno skupnost. V preteklosti lastništvo in pravica do rabe nista bila povezana s fizičnimi osebami, ampak s kmetijo in sta se prenašala iz roda v rod (Cerar, Kliner in Papež 2011). Politično in gospodarsko stanje (v Jugoslaviji) po drugi svetovni vojni je prekinilo dolgotrajno prakso. Zakon o agrarnih skupnostih (1947) in Zakon o razpolaganju s premoženjem bivših agrarnih skupnosti (1965) sta ukinila agrarne skupnosti ter podržavila njihova zemljišča. Število prizadetih agrar- nih skupnosti se giblje med 1000 (uradno) in 1500 (ustno izročilo) (Cerar, Kliner in Papež 2011) ali celo 2000 (Petek in Urbanc 2007). Kljub temu so številne agrarne skupnosti nadaljevale s svojimi usta- ljenimi praksami; registrirale so se kot društva oziroma združenja, ki so najela svoje nekdanje premoženje. Po osamosvojitvi Slovenije sta dva zakona urejala skupna zemljišča. Zakon o denacionalizaciji (1991) in Zakon o ponovni vzpostavitvi agrarnih skupnosti ter vrnitvi njihovega premoženja in pravic (1994) sta omogočila ponovno vzpostavitev skupnih zemljišč, čeprav z nekaterimi razlikami. Prvi zakon ne upošteva posebnosti skupnih zemljišč, zato je vrnjeno premoženje pripadlo posameznim upravičen- cem. Drugi zakon je odpravil pomanjkljivosti, tako da so premoženje dobile agrarne skupnosti, ki so nato določile deleže in razmerja med upravičenci. Prvi zakon je zahteval zapleten postopek dedova- nja, kar je pogosto vodilo v drobitev zemljišč in prenos lastništva na nekmete, medtem ko je drugi zakon omogočil dejansko obnovitev agrarnih skupnosti. V številnih primerih pa so najbolj vitalne agrarne skupnosti začele postopek denacionalizacije že po prvem, splošnem zakonu in se zapletle v dolgotraj- ne postopke, ki se v nekaterih primerih še niso končali. Leta 2015 je bil sprejet nov Zakon o agrarnih 102 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc Pretekli in predviden razvoj … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 102 skupnostih (2015), katerega cilj je bil olajšanje upravljanja skupnih zemljišč. Kljub občutnim izboljša- vam so glavne pomanjkljivosti ostale; agrarne skupnosti niso posebni pravni subjekti, ampak skupine fizičnih in pravnih oseb, kar ovira njihovo delovanje. Podatki o učinkih zakona iz leta 2015 še niso na voljo, a Premrl (2013) je navajal, da je do marca 2013 postopke za vpis končalo 638 agrarnih skupnosti in pridobilo skupaj 77.486,47 hektarjev zem- ljišč, kar predstavlja 3,67 % ozemlja države (čeprav zakon iz leta 2015 od njih zahteva, da se ponovno registrirajo). Največje število obnovljenih oziroma ponovno vzpostavljenih agrarnih skupnosti je na območju Julijskih Alp. 3.1.2 Razvoj planinskega pašništva Planinski pašniki so pomemben kmetijski vir tako na Norveškem (Bryn in Potthoff 2018) kot v Sloveniji (Petek in Urbanc 2007). Na Norveškem se pojavljajo po skoraj celotni državi: na gozdnatih območjih, na nekoč gozdnatih območjih in nad gozdno mejo (Reinton 1955). Zgodnje sledi pašništva so iz dobe poznega neolitika (2400–1800 pr. n. št.; Prescott 1999). Sčasoma se je razvilo sezonsko kmetovanje, ki se je dokončno uve- ljavilo na prehodu iz srednjega v zgodnji novi vek (Reinton 1961). Slika 2 prikazuje razvoj sezonskih kmetij (v pomenu naseljenosti glede na letni čas), in sicer le tistih, ki pridelujejo mleko. Očitno je, da je rasti sredi 19. stoletja sledil padec, ki je bil še posebej zaznaven po letu 1950. Leta 1995 je bilo opuš- čenih 97 % sezonskih kmetij, ki so obstajale leta 1850. Razen manjšega porasta v letih 1995 in 1996, je število sezonskih kmetij vse do danes stalno upadalo (slika 3). Izsledki razkrivajo različne vzroke za razvoj planinskih pašnikov na Norveškem. Reinton (1961) porast števila sezonskih kmetij do sredine 19. stoletja razlaga z naraščanjem števila prebivalcev, kmetij in glav 103 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Razgledi/Reviews 10 000 . 20 000 . 30 000 . 40 000 . 50 000 . 60 000 . 0 število kmetij/sezonskih kmetij leto 1723 1907 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1995 1850 število kmetij, ki se ukvarjajo s sezonskim kmetovanjem število sezonskih kmetij Slika 2: Število sezonskih kmetij in kmetij, ki se ukvarjajo s sezonskim kmetovanjem na Norveškem do leta 1995 (vir podatkov: Reinton 1961; Statistisk … 1962; 1982; Statens … 2006). vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 103 živine. Nato je nekje do začetka 20. stoletja zaradi boljših zaposlitvenih možnosti prišlo do močnih seli- tev s podeželja v mesta (Almås 2004), kar je skupaj z izseljevanjem v Severno Ameriko povzročilo pomanjkanje delovne sile v kmetijstvu (Gjerdåker 2004). Začetek 20. stoletja je zaznamoval močan druž- beni, gospodarski in tehnološki napredek, ki je vplival na rabo naravnih virov v gorah (Almås 2002; 2004; Gjerdåker 2002). Pomanjkanje delovne sile ne le zaradi izseljevanja, ampak tudi nizkih plač v kme- tijstvu je zaviralo pašo živine v gorah (Funder 1916; Reinton 1961). Poleg tega so obilica krme in mineralna gnojila zmanjšali odvisnost kmetij od planinskih pašnikov (Reinton 1961; Potthoff 2004; Eiter in Potthoff 2016). Ustanovitev skupnih vaških mlekarn je zahtevala celoletno prisotnost živine v bližini (Funder 1916; Reinton 1961; Potthoff 2004). Zaradi zahtev po visoki kakovosti je bila prireja mleka na sezon- skih kmetijah manj primerna (Funder 1916). Nenazadnje se je kmetijstvo nekaterih območij soočilo s konkurenco drugih gospodarskih panog, na primer gozdarstva (Reinton 1961). Zgodovinski razvoj planinskega pašništva v slovenskih Alpah beležimo vse od leta 973 (Melik 1950). Verjetno gre za še starejši pojav, če upoštevamo, da je človek poseljeval gorska območja vsaj od leta 500 pr. n. št., a paša ni dokumentirana (Zega 1985; Rejec Brancelj in Smrekar 2000; Ledinek Lozej 2012). Čeprav je bilo planinsko pašništvo v preteklosti ključno za preživetje majhnih kmetij (Vojvoda 1967; Vojvoda in Tončič 1973; Mikša in Zorn 2016), so ga omejevali različni zakoni o pogozdovanju, ki so sledili vse večjim potrebam po lesu v železarstvu in rudarstvu do leta 1750 (Melik 1950; Anko 1985). Podobno kot na Norveškem najzgodnejše nazadovanje planinskega pašništva sega v obdobje med leto- ma 1827 in 1900 ter je posledica prehoda iz pašne v hlevsko živinorejo (Petek 2005). Vojvoda (1967; Vojvoda in Tončič 1973) navaja, da je bilo v 30. letih 20. stoletja v slovenskih Alpah 532 zasebnih ali skupnih planinskih pašnikov, a jih je bilo 34 opuščenih pred drugo svetovno vojno. Obdobje zatem je bilo najbolj dinamično (slika 4), saj je bilo opuščenih nadaljnjih 249 pašnikov. V nasprotju od Norveške se je število planinskih pašnikov povečevalo med letoma 1995 in 2011 (z 249 na 266), a se je po relati- vno stabilnem obdobju do 2014 njihovo število do leta 2019 zmanjšalo na 230. Nekateri vzroki za opuščanje planinskih pašnikov v Sloveniji so podobni norveškim: tehnološki napre- dek v kmetijstvu, deagrarizacija (Senegačnik 1985) in zahteve mlekarske panoge (hlevska živinoreja) (Petek 2005). Ukinitev gozdnih pašnih pravic na skupnih in zasebnih zemljiščih (Vojvoda 1967) pa velja zgolj za Slovenijo, kjer se je zgornjim dejavnikom pridružilo še zmanjševanje mehke moči kmetijstva zaradi vse slabšega poklicnega položaja kmetov (Razpotnik Visković in Seručnik 2013). Povojna nacio- nalizacijska zakona (1947 in 1965) sta najbolj prizadela agrarne skupnosti. Osamosvojitev Slovenije je pomenila nov mejnik. Oba denacionalizacijska zakona (glej 3.1.1) sta poživila zanimanje, čeprav je bilo v mnogih primerih že prepozno, saj je zaraščanje že preveč napredovalo. Upad v letu 2015 bi lahko odra- žal negotovost zaradi tedanjega Zakona o agrarnih skupnostih (2015). V preteklosti so imela skupna zemljišča, vključno s planinskimi pašniki, ki so jih upravljale agrar- ne skupnosti, predvsem gospodarski pomen. V zadnjem času pa v ospredje stopa njihov prispevek k biodiverziteti, ohranjanju kulturne pokrajine, predvsem zaradi tradicionalnega znanja o upravljanju skupnih virov (Rodela 2012; Šmid Hribar, Bole in Urbanc 2015; Šmid Hribar in sodelavci 2018). Najvidnejša posledica opuščanja planinskih pašnikov (na Norveškem pogosto v povezavi z manjšo rabo drugih virov, na primer lesa za kurjavo) je zaraščanje odprtih zemljišč. Celovit pregled tega procesa na Norveškem ne obstaja, vendar nekaj študij primerov kaže na širjenje gozdnih zemljišč (Bryn 2008; Olsson, Austrheim in Grenne 2000). Hemsing in Bryn (2012) ocenjujeta, da bi ogozdovanje lahko vplivalo kar na petino vseh počitniških domov na Norveškem, in sicer zaradi zastiranja razgleda in izgube odprtih zemljišč za pohodništvo. Poleg tega opuščanje paše in spremembe v sestavi rastja ogrožajo biodiverzi- teto predalpskih polnaravnih travišč (Olsson, Hanssen in Rønningen 2004), širjenje gozdnih zemljišč pa bi lahko škodilo kulturni dediščini (Kuiper in Bryn 2013). V Sloveniji se gozdna zemljišča povečujejo vse od leta 1827, še posebej izrazito pa od leta 1953 (Petek 2005; Gabrovec in Kumer 2019). K temu so poleg sprememb kategorij rabe zemljišč pripomogli še šte- vilni drugi dejavniki: prepoved gozdne paše, uporaba premoga namesto lesa (drv) ter nenazadnje tehnični napredek v kmetijstvu in splošna preobrazba kmečke družbe od sredine prejšnjega stoletja dalje. 104 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc Pretekli in predviden razvoj … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 104 105 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Razgledi/Reviews 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 število kmetij/sezonskih kmetij leto 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 število kmetij, ki se ukvarjajo s sezonskim kmetovanjem število sezonskih kmetij Slika 3: Število sezonskih kmetij in kmetij, ki se ukvarjajo s sezonskim kmetovanjem na Norveškem po letu 1995 (vir podatkov: Statens … 2006; podatki pridobljeni pri Statistiki Norveške). delujoče planine 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 leto 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 1995 1973 1966 1941 1930 Slika 4: Število aktivnih planinskih pašnikov v Sloveniji med letoma 1940 in 2019 (vir podatkov: Vojvoda 1967; Vojvoda in Tončič 1973; Schlamberger 1995; Služba … 2019). vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 105 3.2 Rekreacija na prostem in turizem na Norveškem in v Sloveniji Pokrajina je ključna za razvoj turizma (Skowronek in sodelavci 2018), še posebej v državah z edin- stvenim spojem naravnih in družbenokulturnih značilnosti. Zaradi visoke stopnje naravnosti gore omogočajo raznovrstne rekreativne dejavnosti na prostem. V norveških in slovenskih gorah sta še pose- bej priljubljena pohodništvo in smučanje, saj imata najdaljšo tradicijo in največji vpliv na prostorski razvoj, čeprav obstajajo tudi druge vrste rekreacije. Rekreacijska raba gora, ki v obeh državah obstaja že od začetka 19. stoletja (Langdalen 1965; Pehani 2000; Rebolj in Malešič 2008), temelji na prostem dostopu na neobdelana območja. Na Norveškem to pravico zagotavlja Zakon o rekreaciji na prostem (1957) (Ministry … 1996), v Sloveniji pa Zakon o goz- dovih (1993), Zakon o kmetijskih zemljiščih (2011) in na območju Triglavskega narodnega parka še Zakon o Triglavskem narodnem parku (2010). Pomembna akterja, ki omogočata dejavnosti na pro- stem v gorah, sta Norveška pohodniška zveza (ustanovljena leta 1868) in Planinska zveza Slovenije (ustanovljena leta 1893). Obe vzdržujeta številne planinske koče, ki nudijo namestitev, in široko omre- žje planinskih poti. Literatura navaja sobivanje zgodnjih planincev in pastirjev v obeh državah. Zaradi pomanjkanja infrastrukture so prvi planinci v norveških gorah namestitev iskali na sezonskih kmetijah (Eiter 2004; Flognfeldt 2004). V Sloveniji je Velika planina odličen primer takšnega sodelovanja. Okoli leta 1910 so se v slovenskih gorah pojavili prvi smučarji in že leta 1924 na Veliki planini, ki je našla svoje mesto tudi v zgodovinski predstavitvi smučanja v smučarskem muzeju na Holmenkollnu pri Oslu. Število smu- čarjev na Veliki planini je kmalu preraslo zmogljivosti koče slovenske planinske organizacije, zato so se v ponudbo vključile pastirske bajte. Ta praksa – v nekoliko spremenjeni obliki – še vedno obstaja: od junija do septembra bajte zasedejo pastirji, od oktobra do maja pa bajtarji. Smučanje, ki je spod- budilo turizem, je danes popolnoma v senci planinarjenja in pohodništva. Obenem je poletni turizem prekosil zimskega; preobrat se je zgodil okoli leta 2010 (Cigale in Lampič 2019). Privlačnost Velike pla- nine je tako v naravnih lepotah kot tudi v pastirski tradiciji in identiteti. Slednjo so okrepili razni projekti, kot so Po stopinjah pastirjev (Internet 1). Na Norveškem je šla gradnja počitniških hiš za poletno in zimsko bivanje z roko v roki z razvojem rekreacije na prostem. Intenzivneje se je začela okoli 1920, a njena tradicija sega vse do 19. stoletja (Flognfeldt 2004; Kaltenborn, Andersen in Nellemann 2007). Na začetku so sekundarna bivališča rasla v bližini sezonskih kmetij, pozneje pa se je razdalja povečevala (Langdalen 1965; Flognfeldt 2004). Po letu 1950 so počitniške hiše postale dostopnejše in turistično podobo so začele dopolnjevati planin- ske koče in hoteli, zgrajeni v bližini sezonskih kmetij (Langdalen 1980; Flognfeldt 2004; Kaltenborn in sodelavci 2008). S tem je neformalna namestitev na sezonskih kmetijah izgubila svoj pomen, ven- dar se je stanje kmalu spremenilo. Po letu 1960 so se vedno pogosteje vključevale v turistično ponudbo (Flognfeldt 2004). Kmečki potomci, ki so se sicer odselili, so ob kmetiji postavili počitniške hiše (Flognfeldt 2004) in prenovili zastarela poslopja. Nov trend je gradnja (visokokakovostnih) počitniških hiš in hote- lov v gorskih smučarskih središčih (Flognfeldt 2002; Kaltenborn in sodelavci 2008). Tako se je povprečna velikost počitniških hiš povečala s 60 m² leta 1983 na več kot 100 m² leta 2009 (Statistics Norway 2019b). Razvoj gorskega turizma je povezan z lažjo dostopnostjo gorskih območij zaradi gradnje cest. Prve prometnice so bile zgrajene za lažje tradicionalno izkoriščanje virov, na primer planinskih pašnikov (Langdalen 1965). Z naraščanjem turizma pa je postal pomembnejši dostop do gora v rekreativne namene. Podobno kot na Norveškem se je razvoj turistične infrastrukture v gorah na ozemlju današnje Slovenije začel ob koncu 19. stoletja, najbolj intenzivno obdobje pa je sledilo po koncu druge svetovne vojne (Dobnik 2007). V bohinjskih gorah je do največje rasti v gradnji vikendov prišlo med letoma 1948 in 1955, v času prvega vala množičnega turizma na tamkajšnjem območju (Dobnik 1991). Hkrati je tudi na Veliki pla- nini turizem dobil večji zagon, in sicer z gradnjo turističnega naselja stran od pastirskih koč z namenom ohranitve kulturne pokrajine. Med letoma 1953 in 1970 so bile zgrajene tri planinske koče, kar je sku- 106 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc Pretekli in predviden razvoj … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 106 paj s postavitvijo nove žičnice za prevoz potnikov spodbudilo turistične dejavnosti. Od začetka 90. let 20. stoletja je Velika planina dostopna tudi z avtomobili. Ta razvoj je posledica višjega življenjskega stan- darda slovenskega prebivalstva in povečevanja mednarodnih turističnih tokov (Cigale 2012). Do okoli leta 1980 je 36,2 % gora v slovenskih Alpah dobilo turistično infrastrukturo (Senegačnik 1985). Trend se je nadaljeval, vendar manj izrazito na zaščitenih območjih. Razvoj turizma je sprem- ljalo povečanje števila počitniških hiš. Hrepenenje po gorah je slovenske Alpe spremenilo v območje z najvišjim številom počitniških hiš v celotni državi (Opačić in Koderman 2019). Preobrazba sezonskih kmetij v počitniške hiše, izgradnja novih počitniških hiš ter turističnih sre- dišč in letovišč, vključno s smučarskimi progami, je spremenilo značaj norveške gorske pokrajine. Obenem je vplivalo na podeželske skupnosti z družbenega, okoljskega in ekonomskega vidika. Odnos do grad- nje počitniških hiš se razlikuje od ene do druge skupnosti in tudi znotraj posamezne skupnosti (Rye 2011; Hidle 2013). Z ekonomskega vidika lahko turizem poveča lokalne prihodke: s prodajo zemljišč in blaga ter s storitvami med in po gradnji (Taugbøl in sodelavci 2000; Flognfeldt 2002; Kaltenborn, Andersen in Nellemann 2007). Z varstvenega vidika pa imajo razvoj turizma in posledične spremem- be lahko negativen prizvok, in sicer zaradi neposredne rabe prostora, prometne gneče, večje porabe energije, učinka na kulturno dediščino (na primer na stara kmečka poslopja) in možnih posledic za okolje, še posebej za črede divjih severnih jelenov (Langdalen 1980; Taugbøl in sodelavci 2000; Kaltenborn, Andersen in Nellemann 2007). V slovenskih Alpah obstaja podoben razkorak med gospodarskim razvojem in zaščito. Rekreacija na prostem lahko pomaga oživiti planinske pašnike, na primer pašništvo na Veliki planini je ob koncu prejšnjega stoletja postalo donosnejše zaradi turističnih nakupov (Rebolj in Malešič 2008). V nekaterih primerih pa razvoj turizma, rekreacije in prometa povzroči degradacijo okolja. Še posebej problema- tična je oskrba planinskih koč v Julijskih Alpah, vključno z odstranjevanjem odpadkov in odpadnih voda. Celo več, malo je verjetno, da bodo prihodki od turizma lahko pokrili stroške obratovanja. Senegačnik (1985) navaja, da je v gorah na območju Bohinja, na katere je turizem najbolj vplival, že v 80. letih 20. stoletja prihajalo do finančnih težav. V obeh državah je več dejavnikov, ki se nanašajo na promet in mobilnost, prispevalo k rasti turiz- ma. Na Norveškem so zgodnji dostop omogočale železniške in avtobusne povezave, temu pa je sledil osebni promet (Flognfeldt 2004). Pozneje sta gradnja cest in uporaba mlekarskih tovornjakov povzročili veliko rast turizma (Flognfeldt 2004). Boljši gmotni položaj, vse več prostega časa in večja mobilnost so prispevali k razvoju prostočasnih dejavnosti (Langdalen 1980; Kaltenborn in sodelavci 2008). Podobne razloge lahko najdemo tudi v Sloveniji. S pojavom železnic sredi 19. stoletja se je gorski turizem v Alpah razcvetel (Horvat 2004). Po drugi svetovni vojni je razvoj nekoliko zastal (Cigale 2010), a se je pozne- je pospešil zaradi istih razlogov kot na Norveškem. Slovenske Alpe so postale eno od najživahnejših turističnih območij v Sloveniji (Cigale 2007). 4 Razprava 4.1. Gonilne sile rabe zemljišč in posledične spremembe pokrajine Raba naravnih virov v gorah za pašo in turizem v obeh državah izkazuje precejšnje podobnosti, vključno s časovnico razvojnih usmeritev. Intenzivnost rabe planinskih pašnikov je odvisna od splošnega pritiska na kmetijske vire. Njihova raba je v obeh državah močno nazadovala v drugi polovici 20. stoletja, zaradi občih družbenih in gospo- darskih sprememb ter tehnološkega napredka v kmetijstvu. Posledično je planinske pašnike ponovno začel zaraščati gozd. Turistična raba gorskih območjih se je v obeh državah začela v 19. stoletju in se je od tedaj stalno povečevala. Vzroke temu je treba iskati v številnih družbenoekonomskih spremem- bah, vključno z željo po aktivnem življenjskem slogu in dejavnostmi na prostem, kar spodbujajo tudi 107 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Razgledi/Reviews vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 107 izboljšano ravnovesje med delom in prostim časom, višji družinski prihodki in večja dostopnost gor- skih območij. Najočitnejša razlika med slovenskimi in norveškimi planinskimi pašniki je zgodovina njihovega lastništva in močan vpliv le-tega na njihovo rabo. Zemljiška reforma, ki je po drugi svetovni vojni pri- zadela agrarne skupnosti in njihovo premoženje, je bila v ostrem nasprotju z večstoletno tradicijo upravljanja planinskih pašnikov v Sloveniji. Privatizacija je kljub namenu odpravljanja preteklih krivic nehote pov- zročila nove težave. Pričakovanja nekdanjih in ponovnih upravičencev so se spreminjala skupaj z občimi družbenimi spremembami in preobrazbami, saj je vključevanje deležnikov tesno povezano z vrednota- mi celotne družbe in vrednostnimi sistemi posameznikov. Poznavanje značilnosti političnih sistemov je ključno za razumevanje razlik v rabi virov med Norveško in Slovenijo (preglednica 1). Gospodarstvo, poli- tike in tehnologija, ki so se pokazali kot pomembni dejavniki rabe zemljišč in posledičnih sprememb pokrajine, so vplivali na spremembe pokrajine tudi v drugih evropskih državah (Eiter in Potthoff 2016). 4.2 Obeti za izbrana gorska območja na Norveškem in v Sloveniji Obstoječe gonilne sile razvoja pokrajine bodo prisotne tudi v prihodnosti. Tehnološki napredek ter politične in družbenoekonomske razmere bodo ostale aktualne v obeh državah. V slovenskih gorah bodo družbenoekonomske in politične spremembe, povezane s padcem komunizma in sprememba- mi lastniškega stanja, verjetno še naprej vplivale na njihovo upravljanje. Učinkovito ohranjanje alpskih planinskih pašnikov zahteva ustrezno sistemsko ureditev agrarnih skupnosti. Morebitno grožnjo pred- stavlja zakonski okvir, natančneje širitev kroga upravičencev do skupnega zemljišča na posameznike ali skupine z omejenim znanjem o rabi virov. Dejstvo je, da sta uspešnost denacionalizacije in upra- vljanje skupnostnega premoženja odvisna od angažiranosti deležnikov. Izvajanje ukrepov politik in strategij bi moralo biti vključujoče in razumeti deležnike kot raznoliko skupnost z različnimi vrednotami in stra- tegijami upravljanja (Ferrario in Castiglioni 2015). Temu bi moralo slediti načelo participacije, katerega udejanjanje pa ovira nizka angažiranost civilne družbe, še posebej v tranzicijskih državah (Nared in sodelavci 2015) in tudi nosilcev odločitev (Tiran in sodelavci 2019). V obeh državah gospodarjenje s pla- ninskimi pašniki – kljub visokim finančnim podporam – ovirajo nizki prihodki (Ringler 2009; Bojnec in Latruffe 2013; Bye in sodelavci 2017). Raven javnih izdatkov bo zato igrala ključno vlogo pri ohra- njanju aktivnih planinskih pašnikov. Malo je verjetno, da bi se to lahko kmalu spremenilo. Ekonomska orodja, ki delujejo od zgoraj navzdol in odražajo politične zaveze, lahko delujejo kot protiutež (Jones 2010) in povzročajo trenja v prihodnjem razvoju oziroma zmanjševanje rabe planinskih pašnikov. Razvojne možnosti bi lahko nudil preplet turizma in kmetijstva. Vprašanje je, na kakšen način lahko vsaka od panog, ki imata različne dinamike in gonilne sile, izkoristi infrastrukturo in storitve druge ter podpira vzajemne interese, da bi pospešila razvoj na temelju komplementarnosti in sinergij. Do med- sebojne povezanosti je prišlo v začetnem obdobju razvoja gorskega turizma, vendar sta pozneje hiter razvoj turistične infrastrukture in nazadovanje paše v  goratih območjih povzročila ločitev obeh panog. Novejši primer tovrstnega sodelovanja lahko najdemo v sirarstvu na nekaterih planinskih paš- nikih, še posebej v Julijskih Alpah. Turizem je prinesel kupce z boljšo kupno močjo (Petek 2005). Na Norveškem je 0,9 % sezonskih kmetij (obdobje 2009–2015) izvajalo tudi dejavnosti povezane s turiz- mom (Stensgaard 2017). Dobrobiti sodelovalnega razmerja, ki presegajo zgolj ekonomske koristi, so dokumentirane. Na pri- mer Čerpes, Pandol in Fikfak (2014) navajajo, da lahko planinski pašniki in pastirske koče prispevajo k varnosti gornikov in drugih obiskovalcev visokogorja. Poleg tega raziskava Genoveseja in sodelav- cev (2017) v italijanskih Alpah dokazuje, da sodelovanje poleg podpiranja obeh panog tudi krepi trajnostni razvoj. Eno od možnih sredstev za doseganje trajnejše prihodnosti kulturne pokrajine je krepitev eko- loškega kmetijstva, ki je še posebej primerno za gorska območja (Travnikar in Juvančič 2018). Čeprav bi sodelovanje lahko pomembno spodbudilo tako turizem kot kmetijstvo, pa ni povsem brez težav: Mayer in Job (2010) omenjata konflikte, Ledinek Lozejeva (2013) pa negativne učinke turizma 108 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc Pretekli in predviden razvoj … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 108 109 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Razgledi/Reviews Preglednica 1: Gonilne sile gorske pokrajine ter družbenoekonomsko-političnih sprememb na Norveškem in v Sloveniji (legenda: * po 1921, s premori; ** kontroverzno vprašanje z nasprotujočimi si argumenti (Flere in Klanjšek 2015; Mihaljević in Miljan 2019); *** Internet 2, Zakon o gozdih 1930; # od začetka 20. stoletja; ## za nabiranje gozdnih sadežev je bilo potrebno dovoljenje; da-- velik upad; da- zmeren upad; da+ zmeren porast; da++ velik porast). do 2. svetovne vojne po 2. svetovni vojni – konec 80-ih/ od začetka 1990-ih dalje začetek 90-ih let 20. stoletja NO SI NO SI NO SI POLITIČNI SISTEM (vlada) ustavna monarhija da da* da no da no republika ne ne ne da ne da totalitarni režim** ne ne ne da ne ne demokracija*** da # ne da ne da da EKONOMSKI SISTEM kapitalizem da da da ne da da socializem ne ne ne da ne ne tržna ekonomija da da da ne da da planska ekonomija ne ne ne da ne ne LASTNIŠTVO PLANINSKIH PAŠNIKOV državna skupna zemljišča / družbena lastnina da ne da da da ne župnijska skupna zemljišča da ne da ne da ne zemljišča v skupni lasti več kmetij / agrarne skupnosti da da da ne da da ŠTEVILO IN LOKACIJA PLANINSKIH PAŠNIKOV spremembe v številu aktivnih pašnikov da-- da-- da-- da-- da- ne spremembi v rabi tal (ogozdovanje) N/A da+ da++ da++ da++ da+ TURIZEM pohodništvo in smučanje da da da da da da skupne nočitvene kapacitete da da ne da ne ne vikend hiše da da da da da da planinske koče da da da da da da prometna infrastruktura za turizem ne ne da da da da spreminjanje nekdanjih kmetij v počitniše hiše ne da da da da da prost dostop do gozda da ne ## da da da da vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 109 na planinske pašnike v Alpah. Vsekakor je modro, če negujemo možnosti sodelovanja, a zadržkov ne bi smeli zanemariti. Nenazadnje je treba priznati, da turizem ni vsestransko zdravilo za vse mogoče izzive planinskega pašništva. 4.3 Izzivi primerjave razvojnih trendov Primerjava značilnosti in trendov obeh držav, na kateri sloni ta članek, je odvisna od obstoječih statističnih podatkov in drugih sekundarnih gradiv. Poiskali smo vse dostopne podatke, ki z različnih vidikov osvetljujejo izbrano tematiko. Pridobivanje novih podatkov bi sicer zahtevalo obsežno raziskavo. Seveda pa uporaba obstoječih podatkov prinaša določene izzive, povezane z dostopnostjo in kakovostjo podatkov. Statistični podatki so se izkazali za nezadostne. V Sloveniji tako na primer ne obstajajo siste- matično zbrani podatki o  gorskih turističnih zmogljivostih. Dejstvo, da je vsako gorsko območje administrativno del bližnjega stalnega naselja, ki je najmanjša statistična enota, je zelo otežilo delo, ker ni bilo mogoče dobiti ločenih podatkov. Nepopolni podatki in zlasti pomanjkanje zanesljivih podatkov ovirajo primerljivost dogajanja v obeh državah in identificiranje jasnih trendov razvoja. Če ponazorimo, ocena števila planinskih pašnikov v Sloveniji niha od avtorja do avtorja. Vzrok temu bi lahko bili nenatančna opredelitev planinskih paš- nikov in spremenljivost opredelitve glede na kontekst. T udi če so ustrezni podatki za oblikovanje časovnih nizov na voljo, je primerjava razvojnih trendov v obeh državah težavna zaradi različnih konceptov, stan- dardov in opredelitev, na katerih temeljijo državne statistike (glej tudi Tappeiner, Borsdorf in Tasser 2008). Na primer, raba planinskih pašnikov v norveških statistikah se nanaša na posamezne sezonske kmetije, slovenske statistike pa vključujejo tako zasebne kot skupne planinske pašnike. Definicije osno- ve organizacijske enote prav tako niso enotne. Norveške statistike smatrajo sezonsko kmetijo kot zapuščeno, ko se opusti molža oziroma predelava mleka, slovenske statistike pa imajo pašnike za akti- vne, dokler se na njih pase živina. (Ne)dostopnost podatkov je narekovala predstavitev vsake izmed držav s posameznimi, fragmen- tarnimi podatki, ki odražajo raznolikost in heterogenost stanja predstavljene tematike. Iz tega razloga ne uporabljamo izraza »študija primera«, temveč argumentacijo gradimo na individualnih podatkih. Poleg tega opredelitev obeh držav zavisi od družbenih, političnih in ekonomskih razmer, ki lahko pov- zročijo nestabilnost določenega pokrajinskega elementa ali vidika. Primer tega so slovenska skupna zemljišča in njihov kontekstualni okvir, ki zahtevajo temeljito razlago. Nazadnje je treba omeniti, da je pričujoči članek pokazal na le eno izmed možnosti preučevanja pokrajinskih sprememb, pri čemer smo se osredotočili na splošne trende in njihove širše posledice. Nedvomno bi bilo zanimivo preučiti, kakšne vidne in otipljive posledice so imeli oziroma imajo obči trendi v mikro prostoru oziroma v konkretni pokrajini. Zgledov in metodoloških pristopov v litera- turi je veliko; od uveljavljenih, kot sta analiza fotografij (Gabellieri in Watkins 2019) in kartografskih gradiv (Buterez in Cepraga 2018) do bolj inovativnih, kot je »utemeljena zgodovinska geografija« (McDonagh 2019). 5 Sklep Pričujoči članek analizira značilnosti in razvojne trende uporabe naravnih virov v norveških in slo- venskih gorah, pri čemer se osredotoča na planinske pašnike ter rekreacijo na prostem in turizem. Glavni izziv je bil predvsem, kako uravnoteženo predstaviti stanje v obeh državah, saj so na voljo različni nizi podatkov, in drugič, kako na podlagi tega izvesti smiselno in povedno primerjavo. Tehnološki razvoj, družbenoekonomske in politične razmere so dejavniki, ki bistveno vplivajo na rabo zemljišč in posledične spremembe pokrajine. Glavna razlika med obema državama je zgodovin- sko lastništvo nad zemljo, ki je bilo posledica različnih političnih ureditev. V Sloveniji je zakonodaja, 110 Kerstin Potthoff, Aleš Smrekar, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc Pretekli in predviden razvoj … vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 110 ki zagotavlja jasne smernice za delovanje agrarnih skupnosti, ključna za različne rabe planinskih paš- nikov. Verjetno bo tako tudi v prihodnje. V obeh državah bodo ekonomske gonilne sile še naprej usmerjale delovanje planinskih pašnikov. Finančne podpore, skupaj s politično zavezanostjo, so bistvene, poleg tega pa je nepogrešljivo tudi sode- lovanje med razvijajočo se turistično industrijo (čeprav je koronavirusna kriza leta 2020 pokazala, da se stanje lahko zelo hitro spremeni) in nazadujočim kmetijstvom. Živinoreja je predpogoj za plodno partnerstvo, ki bi ohranjalo privlačno kulturno pokrajino in krepilo trajnostni turizem. Zaradi krhko- sti gorskih območij vprašanj trajnostnosti ne bi smeli spregledati, saj bi s tem okrepili ogroženost celotne Evrope (Polajnar Horvat in Ribeiro 2019). Posebno pozornost je pri tem treba posvečati zaščitenim območ- jem (Mavri 2018). Presenetljivo je spoznanje, da gorska območja v Skandinaviji in Sloveniji, kljub različnim družbe- noekonomskim in političnim razmeram, doživljajo podobne procese: upad kmetovanja, zaraščanje in ponovno naseljevanje divjine na zapuščenih planinskih pašnikih ter rast turizma. Ta ugotovitev kaže, da so gore posebna območja, ki so občutljiva za družbenoekonomske spremembe in da imajo različne okoliščine sorodne posledice. Ne glede na to, ali so na Norveškem ali v Sloveniji, imajo planinski paš- niki več medsebojnih podobnosti kot razlik, čeprav ne smemo zanemariti posebnosti in drobnih razhajanj. Kljub težavnosti primerjave rabe zemljišč in sprememb v pokrajini v gorah dveh različnih držav, naši izsledki kažejo, da je takšna primerjava koristna. Razumevanje pretekle pokrajinske dinamike lahko tvorno prispeva k odločevalskemu procesu in prihodnjim ukrepom. Zahvala: Avtorji se zahvaljujejo Javni agenciji za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije za finan- čno podporo, v okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). 6 Viri in literatura Glej angleško različico besedila. 111 Geografski vestnik 92-1, 2020 Razgledi/Reviews vestnik 92_1_vestnik 82_1.qxd 1.3.2021 9:33 Page 111