Participatory mapping of landscape values in a Pan-European perspective

Context

Human–nature interactions are reflected in the values people assign to landscapes. These values shape our understanding and actions as landscape co-creators, and need to be taken into account to achieve an integrated management of the landscape that involves civil society.

Objectives

The aim of this research was to increase the current knowledge on the most and least common landscape values perceived by local stakeholders, the patterns in the spatial distribution of values, and their connection to different socio-economic backgrounds and landscape characteristics across Europe.

Methods

The research consisted of a cross-site comparison study on how landscape values are perceived in six areas of Europe using Public Participation GIS surveys. Answers were analysed combining contingency tables, spatial autocorrelation and bivariate correlation methods, kernel densities, land cover ratios, and viewshed analyses. Results were discussed in the light of findings derived from other European participatory mapping studies.

Results

We identified shared patterns in the perception of landscape values across Europe. Recreation, aesthetics, and social fulfilment were the most common values. Landscape values showed common spatial patterns mainly related to accessibility and the presence of water, settlements, and cultural heritage. However, respondents in each study site had their own preferences connected to the intrinsic characteristics of the local landscape and culture.

Conclusions

The results encourage land planners and researchers to approach landscape values in relation to socio-cultural and bio-physical land characteristics comprehensibly, acknowledging the complexity in the relationship between people’s perception and the landscape, to foster more effective and inclusive landscape management strategies.

     

The Forgotten Rural Landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe

Interactions between nature and man – the underlying forces in landscape – have over time caused diversity. Usually, geographers and landscape ecologists deal with spatial diversity; in this paper, we would like to also consider temporal diversity. We argue that Central and Eastern European landscapes (using the examples of Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia) are much more diverse in time (layers) than Western European ones. This difference requires the use of different indicators in order to measure and study landscapes and special problems, threats, and possibilities of management and future development – but most important is the consideration of different perceptions. We also show that this diversity reduces the readability of landscapes, creating miscommunication and a transformation of meanings. We further argue that the link between humans and landscape is lost in Central and Eastern European countries due to temporal diversity, and that this link will be created anew in a globalizing world. To overcome alienation, we need slightly different classifications/typologies for each country in this region, with the aim of a sound future management of cultural landscapes.     

Revisiting futures: integrating culture,care and time in landscapes

Context

Two approaches to study landscape change have been exploited: one that tries to study the developments that have happened in the past, and another that tries to foresee future.

Objectives

We analyse how this dual approach can help understanding landscape change, how people relate to it in general, what their expectations and preferences are. We also discuss the usefulness of path dependency theory, cultural sustainability, and cultural ecosystem services approaches in understanding the management of a historical cultural landscape.

Methods

First, we revisit a 1999 scenario study that outlined the possible trajectories of change prior Estonian accession to the European Union in 2004. Then, through series of studies we track the wider context of the landscape changes, analysing the results from the interviews and combining those with the visible results. We seek to answer whether or not the landscape changes that occurred followed any of the past scenarios, and if people’s preferences changed.

Results

The dynamics of realisation of different scenarios was not straightforward. However, people showed clear preference towards landscapes that carried signs of the continuation of rural life. What was not foreseen when designing the scenarios was the upsurge of local identity creating the links with the past.

Conclusions

In this Estonian traditional cultural landscape, stewardship, culture and cultural ecosystem services, or nature’s contribution to people as IPBES prefers to call this now, define what caring for the landscape involves.

     

Processes and driving forces in changing cultural landscapes across Europe

Context

Cultural landscapes evolve over time. However, the rate and direction of change might not be in line with societal needs and more information on the forces driving these changes are therefore needed.

Objectives

Filling the gap between single case studies and meta-analyses, we present a comparative study of landscape changes and their driving forces based in six regions across Europe conducted using a consistent method.

Methods

A LULC analysis based on historical and contemporary maps from the nineteenth and twentieth century was combined with oral history interviews to learn more about perceived landscape changes, and remembered driving forces. Land cover and landscape changes were analysed regarding change, conversions and processes. For all case study areas, narratives on mapped land cover change, perceived landscape changes and driving forces were compiled.

Results

Despite a very high diversity in extent, direction and rates of change, a few dominant processes and widespread factors driving the changes could be identified in the six case study areas, i.e. access and infrastructure, political shifts, labor market, technological innovations, and for the more recent period climate change.

Conclusions

Grasping peoples’ perception supplements the analyses of mapped land use and land cover changes and allows to address perceived landscape changes. The list of driving forces determined to be most relevant shows clear limits in predictability: Whereas changes triggered by infrastructural developments might be comparatively easy to model, political developments cannot be foreseen but might, nevertheless, leave major marks in the landscape.

     

Priority questions for the science,policy and practice of cultural landscapes in Europe

Context

The design of effective responses to safeguard cultural landscape values in Europe needs collaborative action among the stakeholders involved. Despite considerable progress triggered by the European Landscape Convention (ELC) and other initiatives to link landscape science, policy and practice, a joint research–action agenda is still lacking.

Objectives and methods

We respond to this challenge by identifying common priority questions for the sustainable management of cultural landscapes in Europe. To this end, we gathered, in a first phase, the most relevant research questions through a Delphi-like process with the research community in this field. In a second phase, the questions were prioritized by three stakeholder groups: scientists (Ss), policy-makers (PMs) and practitioners (Ps). The importance ranks and the similarity between groups’ priorities were calculated and analyzed.

Results

We found that the research question that addressed the issue of how to secure sustainable cultural landscapes where they are not economically profitable was the most important, with high level of agreement among all stakeholders. Alignment among the three groups was generally high; being higher between Ps–Ss and Ps–PMs than between Ss and PMs.

Conclusions

Our exercise can assist the implementation of the ELC by outlining the potential direction of future applied research and by strengthening the ties between the multiple stakeholders involved in the stewardship of European cultural landscapes.