Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 333–346 | Cite as

Bridging the Gap between Centrally Defined Policies and Local Decisions – Towards more Sensitive and Creative Rural Landscape Management

  • Teresa Pinto-Correia
  • Roland Gustavsson
  • Janez Pirnat
Research Article

Abstract

European policies and instruments such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and many instruments for nature and landscape conservation in Europe have for some decades been dominated by centralisation and standardisation. This paper shows that this has led to the neglect of contextual and place-related approaches and an unnecessarily high degree of over-simplification. Recently, as a reaction to this over-simplification, diversity and specific character has been particularly stressed in many European and national strategies for rural landscapes and conservation, but the processes of simplification still continue. Using examples from mixed agriculture and forestry landscapes in Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden, this paper aims to contribute to understanding the gap between centrally defined strategies for rural landscapes and awareness and management practices at local level. The three countries are situated at the outer fringes of Europe, and are complementary with their different degrees of urbanisation, forest distribution and tree-richness in the agricultural landscapes. Furthermore, the aim is to show how local landscape management is driven and to identify factors contributing to a better use of public policies through a participatory process with visions for the future. Systems of landscape classifications such as landscape character assessment often recognise the specific character of these landscapes, but have so far achieved very little for the preservation of their locally specific values, nor have they contributed to the development and the creation of new visions for future management. Such systems could contribute much more if they could be opened to adaptation on a more local scale in communication-led management planning.

Keywords

Authenticity Contextual knowledge Local level Multi-functionality Rural landscapes Stakeholders 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alphandery, P., Bitoun, Y., Dupont, P. 1990Les agriculteurs et la sensibilité ecologiqueCourrier de la Cellule Environment de l’INRA901415Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., Sköldberg, K. 1994Tolkning och reflektion. Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metodStudentlitteraturLundGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambroise, R., Barnaud, M., Vedel, G., Legros, D. 1998Bilan de l’experience des plans de development durable au point the vue de la relation agriculture-environmentLe Courrier l’Environment de l’INRA34520Google Scholar
  4. Bacharel F. and Pinto-Correia T. 1999. Land usenature conservation and regional policy in AlentejoPortugal. In: Kroenert R., Baudry J., Bowler I. and Reenberg A. (eds), Land-Use Changes and their Environmental Impact in Rural Areas in Europe. Man and the Biosphere Series, Vol. 24, Paris.Google Scholar
  5. Baldock, D.M., Beaufoy, G. 1993Nature Conservation and New Directions in the Common Agricultural PolicyIEEPLondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldock, D.M., Beaufoy, G., Brouwer, F., Godeschalk, F. 1996Farming at the Margins. Abandonment or Redeployment of Agricultural Land in EuropeIEEP and LEI-DLOLondon and The HagueGoogle Scholar
  7. Berleant, A. 1997Living in the Landscape. Toward an Aesthetics of EnvironmentUniversity Press of KansasKansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  8. Berleant, A. 2004Re-thinking AestheticsTJ International LtdPadstow, CornwallGoogle Scholar
  9. Bethe, F.Bolsius, E. eds. 1995Marginalisation of Agricultural land in Europe: Essays and Country StudiesNational Spatial Planning AgencyThe NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. Bishop, K.Phillips, A. eds. 2004Countryside Planning. New Approaches to Management and ConservationEarthscanLondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Brady, E. 2003Aesthetics of the Natural EnvironmentThe University of Alabama PressTuscaloosaGoogle Scholar
  12. Breman, B.C., Pinto Correia, T. 2003Coping with Marginalization and Multifunctional Land use in Portugal – A National Inventory for the Eurolan ProjectDepartamento de Planeamento Biofísico e PaisagísticoUniversidade de ÉvoraGoogle Scholar
  13. Buijs A., Pedroli B. and Luginbuhl Y. 2006. From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: Changing social perceptions of the European landscape. Landscape Ecol., this issue.Google Scholar
  14. Buller H., Wilson G.A. and Holl A. 2000. Agri-Environmental Policy in the European Union. Ashgate, Aldersholt.Google Scholar
  15. Cancela d’Abreu A., Pinto-Correia T. and Oliveira R. (Coord.) 2004. Contributos para a Identificação e Caracterização da Paisagem em Portugal Continental. Vol. I–V, Colecção Estudos 10, DGOT-DU, Lisboa.Google Scholar
  16. Carew-Reid, J., Prescott-Allen, R., Bass, S., Dalal-Clayton, B. 1994Strategies for National Sustainable Development. A Handbook for their Planning and ImplementationIUCN, IIED and EarthscanGlandGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlson, A. 2000Aesthetics and the Environment. The Appreciation of NatureArt and ArchitectureRoutledgeLondon and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Council of Europe. 2000. European Landscape Convention. T-Land6, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  19. Council of Europe, UNEP and ECNC.1996The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. A Vision of Europe’s Natural HeritageECNCTilburg, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. Cronon, W. 1996Uncommon Ground. Rethinking the Human Place in NatureW.W. Norton & CompanyNew York and LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Dramstad W. and Sogge C. 2003. Agricultural impacts on landscapes. Developing indicators for policy analysis. Proceedings from the NIJOS/OECD Expert Meeting on Agricultural Landscape Indicators, 7–9 Oct., Oslo.Google Scholar
  22. ECNC1997Action Theme 4: European Landscapes. Draft Action Plan for European LandscapesEuropean Centre for Nature ConservationTilburgGoogle Scholar
  23. Eden P. and Vieira M. 2000. Portugal: agri-environmental policy and the maintenance of biodiversity rich extensive farming systems. In: Buller H., Wilson G.A. and Holl A. (eds), Agri-Environmental Policy in the European Union. Ashgate, Aldersholt.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. 1999. State of Application of Regulation (EEC) 2078/92: Evaluation of Agri-Environment Programmes. DGVI Commission Working DocumentVI/7655/98, Brussels.Google Scholar
  25. Fisk, J.W., Herteman, O.B., Thorburn, T.L. 2000Integrated farming systems: a sustainable agriculture learning community in the USARoling, N.G.Wagemakers, M.A.E. eds. Facilitating Sustainable AgricultureCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Foster, C. 2000Restoring nature in American culture: an environmental aesthetic perspectiveGobster, P.Hull, B. eds. Restoring Nature Perspectives from the Social Sciences and HumanitiesIsland PressCalifornia7194Google Scholar
  27. Gago, J.M. 1998The Social Sciences BridgeObservatório das Ciências e das TecnologiasLisbonGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerdehag, P., Aronsson, M. 1999Bygden där vinden vändePrismaStockholmGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, T. 1994The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary SocietiesSageLondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Green, B.Vos, W. eds. 2001Threatened Landscapes Conserving Cultural EnvironmentsSPON PressLondon and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Gustavsson, R. 1995Landskapsförändringar inom vår egen tid; exemplet Bräkneåns dalgång i en jämförelse av foton från 1974 och 1994Blekinge NaturKarlskronaGoogle Scholar
  32. Gustavsson, R., Peterson, A. 2003Authenticity in landscape conservation and management: the importance of the local contextPalang, H.Fry, G. eds. Landscape InterfacesKluwer Academic publishersDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  33. Hagedorn, K. eds. 2002Environmental Co-operation and Institutional ChangeEdward Elgar Publishing LimitedCheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  34. Hansen, B., Primdahl, J. 1991Miljofolsomme omraader: evaluering af MFO-ordningens ivarksaettelse og betydningDSR Landskabsserie 1FrederiksbergGoogle Scholar
  35. Helmfrid, S. 1994Landscape and Settlements. National Atlas of SwedenDepartment of Geography, University of StockholmSwedenGoogle Scholar
  36. Hladnik D. 2005. Spatial structure of disturbed landscapes in Slovenia. Ecol. Eng.Google Scholar
  37. Ilbery, B. eds. 1998The Geography of Rural ChangeLongmanEssexGoogle Scholar
  38. Jollivet, M. 1997Des campagnes paysannes au rural ‘vert’: naissance d’une ruralité postindustrielleJollivet, M. eds. Vers un Rural PostindustrielRural et Environment dans huit Pays Européensl’Harmattan, Paris77126Google Scholar
  39. Klijn, J.Vos, W. eds. 2000From Landscape Ecology to Landscape ScienceKluwer Academic PublishersLondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Lowe, P., Ray, C., Ward, N., Wood, D., Woodward, R. 1998Participation in Rural Development: A Review of European ExperienceCentre for Rural EconomyNewcastle upon TyneGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowe, P., Baldock, D. 2000Integration of environmental objectives into agricultural policy makingBrouwer, F.Lowe, P. eds. CAP Regimes and the European CountrysideCABI PublishingWallingford3152Google Scholar
  42. Marusic, J.,  et al. 1998Regional Distribution of Landscape Types in Slovenia. Methodological BasisNational Office for Physical PlanningRepublic of SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  43. Mormont, M. 1999Un questionnaire durkheimien du développement durable. EnvironnementQui participe ?Environ. Soc.216779Google Scholar
  44. Nilsson, M., Persson, Å 2003Framework for analysing environmental policy integrationJ. Environ. Policy Plan.5333359Google Scholar
  45. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. 2002Re-thinking Science – Knowledge and the Public in an Age of UncertaintyPolity PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Oliveira R. and Pinto-Correia T. 2003. An Interdisciplinary Approach for integrating Landscape Management in the Common Agricultural Policy – Application to the municipality of Mértola, Southern Alentejo, Portugal. Proceedings of NATO Workshop, Nov, Poland.Google Scholar
  47. O’Riordan, T., Voisey, H. 1998The Transition to Sustainability, The Politics of Agenda 21 in EuropeEarthscanLondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Palang H., Gyuro E.K., Urbanc M., Melik A., Skowronek E. and Woloszyn W. 2006. The forgotten landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe. Landscape Ecol.this issue.Google Scholar
  49. Pedroli, B. eds. 2000Landscape – Our Home/Lebensraum Landschaft, Essays on The Culture of the European Landscape as a TaskIndigoZeist221Google Scholar
  50. Perelman C. 2004. Retorikens imperium. Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion. (Original title: L’empire rhétorique. Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, Paris 1977).Google Scholar
  51. Pinto-Correia, T. 2000aAs medidas agro-ambientais como instrumento integrado para a preservação da paisagem rural: a importância da sensibilização dos técnicos locais e dos chefes de exploraçãoGeoInova18198Google Scholar
  52. Pinto-Correia, T. 2000bFuture development in Portuguese rural areas: how to manage agricultural support for landscape conservation?Landscape Urban Plan.5095106Google Scholar
  53. Pinto-Correia, T., Sorensen, E.M. 1998Analysing current changes in farm structure in two Danish parishes: types of farmers and their strategiesForest Landscape Res.1491503Google Scholar
  54. Pinto-Correia T. and Vos W. 2004. Multifunctionality in Mediterranean landscapes – past and future. In: Jongman R. (eds), The New Dimensions of the European Landscape. Wageningen UR Frontis Series, Springer, Vol. 4, pp. 135–164.Google Scholar
  55. Pirnat, J. 2000Conservation and management of forest patches and corridors in suburban landscapesLandscape Urban Plan.52135143Google Scholar
  56. Pretty J. 2000. Supportive policies and practice for scaling up sustainable agriculture. In: Roling N.G. and Wagemakers M.A.E. (eds), Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–45.Google Scholar
  57. Primdahl J. and Pinto-Correia T. 2004. Environmental Policy Integration and the CAP – the answer to a new landscape policy agenda? Paper submitted to the Congress ‘From Landscape Research to Landscape in Action’, Bordeaux, 1–3 Dec.Google Scholar
  58. Ramìréz, J.L. 1995Skapande mening En begreppsgeneologisk undersökning om rationalitetvetenskap och planeringNordiska Institutet för Samhällsplanering Avhandling 13:2StockholmGoogle Scholar
  59. Röling N.G. and Wagemakers M.A.E. (eds), 2003. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sá Marques, T. 2004Portugal na Transição do Século. Retratos e Dinâmicas TerritoriaisEd AfrontamentoPortoGoogle Scholar
  61. Scholtes P. 1999. Agriculteurs et environment: la participation des agriculteurs au programme agri-environment wallon. Environment et Société22. F.U.L., Arlon.Google Scholar
  62. Schramek J., Biehl D., Buller H. and Wilson G. (eds), 1999. Implementation and Effectiveness of Agri-Environmental Schemes Established Under Regulation 2078/92. Report of Project FAIR 1 CT95–274, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  63. Selman P. 2004. Barriers and bridges to sustaining cultural landscapes. In: Jongman R. (eds), The New Dimensions of the European Landscape. Wageningen UR Frontis Series, Vol. 4, Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Sporrong, U., Ekstam, U., Samuelson, K. 1995Swedish LandscapesSwedish Environmental Protection AgencyStockholmGoogle Scholar
  65. Stanners, D.Bourdeau, P. eds. 1995Europe’s Environment. The Dobřis AssessmentEuropean Environment AgencyCopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  66. Terwan, P., Ritchie, M., Wejden, W., Verschuur, G., Joannides, J. 2004Values of Agrarian Landscapes Across Europe and North AmericaReed Business InformationThe NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  67. Toulmin, S. 1972Human Understanding. The Collective Use and Evolution of ConceptsPrinceton University PressPrinceton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  68. UNECE1998Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental MattersUN Economic Commission for EuropeAarhusGoogle Scholar
  69. Woerkum, C., Aarts, N. 2000Communication between farmers and government over nature: a new approach to policy developmentRoling, N.G.Wagemakers, M.A.E. eds. Facilitating Sustainable AgricultureCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  70. Vos W., Austad I. and Pinto-Correia T. 1993. Sustainable forestry in old cultural landscapes in Europe. In: Koch N.E. (eds), The Scientific Basis for Sustainable Multiple-Use Forestry in the European Community. Proc. Sci. Workshop under the EC Research Programme AIR, Brussels 28–29 June, pp. 81–96.Google Scholar
  71. Wageman, M., Boerma, J. 2000The implementation of nature policy in the Netherlands: platforms designed to failRoling, N.G.Wagemakers, M.A.E. eds. Facilitating Sustainable AgricultureCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  72. Warburton, D. 2004Policy context for community involvement in countryside planningBishop, K.Phillips, A. eds. Countryside Planning. New Approaches to Management and ConservationEarthscanLondonGoogle Scholar
  73. Whitby, M. 1996The European Environment and the CAP Reform. Policies and Prospects for ConservationCAB InternationalWallingfordGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilson, G.A. 2000From productivism to post-productivism and back again? Exploring the un(changed) natural and mental landscapes of European agricultureTrans. Inst. Br. Geogr.2677102Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teresa Pinto-Correia
    • 1
  • Roland Gustavsson
    • 2
  • Janez Pirnat
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Landscape and Biophysical PlanningUniversity of ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Landscape PlanningSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarpSweden
  3. 3.Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest ResourcesUniversity of LjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations