Advertisement

The Prospective Vision: Integrating the Farmers’ Point of View into French and Belgian Local Planning

  • Claire Planchat-Héry
Chapter
Part of the Landscape Series book series (LAEC, volume 13)

Abstract

The integration of the farmers’ point of view is rarely considered in planning procedures. This chapter presents a participatory method of landscape mediation termed the Prospective Vision, involving graphic and social landscape representations as collaborative learning processes. It is applied in two French-speaking contexts: Urban Local Planning in Billom, France, and the Landscape Charter of Attert, Belgium. The study’s two main findings were that the use of landscape representations reveals specific landscape and territorial features at different scales of observation, and it facilitates the expression of farmers’ points of view and Open image in new window their involvement in planning operations. This heuristic and constructivist approach to sharing local knowledge highlights the challenges of finding new methods for applying the participatory objectives of the European Landscape Convention.

Keywords

Participatory method Landscape mediation Territorial features 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the author’s Ph.D., supervised by Professor J. P. Diry of University Blaise Pascal, and Professor S. Lardon and Professor Y. Michelin, UMR Metafort at Clermont-Ferrand. For the partnership in Belgium, thanks are due to Professor C. Feltzt of the University of Agronomy of Gembloux, Professor C. Christians of the University of Liège, and the Attert Valley Park. For the French partnership, thanks are due to the City Hall of Billom, the Chamber Farming Council of the Puy-Dôme, and the Urban Planners Cabinet of Sycomore.

References

  1. Ahern J (2005) Theories, methods and strategies for sustainable landscape planning. In: Tress B, Tress G, Fry G, Opdam P (eds) From landscape research to landscape planning: aspects of integration, education and application. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 119–131Google Scholar
  2. Antrop M (2003) Continuity and change in landscapes. In: Mander Ü, Antrop M (eds) Multifunctional landscapes. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  3. Benoît M, Deffontaines J-P, Lardon S (2006) Acteurs et territoires locaux: Vers une géoagronomie de l‘aménagement. INRA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Berque A (2000) Médiance de milieu en paysages. Reclus Géographiques, Belin, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand R, Gaffikin F (2007) Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Plan Theory 6(3):282–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busck AG, Hidding MC, Kristensen SBP, Persson C, Søren P (2009) Planning approaches for rurban areas: case studies from Denmark, Sweden and Netherlands. Geogr Tidsskr – Dan J Geog 109(1):15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carberry PS, Hochman Z, McCown RL, Dalgliesh NP, Foale MA, Poulton PL, Hargreaves JNG, Hargreaves DMG, Cawthray S, Hillcoat N, Robertson MJ (2002) The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: farmers’, advisers’, researchers’ monitoring, simulation, communication and performance evaluation. Agric Syst 74(1):141–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caspersen OH (2009) Public participation in strengthening cultural heritage: the role of landscape character assessment in Denmark. Geogr Tidsskr – Dan J Geogr 109(1):33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christians C, Schmitz S (2009) Conformités des paysages ruraux et parcs naturels: L’exemple wallon du parc naturel de la Vallée de l’Attert. In: Van Eetvelde V, Sevenant M, Van De Velde L (eds) Re-Marc-able Landscapes – Marc-ante Landschappen: Liber Amicorum Marc Antrop. Academia, Gent, pp 159–170Google Scholar
  10. Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention, Florence, 20.X.2000. ETS No. 176. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/176.htm. Accessed 3 Jan 2007
  11. Council of Europe (2008) Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)3 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the guidelines for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1246005. Accessed 20 Jul 2009Google Scholar
  12. Diry J-P (2008) Les espaces ruraux. Armand Colin, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Freydefont JM, Olivier M-A & Groupe Sycomore (2007) Plan Local d’Urbanisme de la commune de Billom: Rapport de présentation. Mairie de Billom, BillomGoogle Scholar
  14. Joliveau T, Michelin Y (2001) Modèles d‘analyse et de représentation pour la prospective paysagère concertée: Deux exemples en zone rurale. In: Lardon S, Maurel P, Piveteau V (eds) Représentations spatiales et développement territorial. Hermes, Paris, pp 239–266Google Scholar
  15. Laurent C (2005) Les agriculteurs de l‘Union Européenne et leurs territoires. In: Laurent C, Thinon P (eds) Agricultures et territoires. Hermes, Paris, pp 31–55Google Scholar
  16. Lebreton J-P (2009) La planification spatiale en Europe: introduction générale. In: Collège Aménagement, urbanisme, habitat et mobilité. Conseil Général de l’environnement et du développement durable. http://www.gridauh.fr/sites/fr/fichier/4a4e294eb0360.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2009
  17. MacEachren AM (1991) The role of maps in spatial knowledge acquisition. Cartogr J 28(2):152–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michelin Y (2000) Le bloc-diagramme: Une clé de compréhension des représentations du paysage chez les agriculteurs? CYBERGEO 118. http://www.cybergeo.presse.fr. Accessed 8 Feb 2006
  19. Ministère de la Région Wallonne (2008) 3 juillet 2008 – Décret modifiant le décret du 16 Juillet 1985 relatif aux Parcs Naturels. Moniteur Belge, DRW/20080703/AG, 01/08/2008 – Ed. 2, 40662–40666. http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be//mopdf/2008/08/01_2.pdf#Page32. Accessed 31 Jan 2010
  20. Planchat-Héry C (2008) Les outils graphiques paysagers, révélateurs des enjeux agricoles dans un Plan Local d‘Urbanisme. In: Lardon S, Chia E, Rey-Valette H (eds) Dispositifs et outils de gouvernance territoriale. Norois, PUR, Rennes, pp 109–125Google Scholar
  21. Schmitz S (2004) Introduction aux paysages ordinaires. In: Conférence Permanente du Développement Territorial (ed) Territoires, urbanisation et paysages. Actes 4ème rencontre de la CPDT. Région Wallonne, Liège, pp. 116-117. chmiGoogle Scholar
  22. Tress B, Tress G (2001) Scenario technique and participation: a new approach for rural planning in Denmark. In: Akademie fiir Raumforschung and Landesplanung (ed) Cities: engines in rural development? Arbeitsmaterial 268. Akademie fur Raumforschung und Landesplanung, Hannover, pp 72–77Google Scholar
  23. Tress B, Tress G (2003) Communicating landscape development plans through scenario vizualization techniques. In: Palang H, Fry G (eds) Landscape Interfaces: cultural heritage in changing landscapes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 185–220Google Scholar
  24. Vanier M (2007) Métropolisation et tiers espace. Rencontres de l‘innovation territoriale http://www.pacte.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf_41_Vanier_Tiers_espace.pdf. Accessed 21 Jun 2009

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clermont University and UMR Metafort Agro Paris TechAubièreFrance

Personalised recommendations