DESARROLLO INSTITUCIONAL

Theo Spek

Introduction

Those who want to develop sustainable strategies for the future of our landscapes cannot be without a thorough knowledge of the heritage that the past has bequeathed to us. Countless generations before us have developed, step by step and layer by layer, the landscape of today and have left their mark on it. Sometimes this happened very gradually and in a totally organic way, sometimes through an abrupt break with everything that had been before and with the transformation towards a completely new landscape. Each generation has made its own choices as to which traces of the past were to be cherished, which were to be implicitly included in the present landscape and which ones were to be destroyed. Cultural heritage can be defined as contemporary use of the past in order to create imagined features (Ashworth and Larkham 1994). Cultural heritage is therefore not just about the physical traces of the past but also about the world of ideas that lies behind the interactions with the past by both past and present generations (Lowenthal 1993, Jones 2003, Vecco 2010).

Few fields in the worlds of research, policy and management are as diverse as that of cultural heritage. It includes tangible culture (such as artefacts, buildings, monuments and landscapes), intangible culture (such as folklore, traditions, language and historical knowledge) and natural heritage (including culturally significant landscapes and ecosystems). Cultural heritage

concerns heritage located both aboveground as well as underground, both in urban areas as well as rural ones and both in the sea and on land. The number of scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines that is involved with this richly varied cultural heritage is equally large and includes, amongst others, geoscientists, archaeologists, paleoecologists, architectural historians, urban planning historians, landscape historians, chemical and physical material experts, art historians, maritime historians, toponymists and cultural anthropologists. Many of these heritage categories, levels of scale and specialisations come together in the historically evolved landscape. For this reason an integrated approach to the cultural heritage on the level of the landscape is of great importance.

Heritage management has been seen as a cost factor for a long time in political and

economical circles. In recent decades this view has been completely overturned. Nowadays heritage is often regarded as an important pillar of sustainable economical development as historical monuments and landscapes make an important contribution to the quality of our environment, the identity and the wellbeing of people and the attraction of tourists (European Commission 2015). Culture is therefore quite often considered the fourth pillar of

sustainability (Hawkes 2001, Nurse 2006, Licciardi and Amirtahmasebi 2012).

In this chapter we will examine how the knowledge of the past and the care for cultural heritage can be integrated into a strategy for landscape stewardship. Key concepts thereby are interdisciplinarity, intersectorality and participation. The line of argument which we thereby follow pursues a course through interdisciplinary landscape research, by way of participatory heritage planning, to an integrated landscape management. First I will describe an

interdisciplinary method which allows very diverse types of cultural historical information to be integrated into one effective and widely accessible product. We then examine how local experiential knowledge and scientific expertise can be amalgamated and translated into a

participatory planning process. Finally, we focus on the landscape itself: How can heritage and nature management be merged into a more integrated form of landscape management and how can new collective arrangements of residents contribute to innovative forms of landscape stewardship on local and micro-regional levels.

In the writing of this chapter the author is inspired by his more than twenty years of

experience in research, decision making, planning and management in the National Landscape Drentsche Aa, Northern Netherlands (Fig. 8.1) (Elerie and Spek 2010). Although the situation in other European regions will differ in several aspects from that of this Dutch region many of the processes described in this chapter will have a more general meaning, which will have significance and relevance for other regions. In the last few years the methodologies of research, landscape planning and landscape management in the Drentsche Aa project have stimulated several other regional landscape projects elsewhere in Europe.

The biography of landscape as a tool for integrating and contextualising diverse historical data

More than ever before modern land use and landscape management is based on scientific knowledge. Although practical experience still remains an important foundation for

knowledge in modern farming and current nature and heritage management these sectors are, at the same time, also being advised by a legion of agricultural experts, ecologists, cultural historians and other types of scientists. A growing problem is that everyone is giving advice from their own increasingly specialised discipline, thereby relegating a more integrated knowledge of landscape and agriculture to the background and no one actually has a clear overview of the relationship between the various types of knowledge. This problem of the fragmentation and hyper specialisation of the disciplines leads to the first major challenge for landscape stewardship of the future: What concepts and methods are at our disposal to

research cultural heritage and the landscape in a more integral way?

In spatial planning and landscape management knowledge of the heritage present in a project area is, in practice, often strongly segregated in their disciplines and assessed and presented in a highly fragmented way. Consultant bureaus from, amongst others, the fields of landscape ecology, archaeology, landscape history and architectural history each maker their own landscape and value assessments which must then be integrated by planners and landscape architects into one area analysis. This leads, in practice, to many alignment problems and to plans that do not contain a clear comprehensive analysis of the local and regional identity of the project area. If we want to put heritage in its proper role in planning and landscape

management it is then of great importance that the heritage sector develops tools to enable the presentation of the construction, genesis and values of the landscape to a broad audience in an integrated and user-friendly manner. Landscape biographies are such a tool and have been developed in the last ten years, especially in The Netherlands (Kolen 2006, Elerie and Spek 2010, Kolen et al. 2015).

The American geographer Marvin Samuels introduced the term ‘biography of landscape’ in a long ignored article published in 1979 in which he first presented the cultural-geographical terminology of authorship with regards to landscapes (Samuels 1979). He derived this terminology from the field of anthropology where the use of the term biography to describe the history of things other than a human being’s life has long been customary. In that respect the term mainly alludes to the usually long use of prestigious objects, in which case the terminology is ‘cultural biography of things’ or sometimes also the ‘social life of things’

(Appadurai 1990). What was especially important with this is that objects that repeatedly changed owner and/or user in the course of their existence thus often changed their social context. Archaeologists quickly adopted the term biography and thus spoke about ‘biography of places’ and also later about ‘biography of landscapes’. A varied perception of places and landscapes by different individuals, social groups, cultures and periods also played a role in those concepts.

The concept of a cultural biography of the landscape was introduced and enhanced in a theoretical sense in The Netherlands by the archaeologist Jan Kolen (Kolen 2006). He regarded the landscape biography as an ongoing power play between a richly variegated material landscape on one hand and a world of ideas, meanings, representations and memories on the other. Heritage in this sense is much more broadly defined than by the collection of actual relics that have been handed down from the past. Additionally, in this approach heritage is also a constant process of updating and representing the past within a society. The manufacturing of a landscape biography becomes in this view both a description of the history of the physical landscape and of the world of ideas that has been grafted onto the landscape in the course of various time periods (Kolen et al. 2015). This still sounds very theoretical but others have applied this thinking extensively in the past decade in the form of landscape biographies tailored to the physical realities of an area.

A landscape biography is a scientifically sound, yet also accessibly written and richly illustrated overview of the long-term development of a landscape. Such a biography also implicitly sketches the history of important current concerns like food production, nature management, biodiversity and social sustainability. This makes it possible to give modern landscape stewardship a historic background and inspiration.

A recent example is the landscape biography of the National Landscape Drentsche Aa (Northern Netherlands) that was published in 2015 (Spek et al. 2015) (Fig. 8.2). This book provides a very accessible introduction to this special area for residents as well as tourists and social organisations. From a scientific point of view the book has a strong interdisciplinary historic-ecological framework to which the co-adaptation of man and nature throughout the ages is central. Here geosciences, archaeology, landscape history and ecology are interlinked to form a coherent story about the landscape (see also Elerie and Spek 2010). Maps and landscape reconstructions play an important role in every landscape biography because they allow a lot of detailed information to be clearly collated and visualised. Moreover, the strong narrative approach to the landscape’s biography is very important: Stories of individual people, their ideas, their communal lifestyles and land use and the related changes to the landscape consistently play a central role.

The interaction between local knowledge and expert knowledge

Whoever wants to increase the responsibility that local residents and stakeholders bear for their landscapes cannot rely solely on scientific knowledge, but must also take local knowledge into account (Calvo-Iglesias et al. 2006, Raymond et al. 2010, Fagerholm et al. 2012). Unfortunately, our modern society is increasingly relegating this local knowledge of farmers, nature conservationists and local inhabitants to the background, even though it certainly can play an important complementary role in relation to the often more

comprehensive types of scientific knowledge which are less adapted to local conditions (Elerie and Spek 2010). Here lies a second important question for the cultural heritage sector as regards to landscape stewardship: How do we integrate local practical landscape

experience – which, despite all kinds of modern developments, is still abundantly present – with the expert knowledge of scientists and other specialists? Seen from a cultural-historical perspective local knowledge includes a detailed knowledge of soil conditions, local flora and fauna of the past and present, the presence of archaeological sites or special historical

landscape elements and also knowledge of the possible uses of a particular locality,

knowledge of local management practices, common law and traditions, historical field names or special stories about events from the past, whether true or not (Elerie and Spek 2010). Local knowledge is an indispensable aspect of landscape stewardship. However, often little or no attention is given to it in most landscape projects. Especially in anthropology and cultural geography much research has been done into the specific characteristics of this type of knowledge (Fischer 2000, Geertz 2000). Local knowledge does differ in some ways from scientific knowledge and therefore, is also strongly complementary. As local knowledge is much more strongly subject to personal life history and life experience of the people concerned than scientific knowledge, it often has a strong narrative and anecdotal character and is therefore much more selective and more emotionally loaded than scientific knowledge. Truth and imagination are therefore much less segregated in local knowledge than in scientific knowledge. Factual information is also often mixed with fanciful tales, sagas and legends. Another difference is that experiential knowledge uses the ‘own’ place, village or region as the most important reference while science seeks to make more general observations. The time perspectives used by both types of knowledge also differ strongly. Local knowledge usually doesn’t go back further than two or three generation (50-80 years) while scientific knowledge uses a much more diachronic long-term perspective. That means that oral history can only lay the younger layers of landscape history bare.

An important role is reserved for scientifically robust methods to utilise oral history (Thompson 2000, Ritchie 2015). In many European regions researchers have gathered important information on historical landscapes, land use systems and social traditions that appear to be very applicable in modern day landscape management. An interesting example is the application of local knowledge at the restoration of historic water meadows in the Belgian Kempen area. Until the advent of artificial fertiliser at around the year 1900 various parts of Europe had large scale water management systems in which meadows could be flooded during the winter by an ingenious system of ditches and embankments. Nutrients in the flood water fertilised the hay meadows which led to a faster heating of the sod in the spring, causing earlier grass growth and unique historical ecosystems with special plant and animal species. The local knowledge of the construction and maintenance of these water meadows has almost completely disappeared in our modern times. Nevertheless, it has been possible to discover the traditional knowledge about the management of this landscape type in some European regions using oral history methods. A wonderful example of this is the Belgian researcher Joël Burny who interviewed 96 old farmers in the region around Kempen, thereby obtaining a detailed picture of the 19th and early 20th century water meadow system (Burny 1999). His work now forms the basis for the restoration of this ancient cultural landscape in that part of Belgium (Fig. 8.3).

Towards a better integration of landscape research and landscape design

An important aspect of landscape stewardship is the manner in which inhabitants and stakeholders collaborate with landscape designers and planners. While a comprehensive theoretical and methodological framework has been developed for this purpose, practical tools on how this local planning process should be set up in practice are still missing (Laven et al.

2012, Roe 2012, Fazey et al. 2013, Prager 2013, Reed and Curzon 2015). Examples of such planning and design processes at a local or microregional scale are the development of new residential areas at the outskirts of a village or town, the re-naturalisation of a local river area or a local plan for the maintenance of hedgerows, orchards and other green elements. This type of local planning needs a close co-operation of researchers, local residents, landscape architects and authorities.

Research, design and decision-making are still highly segregated activities in many areas with strongly fixed phases in many planning processes. Once a government or other principal has decided to implement a particular landscape project a consultant agency is often contracted to assess and appreciate the natural and cultural values of the particular project area. Not

infrequently, multiple agencies from various disciplines are engaged. After obtaining the contract these consultant agencies usually conduct their research largely independently of the rest of the planning process and try to deliver a satisfactory report within the stipulated period of time. This report then forms one of the cornerstones of any further planning and decision- making processes. Spatial planners and landscape architects often have little contact with the researcher(s) during the planning process and develop their design in the peace and

independence of their own studio. Residents and stakeholders are consulted by the landscape architect at the beginning of the planning process but play mostly a minor role in the design process itself. Only at the end of the planning process are they given the opportunity to contribute to the developed alternatives to a plan via the classic public inquiry model. Although this phased and relatively segregated method has, without doubt, proved its worth over the years, it suffers from some important drawbacks which are fairly easy to improve by taking a few simple steps in the planning process. Researchers would greatly benefit from getting a clear picture in advance of, but also during their research, of the landscape planning tasks, vision(s) that the residents and stakeholders have of the area, the plan to be drawn up and the way in which the landscape architect intends to use the research data. While research should obviously be independent of opinions and views of interested parties, it is important for the researcher to know which aspects and themes of the landscape are deemed to be of importance and to which more attention should thus be given in the research. Moreover, such contact with the involved societal parties often brings more local knowledge to light.

One of the trickiest parts of the abovementioned collaboration between researchers and landscape architect is the manner in which the often complex historical layers of the

landscape in the project area should be reflected in the research report and how these layers should subsequently be given a place in the plan (Strootman and Zaragoza 2009). Scientists discern and often highlight the complexity of a landscape; landscape architects prefer to select information and attempt to simplify the landscapes to its most essential parts. In practice we often see that researchers, in addition to a detailed description of the landscape history, historical layers and the cultural values, offer large amounts of maps and map layers which often put the landscape architect before a substantial selection problem in his search for a good focal point or central theme for his design. This also leads to a plea for a stronger interaction between researchers, landscape architects, residents and authorities who

collectively should make decisions on the most desirable and acceptable selection of cultural heritage issues.

The integration of natural and cultural values in landscape management

Europe has many regions where human influence, over a period of many centuries, has resulted in a series of semi-natural landscapes that exhibits both a high biodiversity and a rich layering of cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible. Examples include the moor

landscapes along the Atlantic coast, the pastures and woodland pastures of the middle and high mountain ranges, the dehesa and montado systems of the Iberian Peninsula and the wetlands in the deltas of Europe’s major rivers (Vogiatzakis et al. 2005, Emanuelsson 2009). Precisely because the natural and cultural values of these landscapes are closely interlinked an integrated approach to research, evaluation and management is of great importance.

However, the traditionally strong separation between natural sciences and the humanities also resonates in these particular semi-natural systems. Ecologists on the one side and heritage experts on the other use very different conceptual frameworks, research and management methods and strategies, often developed over decades of practical experience. These

approaches and methods used by both fields should eventually be merged into an integrated management plan for sites, micro-regions and regional landscapes (Lowenthal 2005,

Plieninger et al. 2006, Agnoletti 2014). The question here is how nature and heritage

conservation of an area can be well coordinated so that they reinforce rather than counteract each other. With this the ultimate goal is on the one hand to maintain or develop a landscape with the highest biodiversity possible and on the other hand to maintain one or several legible historical layer(s) as best as possible (cultural diversity).

In practice the strong interdependence exhibited by biodiversity and cultural diversity in all