IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v112y2022ics0264837721005925.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fostering transitions in landscape policies: A multi-level perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Barbanente, Angela
  • Grassini, Laura

Abstract

At the beginning of the new century, the European Landscape Convention (ELC) marked a paradigm shift in the conception of landscape, which now includes not only outstanding places but also everyday and even degraded landscapes as important to people’s lives and identity. This requires competent authorities to define appropriate landscape policies to foster protection, management and planning of landscapes. A challenge is thus to find new approaches and tools to make the new concept translated into practice. This is particularly complex in countries like Italy, where landscape policies have been exclusively focused on protection through rigid zoning landscape plans. The case of the Apulia region, which is analysed in the paper, is of particular significance, as it started a radical process of transition in landscape policies few years after the approval of a very rigid regional landscape plan. The region was then the first one in Italy to approve, in 2015, a regional Territorial Landscape Plan (TLP) in line with the ELC. The paper analyses the transition pathway undertaken in the region. A particular attention is paid to the way innovative forms of landscape management and planning have been mobilized, supported and given long-term perspectives, while resistance to change have been lowered throughout the development and the implementation of the new TLP, thanks to a wide range of policy instrument mixes envisaged by the regional government. The Multi Level Perspective (MLP) is used for the analysis, due to its capacity to show the nested and bi-directional dynamics of change across multiple levels and the interactions between different sectors/actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbanente, Angela & Grassini, Laura, 2022. "Fostering transitions in landscape policies: A multi-level perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005925
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721005925
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105869?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geoff Vigar & Patsy Healey, 2002. "Developing Environmentally Respectful Policy Programmes: Five Key Principles," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(4), pages 517-532.
    2. Kara E. Dempsey & Stephanie M. Wilbrand, 2017. "The role of the region in the European Landscape Convention," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 909-919, June.
    3. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    4. Geels, Frank W., 2012. "A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 471-482.
    5. Verbong, Geert & Geels, Frank, 2007. "The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1025-1037, February.
    6. Bas Pedroli & Marc Antrop & Teresa Pinto Correia, 2013. "Editorial: Living Landscape: The European Landscape Convention in Research Perspective," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 691-694, December.
    7. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    8. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    9. Angela Barbanente & Laura Grassini, 2020. "Fostering innovation in area-based initiatives for deprived neighbourhoods: a multi-level approach," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 206-221, April.
    10. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    11. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    12. Michael Howlett & Jonathan Kim & Paul Weaver, 2006. "Assessing Instrument Mixes through Program‐ and Agency‐Level Data: Methodological Issues in Contemporary Implementation Research," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 23(1), pages 129-151, January.
    13. ., 1998. "Technological Change," Chapters, in: Heinz D. Kurz & Neri Salvadori (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Classical Economics, volume 0, chapter 127, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    15. Andrea De Montis, 2016. "Measuring the performance of planning: the conformance of Italian landscape planning practices with the European Landscape Convention," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(9), pages 1727-1745, September.
    16. Hodson, Mike & Marvin, Simon, 2010. "Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 477-485, May.
    17. Maggie Roe, 2013. "Policy Change and ELC Implementation: Establishment of a Baseline for Understanding the Impact on UK National Policy of the European Landscape Convention," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 768-798, December.
    18. Ana Mitić-Radulović & Ksenija Lalović, 2021. "Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition towards Nature-Based Solutions and Co-Creation in Urban Planning of Belgrade, Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-21, July.
    19. Vincent Nadin & Dominic Stead, 2013. "Opening up the Compendium: An Evaluation of International Comparative Planning Research Methodologies," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(10), pages 1542-1561, October.
    20. Geels, Frank, 2005. "Co-evolution of technology and society: The transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850–1930)—a case study in multi-level perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 363-397.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Antonio Leone & Laura Grassini & Pasquale Balena, 2022. "Urban Planning and Sustainable Storm Water Management: Gaps and Potential for Integration for Climate Adaptation Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Weigelt, Carmen & Lu, Shaohua & Verhaal, J. Cameron, 2021. "Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    2. Canitez, Fatih, 2019. "Pathways to sustainable urban mobility in developing megacities: A socio-technical transition perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 319-329.
    3. Moradi, Afsaneh & Vagnoni, Emidia, 2018. "A multi-level perspective analysis of urban mobility system dynamics: What are the future transition pathways?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 231-243.
    4. Svensson, Oscar & Nikoleris, Alexandra, 2018. "Structure reconsidered: Towards new foundations of explanatory transitions theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 462-473.
    5. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    6. Nilsson, Måns & Nykvist, Björn, 2016. "Governing the electric vehicle transition – Near term interventions to support a green energy economy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1360-1371.
    7. Sorrell, Steve, 2018. "Explaining sociotechnical transitions: A critical realist perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1267-1282.
    8. Haddad, Carolina R. & Bergek, Anna, 2023. "Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    9. Turnheim, Bruno & Nykvist, Björn, 2019. "Opening up the feasibility of sustainability transitions pathways (STPs): Representations, potentials, and conditions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 775-788.
    10. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    11. Cheng Wang & Tao Lv & Rongjiang Cai & Jianfeng Xu & Liya Wang, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    12. Lee, Junmin & Kim, Keungoui & Kim, Jiyong & Hwang, Junseok, 2022. "The relationship between shared mobility and regulation in South Korea: A system dynamics approach from the socio-technical transitions perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    14. Jano-Ito, Marco A. & Crawford-Brown, Douglas, 2016. "Socio-technical analysis of the electricity sector of Mexico: Its historical evolution and implications for a transition towards low-carbon development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 567-590.
    15. Raven, Rob & Walrave, Bob, 2020. "Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    16. Zhao, Zhen-Yu & Chang, Rui-Dong & Chen, Yu-Long, 2016. "What hinder the further development of wind power in China?—A socio-technical barrier study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 465-476.
    17. Griet Juwet & Michael Ryckewaert, 2018. "Energy Transition in the Nebular City: Connecting Transition Thinking, Metabolism Studies, and Urban Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, March.
    18. Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Lopolito, Antonio & Sica, Edgardo, 2019. "Instrument mix for energy transition: A method for policy formulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    19. Matos, Stelvia & Viardot, Eric & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Geels, Frank W. & Xiong, Yu, 2022. "Innovation and climate change: A review and introduction to the special issue," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    20. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Binz, Christian, 2017. "Global socio-technical regimes," Papers in Innovation Studies 2017/1, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005925. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.