IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i1p250-d1035268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Modeling Landscape Values by Harmonizing Conservation and Development Requirements

Author

Listed:
  • Dora Tomić Reljić

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Ines Hrdalo

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Monika Kamenečki

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Petra Pereković

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Sonja Butula

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

Abstract

This paper investigated the need for the inquiry of landscape values and public participation within the decision-making process on spatial changes. They are taken into account as an important segment in the harmonization of conservation and development requirements in the planning of sustainable spatial development. The method for obtaining that information was established, and new approaches in landscape research were tested through the perception of its values as the first step to solving the conflicts between spatial conservation and development. Through the research of the experiences and theoretical knowledge on the nature protection issues within the spatial planning context, this paper indicated the need for determination of the effectiveness of the standardization approach to nature protection. Also, it emphasized the importance of testing a possible application of new approaches, which would be based on a mutually agreed approach to the protection and development of space. Modeling the landscape qualities of the space was presented as a basic tool within the presentation methodology and within the inclusion of different public segments in the spatial planning procedure. Its usefulness has been shown in the possibility of preparing the cartographic presentation of the harmonized model, which simultaneously includes the opinions of all relevant groups and can be easily implemented in the planning procedure using the GIS tools before decision-making. This paper pointed out that such an approach contributes to solving the practical problems in the protection of landscape qualities that represent public good and the link between nature and culture, and biophysical, perceptional, social, and developmental elements within the space.

Suggested Citation

  • Dora Tomić Reljić & Ines Hrdalo & Monika Kamenečki & Petra Pereković & Sonja Butula, 2023. "The Role of Modeling Landscape Values by Harmonizing Conservation and Development Requirements," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:250-:d:1035268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/250/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/250/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patsy Healey, 2004. "The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 45-67, March.
    2. Maggie Roe, 2013. "Editorial: Research Excellence and Landscape Research," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 1-3, February.
    3. Anna Jorgensen, 2015. "Editorial: Is landscape an oxymoron? Understanding the focus of Landscape Research," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 1-4, January.
    4. Till Hermanns & Katharina Helming & Katharina Schmidt & Hannes Jochen König & Heiko Faust, 2015. "Stakeholder Strategies for Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Scenarios: Analytical Framework and Identifying Land Use Claims," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-29, September.
    5. Adri van den Brink & Diedrich Bruns, 2014. "Strategies for Enhancing Landscape Architecture Research," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 7-20, February.
    6. Abbas Ziafati Bafarasat, 2016. "In pursuit of productive conflict in strategic planning: project identification," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(11), pages 2057-2075, November.
    7. Chris Dalglish & Alan Leslie, 2016. "A question of what matters: landscape characterisation as a process of situated, problem-orientated public discourse," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 212-226, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Fernando Pérez-Rodríguez & José María Martín-Martín & João C. Azevedo, 2019. "Planning for Democracy in Protected Rural Areas: Application of a Voting Method in a Spanish-Portuguese Reserve," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zheng, Xian, 2020. "Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Mark Zandvoort & Nora Kooijmans & Paul Kirshen & Adri van den Brink, 2019. "Designing with Pathways: A Spatial Design Approach for Adaptive and Sustainable Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Alberto Amore & C Michael Hall & John Jenkins, 2017. "They never said ‘Come here and let's talk about it’: Exclusion and non-decision-making in the rebuild of Christchurch, New Zealand," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 32(7), pages 617-639, November.
    5. Banai, Reza & Wakolbinger, Tina, 2011. "A measure of regional influence with the analytic network process," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 165-173, December.
    6. Melika Levelt & Leonie Janssen-Jansen, 2013. "The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area Challenge: Opportunities for Inclusive Coproduction in City-Region Governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(3), pages 540-555, June.
    7. Ruiying Liu, 2022. "Long-Term Development Perspectives in the Slow Crisis of Shrinkage: Strategies of Coping and Exiting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-30, August.
    8. Van den Hoek, Duncan & Spit, Tejo & Hartmann, Thomas, 2020. "Certain flexibilities in land-use plans Towards a method for assessing flexibility," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    9. Mark Wiering & Irene Immink, 2006. "When Water Management Meets Spatial Planning: A Policy-Arrangements Perspective," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(3), pages 423-438, June.
    10. Neale Blair & James Berry & Stanley McGreal, 2007. "Regional Spatial Policy for Economic Growth: Lessons from the Deployment of Collaborative Planning in Northern Ireland," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(3), pages 439-455, March.
    11. Hermanns, Till & Helming, Katharina & König, Hannes J. & Schmidt, Katharina & Li, Qirui & Faust, Heiko, 2017. "Sustainability impact assessment of peatland-use scenarios: Confronting land use supply with demand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 365-376.
    12. Juan A. García-Esparza & Pablo Altaba Tena, 2018. "Time, Cognition, and Approach: Sustainable Tourism Strategies for Abandoned Vernacular Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Hans Henriksen & Jens Refsgaard & Anker Højberg & Nils Ferrand & Peter Gijsbers & Huub Scholten, 2009. "Harmonised Principles for Public Participation in Quality Assurance of Integrated Water Resources Modelling," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(12), pages 2539-2554, September.
    14. Theano S. Terkenli & Aikaterini Gkoltsiou & Dimitris Kavroudakis, 2021. "The Interplay of Objectivity and Subjectivity in Landscape Character Assessment: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Challenges," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    15. Federico Savini, 2016. "Self-Organization and Urban Development: Disaggregating the City-Region, Deconstructing Urbanity in Amsterdam," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(6), pages 1152-1169, November.
    16. Zhen Wang & Bo Yang & Shujuan Li & Chris Binder, 2016. "Economic Benefits: Metrics and Methods for Landscape Performance Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-12, April.
    17. Edwin Buitelaar & Maaike Galle & Niels Sorel, 2014. "The public planning of private planning: an analysis of controlled spontaneity in the Netherlands," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), Cities and Private Planning, chapter 12, pages 248-268, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Neutens, Tijs & Delafontaine, Matthias & Scott, Darren M. & De Maeyer, Philippe, 2012. "An analysis of day-to-day variations in individual space–time accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 81-91.
    19. Allan Cochrane, 2012. "Making up a Region: The Rise and Fall of the ‘South East of England’ as a Political Territory," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(1), pages 95-108, February.
    20. Karlheinz Knickel & Alexandra Almeida & Lisa Bauchinger & Maria Pia Casini & Bernd Gassler & Kerstin Hausegger-Nestelberger & Jesse Heley & Reinhard Henke & Marina Knickel & Henk Oostindie & Ulla Ovas, 2021. "Towards More Balanced Territorial Relations—The Role (and Limitations) of Spatial Planning as a Governance Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, May.

    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:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:250-:d:1035268. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.