IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v7y2018i1p14-d128148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responding to Landscape Change: Stakeholder Participation and Social Capital in Five European Landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Thanasis Kizos

    (Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, University Hill, 81100 Mytilene, Greece)

  • Tobias Plieninger

    (Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, Steinstr. 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, University of Kassel, Kassel 34125, Germany
    Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany)

  • Theodoros Iosifides

    (Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, University Hill, 81100 Mytilene, Greece)

  • María García-Martín

    (Chair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany)

  • Geneviève Girod

    (ALTICIME, 60 rue Joseph Desbois, 69330 Meyzieu, France)

  • Krista Karro

    (Centre for Landscape and Culture, School of Humanities, Tallinn University, Uus-Sadama 5, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Hannes Palang

    (Centre for Landscape and Culture, School of Humanities, Tallinn University, Uus-Sadama 5, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Anu Printsmann

    (Centre for Landscape and Culture, School of Humanities, Tallinn University, Uus-Sadama 5, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Brian Shaw

    (Chair of Societal Transition and Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, Schloss Museumsflügel Ost, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Julianna Nagy

    (European Landowners’ Organization, Rue de Trèves 67, 1040 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Marie-Alice Budniok

    (European Landowners’ Organization, Rue de Trèves 67, 1040 Brussels, Belgium)

Abstract

The concept of landscape has been increasingly used, in the last decades, in policy and land use planning, both in regard to so-called “special” and to “ordinary” or “everyday” landscapes. This has raised the importance of local and public participation in all issues that refer to landscapes and the definition of the groups that “have a stake” in the landscape. In this paper, we provide insights into how stakeholders perceive the dynamics of local processes of landscape change (and continuity) and which processes of landscape change they perceive as important, in positive and negative ways, from five communities within the European Union. These landscapes involve different landscape issues “at stake”, different national and local planning and decision-making traditions and practices, and varying degrees of engagement. The understanding of these complexities and the unraveling of the insights is done through the concept of social capital and its different forms. We report on three series of workshops that have been organized to discuss landscape issues and approaches or ideas for landscape management. We witnessed interactions between the different stakeholders and gained insights into how social capital affects landscape change. We found that despite differences, similarities emerged concerning the interplay between “expert” and “local” knowledge and between “insideness” and “outsideness”. Social capital plays an important part, as it provides the template for personal and collective evaluation of landscape changes, who should manage these changes and how they should be managed. These findings are important to develop in-depth insights on dynamics and values of cultural landscapes and visions for re-coupling social and ecological components in cultural landscapes and translate them into policy and management options.

Suggested Citation

  • Thanasis Kizos & Tobias Plieninger & Theodoros Iosifides & María García-Martín & Geneviève Girod & Krista Karro & Hannes Palang & Anu Printsmann & Brian Shaw & Julianna Nagy & Marie-Alice Budniok, 2018. "Responding to Landscape Change: Stakeholder Participation and Social Capital in Five European Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:7:y:2018:i:1:p:14-:d:128148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/1/14/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/1/14/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    2. Nikoleta Jones, 2010. "Investigating the influence of social costs and benefits of environmental policies through social capital theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 43(3), pages 229-244, September.
    3. Brown, Greg & Helene Hausner, Vera & Lægreid, Eiliv, 2015. "Physical landscape associations with mapped ecosystem values with implications for spatial value transfer: An empirical study from Norway," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 19-34.
    4. 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.
    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. Dorota Sikora & Małgorzata Kaczyńska, 2022. "The Cultural Ecosystem Services as an Element Supporting Manor Landscape Protection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-33, June.
    2. Fernando J. Garrigos-Simon & M. Dolores Botella-Carrubi & Tomas F. Gonzalez-Cruz, 2018. "Social Capital, Human Capital, and Sustainability: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Joaquin Romano & Emilio Pérez-Chinarro & Byron V. Coral, 2020. "Network of Landscapes in the Sustainable Management of Transboundary Biosphere Reserves," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Gunawan Prayitno & Ainul Hayat & Achmad Efendi & Aidha Auliah & Dian Dinanti, 2022. "Structural Model of Community Social Capital for Enhancing Rural Communities Adaptation against the COVID-19 Pandemic: Empirical Evidence from Pujon Kidul Tourism Village, Malang Regency, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Ernest Uwayezu & Walter T. De Vries, 2018. "Indicators for Measuring Spatial Justice and Land Tenure Security for Poor and Low Income Urban Dwellers," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-34, July.
    6. Joaquin Romano & Byron V. Coral, 2020. "Public Management, Private Management and Collective Action in the Portoviejo River Basin: Visions and Conflicts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Jorge Andres Garcia & Angelos Alamanos, 2022. "Integrated Modelling Approaches for Sustainable Agri-Economic Growth and Environmental Improvement: Examples from Greece, Canada and Ireland," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Sebastian Eiter & Wendy Fjellstad & Oskar Puschmann & Svein Olav Krøgli, 2019. "Long-Term Monitoring of Protected Cultural Heritage Environments in Norway: Development of Methods and First-Time Application," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-22, April.
    9. Konkoly-Gyuró, Éva, 2018. "Conceptualisation and perception of the landscape and its changes in a transboundary area. A case study of the Southern German-French borderland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 556-574.
    10. Katia Talento & Miguel Amado & Josè Carlos Kullberg, 2019. "Landscape—A Review with a European Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-28, May.
    11. Wei Li & Yang Zhou & Zhanwei Zhang, 2021. "Strategies of Landscape Planning in Peri-Urban Rural Tourism: A Comparison between Two Villages in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    12. Vassiliki Vlami & Carlos Morera Beita & Stamatis Zogaris, 2022. "Landscape Conservation Assessment in the Latin American Tropics: Application and Insights from Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-28, April.
    13. Joanna T. Storie & Enri Uusna & Zane Eglāja & Teele Laur & Mart Külvik & Monika Suškevičs & Simon Bell, 2019. "Place Attachment and Its Consequence for Landscape-Scale Management and Readiness to Participate: Social Network Complexity in the Post-Soviet Rural Context of Latvia and Estonia," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-24, August.

    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. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    2. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    3. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, , 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    4. Nikoleta Jones & Konstantinos Evangelinos & Petros Gaganis & Eugenia Polyzou, 2011. "Citizens’ Perceptions on Water Conservation Policies and the Role of Social Capital," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(2), pages 509-522, January.
    5. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri, 2021. "Valuation through deliberation - Citizens' panels on peatland ecosystem services in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    6. Antonio Ledda & Elisabetta Anna Di Cesare & Giovanni Satta & Gianluca Cocco & Giovanna Calia & Filippo Arras & Annalisa Congiu & Emanuela Manca & Andrea De Montis, 2020. "Adaptation to Climate Change and Regional Planning: A Scrutiny of Sectoral Instruments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Zhang, Hongjuan & Gao, Yan & Hua, Yawei & Zhang, Yue & Liu, Kang, 2019. "Assessing and mapping recreationists’ perceived social values for ecosystem services in the Qinling Mountains, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    8. Yanqiang Du & Pingyang Liu & Shipeng Su & Linyi Zhou, 2022. "The Sharing of Costs and Benefits of Rural Environmental Pollution Governance in China: A Qualitative Analysis through Guanxi Networks Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-15, May.
    9. Pascua, Pua‘ala & McMillen, Heather & Ticktin, Tamara & Vaughan, Mehana & Winter, Kawika B., 2017. "Beyond services: A process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 465-475.
    10. Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Iwona Cieślak, 2024. "An Analysis of the Relationships between Social Capital Levels and Selected Green Economy Indicators on the Example of Polish Voivodeships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-22, February.
    11. Kenter, Jasper O. & Reed, Mark S. & Fazey, Ioan, 2016. "The Deliberative Value Formation model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 194-207.
    12. Marbuah, George & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "Carbon emission and social capital in Sweden," Working Paper Series 2015:5, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    13. Tadaki, Marc & Allen, Will & Sinner, Jim, 2015. "Revealing ecological processes or imposing social rationalities? The politics of bounding and measuring ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 168-176.
    14. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    15. Stålhammar, Sanna, 2021. "Polarised views of urban biodiversity and the role of socio-cultural valuation: Lessons from Cape Town," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    16. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    17. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Hjerppe, Turo & Aapala, Kaisu, 2019. "Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis in valuing peatland ecosystem services—Trade-offs related to peat extraction vs. pristine peatlands in Southern Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 17-28.
    18. Authelet, Manon & Subervie, Julie & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Asquith, Nigel & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2021. "Economic, pro-social and pro-environmental factors influencing participation in an incentive-based conservation program in Bolivia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    19. Rosa, Josianne Claudia Sales & Geneletti, Davide & Morrison-Saunders, Angus & Sánchez, Luis Enrique & Hughes, Michael, 2020. "To what extent can mine rehabilitation restore recreational use of forest land? Learning from 50 years of practice in southwest Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    20. Joseph Anthony L. Reyes, 2016. "Exploring relationships of environmental attitudes, behaviors, and sociodemographic indicators to aspects of discourses: analyses of International Social Survey Programme data in the Philippines," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1575-1599, December.

    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:7:y:2018:i:1:p:14-:d:128148. 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.