Assessment of the landscape identity through participation in the framework of a landscape character research
Abstract
The physical and emotional character of the landscape is an increasingly important ecosystem service factor in Hungary, too, and the strong identity of residents with the landscape is part of their well-being. Between 2016 and 2022, we prepared the landscape character map of the entire country. One of the essential elements of the project was that in four study areas – Sopron–Lake Fertő region (containing Sopron Mountains and Basin together with Lake Fertő), Gerecse Mountains, Tápió-vidék region and Tiszazug region – as landscape units, we tried to reveal the feelings of the residents related to the landscape using different methods. One of the most effective tools was surveys organised in workshops (personal or online) when we inquired about how the residents see landscape patterns, land use, and the changes in the surroundings of their settlements. One of the most important lessons learned from the study areas was that the local citizens usually have an indisposition for large-scale alterations of the accustomed environment, which leads to less familiar feelings and weakens the near natural character of the landscape. The results were compared with international experience.
References
ANGELSTAM, P., MUNOZ-ROJAS, J. and PINTO-CORREIRA, T. 2019. Landscape concepts and approaches foster learning about ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 34. 1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00866-z
ANTROP, M. 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future? Landscape and Urban Planning 70. (1–2): 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002
APPLETON, J. 1975. The Experience of Landscape. London, John Wiley and Sons.
BÁNDI, GY. 2011. Környezetjog (Environmental law). Budapest, Szent István Társulat.
BELANCHE, D., CASALÓ, L.V. and RUBIO, M.Á 2021. Local place identity: A comparison between residents of rural and urban communities. Journal of Rural Studies 82. 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.003
BERKI, ZS. 2018. Közösségi részvétel környezetvédelmi engedélyezési eljárásokban (Community participation in the process of obtaining environmental permits). Budapest, EMLA Egyesület. Available at https://sustainable.hu/a009_KoRNy3z37j06/BME_20181010_közrészv.pdf
BOROMISZA, ZS., ERDEI, T. and VALÁNSZKI, I. 2022. Integration of outdoor learning activities through public participation in landscape character assessment. Proceedings of the Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning 7. (1): 1–8.
BUTLER, A. and BERGLUND, U. 2012. Landscape character assessment as an approach to understanding public interests within the European Landscape Convention. Landscape Research 39. (3): 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.716404
BUTLER, A., SARLÖV-HERLIN, I., KNEZ, I., ÅNGMAN, E., ODE SANG, Å. and ÅKERSKOG, A. 2017. Landscape identity, before and after a forest fire. Landscape Research 43. (6): 878–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1344205
BUTLER, A. and SARLÖV-HERLIN, I. 2019. Changing landscape identity – practice, plurality, and power. Landscape Research 44. (3): 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1589774
COETERIER, J.F. 1996. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 34. (1): 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(95)00204-9
COSGROVE, D.E. 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Beckenham, Croom Helm.
COSGROVE, D.E. 2003. Landscape and the European sense of sight – Eyeing nature. In Handbook of Cultural Geography. Eds.: ANDERSON, K., DOMOSH, M., PILE, S. and THRIFT, N., London, SAGE Publications, 249–268. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608252.n17
Council of Europe 2000. European Landscape Convention 2000. European Treaty Series, No. 176. Available at https://rm.coe.int/1680080621
CSORBA, P. and CSATÁRI, B. 2017. Tájföldrajz és táji önazonosság (Landscape geography and landscape identity). Magyar Tudomány 178. (3): 284–292.
CSORBA, P., ÁDÁM, S., BARTOS-ELEKES, ZS., BATA, T., BEDE-FAZEKAS, Á., CZÚCZ, B., CSIMA, P., CSÜLLÖG, G., FODOR, N., FRISNYÁK, S., HORVÁTH, G., ILLÉS, G., KISS, G., KOCSIS, K., KOLLÁNYI, L., KONKOLY-GYURÓ, É., LEPESI, N., LÓCZY, D., MALATINSZKY, Á., MEZŐSI, G., MOLNÁR, Z., PÁSZTOR, L., SOMODI, I., SZEGEDI, S., SZILASSI, P., TAMÁS, L., TIRÁSZI, Á. and VASVÁRI, M. 2018. Landscapes. In National Atlas of Hungary – 2. Natural Environment. Ed.-in-chief: KOCSIS, K., Budapest, Geographical Institute, Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences, 279–286.
DE LA FUENTE DE VAL, G., ATAURI, J.A. and DE LUCIO, J.V. 2006. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 77. (4): 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.003
DE VRIES, S., NIEUWENHUIZEN, W., FARJON, H., VAN HINSBERG, A. and DIRKX, J. 2021. In which natural environments are people happiest? Large-scale experience sampling in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 205. 103972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103972
DIXON, J. and DURRHEIM, K. 2000. Displacing place-identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other. British Journal of Social Psychology 39. (1): 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164318
DOSSCHE, R., ROGGE, E. and VAN EETVELDE, V. 2016. Detecting people’s and landscape’s identity in a changing mountain landscape. An example from the Northern Apennines. Landscape Research 41. (8): 934–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1187266
FODOR, L. and PUMP, J. (eds.) 2016. Társadalmi részvétel a környezetvédelmi ügyekben. A részvételi jogok uniós és hazai jogi védelme. (Public participation in environmental issues. Legal protection of participation rights in the EU and in Hungary.) Budapest, Alapvető Jogok Biztosának Hivatala.
GOBSTER, P.H., RIBE, R.G. and PALMER, J.F. 2019. Themes and trends in visual assessment research: Introduction to the Landscape and Urban Planning special collection on the visual assessment of landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 191. 103635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103635
HÄFNER, K., ZASADA, I., VAN ZANTEN, B.T., UNGARO, F., KOETSE, M. and PIORR, A. 2018. Assessing landscape preferences: A visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany. Landscape Research 43. (6): 846–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1386289
HEDBLOM, M., HEDENÅS, H., BLICHARSKA, M., ADLER, S., KNEZ, I., MIKUSIŃSKI, G., SVENSSON, J., SANDSTRÖM, S., SANDSTRÖM, P. and WARDLE, D.A. 2020. Landscape perception: Linking physical monitoring data to perceived landscape properties. Landscape Research 45. (2): 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1611751
HOWLEY, P. 2011. Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics 72. 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026
Hungary’s Government Decree No. 86/1993 (VI.4) on the Provisional Regulation of the Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Certain Activities.
Hungary’s Government Decree No. 20/2001 (II. 14.) on the Environmental Impact Assessment.
Hungary’s Government Decree No. 314/2005 (XII. 25) on Environmental Impact Assessment and the Uniform Environmental Use Permits.
Hungary’s Government Decree No. 314/2012. (XI. 8.) on City Development Concepts, Integrated City Development Strategies and Urban Planning Means, and Individual Specific Legal Institutions Associated with Urban Planning.
HUNZIKER, M., BUCHECKER, M. and HARTIG, T. 2007. Space and place – Two aspects of the human-landscape relationship. In A Changing World. Landscape Series, Vol. 8. Eds.: KIENAST, F., WILDI, O. and GHOSH, S., Dordrecht, Springer, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4436-6_5
IMECS, Z., MÁTHÉ, A. and KOHÁN, B. 2022. Attitudes of local people towards Apuseni Nature Park, Romania. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (2): 133–148. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.71.2.3
INGOLD, T. 2002. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London, Routledge.
JANKÓ, F., BERTALAN, L., HOSCHEK, M., KOMORNOKI, K., NÉMETH, N. and PAPP-VANCSÓ, J. 2018. Perception, understanding, and action: attitudes of climate change in the Hungarian population. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 67. (2): 159–171. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.67.2.4
JONES, M. 2007. The European landscape convention and the question of public participation. Landscape Research 32. (5): 613–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552753
JUNGE, X., SCHÜPBACH, B., WALTER, T., SCHMID, B. and LINDEMANN-MATTHIES, P. 2015. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning 133. 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.010
KAHILA-TANI, M., KYTTA, M. and GEERTMAN, S. 2019. Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 186. 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019
KALTENBORN, B.P., KALTENBORN, E.F. and LINNELL, J.D.C. 2019. “It's all about the Scenery”: Tourists’ perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in the Lofoten Islands, Norway. Arctic 72. (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic67944
KAPLAN, S. and KAPLAN, R. 1982. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. New York, Praeger.
KIM, J. and KAPLAN, R. 2004. Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New urbanist kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environment and Behaviour 36. (3): 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236
KNEZ, I. and ELIASSON, I. 2017. Relationships between personal and collective place identity and well-being in mountain communities. Frontiers in Psychology 8. 79. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00079
KONKOLY-GYURÓ, É. 2013. Környezettervezés (Environmental planning). Budapest, Mezőgazda Kiadó.
KONKOLY-GYURÓ, É. 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 79. 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.019
KONKOLY-GYURÓ, É. and CSŐSZI, M. 2021. Tájkarakter Tudástár. A közösségi jelentőségű természeti értékek hosszú távú megőrzését és fejlesztését, valamint az EU Biológiai Sokféleség Stratégia 2020 célkitűzéseinek hazai szintű megvalósítását megalapozó stratégiai vizsgálatok (Landscape Character Knowledge Repository. Landscape character development element of the strategic assessments supporting the long term conservation of natural values of community interest as well as the national implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020). KEHOP-4.3.0._VEKOP-15-2016-00001. Budapest, Agrárminisztérium.
KONKOLY-GYURÓ, É., VASZÓCSIK, V., SAIN, M., CSORBA, P. and CSŐSZI, M. 2021. Tájkarakter-elemzés Magyarországon. Szakmai összefoglaló és módszertani útmutató. (Landscape character analysis in Hungary. Scientific summary and methodological guidelines.) Budapest, Agrárminisztérium.
LENGERER, F., STEINFÜHRER, A. and HAARSTEN, T. 2022. To participate, or not to participate – That is the question. (Non-)participation of older residents in rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies 91. 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.02.008
LEWICKA, M. 2008. Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28. (3): 209-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001
LOWENTHAL, D. 2007. Living with and looking at landscape. Landscape Research 32. (5): 635–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552761
LÓPEZ-MARTÍNEZ, F. 2017. Visual landscape preferences in Mediterranean areas and their socio-demographic influences. Ecologial Engineering 104. 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.036
MASLOW, A.H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50. (4): 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
National Landscape Strategy (2017–2026). Written under the coordination of the Department of National Parks and Landscape Protection, Ministry of Agriculture, Budapest. Available at https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/download/f/8f/11000/Hungarian%20National%20Landscape%20Strategy_2017-2026_webre.pdf
MINCA, C. 2013. The cultural geographies of landscape. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 62. (1): 47–62.
OLWIG, K.R. 2006. Place contra space in a morally just landscape. Norwegian Journal of Geography 60. (1): 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950500537216
OPDAM, P. 2020. Implementing human health as a landscape service in collaborative landscape approaches. Landscape and Urban Planning 199. 103819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103819
ORIANS, G.H. 1986. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In Landscape Meanings and Values. Eds.: PENNING-ROWSELL, E.C. and LOWENTHAL, D., London, Allen & Unwin, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003270270-2
RAMOS, I.L., BERNARDO, F., RIBEIRO, S.C. and VAN EETVELDE, V. 2016. Landscape identity: Implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 53. 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.030
SAIN, M. and RAB, J. 2018. Részvételi tervezés a településfejlesztésben és településrendezésben (Planning of participation in urban development and master planning). Budapest, Lechner Tudásközpont.
SANTÉ, I., TUBÍO, J.M. and MIRANDA, D. 2020. Public participation in defining landscape planning scenarios and landscape quality objectives (LQO): Landscape Gudelines for Galicia (NW Spain) case study. Land Use Policy 94. 104559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104559
SCHAMA, S. 1995. Landscape and Memory. London, Harper Collins.
SEMIAN, M. and NOVÁČEK, A. 2017. The reinterpretation of histories in identities of newly established regions: The case of Local Action Groups in Czechia. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 66. (4): 307–319. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.66.4.3
ŠERÝ, M. and DAŇKOVÁ, M. 2021. When regional identities differ over generation: Deinstitutionalisation of regions and regional identities in a regional amalgam. Journal of Rural Studies 82. 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.033
SILVA, L. and LEAL, J. 2015. Rural tourism and national identity building in contemporary Europe: Evidence from Portugal. Journal of Rural Studies 38. 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.02.005
STOBBELAAR, D.J. and PEDROLI, B. 2011. Perspectives on landscape identity: A conceptual challenge. Landscape Research 36. (3): 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.564860
SWANWICK, C. 2002. Landscape Character Assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland. Cheltenham–Edinburgh, Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage. Available at https://digital.nls.uk/pubs/e-monographs/2020/216649977.23.pdf
TVEIT, M., ODE, Å. and FRY, G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31. (3): 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269
WASCHER, D.M. (ed.) 2005. European Landscape Character Areas – Typologies, Cartography and Indicators for the Assessment of Sustainable Landscapes No. 1254. Wageningen, Landscape Europe. Available at https://edepot.wur.nl/1778
WYLIE, J.W. 2007. Landscape. London, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203480168
ZACHRISSON, A., BJÄRSTIG, T., THELLBRO, C., NEUMANN, W. and SVENSSON, J. 2021. Participatory comprehensive planning to handle competing land-use priorities in the sparsely populated rural context. Journal of Rural Studies 88. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.031
Copyright (c) 2024 Péter Csorba, Sándor Jombach, Zsombor Boromisza, Zoltán Túri, Krisztina Bánóczki , Éva Konkoly-Gyuró
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
