Transdisciplinary landscape planning: Does the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium)

Abstract Since the end of the last century, the focus in landscape policy is shifting from traditional top-down perspectives into a bottom-up and integrated approach involving participation of local stakeholders. Keywords in the European Landscape Convention (ELC) include participation and awareness-raising: the public should be involved and their aspirations towards landscape should be assessed. This evolution in policy went with a new paradigm in landscape research: transdisciplinarity. Despite this evolution, literature indicates the necessity of a more general use of methods for public participation in landscape planning to meet the objectives of the Convention. The present paper explores ways to involve ‘the local people’ and to grasp their aspirations with regard to the landscape features of their surroundings. Point of departure is a questionnaire combining questions on landscape preference, environmental worldview and behaviour in the landscape. The questionnaire was distributed in a spatially stratified sample amongst inhabitants of the city of Ghent. The survey was set up without any connection to a concrete operational project that could convince respondents to participate. The response rate was relatively large despite a rather demanding questionnaire. More isolated target groups such as people with lower income, lower education level, and retired people were included, but foreigners, despite being a substantial part of the urban population, did not respond. The respondents appeared to be rather homogeneous as regards environmental worldview and aspirations in the landscape. It appeared that environment and landscape were not clearly distinguished between by the respondents. These results yield some suggestions for transdisciplinary landscape policy. A careful design of the sampling can enhance number and diversity of the respondents. Yet, it is equally important to develop a common language to communicate about landscape so that the question items can be clearly phrased and understood. Aspirations towards landscape should be defined more unambiguously so that they can be assessed alike. Awareness-raising for landscape may help to increase the number of local people that feel addressed when talking about landscape. When public support for landscape policy and management is taken seriously, more factors than only landscape should be taken into consideration.

[1]  P. Wesley Schultz,et al.  Values and Proenvironmental Behavior , 1998 .

[2]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Nature conservation for future sustainable shorelines: Lessons from seeking to involve the public , 2009 .

[3]  Margot A. Olson,et al.  The attitudes of interior design students towards sustainability , 2009 .

[4]  M. Zanna,et al.  Attitudes and Attitude Change , 1993 .

[5]  Iain Walker,et al.  Utilizing a social-ecological framework to promote water and energy conservation: A field experiment , 2005 .

[6]  Mohamed M. Mostafa,et al.  Gender Differences in Egyptian Consumers Green Purchase Behaviour: The Effects of Environmental Knowledge, Concern and Attitude , 2007 .

[7]  Xiaodong Chen,et al.  Household Location Choices: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[8]  G. Fry,et al.  Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure , 2006 .

[9]  G. Tress,et al.  Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research , 2001 .

[10]  Linda Soneryd Public involvement in the planning process: EIA and lessons from the Örebro airport extension, Sweden , 2004 .

[11]  C. Vlek,et al.  Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour : An integrative review and research agenda , 2009 .

[12]  Arnold Vedlitz,et al.  Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  Roy Haines-Young,et al.  “Rio+10”, sustainability science and Landscape Ecology☆ , 2006 .

[14]  J. Brandt Key concepts and interdisciplinearity in Landscape Ecology: a summing-up and outlook , 1998 .

[15]  F. Kaiser,et al.  Contrasting the Theory of Planned Behavior With the Value‐Belief‐Norm Model in Explaining Conservation Behavior1 , 2005 .

[16]  Marc Antrop,et al.  Rural Landscapes: past processes and future strategies , 2005 .

[17]  M. Antrop Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? , 2006 .

[18]  Gary Fry,et al.  Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice , 2005 .

[19]  G. Tress,et al.  Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning—a study from Denmark , 2003 .

[20]  Chris Park Landscape ecology: Theory and applications: Z. Naveh and A.S. Lieberman, 356 pp., Springer, New York, $40.30 , 1986 .

[21]  Hans Antonson,et al.  Landscapes with history: addressing shortcomings in Swedish EIAs. , 2009 .

[22]  R. Dunlap,et al.  Validating a Comprehensive Model of Environmental Concern Cross‐Nationally: A U.S.‐Canadian Comparison* , 2007 .

[23]  G. Tress,et al.  Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research , 2001 .

[24]  Hans Antonson,et al.  Bridging the gap between research and planning practice concerning landscape in Swedish infrastructural planning , 2009 .

[25]  R. Dunlap,et al.  Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale , 2000 .

[26]  Judit Arends-Tóth,et al.  Acculturation attitudes: A comparison of measurement methods , 2007 .

[27]  Rolf Lidskog,et al.  Transport Infrastructure Investment and Environmental Impact Assessment in Sweden: Public Involvement or Exclusion? , 2000 .

[28]  Marc Antrop,et al.  Evaluation of the process of integration in a transdisciplinary landscape study in the Pajottenland (Flanders, Belgium) , 2006 .

[29]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms , 2007, Psychological science.

[30]  A. Smart,et al.  Urbanization and the Global Perspective , 2003 .

[31]  Gary Fry,et al.  Analysis of the barriers to integration in landscape research projects , 2007 .

[32]  R. Dunlap,et al.  The “New Environmental Paradigm” , 1978 .

[33]  M. Antrop Why landscapes of the past are important for the future , 2005 .

[34]  A. Vatn,et al.  Local democracy implications for coastal zone management—A case study in southern Norway , 2009 .

[35]  Todd W. Bressi,et al.  Understanding ordinary landscapes , 1997 .

[36]  A. Stamps Demographic Effects in Environmental Aesthetics: A Meta-Analysis , 1999 .

[37]  Judit Arends-Tóth,et al.  Multiculturalism and acculturation: views of Dutch and Turkish–Dutch , 2003 .

[38]  Z. Naveh Interactions of landscapes and cultures , 1995 .

[39]  Veerle Van Eetvelde,et al.  A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology and characterisation for trans-regional integration, applied on the federal state of Belgium. , 2009 .

[40]  H. Holmén,et al.  Approaching Reality : Comparing Stakeholder Analysis and Cultural Theory in the Context of Natural Resource Management , 2008 .

[41]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Key Topics in Landscape Ecology: Frontmatter , 2007 .

[42]  Felix Kienast,et al.  Participatory landscape development: overcoming social barriers to public involvement , 2003 .

[43]  M. Stenseke Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: Lessons from Sweden , 2009 .

[44]  P. Wesley Schultz,et al.  Values and their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior , 2005 .

[45]  P. Schultz,et al.  VALUES AS PREDICTORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES: EVIDENCE FOR CONSISTENCY ACROSS 14 COUNTRIES , 1999 .

[46]  M. Antrop,et al.  European Rural Landscapes. Persistence and Change in a Globalising Environment. , 2004 .

[47]  Alan Bond,et al.  Public participation in EIA of nuclear power plant decommissioning projects: a case study analysis , 2004 .

[48]  R. Dunlap,et al.  THE NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PARADIGM: 5 PROPOSED MEASURING INSTRUMENT AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS , 1978 .

[49]  Z. Naveh Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes , 2001 .

[50]  Adrienne Grêt-Regamey,et al.  Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling , 2007 .

[51]  Zev Naveh,et al.  LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY: THEORY AND APPLICATION , 1983, Landscape Journal.

[52]  P. Schultz New Environmental Theories: Empathizing With Nature: The Effects ofPerspective Taking on Concern for Environmental Issues , 2000 .

[53]  K. Soini Between Insideness and Outsideness — Studying Locals’ Perceptions of Landscape , 2004 .

[54]  Marc Antrop,et al.  The language of landscape ecologists and planners: A comparative content analysis of concepts used in landscape ecology , 2001 .

[55]  Å. Ode,et al.  Public evaluation of landscape content and change: several examples from Europe. , 2009 .

[56]  Marc Antrop,et al.  Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[57]  G. Wood,et al.  EIA scoping in England and Wales: Practitioner approaches, perspectives and constraints , 2006 .

[58]  J. F. Coeterier,et al.  GROUP DIFFERENCES IN THE AESTHETIC EVALUATION OF NATURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: A MULTILEVEL APPROACH , 1998 .

[59]  P. Shannon,et al.  Local landscape designations in Scotland: Opportunity or barrier to effective landscape management? , 2007 .

[60]  J. Stephenson The Cultural Values Model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes , 2008 .

[61]  M. Nijnik,et al.  Analyzing public preferences concerning woodland development in rural landscapes in Scotland , 2008 .

[62]  Jyrki Aakkula,et al.  Framing the biodiversity of agricultural landscape: The essence of local conceptions and constructions , 2007 .

[63]  Karen Bickerstaff,et al.  Participatory Local Governance and Transport Planning , 2001 .

[64]  A. Stirling Analysis, participation and power: justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis , 2006 .