Landscape Ecology

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 375–389

From Hiking Through Farmland to Farming in a Leisure Landscape: Changing Social Perceptions of the European Landscape

Research Article

Abstract

The idea that landscape has been created by human activities on a biophysical basis allows for clear cause–effect reasoning. However, landscape planning and management practice learns that it is impossible to neglect the social perception of landscape, i.e. the ways people think about nature and landscape. It is the result of social research and human sciences of the last decade that a differentiation in views of nature and landscape can be identified in the different groups of social actors in the landscape. Case studies from France and the Netherlands show a marked change in values attributed to nature and landscape in the end of the last century. Social demand for landscape is growing and a shift from a functional image of nature and landscape to a more hedonistic image like the Arcadian and wilderness images has taken place. Comparing the Netherlands with France and rural with urban inhabitants, the influence of urbanisation is evident in this process. It is further shown that images of nature vary considerably between for example farmers, urban residents, hunters and conservationists. The way people perceive landscape seems determined by their functional ties with the landscape and the social praxis in which they encounter the landscape. It is concluded that the concept of landscape is nearer to the lifeworld of people than the abstract notions of nature and biodiversity. This implies a big challenge both for national and international landscape policies and for local landscape management initiatives to be developed, taking into due consideration both the material and immaterial nature of landscape.

Keywords

Culture Europe France Landscape Nature Landscape preference Perception Spatial planning The Netherlands Views of nature 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarts M.N.C. 1998. Een kwestie van natuur; een studie naar de aard en het verloop van communicatie over natuur en natuurbeleid (A question of nature; a study into the character and the process of communication on nature and nature policy). PhD-Thesis (in Dutch), Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  2. Bastian O., Krönert R. and Lipský Z. 2006. Landscape diagnosis in different space and time scales – a challenge for landscape planning. Landscape Ecol. this issue.Google Scholar
  3. Bastian, O.Steinhardt, U. eds. 2002Development and Perspectives of Landscape EcologyKluwerDordrecht498Google Scholar
  4. Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M., Kienast, F. 2003Participatory landscape development: overcoming social barriers to public involvementLandsc. Urban Plan.642946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buijs A.E. 2000. Natuurbeelden van de Nederlandse bevolking (Images of nature of the Dutch population). Landschap: 17: 97–112 (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  6. Buijs, A.E., Berends, H., Berg, L. 2003Consument en burger (Consumer and citizen)Alterra Green World ResearchWageningen (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  7. Buijs, A.E., Filius, P. 1998Natuurbeelden in de praktijk (Images of nature in practices)Staring Centrum Report 623Wageningen (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  8. Buijs A.E. and Volker C.M. 1997. Publiek draagvlak voor natuur en natuurbeleid (Public acceptance of nature and nature policy). Staring Centrum Report 546, Wageningen (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  9. Cadiou N. and Luginbühl Y. 1995. Modèles paysagers et représentations du paysage en Normandie-Maine. In: Voisenat C. (ed.), Paysage au pluriel, pour une approche ethnologique des paysages, Coll. Ethnologie de la France, Mission du patrimoine ethnologique, Cahier n° 9, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’homme, Paris, pp. 19–34.Google Scholar
  10. Coeterier, J.F. 1996Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscapeLandscape and Urban Planning342744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conan, M. 1994

    L’invention des identités perdues

    Berque, A. eds. Cinq propositions pour une théorie du paysageChamp VallonSeyssel3349
    Google Scholar
  12. Council of Europe 2000. The European Landscape Convention European Treaty Series – No. 176 Florence, 20 October 2000.Google Scholar
  13. Groot, W.T. 1992Environmental Science Theory: Concepts and Methods in a Problem-OrientedOne-World ParadigmElsevierAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. Groot, W.T., Born, R.J.G. 2002Images of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The NetherlandsLandsc. Urban Plan.63127138Google Scholar
  15. Eder, K. 1996The Social Construction of NatureSageLondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Filius P., Buijs A.E. and Goosen C.M. 2000. Natuurbeleving door doelgroepen. Waarden en wensen van jagers, sportvissers en vrijwilligers in het landschapsbeheer Alterra Report 104, Alterra Green World Research, Wageningen. 64 p. (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  17. Frouws, J. 1998The contested redefinition of the countryside. An analysis of rural discourse in the NetherlandsSociol. Ruralis385468Google Scholar
  18. Hervieu, B., Vi ard, J. 1996Au bonheur des campagnes (et des provinces)Edition de l’AubeLa Tour d’Aigues155Google Scholar
  19. IFEN2000La sensibilité écologique des Français à travers l’opinion publiqueInstitut Français de l’EnvironnementOrléans190Google Scholar
  20. INED1992Enquête national sur le paysageInstitut national d’Études DémographiquesParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs, M.H., Berg, A.E., Langers, F., Kralingen, R.B.A.S. 2002Waterbeelden. Een studie naar de beelden van waternatuur onder medewerkers van RijkswaterstaatAlterraWageningenGoogle Scholar
  22. Jollivet, M.Eizner, N. eds. 1996L’Europe et ses campagnesÉditions de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences PolitiquesParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones, O. 1995Lay discourses of the rural: developments and implications for rural studiesJ. Rural Stud.113549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jongman, R. eds. 2004The New Dimensions of the European LandscapeKluwer Academic Publ.Dordrecht, The NetherlandsProceedings of the Frontis Workshop on the future of the European cultural landscape, Wageningen, The Netherlands 9–12 June 2002. Wageningen UR Frontis Series Nr. 4Google Scholar
  25. Keulartz, J., Windt, H., Swart, J. 2004Concepts of nature as Communicative Devices: The case of Dutch Nature PolicyEnviron. Values138199Google Scholar
  26. Klijn, J., Vos, W. 2000From landscape ecology to landscape science: proceedings of the European congress “Landscape ecology: things to do – proactive thoughts for the 21st century”, organised in 1997 by the Dutch Association for Landscape Ecology (WLO) on the occasion of its 25th anniversaryKluwerDordrecht163Google Scholar
  27. Kolkman, G., Ploeg, J.D., Timmermans, W., Berg, L., Borgstein, M. 2003

    Stad en land verdienen (aan) elkaar (city and rural areas deserve each other)

    Martin, WoestenburgArjen Buijs en Wim, Timmermans eds. Wie is er bang voor de stadWageningen, BlauwdrukDutch124
    Google Scholar
  28. Lockwood, M. 1999Humans valuing nature: synthesising insights from philosophy, psychology and economicsEnviron. values8381401Google Scholar
  29. Löfgren, O. 1994Die wahre Landschaft ist im Kopf; Landscape of the mindTopos6614Google Scholar
  30. Luginbühl Y. 2001a. La demande sociale de paysage. In: Conseil National de Paysage (2001). Rapport de la séance inaugurale. Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement. pp. 7–29.Google Scholar
  31. Luginbühl Y. 2001b. Paysage modèle et modèles de paysages. In: CREDOC, Ministère de l’environnement (2001): L’environnement, question sociale, Editions Odile Jacob, Paris, 305 p., pp. 49–56.Google Scholar
  32. Luginbühl, Y. 2002

    Rural tradition and Landscape Innovation in the eighteenth Century

    Dixon Hunt, J. eds. Tradition and Innovation in French Garden ArtUniversity of Pennsylvannia PressPhiladelphia8292
    Google Scholar
  33. Luginbühl Y., Bontron J.-Cl., Sigg K., Toutain X. and Velard L. 1995. Sensibilités paysagères, modèles paysagers. Rapport STRATES CNRS / SEGESA pour le Ministère de l’Environnement – DRAEI, 118 p. + annexes.Google Scholar
  34. Luginbühl, Y., Toublanc, M. 2003

    L’évolution des représentations collectives et des modes de gestion du bocage

    Baudry, J.Jouin, A. eds. De la haie aux bocages Organisation, dynamique et gestionINRA-EditionsVersailles4373
    Google Scholar
  35. Macnaghten, P., Urry, J. 1998Contested NaturesSage publicationsLondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Mingay, G.E. eds. 1989The Rural IdyllRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Palang, H.Fry, G. eds. 2003Landscape Interfaces Cultural heritage in changing landscapesKluwerDordrecht/Boston/London414Google Scholar
  38. Pedroli, B. eds. 2000Landscape – Our Home/Lebensraum Landschaft. Essays on The Culture of the European Landscape as a TaskIndigoZeist222Google Scholar
  39. Pedroli B. 2005. The nature of lowland rivers: a search for river identity. In: Wiens J. and Moss M. (eds), Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press, pp. 259–273.Google Scholar
  40. Pine J.B. and Gilmore J.H. 1999. The Experiency Economy. Work is theatre and every business a stage.Google Scholar
  41. Pinto-Correia T., Gustavsson R. and Pirnat J. 2006. Bridging the gap between centrally defined policies and local decisions – Towards more sensitive and creative rural landscape management. Landscape Ecol., this issue.Google Scholar
  42. Potschin M. 2002. Landscape ecology in different parts of the world. In: Bastian O. and Steinhardt U. (eds), Development and Perspectives of Landscape Ecology., pp. 38–47.Google Scholar
  43. Rink D. and Wächter M. 2004. Naturverständnisse in der Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. (Concepts of nature in sustainability research). Campus Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  44. Schama, S. 1995Landscape and MemoryHarperCollinsLondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Seamon, D. 1987

    Phenomenology and environment–behavior research

    Ervin, H. ZubeGary, T. Moore eds. Advances In Environment, Behavrior and DesignPlenum PressNew York344(pp. 3–28).
    Google Scholar
  46. Steg, L., Buijs, A.E. 2004Psychologie en duurzame ontwikkeling. De psychologie van milieugedrag en natuurbelevingUCM-DO/KUNNijmegen (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  47. Terrasson D. and Le Floch S. 2000. Standardised landscapes, exclusion landscapes, leisure landscapes. In: Pedroli B. (eds), 2000): Landscape – Our Home / Lebensraum Landschaft. pp. 173–179.Google Scholar
  48. Thiebaut, L. 2002Commentaire: le paysage: merchandise ou symbole d’identité?Nature Sciences Sociétés105455Google Scholar
  49. Thompson, M., Ellis, R., Wildavsky, A. 1990Cultural theoryBoulder COWestviewGoogle Scholar
  50. Tress, B., Tress, G., Décamps, H., d’Hauteserre, A. 2001Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape researchLandsc. Urban Plan.57137141Google Scholar
  51. Toogood, M. 2001The construction of natureEur. Nat.20011315Google Scholar
  52. Turnhout, E., Hisschemöller, M., Eijsackers, H. 2004The role of views of nature in Dutch nature conservation: The case of the creation of a drift sand area in the Hoge Veluwe national parkEnviron. Values13187198Google Scholar
  53. Ulrich, S.R. 1993

    Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscapes

    Kellert, S.R.Wilson, E.O. eds. The Biophilia HypothesisIsland PressWashington DC
    Google Scholar
  54. Urry, J. 1990The Tourist Gaze. Leisure and Travel in Contemporary SocietiesSage publicationsLondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Berg, A.E. 1999Individual differences in the aesthetic evaluation of natural landscapesGroningenRijksuniversiteit GroningenGoogle Scholar
  56. Born, R.J.G., Lenders, R., Groot, W.T., Huijsman, E. 2001The new biopholia: an exploration of images of nature in Western countriesEnviron. Conserv.286575Google Scholar
  57. Ploeg, J.D., Long, A., Banks, J. 2002Living Countrysides. Rural Development Processes in Europe: The State of the ArtElsevierDoetinchemGoogle Scholar
  58. Berg, A.E., Berg, M. 2001Van buiten wordt je beterAlterraWageningenGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Koppen 2002. Echte natuur Real Nature. PhD Thesis (in Dutch), Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  60. Mansvelt, J.D., Pedroli, B. 2003

    Landscapea matter of identity and integrity. Towards sound knowledgeawareness and involvement

    Palang, H.Fry, G. eds. Landscape InterfacesKluwerDordrecht/Boston/London375394
    Google Scholar
  61. Voisenat, C. eds. 1995Paysage au Pluriel. pour un approche ethnologique des paysages, Cahier 9Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’HommeParisGoogle Scholar
  62. Volk M. and Steinhardt U. 2002. The landscape concept. In: Bastian O. and Steinhardt U. (eds), Development and Perspectives of Landscape Ecology, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  63. Wascher D.M. (ed.), 2000b. The Face of Europe – Policy Perspectives for European Landscapes. Report on the implementation of the PEBLDS Action Theme 4 on European Landscapes, published under the auspices of the Council of Europe. ECNC, Tilburg.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson, A. 1992The Culture of NatureBlackwellCambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Landscape CentreAlterra Green World ResearchWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Université de Paris I, LADYSSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations