Advertisement

Shaping Cultural Landscapes through Regional Governance

  • Ludger Gailing
  • Heiderose Kilper
Chapter
Part of the German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy book series (GERMANANNUAL)

In 2006 the German Standing Conference of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning (MKRO) decided on three new concepts. The third concept can be summarised as “Conservation of resources, shaping of cultural landscapes”. In addition to the usual spatial planning tasks such as giving careful consideration to competing claims for space and protecting open spaces and other natural resources, the concept includes a new component – to actively shape cultural landscapes. This spatial planning task involves more than just preserving places of historical importance since all urban, semi-urban and rural areas are regarded as cultural landscapes, subject to regional development concepts and strategies1. Cultural landscapes are viewed as a “qualitative supplement to traditional spatial development policies” and as “areas with their own particular characteristics serving the advancement of identification of the inhabitants with the region in which they live”2. Thus shaping cultural landscapes has, for the first time, become a “national task”3.

Keywords

Spatial Planning Cultural Landscape Regional Governance Informal Institution Regional Identity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alltschekow P., Eyink H., Sinz M. (2006): Bewahren und Entwickeln. Neue Leitbilder der Raumentwicklung in Deutschland. In: Stadt und Grün, No. 12, 813.Google Scholar
  2. Apolinarski I., Gailing L., Röhring A. (2006): Kulturlandschaft als regionales Gemeinschaftsgut. Vom Kulturlandschaftsdilemma zum Kulturlandschaftsmanagement. In: Matthiesen U., Danielzyk R., Heiland S., Tzschaschel S. (eds.), Kulturlandschaften als Herausforderung für die Raumplanung. Verständnisse – Erfahrungen – Perspektiven, Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte der ARL, No. 228. Hannover, 81-98.Google Scholar
  3. Blatter J. (2005): Metropolitan Governance in Deutschland: Normative, utilitaristische, kommunikative und dramaturgische Steuerungsansätze. In: Swiss Political Science Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 119-155.Google Scholar
  4. BMVBS (2006): Leitbilder und Handlungsstrategien für die Raumentwicklung in Deutschland. Berlin: Geschäftsstelle der Ministerkonferenz für Raumordnung.Google Scholar
  5. Botzem S. (2002): Governance-Ansätze in der Steuerungsdiskussion. Steuerung und Selbstregulierung unter den Bedingungen fortschreitender Internationalisierung, discussion paper FS I 02-106. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
  6. Council of Europe (2000): European Landscape Convention (ELC). Firenze.Google Scholar
  7. Donadieu P., Périgord M. (2007): Le Paysage entre Natures et Cultures. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  8. Eisenstadt, S. M. (1991): Die Konstruktion nationaler Identitäten in vergleichender Perspektive. In: Giesen B. (ed.), Nationale und kulturelle Identität. Studien zur Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewusstseins in der Neuzeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 21-38.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission (1999): European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Luxemburg.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer F. (2000): Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fürst D. (2004): Regional Governance. In: Benz A. (ed), Governance – Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, 45-64Google Scholar
  12. Gailing L. (2005): Regionalparks – Grundlagen und Instrumente der Freiraumpolitik in Verdichtungsräumen. Dortmunder Beiträge zur Raumplanung, No. 121. Dortmund.Google Scholar
  13. Gailing L. (2007): Landscape governance in urban agglomerations –The case of regional parks in Germany. In: Kenneweg H., Tröger U. (eds.), 2nd International Congress on Environmental Planning and Management. Visions – Implementations – Results, Landschaftsentwicklung und Umweltplanung, Schriftenreihe der Fakultät Planen Bauen Umwelt, No. S20. Berlin, 481-484.Google Scholar
  14. Head, L. (2000): Cultural Landscapes and Environmental Change. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
  15. Hobsbawm E., Ranger T. (eds., 1992): The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hönes E. R. (2007): Rechtliche Aspekte zum europäischen und deutschen Kulturlandschaftsschutz. In: Bauerochse A., Haßmann H., Ickerodt U. (eds.), Kulturlandschaft. administrativ – digital – touristisch. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. 31-90.Google Scholar
  17. Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion (2007): Territorial Agenda of the European Union. Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Leipzig.Google Scholar
  18. Jessop B. (2002): Governance and Meta-governance in the Face of Complexity: On the Roles of Requisite Variety, Reflexive Observation, and Romantic Irony in Participatory Governance. In: Heinelt H., Getimis P., Kafkalas G., Smith R., Swyngedouw E. (eds.), Participatory Governance in Multi-Level Context: Concepts and Experience. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 33-58.Google Scholar
  19. Mayntz R. (2005): Governance-Theory als fortentwickelte Steuerungstheorie? In: Schuppert G. F. (ed.), Governance-Forschung: Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 11-20.Google Scholar
  20. Mayntz R., Scharpf F. W. (1995): Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus. In: Mayntz R., Scharpf F. W. (eds.), Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus, 39-70.Google Scholar
  21. North D. C. (1990): Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Norton W. (2000): Cultural Geography: Themes, Concepts, Analyses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rodewald R., Knoepfel P. (2005): Institutionelle Regime für nachhaltige Landschaftsnutzung. Régimes institutionels pour le développement durable du paysage, Oekologie und Gesellschaft, No. 20. Zürich, Chur: Verlag Rüegger.Google Scholar
  24. Röhring A., Gailing, L. (2006): Cultural landscapes as a potential force for regional development – theoretical approaches and case studies in East German suburban and rural regions. In: Komornicki T., Czapiewski KŁń. (eds.), Regional Periphery in Central and Eastern Europe, EUROPA XXI, 15. Warsaw: Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Geographical Society, 13-28.Google Scholar
  25. Sieferle R. P. (2003): Die totale Landschaft. In: Oswald F., Schüller N. (eds.), Neue Urbanität – das Verschmelzen von Stadt und Landschaft. Zürich: gta, 59-76.Google Scholar
  26. Thomas C. W. (2003): Bureaucratic Landscapes. Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiversity. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Williamson O. E. (1994): Transaction Cost Economics and Organization Theory. In: Smelser N., Swedberg R. (eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton, 77-107.Google Scholar
  28. Winchester H., Kong L., Dunn K. (2003): Landscapes – Ways of imagining the world. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  29. Young O. (2002): The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change. Fit, Interplay, Scale. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ludger Gailing
    • Heiderose Kilper

    There are no affiliations available

    Personalised recommendations