**6. References**

262 Studies on Environmental and Applied Geomorphology

In order to realize sustainable territorial development, the emphasis in protected landscapes is shifting from maintenance to development. As a result, landscape conservation strategies not only protect cultural and natural heritage of cultural landscapes, but also enhance territorial dynamics that strengthen and requalify the (weakened) territorial assets, such as (regional) identity and nature. Sustainability – and thus the challenge for protected landscapes - is increasingly positioned in the character of change itself and not in terms of any optimal state, pattern or blueprint. Common historical roots, special landscape features, typical products, cultural traditions, as well as innovative projects are possible initial points for identity-based processes. In connection with governance arrangements cultural landscapes can be constituted as action arenas for sustainable development. As a result, cultural landscapes are not only public interest goods and services that directly affect the social well-being of individuals but also represent important urban and rural development assets. Cultural landscapes are part of a region's capital stock and base for the development

Given the limitations of our current institutions to respond to landscape-scale change, landscape governane will require a high degree of collaboration to bridge disparate sectors, to integrate complex institutional layers, and to engage a wide array of actors in the sustainable development of cultural landscapes (Görg, 2007). Since multi-sectoral and multilevel partnerships are essential to an inclusive and participatory approach to landscape conservation, the intention is to stimulate and integrate mutual gains between sectoral interests by a 'conservation through development' approach. By working cooperatively with local and regional stakeholders, local, regional and national governments try to increase regional wealth creation, giving greater importance to rural areas, and creating more acceptance for landscape conservation among the local population and increasing

Building multi-sector and multi-level partnerships for sustainable development of protected landscapes, however, is not an easy task for protected landscape authorities and institutions. Considerable conflict and opposition can easily arise. Most often causes of resistance have less to do with possible economic losses to local livelihoods arising from designation, but rather lie in the manner of consulting and involving local interests. Participation processes are often too late, too formal, and too narrow in compass. In addition, there can also be much miscommunication and misunderstanding between landowners, farmers, businesses and residents on the one hand, and the landscape conservation officials and experts on the other. Governance experiences with protected landscapes in Western Europe, therefore, emphasize the importance of communication skills, and capacity to create consensus among those who live and work in protected landscapes, to reduce scepticism and suspicion regarding the purpose of landscape conservation (Thompson, 2003, 2006; Janssen et al., 2007). It is only via the process of collaboratively acting together that full understanding and co-operation is achieved (Healey, 2007). Involvement and building capacity is key to

We assume that governance for sustainable development of protected landscapes remains a challenging task in the 21st century. In that regard it is gratifying to note that there is an emerging (academic) debate on the influence of protected landscapes on local and regional development (Mose, 2007). Both in the academic debate and in conservation practice

of countryside communities.

awareness of nature and the environment among visitors.

securing sustainable stewardship of cultural landscapes (Selman, 2001).


http://www.earthlore.ca/clients/WPC/English/grfx/sessions/PDFs/session\_1/ Borrini\_Feyerabend.pdf)

Brundtland G. (1987). *Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development*. Rome: World Commission on Environment and Development [Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427].

From Landscape Preservation to Landscape Governance:

*World*. Munich: Prestel Verlag

*parks*. London: Allen & Unwin.

*the 21st century*. London: Ashgate.

*of American Geographers*, 86, 630–653.

573, 519–553.

Chapman and Hall.

University Press.

Press.

Press.

*Political Change*, London: Edward Elgar

*Authorities in Wales*. Bristol: Land Use Consultants.

*1885-1945*. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

and economy. *European Planning Studies* 5: 665–670.

European Experiences with Sustainable Development of Protected Landscapes 265

Keating, M editor (1998). *The New Regionalism in Western Europe. Territorial Restructuring and* 

Land Use Consultants and Arwell Jones Associates (2004). *Review of the National Park* 

Lanneaux M, Chapuis R. (1993). Les Parcs Regionaux francais. *Annals of Canadian Geography*

Lefaivre, L & Tzonis, A (2004). *Critical Regionalism. Architecture and Identity in a Globalizing* 

Lekan, T. (2004). *Imagining the Nation in Nature: Landscape Preservation and German Identity,* 

Lucas PHC. (1992). *Protected landscapes – a guide for policymakers and planners*. London:

MacEwan A, MacEwan M. 1987. *Greenprints for the countryside?. The story of Britain's national* 

McCarthy J, Lloyd G, Illsley B. (2002). National Parks in Scotland: balancing environment

Mels, T. (1999), *Wild Landscapes: The Cultural Nature of Swedish National Parks*. Lund: Lund

Morris, W. (1969). *The unpublished lectures of William Morris*. Detroit: Wayne State University

Mose, I (Ed.) (2007). *Protected areas and regional development in Europe: towards a new model for* 

Olwig, K.R. (1996). Recovering the substantive nature of landscape. *Annals of the Association* 

Olwig, K.R. (2002). *Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic – From Britain's Renaissance to* 

Panizza, M. (2001). Geomorphosites: Concepts, methods and examples of geomorphological

Pedroli B, Doorn A van, Blust G de, Paracchini ML, Wascher D, Bunch F (2007). *Europe's living landscapes. Essays exploring our identity in the countryside*. Zeist: KNVV. Phillips A. (2002). *Management guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected areas: protected* 

Phillips A, Partington R. (2005). Protected landscapes in the United Kingdom. In: Brown J,

*culture and community*. Gland: The World Conservation Union. p. 119–130 Powell, J, Wragg, A, and Selman, P. (2002). Protected areas: reinforcing the virtuous circle,

Reynard, E. (2005). Géomorphosites et paysages. *Géomorphologie : relief, processus,* 

Reynard. E. & Panizza, M. (2005). Geomorphosites: definition, assessment and mapping: an introduction. *Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement*, 3, 177-180. Rollins, W.H. (1997). *A greener vision of Home: cultural politics and environmental reform in the German Heimatschutz Movement*. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Runte, A. (1997). *National parks: the American experience*. Lincoln: University of Nebraska

Ruskin, J. (1985). *Unto this last and other writings*. London: Penguin Publishers.

Mitchell N, Beresford M, editors. *The protected landscape approach: linking nature,* 

*America's New World*. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

survey. *Chinese Science Bulletin*, Vol. 46, Supplement 1, 4-5.

*landscapes/seascapes*. Gland/ Cambridge: IUCN.

*Planning Practice and Research*, 17(3), 279-295

*environnement*, 2005, 3, 181-188


Buller H. (2003). *The French Parcs Naturels Regionaux: Socio-Economic impact and rural development*. Newcastle upon Tyne: Centre for Rural Economy (working paper 52) Chaney, S. (2008). *Nature of the miracle years: conservation in West-Germany, 1945-1975*. New

Chape S, Blyth S, Fish L, Fox S, Spalding M. (2003). *United Nations list of protected areas*.

Council of Europe (2000). *European landscape convention*. Florence (Italy): Council of Europe. Council of Europe (2006). *Landscape and sustainable development: challenges of the European* 

Curry N. (1992). Controlling development in the national parks of England and Wales. *Town* 

Dearden, P.; Bennett, M. & Johnston, J. (2005). Trends in Global Protected Area Governance

Ditt K. (1996). Nature conservation in England and Germany 1900–70: forerunner of

Dwyer J. (1991). Structural and evolutionary effects upon conservation policy performance:

Farsani, N., Coelho, C. and Costa, C. (2011). Geotourism and Geoparks as Novel Strategies

Freniere GF. (1997). Greenline parks in France: Les Parcs Naturels Regionaux. *Agricultural* 

Fuertes-Gutiérrez, I. & Fernández-Martínez, E. (2010). Geosites Inventory in the Leon

Fürst, D.; Lahner, M.; Pollermann, K. (2006). Entstehung und Funktionsweise von Regional

und Großbritannien. In: *Beiträge zur räumlichen Planung*, H. 82, Hannover. Görg, C. (2007). Landscape Governance – The "politics of scale" and the "natural"

Hamin E. (2002). Western European approaches to landscape protection: a review of the

Harvey, D. (1989). *The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change*.

Healey, P. (1997). *Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies*. London:

Janssen J, Pieterse N, Van den Broek L. (2007). *Nationale landschappen. Beleidsdilemma's in de praktijk*. Den Haag/ Rotterdam (The Netherlands): RPB/NAI Uitgevers. Janssen, J. (2009). Sustainable development and protected landscapes: the case of The Netherlands. *Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology* 1 (2009) 37-47. Jones, C. (2008). History of Geoparks. *Geological Society*, London, Special Publications 2008,

comparing a U.K. National and a French Regional Park. *Journal of Rural Studies* 3

for Socio-economic Development in Rural Areas. *International Journal of Tourism* 

Province (Northwestern Spain): A Tool to Introduce Geoheritage into Regional

Governance bei dem Gemeinschaftsgut Natur und Landschaft - Analysen von Place-making- und Governance-Prozessen in Biosphärenreservaten in Deutschland

*Landscape Convention*. Strasbourg (France): Council of Europe.

1992 –2002. *Environmental Management* Vol. 36, No. 1, 89-100

Dowling, R.K. (2011). Geotourism's Global Growth. *Geoheritage,* 3, 1-13.

Environmental Management. *Geoheritage*, 2, 57-75.

literature. *Journal of Planning Literature* 16: 339–358.

Harvie, C. (1994). *The rise of regional Europe*. London & New-York: Routledge.

conditions of places. *Geoforum* 38, 954-966.

London: Blackwell Publishers.

Macmillan Press.

v. 300, 273-277.

environmental protection?. *Contemporary European History* 5, 1–28.

York: Berghahn Books.

*Planning Review* 2, 107–121.

Gland: IUCN.

(7), 265–275.

*Research*, 13, 68–81.

*Human Values* 4 (14):337–352.


**11** 

Dávid Lóránt *Károly Róbert College,* 

*Hungary* 

**Introduction to Anthropogenic Geomorphology** 

In the past few decades interest in the environment has reached a peak as popular opinion has become aware of the extent of the human impact on natural systems. A proliferation of degrees has followed this wave of 'environmentalism', their focus has been on natural areas and the damage caused by human impacts. **Environmental geomorphology** is a special interaction of humans with the geographical environment which includes not only the physical constituents of the Earth, but also the surface of the Earth, its landforms and in particular the processes which operate to change it through time. This geographical



To distinguish between the first two trends and the related disciplines, the terms (bio)ecology and geoecology are in use. The two concepts differ in handling the role of abiogenic and biogenic factors. In the past decade there was an intention to define geoecology as the study of abiotic factors and of issues concerning the functioning of the physical environment, while landscape ecology investigates the biogenic factors and problems of spatial organisation, structure. The far-reaching developments in the past one or two decades made landscape ecology become a wide theorethical-practical field of research, so the adaptation of international research results and educational experience is inevitable here too. The emerging science of landscape ecology is a tool for such studies and

Since the 1970s in the research of the physical environment two, frequently intertwining trends are prominent. One of them investigates the changes in the natural environment induced by human economic intervention (which are often undesirable) along with their counter effects. The other aims at the quantitative and qualitative survey of the resources and potentials of the physical environment and the evaluation of also regionally varying geographical potentials. **Anthropogenic geomorphology** is a new approach and practice to investigate our physical environment, because in the eighties the more and more urgent demands from society against geography - ever more manifest due to the scientific-technical revolution - underlined the tasks to promote efficiently the rational utilization of natural

**1. Introduction** 

environment can be investigated from several aspects:

will be the cradle for advanced studies in the future.

environment or on the structure itself;

background of impacts.

