**3. Western European approaches to landscape conservation**

Throughout Western Europe more and more landscapes are maintained with the specific aim of preserving the cultural landscape regarded as valuable by the (urban) society. These protected landscapes (Category V) seem to be best supported by sustainable policy

<sup>2</sup> The Geoparks in Europe are part of a European Geoparks Network that was established in June 2000 and now consists of 37 Geoparks in 15 countries of the European Union. In February 2004 the European Geoparks Network was formally integrated into the UNESCO-endorsed Global Geoparks Network. The Global Geoparks Network, assisted by UNESCO, provides a platform of active co-operation between experts and practitioners in geological heritage.

From Landscape Preservation to Landscape Governance:

sustainable development of landscape.

**3.1.1 British conservation history** 

fast growing segment of the urban middle classes.

**3.1 British national parks** 

people felt alienated.

European Experiences with Sustainable Development of Protected Landscapes 247

nation-building, state intervention and planning peculiarities. The conservation systems we analyze are the British *National Parks*, French *Parcs Naturels Régionaux*, and German *Nature Parks*, all IUCN-Category V protected areas. Each conservation system is described: its objectives and results. Finally, each section concludes with a short overview of current governance strategies to deal with the co-ordination of various actors to pursue a more

The idea that (national) identity, landscape and history are interlinked is nowhere as manifest as in Britain (Bishop, 1995). Responsible for the emergence of the national parks movement that led to the creation of the British National Parks, are the rapid urbanization, industrialization and agricultural rationalization during the first half of 19th century. In 1815 London had about 1, 5 million habitants, in 1860 3 million; figures and growth never seen before in world history. And London was not the only big city in the country. A stunning 25% of the whole population already lived in cities; urban sprawl was everywhere. The impact of this fast urbanization, and also of the main driving forces behind it, i.e. fast, agricultural rationalization and large scale, coal and steel based industrialization, was very visible everywhere. The effects on nature and the countryside were often very depressing, aesthetically, ethically, socially, culturally and ecologically, and so far reaching and fast that

It was in this setting that the longing for 'natural' landscapes arose, in the form of nostalgia for a lost past, characterized by beauty, rurality, harmony, proportionality and cohesion. The pioneers of this new line of thinking and feeling were members of the urban elite; men like John Ruskin and William Morris. The obvious negative and certainly hideous effects of the fast agricultural rationalization, urbanization and industrialization shocked them. They called up to appreciate and respect the beauty of the land and criticized the prevailing purely utilitarian attitudes and practices. They stressed the value of social cohesion, and sought to bring it back it by restoring the relationship with the land, based on aesthetic criteria. According to Ruskin 'all lovely things are […] necessary, the wild flower as well as the tended corn, the wild birds and creatures of the forest as the tended cattle; because man does not live by bread alone' (Ruskin, 1985, p. 226). Morris emphasized that the British people 'must turn [their] land from the grimy back-yard of a workplace into a garden' (Morris, 1969, p. 49-50). In doing so Ruskin and Morris expressed the feelings of a large and

From the second half of the 19th century onward more and more citizens started to organize themselves in voluntary organizations, with the goal to preserve nature and culture. These organizations spread new ideas and ideals about the value of scenic beauty, rural live, cultural heritage and identity and their unbreakable bond with the British landscape, such as the idea of the countryside as the almost sacred locus of British identity, with its hamlets, forests, meadows, cottages and hedges. One of the main characteristics of this new attitude was a huge aversion to the degrading effects of industrialization and urbanization, and a tendency to give in to nostalgia and feelings of alienation and loss, emotions to be compensated by disappearing in the beauties of nature and the countryside. The emphasis

objectives and measures. The social conception generally considers these landscapes as patrimony; this seems appropriate because changes in traditional cultural landscapes have often been very slow, and they seem to be definitely stable and therefore an appropriate symbol of regional and national identity. We therefore argue that landscapes and the efforts to preserve them are never neutral or objective. The specificity of landscape and its meanings are first and foremost cultural. For instance, landscape is seen by national governments as an important national asset that contributes to national pride and identification (Lekan, 2004).


Table 2. International perspectives on landscape. Source: Selman (2006); Farsani, Coelho and Costa (2011).

Since landscapes play an important role in building the national identity the origin of the preservation of landscapes is often rooted in processes of nation building. Landscape preservationists often promoted the cultural construction of nationhood by envisaging natural landmarks as touchstones of emotional identification, symbols of national longitivity, and signs of a new form of environmental stewardship. For instance, Olwig has shown that with the growth of the power of the state in the Renaissance, the concept of landscape as land and custom became subverted by the state. Landscape, as he argues, became the territory controlled by the state – embodied by the monarch – and made visible as scenery through theatrical and pictorial representations (Olwig, 1996; 2002). The view of landscape as scenery was later adopted by tourists and conservationists, and remains a dominating paradigm in current landscape management and administration by state and other public authorities throughout Western Europe.

Building on the ideas of Olwig, we argue that landscape conservation systems are shaped by socio-cultural patterns of perception and tradition. In order to understand the culturally and historically varied character of western European landscape protection it is necessary to reveal the connections between nation-building and landscape protection. In what follows, we highlight the evolution of different landscape conservation systems in modern Britain, France, and Germany against the background of the mutually reinforcing processes of nation-building, state intervention and planning peculiarities. The conservation systems we analyze are the British *National Parks*, French *Parcs Naturels Régionaux*, and German *Nature Parks*, all IUCN-Category V protected areas. Each conservation system is described: its objectives and results. Finally, each section concludes with a short overview of current governance strategies to deal with the co-ordination of various actors to pursue a more sustainable development of landscape.

## **3.1 British national parks**

246 Studies on Environmental and Applied Geomorphology

objectives and measures. The social conception generally considers these landscapes as patrimony; this seems appropriate because changes in traditional cultural landscapes have often been very slow, and they seem to be definitely stable and therefore an appropriate symbol of regional and national identity. We therefore argue that landscapes and the efforts to preserve them are never neutral or objective. The specificity of landscape and its meanings are first and foremost cultural. For instance, landscape is seen by national governments as an important national asset that contributes to national pride and

**Initiative Geographical scope Type(s) of landscape Policy perspective** 

Global Territories containing

Europe All landscapes: rural

National/regional Important

other public authorities throughout Western Europe.

value

exceptional, universal

geology of outstanding

and urban, vernacular and extraordinary, designed and planned

agrarian/rural cultural

Conservation of natural and cultural

Geological heritage and sustainable local

development

Protection, management and development of landscape

Sustainable development and reinforcement of natural and cultural

values

heritage

importance

landscapes

Table 2. International perspectives on landscape. Source: Selman (2006); Farsani, Coelho and

Since landscapes play an important role in building the national identity the origin of the preservation of landscapes is often rooted in processes of nation building. Landscape preservationists often promoted the cultural construction of nationhood by envisaging natural landmarks as touchstones of emotional identification, symbols of national longitivity, and signs of a new form of environmental stewardship. For instance, Olwig has shown that with the growth of the power of the state in the Renaissance, the concept of landscape as land and custom became subverted by the state. Landscape, as he argues, became the territory controlled by the state – embodied by the monarch – and made visible as scenery through theatrical and pictorial representations (Olwig, 1996; 2002). The view of landscape as scenery was later adopted by tourists and conservationists, and remains a dominating paradigm in current landscape management and administration by state and

Building on the ideas of Olwig, we argue that landscape conservation systems are shaped by socio-cultural patterns of perception and tradition. In order to understand the culturally and historically varied character of western European landscape protection it is necessary to reveal the connections between nation-building and landscape protection. In what follows, we highlight the evolution of different landscape conservation systems in modern Britain, France, and Germany against the background of the mutually reinforcing processes of

Global Landscapes of

identification (Lekan, 2004).

*World Heritage Convention (UNESCO)* 

*Global Network of National Geoparks (UNESCO)* 

*European Landscape Convention (EU)* 

*Protected Areas (IUCN-Category V)* 

Costa (2011).

#### **3.1.1 British conservation history**

The idea that (national) identity, landscape and history are interlinked is nowhere as manifest as in Britain (Bishop, 1995). Responsible for the emergence of the national parks movement that led to the creation of the British National Parks, are the rapid urbanization, industrialization and agricultural rationalization during the first half of 19th century. In 1815 London had about 1, 5 million habitants, in 1860 3 million; figures and growth never seen before in world history. And London was not the only big city in the country. A stunning 25% of the whole population already lived in cities; urban sprawl was everywhere. The impact of this fast urbanization, and also of the main driving forces behind it, i.e. fast, agricultural rationalization and large scale, coal and steel based industrialization, was very visible everywhere. The effects on nature and the countryside were often very depressing, aesthetically, ethically, socially, culturally and ecologically, and so far reaching and fast that people felt alienated.

It was in this setting that the longing for 'natural' landscapes arose, in the form of nostalgia for a lost past, characterized by beauty, rurality, harmony, proportionality and cohesion. The pioneers of this new line of thinking and feeling were members of the urban elite; men like John Ruskin and William Morris. The obvious negative and certainly hideous effects of the fast agricultural rationalization, urbanization and industrialization shocked them. They called up to appreciate and respect the beauty of the land and criticized the prevailing purely utilitarian attitudes and practices. They stressed the value of social cohesion, and sought to bring it back it by restoring the relationship with the land, based on aesthetic criteria. According to Ruskin 'all lovely things are […] necessary, the wild flower as well as the tended corn, the wild birds and creatures of the forest as the tended cattle; because man does not live by bread alone' (Ruskin, 1985, p. 226). Morris emphasized that the British people 'must turn [their] land from the grimy back-yard of a workplace into a garden' (Morris, 1969, p. 49-50). In doing so Ruskin and Morris expressed the feelings of a large and fast growing segment of the urban middle classes.

From the second half of the 19th century onward more and more citizens started to organize themselves in voluntary organizations, with the goal to preserve nature and culture. These organizations spread new ideas and ideals about the value of scenic beauty, rural live, cultural heritage and identity and their unbreakable bond with the British landscape, such as the idea of the countryside as the almost sacred locus of British identity, with its hamlets, forests, meadows, cottages and hedges. One of the main characteristics of this new attitude was a huge aversion to the degrading effects of industrialization and urbanization, and a tendency to give in to nostalgia and feelings of alienation and loss, emotions to be compensated by disappearing in the beauties of nature and the countryside. The emphasis

From Landscape Preservation to Landscape Governance:

the most important political pressures on rural life.

that their interests are not served well enough.

**3.1.3 Park planning and partnerships** 

landscape.

European Experiences with Sustainable Development of Protected Landscapes 249

has focused on mitigating the worst effects of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy. This activity was largely reactive, seeking to swim against the tide of changes forced on the Parks. Protection took place largely in isolation from, or frequently in opposition to,

Because of the emphasis on development control British parks have alienated local farmers and communities, whose cooperation is needed to carry out conservation policy. Therefore, the 1991 Edwards' review of the British National Parks, *Fit for the future*, resulted in the addition of the economic and social well-being duty in Section 62(1) of the Environment Act 1995. The Environment Act 1995 makes a move towards integrating functions in respect of National Parks. The purpose of preserving natural beauty is extended to 'protect, maintain, and enhance the scenic beauty, natural systems, and land forms, and the wildlife and cultural heritage'. According to Edwards' review, Park Authorities should foster the social and economic well being of the Park communities in partnership with those organizations for whom this is the prime responsibility. Experiences in putting this duty into practice, however, are mixed. A co-ordinate planning and partnership working in support of the economic and social well being of park communities is lacking. The (financial) restrictions imposed under Section 62(1) are not helping either.3 Consequently, Park communities feel

In the particular and influential British tradition landscape planning has mainly been concerned with an agenda of protection, preservation, amenity and ornament. This focus has been important, but has remained peripheral to a wider agenda of sustainable development. In the first part of the twenty-first century, however, landscape planning seems to become identified more strongly with the core concerns of sustainable development and spatial planning. Through innovations such as the European Landscape Convention, landscape has become increasingly central to matters of sustainability and place-making. Currently, National Parks are positioned as models for sustainable development in the British countryside, and the National Parks are given money by the national government to encourage individuals and communities to find sustainable ways of living and working, whilst enhancing and conserving the local culture, wildlife and

The British landscape preservation tradition and its cornerstones, the National Parks, is opening up and hooked on debates about sustainable development across rural and urban domains. However, the failure of socio-economic partnerships within the Parks is a major stumbling block on the road to sustainable development. Since there is a need to seek a new balance between the protection of the natural beauty and the stimulation of the socioeconomic needs of park communities, recent initiatives in Britain increasingly respond to the challenge of sustainability in Category V protected areas. For instance, the newly established Scottish National Parks (2002) are to promote sustainable social and economic

3 Section 62(1) of the Environment Act states that NPAs "shall foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so, and shall for that purpose co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development within the area of the National Park".

was on beauty, on aesthetical, aspects, and the idea that the good and the beautiful went together and were to be found on the countryside and in nature, and the idea and the bad and the ugly were to be found in the city and industry.

The pre-war national parks movement drew its strength from the convergence of several traditions. There was the cause of protecting the most beautiful scenery that had its roots in the writing of Ruskin, Morris and Blake. But this strand of the national parks movement had a strong class bias and its leaders often feared, and sometimes opposed, the urban masses who wished to holiday in the Lake District for example. It thus contrasted with the democratic, even Marxist leanings of a second strand that was concerned with access, and the rights of the working man to enjoy the open moors and fells, principally around our northern industrial cities. The third strand behind the national parks movement was scientific; its origins can be traced back to the nineteenth century pioneers, like Charles Rothschild, the founder of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, and its aims were to ensure that nature conservation was placed on a statutory footing.

Only when these forces combined did they create a powerful political pressure for legislation, but it took the Second World War to create the conditions where such legislation could be enacted. Writing in 1947, Clough Williams-Ellis, the visionary who created Portmeirion, dedicated a book about the National Trust to all those beautiful natural and other places that had been destroyed during the war years – "a massacre of loveliness" he called it (William-Ellis, p. 7). Beauty was indeed the victim of wartime "collateral damage", inflicted daily on a huge scale around the country, and indeed across the world. The passions and outrage that this gave rise to among the public and the political elite, and the belief that the nation needed to offer its citizens a better physical environment after the war, made the famous 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act possible (see for a history: Sheail, 1975; MacEwen & MacEwan, 1987; Evans, 1992).

#### **3.1.2 Centralized planning system**

The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which created the National Parks Commission which later became the Countryside Commission and then the Countryside Agency, provided the framework for the creation of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in England and Wales, and also addressed public rights of way and access to open land. Currently, 12 National Parks are designated, of which the South-Downs National Park is the last of the 12 areas, designated in March 2009. Their main goal is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas, in mostly poor-quality agricultural upland. Furthermore, since 2003 seven so-called Geoparks have been created in the UK. The first one was the North Pennines Geopark.

The British National Parks were set up in a system of heavy-handed centralized planning. Development control by the National Park Authorities (NPA), that is the detailed system by which approval is sought for building and land use change, is one of the main instruments of park management. Protective measures and financial resources are provided by central government. Because the adopted system manifested major policy performance problems in the 1970s and 1980s the traditional role of the NPAs in controlling development shifted to one of influencing land management (Curry, 1992). The management of land by the NPAs has focused on mitigating the worst effects of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy. This activity was largely reactive, seeking to swim against the tide of changes forced on the Parks. Protection took place largely in isolation from, or frequently in opposition to, the most important political pressures on rural life.

Because of the emphasis on development control British parks have alienated local farmers and communities, whose cooperation is needed to carry out conservation policy. Therefore, the 1991 Edwards' review of the British National Parks, *Fit for the future*, resulted in the addition of the economic and social well-being duty in Section 62(1) of the Environment Act 1995. The Environment Act 1995 makes a move towards integrating functions in respect of National Parks. The purpose of preserving natural beauty is extended to 'protect, maintain, and enhance the scenic beauty, natural systems, and land forms, and the wildlife and cultural heritage'. According to Edwards' review, Park Authorities should foster the social and economic well being of the Park communities in partnership with those organizations for whom this is the prime responsibility. Experiences in putting this duty into practice, however, are mixed. A co-ordinate planning and partnership working in support of the economic and social well being of park communities is lacking. The (financial) restrictions imposed under Section 62(1) are not helping either.3 Consequently, Park communities feel that their interests are not served well enough.
