Urban landscapes witness major transformations that affect urban landscape quality as well as the quality of life. Some transformations are desirable, such as transition to urban sustainability, some are inevitable, because of major changes in economy or culture. Transformations in urban landscapes come with intractable controversies, uncertainties and complexities, involving multiple actors, interests and rapidly changing advocacy coalitions. But they also stimulate the bottom-up emergence of alternative ideas, practices and networks that confront urban planning regimes with the challenge to adopt more organic, collaborative and transformative forms of governance with local governments, local businesses, citizen initiatives…
Urban landscapes witness major transformations that affect urban landscape quality as well as the quality of life. Some transformations are desirable, such as transition to urban sustainability, some are inevitable, because of major changes in economy or culture. Transformations in urban landscapes come with intractable controversies, uncertainties and complexities, involving multiple actors, interests and rapidly changing advocacy coalitions. But they also stimulate the bottom-up emergence of alternative ideas, practices and networks that confront urban planning regimes with the challenge to adopt more organic, collaborative and transformative forms of governance with local governments, local businesses, citizen initiatives. The context for Smart-U-Green research program is to a large extent provided by the European Landscape Convention (ELC). The project team also investigated into how far and in which way parts of the convention have been taken up in regulations, policy documents and practices in the partner countries that have ratified it, and to what extent the spirit of the ELC is reflected in spatial policies in countries that have not (yet) ratified. Smart-U-Green aims at the co-creation of knowledge on new options for governance taking into account conflicting perspectives on urban landscape quality and the need to synthesize expert and lay knowledge. The project is primarily considered as strategic research, since its focus is on the furthering of insights in the governance of the greening of urban spaces, in a conceptual sense as well as in the advancement of methodology for transition research. The connection to urban regions in terms of case studies and co-creation justifies the observation that the project will be applied in character, too. The interactive methodology in the participatory integrated assessment aims at developing innovative options for governance. It shows similarities to ´living lab´ conditions: the project anticipates a dialogue where stakeholders share actual experiences and develop concrete solutions for real life. The combination of empirical research into actual conflicts and conflicting perspectives with participatory integrated assessment allows Smart-U-Green to gain a more comprehensive understanding of transition issues than multidisciplinary research schemes on urban planning can.
The project analyses the current range of stakeholder perspectives in the case study regions. This activity helps to understand stakeholder argument in policy controversies. In order to identify the key stakeholders related to landscape development in urban contexts, we have conducted a stakeholder analysis in two steps. First, we consulted the current scientific literature on landscape change and decision-making in landscape governance…
The project analyses the current range of stakeholder perspectives in the case study regions. This activity helps to understand stakeholder argument in policy controversies. In order to identify the key stakeholders related to landscape development in urban contexts, we have conducted a stakeholder analysis in two steps. First, we consulted the current scientific literature on landscape change and decision-making in landscape governance. Based on the insights, we conducted a series of expert interviews from different European countries, which, among other topics, addressed relevant stakeholders and decision-making practices in contested landscape issues. Within the outlook of transition theory and to enhance a diverse range of stakeholders, the project distinguishes three stakeholder groups: (1) government, well-established lobbies including institutionalized NGOs, business, and the policy science interface constituting the urban planning regime; (2) civil society groups, social entrepreneurs, SMEs, new NGOs, and their knowledge networks operating at the niche level; (3) at the fringe of the urban planning system are stakeholders with specific knowledge of developments that link the sustainability transition in the urban regions to other societal transitions. Then, we focused on the questions: How do stakeholders evaluate the urban landscape quality of their respective regions, especially the dynamics of green, red, grey and blue? Which different perspectives can be articulated on transformations in the urban-rural continuum and what can be learnt from comparing the regional perspectives? The project used the repertory grid technique in combination with statistical analysis for identifying the range of perspectives. The goal was to articulate the underlying dimensions through which stakeholders evaluate their immediate environment. The result is a point cloud, which visualizes the distance between the elements as perceived by the interviewees. Clusters of elements constitute a perspective, which needs interpretation using the qualitative interview data.
The project analyses (recent) policy controversies in the case study regions using a political agenda building approach, and evaluates these with the QLand/QLife framework of urban landscape indicators. How do local agencies make policy choices in urban landscape planning, such as between green and grey or access to green areas?…
The project analyses (recent) policy controversies in the case study regions using a political agenda building approach and evaluates these with the QLand/QLife framework of urban landscape indicators. How do local agencies make policy choices in urban landscape planning, such as between green and grey or access to green areas? How do they collect data on urban landscape quality? How are these data used? Are the data shared in participatory procedures and is local knowledge considered? An analytical framework allows to evaluate the decision-making processes, using a dual approach. First, a framework of sustainability indicators articulates close relationships between ecological, aesthetic, social, and economic issues and identifies related fields of expertise. The indicators relate to three principle aspects of landscape quality and the quality of life: “Distinctive and pleasant”, “Efficient and nice”, “Clean and healthy”. Second, the analytical framework draws upon the political agenda building approach (Cobb and Elder 1982). This approach distinguishes stages in the agenda process, from early problem recognition to final decision-making and implementation. Each stage is featured by specific barriers that may prevent information to reach the policy agenda. The framework contains a typology of strategies that actors use against or in favor of agenda status for an issue. The framework also addresses factors that may obstruct the sharing of and trust in information among stakeholders with different perspectives on the problem. Per region of cooperation partners, two case studies were done. They focus on the diverse input of stakeholders, assess their power and influence and map the information flows in the various stages of the decision-making processes, but also point to knowledge that has been underutilized. The integrated indicators are used to critically evaluate how the urban sustainability agenda is framed and how trade-offs are made with other (rival) agendas. This enhances an understanding of how urban systems operate and which mechanisms must be addressed in order to accelerate a transition to urban sustainability.
The project identifies with an interactive manner and explores innovative governance options for the greening of urban landscapes. The term “governance” in this proposal is not restricted to (local) government but applies to all stakeholders involved. The aim is to facilitate a participatory integrated assessment by policymakers, NGOs, experts and innovative citizen initiatives…
The project identifies with an interactive manner and explores innovative governance options for the greening of urban landscapes. The term ´governance´ in this proposal is not restricted to (local) government but applies to all stakeholders involved. The aim is to facilitate a participatory integrated assessment by policymakers, NGOs, experts and innovative citizen initiatives, which evaluate the lessons from WP1 to WP3 and explore governance options for the greening of urban landscapes, with an open dialogue. It follows that emphasis were placed on out-of-the-box thinking among dialogue participants. A second underlying idea is that, to avoid collateral conflicts, sound decisions require that all concerned actors take ownership of the deliberation (Ostrom 1998; Jasanoff and Wynne 1998), which means shared data and inclusive procedures to begin with. For this, a joint-fact finding approach was used (Andrews 2002; Susskind, McKearnan and Thomas-Larmer 1999). Each workshop, in a specific way, addresses findings from research program as well as from related projects. From there, they may assess as to whether an understanding of divergent perspectives can be used in such a way that participation may contribute to co-production rather than deadlock. Options for data sharing and use were explored, facilitated by the Qland/Qlife decision support model. However, learning via joint-fact finding and decision-support is one part of the dialogue. Of critical importance for the process is that each workshop encourages all participants to determine the agenda and present their own visions and ideas. They may discuss how path-dependencies and persistent problems can be addressed in order to accelerate sustainability transitions in the urban-rural continuum.
The ELC intends to overcome the separation that still exists between landscape, nature conservation policies, territorial development, spatial planning policies, and other approaches. The difficulty is to connect aesthetic qualities, daily uses and economic valuation. A segregated organization of the policy domain can be held in part responsible for a lack of knowledge considered for decision-making. How do these observations relate to relevant social and political theories? We hereby think of theories that try to explain the lack of efficiency of public policies, or theories aiming at increased rationality of government action: an operational science for decision-making and implementation of decisions. However, human action is rarely rational, which, among others, Pareto (1916) explains by pointing to instincts, passions (residues according to Pareto). Logical actions are means to ends, but a lot of actions are illogical because they are driven by customs, superstition, reflexes or they conduct to effects unthought. In front of these illogical actions, humans give justifications. With the neo-liberal turning point, the sociology of organizations (Crozier and Friedberg, 1977) also highlighted the dysfunctions of state action, the lack of rationality of the public decisions and the difficulties of the administration to implement the decisions taken. State becomes a more or less wobbly assembly of public policies more or less well adjusted to the complex real world challenges and whose rationality is more than problematic. Public policies aren’t given, but an analytical definition constructed by the different actors. They are the product of social actors and their interactions, and a category applied and told by actors. Hence, they can be subjected to transformative attempts to change the current regimes of landscape planning.
Challenge 2: Top-down versus bottom-up
When considering the ongoing conflict between proponents of a top-down and bottom-up approach in policy-making, Hajer (2011) seeks a compromise with his concept of the ‘energetic society’. The main question in the essay is how to mobilize the modern ‘energetic society’, featured by a mass of autonomous and articulatef citizens, in favor of sustainability. Hajer suggests a “lighter form of development that offers greater scope to citizen initiatives” and a “different type of project development, that will work.”(Hajer 2011) However, government will remain in charge of setting the broader goals and values. In the end, the question remains what is new in the 21st planning model for the energetic society? First, there is no mentioning of the value of practical, tacit knowledge of citizens and the fact that they are in a disadvantaged position in front of the still dominant knowledge for example of urban planners. Second, and related to this, there is the idea that state planning will remain necessary, because of the specific task of government to protect the more vulnerable in society. When it comes to sustainability, it is the government who knows what needs to satisfy and the energetic society needs to be persuaded to do so. There is a wide recognition that local knowledge is critical in addressing issues of urban landscape quality. Since they are often unaware of specific local conditions, planners need to benefit from practical knowledge at local level (Schön, 1983; Sanchez, 2012; Bettencourt, 2015). Local citizens are often the ones who know the real rather than the administrative boundaries of a territory. However, collaboration between planners and locals is easily undermined because of lack of trust.
Challenge 3: The political economy
For the third challenge, namely the structural power differences in landscape governance, we refer to the power relationship and processes as the political economy of landscape governance. Basically, landscape governance is considered a multi-actor process, where diverse types of parties, or stakeholder groups, participate. Among the most prominent ones are government agencies and elected officials operating at various administrative scales, but, in the cases considered in the Smart-U-Green project context, mostly local authorities. The second stakeholder group includes market parties, who are driven by economic profit maximization such as real estate development companies. As a third group, we point to citizen initiatives defending particular (small) group interests. In contrast to lobbies influencing policies, government is supposed to act in the public interest and, therefore, weighs and finds a trade-off between specific demands. In reality, government agencies have also particular interests. Creating opportunities for project development is a vital asset for municipalities. It creates economic activity, it increases their number of inhabitants and provides them with income. Since bureaucracies tend to avoid risks and aim at reaching their goals against lowest cost, we can imagine that they will normally rely on a network of companies they know and trust, as they have worked with them before. This leads to the hypothesis that there is a natural alliance between municipalities and (local) developers in achieving economic prosperity. In fact, their collaboration is all supposed to be done for the public good, as it creates jobs, houses and -indirectly- public spaces that increase the attractiveness of a territory. For similar reasons, bottom-up initiatives confront municipalities with a dilemma. On the one hand, citizens are voters and bottom-up initiatives have a good image, so they cannot easily be denied. On the other hand, the initiatives do not increase municipality’s income, and many initiatives ask for support. Our suggestion is that transition governance needs be featured by growing alliances between the urban and regional authorities (e.g. municipalities) and their citizenry and less intense interactions between the authorities and the development and construction sector. In a sense, the perspective described here dovetails with a pessimist Marxist conception of growing connectivity between the State and (factions of) the private sector, as has been suggested by theories on state-monopolist-capitalism. However, what follows from the economic theories of bureaucracy is that bureaucracies act in conformity with their public responsibility, whereas the Marxist approach would stress the nontransparent and undemocratic decision-making caused by the interwovenness of public and private interests.
Scientific Issues
Notion of landscape
The project is developed around the notion of “landscape” as promoted by the European…
The Dutch Research Institute for Transitions DRIFT is coordinator of Smart-U-Green. It is renowned for its research on sustainability transitions and transition management. In Smart-U-Green DRIFT acts as project leader, rand coordinator of WP1 and WP2
SAAD is particularly focused oninterdisciplinary research in the fields of urban, landscape and territorial planning. It has atrack record in interdisciplinary modelling of urban landscape quality indicators. SAAD UNICAM is in charge of WP3.
The Institute of Urban Planning IATEUR has a leading position at the national level on sustainability science. Its central topic is: how can societies most effectively guide or manage human-environment systems toward sustainability transition? IATEUR is coordinator of WP4 and dissemination activities.
Drechtsteden Region is a cooperation of seven cities in the Delta area of Holland. Drechtsteden has an agenda focused on strengthening the region as a “Maritime TopRegion”.
Marche Region, through the Department of the Environment and Territory, has started for several yearsthe so-called “Landscape Project” (“Progetto Paesaggio”).
Reims is a medium-sized French city that gives its name to the agglomeration of Grand Reims, close to Paris and the Belgian borders. Manycaves and tunnels under Reims, form a sort of maze below the city where the Champagne is stored.
Christopher Bryant, Adjunct Professsor with the Université de Montréal and the University of Guelph,holds a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and Political Science (1970).
The Department for Urban Planning, Spatial Planning and Landscape Architecture is part of the Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb. Prof. Ph.D. Mladen Obad Šćitaroci
PskovSU is the center of educational, cultural and scientific life of the Pskov region, which makes it into the main strategic center in the field of cooperation with the European Union and the Baltic region countries.
CivilScape is, since 2008, a Network of European Non-Governmental Organisations, Regional and Local Authorities which dedicate their work to landscape protection, management and planning, for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention.
At the international level, scientific warnings intensified since the 1970s in terms of environmental risks because of human lifestyle. The Club of Rome (1968) brings together scientists, economists, (inter)national and industrial officials. They wrote the Limits to Growth report (or Meadows Report, 1972) that challenges the idea of exponential growth. Zero growth is advocated, noting the acceleration of industrialization, global population growth, global malnutrition, environmental degradation and the depletion of non-renewable natural resources. This report was followed by the report "Strategy for Tomorrow" (1974), diversifying the location approach.
Protection of exceptional cultural and natural heritage (UNESCO, Stockholm Summit, etc.)
Since the 1970s, the protection of nature is related to landscapes and heritage. Protected areas from human activities developed such as national parks, such as a "museography" that fragments nature and brakes economic development.
At the political level, the United Nations set up in 1972 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which holds Earth Summits every 10 years between government leaders. This deals with organizing collective management for international treaties. The first summit (Stockholm, 1972) noted that environmental issues must be international concerns (26 principles). This Summit gave birth to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to coordinate the actions of the United Nations and assist Member States in the implementation of public policies.
The UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris, 1972) allows articulation between the needs of the human beings and the preservation of cultural property and nature, through 5 objectives: credibility, conservation, capacity development, communication, communities. The link between cultural and natural sites comes from the Washington Conference (1965) leading to the creation of a World Heritage Foundation to stimulate international cooperation, in parallel with the proposals of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
Convention for the Safeguarding of Natural Heritage (1979)
The Stockholm Summit has been translated, at the European level, through the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Settlements or the Berne Convention (1979), which consists of the conservation of wildlife and wild flora and their settlements. This was implemented in 1982. Forms of intentional capture, detention or killing are prohibited, as well as intentional damage to breeding sites, eggs in the wild or resting areas, disruption of breeding times or hibernation, holding and internal trade of certain animals (or related products).
Creation of Regional Natural Parks (1967)
Regional Natural Parks (RNP) are different from national parks because they try to reconcile animation, socio-economic development and the natural balance of space. Created in 1967 and updated by the Landscape Act (1993), they protect a threatened natural heritage and improve the quality of life of citizens. The ranking procedure is carried out by the region which draws up a charter related to the park, the perimeter concerned and the way in which the partnership between local authorities is established; the Minister of the Environment makes a classification decision for 10 years (renewable). A joint syndicate management has been responsible for the implementation of the charter since 1995.
Ministry of the Environment (1991-2007)
In France, the Ministry of the Environment was created in 1971 following the creation of a Directorate-General for Nature Protection within the Ministry of Agriculture. It deals with the problems related to urban noise and industrial pollution. This Ministry is part of the Interministerial Delegation for Spatial Planning and Regional Attractiveness (DATAR), created in 1963 and charged with implementing the national planning and territorial development policy (planning, preparing and coordinating elements for government decisions).
Nature Conservation Act (1976) and Environmental Impact Assessments
Nature Conservation Act was voted in 1976 to rule on protected species, introduce a status for domestic animals and new statutes for protected areas (nature reserve, etc.). "Environmental Impact Assessments" (EIAs) become mandatory prior to the completion of major urban developments that could affect the natural environment. EIAs study and compare the ecological (faunistic, floristic), acoustic, and landscape impacts from the construction stage to the deconstruction stage. They propose precautionary and / or compensatory measures. However, these measures are rarely sufficient, for example to repair the effects of ecological cutting of roads, railways, canals. They are financed by the petitioner and are only mandatory from a financial threshold or for certain projects (classified installations, large projects, etc.).
Definition of sustainable development: Brundtland report (1987)
The 1980-1990’s mark a turning point compared to the catastrophist vision (in the context of the oil crisis). The approach deals with integrated sustainable development, taking into account both natural resources and human populations. The report of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature introduced the concept of "sustainable development". Brundtland Report or Our Common Future (1987) produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development defined this concept. Following the diagnosis of a compromised future, the report redefines the role of the global economy by taking into account human needs (demography, food security, etc.) and ecological needs (preservation of species, finiteness of resources, etc.), stressing the need for joint management. It provides a basis for the Nairobi Earth Summit (1992): rethinking the measure of economic growth to reflect the economic (poverty alleviation, reduction of regional imbalances, etc.), environmental (protection of biodiversity, promotion of renewable energies, etc.) and social (protection of fundamental rights, parity, etc.) of sustainable development. It is about meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own, in terms of economic development, social progress and environment. A sustainable society is an ecologically livable society, socially equitable and economically viable society.
World Conservation Charter articulated withsocio-economic development (1982)
The second Earth Summit (Nairobi, 1982) was a failure because of the Cold War and the disinterest of the United States. Same year, the World Charter for the Conservation of Nature was adopted, prefiguring the Rio Declaration. 24 articles have been published, including respect for nature and ecosystems, the integration of nature conservation into socio-economic development and the incorporation of these principles into state legislation. To measure sustainable development, the ecological footprint (evaluation of the productive area needed by a population to meet their needs in terms of resources to be consumed and waste to be absorbed) and green GDPs (subtraction of GDP from costsrelated to environmental degradation) are used. With the outlook of the requirements linked to sustainable development, standards, certifications and labels are put in place. This is the case, for example, of the ISO 9001 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization since 1987. This standard defines requirements for a quality management system in order to improve customer satisfaction, to involve staff, to provide compliant products and services (including at the resource management level).
Conventions to safeguard the architectural heritage (1985, 1992)
The single European Act (1982) includes the protection of the environment and the Maastricht Treaty (1992) places environmental concerns in line with economic objectives. The Convention to Safeguard the Architectural Heritage in Europe (1985) allows thinking about the protection of monuments, architectural ensembles and sites (combining humans and nature). This so-called "Grenada Convention" was implemented in 1987. The European Archaeological Heritage Convention (1992) recognizes that the European archaeological heritage (source of collective memory) is in danger of deterioration as a result of planning, natural hazards, clandestine excavations and insufficient public information. This so-called "Valletta Convention" was implemented in 1995. It replaces the 1969 London Convention.
ZNIEEF (1982): inventories of areas of ecological interest
The areas of ecological, faunistic and floristic interest (ZNIEFF), created in 1982, allow inventorying these specific zones to help planning, to establish a knowledge accessible to all, to take into account the natural space and better predict the impacts of planning. Type I ZNIEFFs have a limited area (rare species or environments such as peat bogs, ponds, cliffs, etc.); type 2 ZNIEFFs correspond to large natural ensembles. These areas are listed on a map and the data (flora, fauna, natural settlements) are described, a development carried out by the Regional Directorate of the Environment.
ZICO (1988): inventory and protection of birds
The inventory of important areas for the conservation of birds (IBA) identifies the settlements of endangered species (in application of the 1979 European Directive). The inventory of wetlands is related to the law on water (presence of hygrophilous plants and flood character of the area).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988)
Established in 1988 by the G7, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses the state of knowledge on climate change and identifies ways to limit global warming. The 1990 report indicates a possible warming of 3 degrees by 2050 compared to the pre-industrial era. This group encourages political decision-making.
Rio Earth Summit (1992) and Agenda 21
The third Earth Summit (Rio, 1992) allows to initiate a public policy (27 principles recognizing the sovereignty of the States, the need to not leave an environmental debt to the future generations and taking into account socio-economic inequalities) and leads to adopt: the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, the Declaration on Forests, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Convention on the fight against desertification. Agenda 21 contains 2,500 recommendations: the fight against climate change, the preservation of biodiversity, social cohesion, responsible production methods, human development. It is an action plan for the 21st century, which concerns local and regional authorities in terms of sustainable development (recommendations on poverty, health, housing, pollution, desertification, management of the seas, forests and mountains, management of water resources, agriculture and waste). The municipal program must implement consultation of the population (local Agenda 21), which is an education and training role.
Conferences of the parties: COP1 (Berlin, 1995)
Following the Rio Summit, party conferences (or COPs) are initiated. COP 1 took place in Berlin (1995), confronting the industrialized countries responsible for global warming and the developing countries, not wishing to give up fossil fuels. This debate follows the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change recognizing the precautionary principle, the principle of accountability and the principle of the right to development. Germany has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% between 1987 and 2005. However, the record is light and prepares Kyoto Protocol.
Notion of "sustainable city" (Aalborg Charter, 1994)
The notion of "sustainable city" emerged with the "Aalborg Charter" (1994) in which the signatory cities, speaking in the first person, proclaim their rights and especially their duties. It is an anti-charter of Athens, advocating a density and a mix of urban functions for sustainable development. Cities affirm their essential role to play in changing lifestyle, production and consumption, and environmental structures (preserving biodiversity, water and air in "local sustainability plans"). They must take advantage of the density of centrality, limit motorized mobility, global warming and intoxication of ecosystems.
Specific legislation: Fisheries Act (1984), Mountain Act and Forest Act (1985), Coastal Act (1986), Water Act (1992)
In France, environmental law has articles from several codes (town planning, forestry, rural, civil aviation, public health, etc.), but it remains an autonomous branch of law because of its purpose (protection and conservation of the environment) and its principles. The Mountain Act passed in 1985 allows an integrated and transversal management of mountain territories. It seeks to strike a balance between mountain development and protection (new responsibilities of mountain municipalities and organizations in the implementation of mountain policy, economic quality policies, sector control and development of added value, landscape protection and better management of its use). For urban planning, urbanisation has to be in continuity with the existing (density and proximity), the remarkable spaces and agricultural zones must be protected. The Littoral Act of 1986 follows this principle of protection of a geographical space; it aims at preserving biological and ecological balances and sites, the development of economic activities, including non-aquatic activities, and innovation in the use of related resources. Above all, it aims at limiting urbanization and infrastructure in coastal areas (prohibition of new constructions within 100 meters of the shoreline outside urbanized areas except for economic public services). The Fisheries Act (1984) related to freshwater fishing and the management of fish resources, and the Water Act (1992) replaced in 2006, address the protection of aquatic environments and aquatic species: sustainable management with the Departmental scheme for fish farming (SDVP) with measures to limit catches or restocking.
Regional Directorates of the Environment (1991-2009)
26 Regional Directorates of the Environmental were created in 1991 (merger of regional delegations to architecture and environment, regional water management services, basin delegations and centralizing hydrological services). Their missions are to enhance environmental knowledge, to define the methods for planning, management and protection of natural environments, to assess water needs, to coordinate natural hazard mapping services and to respect the law related to water, the protection of natural sites and landscapes (coast and mountains), including heritage architecture.
Ecological Corridors, Local Agenda 21: Voynet Act (1999)
Barnier Act or the act on the strengthening of the protection of the environment (1995) establishes the general principles of the law of the environment, in particular for the safeguarding of the populations threatened by major natural risks, the prevention of the natural risks, a departmental inventory of natural heritage, waste management and pollution. This act allows the establishment of the National Commission of public debate to ensure the respect of public participation (public debate or consultation) in the process of urban planning or equipment of national interest of the State, local authorities, public institutions and private individuals, as long as they have high socio-economic stakes or significant impacts on the environment or land use planning. When the project is above a certain threshold, fixed by decree in Council of State, the referral is obligatory for the owner or the public person in charge.
Voynet Act or act of orientation for the planning and the sustainable development of the territory (1999) aims at a democracy which is more participative and a sustainable and harmonious development. It creates development councils on intercommunal territories and allows the implementation of regional planning and sustainable development layouts, community service layouts, regional environmental profile and territorial planning guidelines (DTA: state obligation on the environment from urban planning documents of strategic planning on a supra-regional level). In particular, biological corridors or ecological corridors are created, designating one or more environments that functionally link together different settlements that are vital for a species, a population, a metapopulation or a group of species.
Local Agenda 21 approach (a territorial project linked to the principles of sustainable development) - following the Rio summit (1992) - is developed in France thanks to the Voynet Act (1999), the act on strengthening and simplification of inter-municipal cooperation (1999), the act on urban solidarity and renewal (SRU, 2000), the act on agricultural orientation (LOA, 1999) and the act on local democracy (2002). Each of these laws offers tools to local authorities becoming project owners. These values are taken up by other structures (Agenda 21 of sports, colleges and high schools, etc.).
The Agricultural Orientation Act (1999) passed following the Rio Summit (1992) establishes contracts between farmers and public authorities: territorial exploitation contract (CTE) that will be modified by Sustainable Agriculture Contracts (CAD) from 2003 to 2007. The law provides for the creation of protected agricultural zones and the creation of a management document of the agricultural and forestry area (DGEAF) in each French department. Land consolidation has become a tool of rural planning. The Agricultural Orientation Act (2006) encourages the return to traditional methods for sustainable agriculture, with tax benefits paid to farmers.
Landscape Act (1993)
Landscape Act (1993) aims at the protection, the enhancement of the landscapes (natural, urban, rural, banal and exceptional) and their adequate management. The protection and landscape development directives established by the implemented decree (n ° 94-283) of the "Landscape" law date from 11 April 1994: governing territories remarkable for their landscape interest, territories defined by the State in consultation with the local authorities concerned. The surveys of public utility are modified to widen the potential of debates around the public projects (insertion in the environment, visual impact of the buildings). The object is to preserve the landscape quality. Thus, the charters of regional natural parks are reinforced through the definition of Architectural, Urban and Landscape Heritage Protection Zones (ZPPAUP).
Kyoto Conference (COP2, 1997), implementation of the Protocol in 2005
The Kyoto Protocol (1997) sets the target for a 5.2% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2008-2012. This Protocol implements the "right to pollute" or to exploit fossil resources, to benefit from emission credits generated by reductions obtained, to help the countries of the South.
Johannesburg Summit (2002)
The fourth Earth Summit (Johannesburg, 2002) completes the Rio program and spurs a North-South partnership. The issues of water, energy, agricultural production (soil degradation in particular), biodiversity and health are priorities. A reform of UNEP is envisaged.
Corporate Social Responsibility (Green Paper, 2001)
In 2001, the European Commission publishes a Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), following the Lisbon European Council (2000), which aims at promoting knowledge-based economic growth. It is about encouraging them towards sustainable actions, for financial performance, but also social and environmental performance.
European Landscape Convention (2000): protecting, managing and planning ordinary, rural and urbanlandscapes. CivilScape Organization. Landscape price. Landscape Atlas
In 2000, the European Landscape Convention signed in Florence protects, manages and plans ordinary, rural and urban landscapes, while increasing interstate cooperation. The international NGO CIVILSCAPE is created to promote and modernize agricultural policy. The Convention - implemented in 2004 - follows the introduction of the landscape at the Rio Conference (1992). The Convention complements the international instruments resulting from the UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris, 1972), the Bern Convention (1979), the Granada Convention (1985), the Valletta Convention (1992), and the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (Sofia, 1995). Landscape quality objectives are established to encourage public authorities to adopt landscape policies, and protection, management and landscape planning measures at local, regional, national and international levels. The landscape prize awarded by the European Council is created. 29 countries ratified the Convention in 2008 (2006 in France). The landscape is considered according to its social utility (cultural, ecological, environmental and social interest and resource for the economic activity), placing the lifestyle in its heart (individual and collective well-being). It helps to consolidate European identification. The Convention encourages initiating public organization consultations, integrating landscape into land-use planning policies, and public participation.
Regional Planning and Sustainable Development Plans (SRADDT)
Regional planning and sustainable development plans (SRADDT) consist of a prospective analysis document, a regional planning charter and cartographic documents prepared under the responsibility of the Regional Council.
Hunting Act / Forest Act (2001)
Hunting Act (2000) follows the Verdeille Act (1964) and authorizes the owners of a land of at least 20 hectares to not be part of a Community Association of Hunting Authorized that organizes the hunting technically (balance agro-sylvo-hunting). The owner may request a reserve at ministerial order for 6 years (renewable). Hunting is prohibited under the control of the guards of the National Office of Hunting and Wildlife (ONCFS).
Forest Act (2001) follows the Forest Management, Valuation and Protection Act (1985), implementing a dynamic forest policy: sustainable management and enhancement of the natural forest heritage (adaptation to the World Heritage ConferenceRio 1992 and Helsinki 1993 on the protection of forests in Europe). The National Forest Inventory is an administrative public institution, created in 1958, under the supervision of the Minister responsible for Forests.
Environmental Code (2000)
The code of the environment is established in 2000 concerning the physical environments, the natural spaces, the fauna and the flora, the prevention of pollution, risks and nuisances and the Antarctic environment (2003). Book III deals with the principles of inventory and presentation of the natural heritage, coastline, parks and reserves, sites, landscapes and access to nature. Book IV deals with the protection of fauna and flora, hunting, freshwater fishing and the management of fish resources. But the environment is here taken in its narrow definition of nature protection, nuisance control, planning of urban and rural space, cultural heritage, and not in the overall approach related to quality of life.
National Landscape Council
The decree of December 8, 2000 creates the National Council of the landscape which has the mission to propose an annual plan on the evolution of the landscapes in France, as well as a balance sheet of the Landscape Act and measures likely to improve the situation.
Group of Experts on Sustainable Management (UNEO, 2007)
The United Nations Environment Organization (UNEO) was created in 2007. The Expert Group on Sustainable Resource Management (GIER) produces independent knowledge on natural resources (volume of raw material resources), assesses the use of resources and advises the UN. This work prefigures the transition to a circular bio-economy.
Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (2005)
The Council of Europe framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (2005) places people and their values at the heart of cultural heritage (resources inherited from the past and considered as the expression of values, beliefs, evolving knowledge and traditions). This becomes a resource for sustainable development and quality of life, as well as a universal right recognized as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, individual and collective responsibility is recognized for the conservation and sustainable use of cultural heritage for a peaceful, democratic, sustainable and diverse society.
Directive on Environmental Liability (2004)
The Environmental Liability Directive (2004) establishes an obligation to repair damage to water, soil, species and natural settlements, but doesn’t take into account air pollution, oil pollution or nuclear accidents, which fall under specific conventions. The Directive imposes various preventive measures on the operator: the obligation to inform if a threat manifests, the obligation to act without delay and to respect the measures ordered by the administrative authority. The repair must be done in kind with the rehabilitation of degraded environments and according to the best possible techniques.
Recommendations on the application of the European Landscape Convention (2008)
In 2008, the Council of Europe proposes recommendations on the application of the European Landscape Convention. The principles focus on considering the territory in a global way (natural, urban, peri-urban, including aquatic areas), to recognize the fundamental role of knowledge (identification and description of landscapes through a morphological, archaeological, historical, cultural and natural and their interactions and evolutions), to promote information (information accessible to all), to define strategies at the administrative level (national, regional and local), to integrate the landscape dimension into policies territorial of public authorities (planning) and in sectoral public policies, to use public participation (play an active role in the formulation, implementation and management of the objective qualities of the landscape), to achieve the objective qualities of the territory, to develop exchanges and collaborations (circulation of information between specialists). Consultation must be between the hierarchical levels of administrations and horizontal; participation must also be carried out with experts, researchers and citizens (expertise of use). To implement public policies, the instruments are: landscape plans, inclusion of landscape in sectoral public policies, shared charters, impact studies, evaluation of the effects of landscape operations not subject to an impact study, site protection, links with historical and cultural heritage, resources and funding, landscape information, landscape observatories, landscape condition reports, transboundary landscapes.
National Strategy for Sustainable Development (2003)
The National Strategy for Sustainable Development (SNDD) is implemented in 2003, following the positions taken at the Johannesburg Summit. It includes 6 strategic axes: information and awareness, sustainable territorial actions, corporate and consumer empowerment, risk prevention and environmental protection, state commitments and international action. These areas are implemented with an environmental education system, an incentive tax system, a sustainable transport policy, a national health-environment plan, etc.
Environmental Charter (2005): Principles of precaution, prevention, polluter pays
The Environmental Charter (2005) is a constitutional text on the protection of the environment with three principles: prevention (environmental assessment with an impact study), precaution (act upstream in case of uncertainty for irreversible damage), polluter-pays (the allocation of expenditure relating to pollution control measures: instead of being supported by the whole community, they must be supported by the polluters through a general tax on polluting activities). This considers that everyone has the right to live in a balanced environment and respectful of their health and everyone must take part in the preservation of the environment (notion of duty). However, the only success of effective joint management is related to cultural heritage classified as World Heritage by UNESCO. In terms of "environmental commons", the predictable scarcity of certain goods - such as water and forests - and their overexploitation for a mercantile purpose are at the origin of alter-globalist movements that advocate equitable sharing of assets and profitable exploitation to all.
The act on the development of rural territories known as DTR (2005) adjusts the regulations to develop rural areas. This law amends the rural code (tax benefits to pastoral land associations fighting forest fires, etc.), the code of urban planning (protection and enhancement of peri-urban agricultural and natural spaces: the department may delimit the perimeters of intervention compatible with existing planning documents, it can acquire land included in the entire perimeter), the environmental code (definition of wetlands, prohibition to introduce non-native plant or animal species, help project management), the forest code (ensuring sustainable management of woodlands with management units), the code of criminal procedure and the act on the development and protection of the mountain (decentralization and diversity of these territories, promotion of the coordination of administrative structures). Quarries of chalk and any material intended for soil tillage are no longer subject to authorization, but to declaration.
Grenelle of the environment (2007)
The Grenelle of the environment (2007) is a set of political meetings aiming at taking long-term decisions on the environment and sustainable development, in particular to restore biodiversity by setting up a green and blue network and regional ecological coherence plans, while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency. The proposals for action were drawn up in 6 working groups for 40 members (State, local authorities, employees, professional managers, environmental groups and qualified individuals): fighting climate change, preservation of biodiversity, environment that respects health, sustainable production and consumption patterns, ecological democracy, competitive ecological development patterns. Ademe has been associated with it; the Agency was then prime contractor for 4 operational committees as project manager: renewable energies, renovation of existing buildings, agriculture and eco-functionality. Then, a consultation of the whole public was carried out through a website and interregional meetings (19 cities). The phase of the action plan was related to the writing of reports (example: "Stop the loss of biodiversity"), with NGOs (Friends of the Earth, Ecology without borders, France Nature Environment, Nicolas Hulot Foundation, Greenpeace , League ROC, League of Protection of Birds, WWF). Finally, the operational phase corresponds to the implementation of 273 measures such as green and blue frame, integrated sea-coast management, organic farming, forestry, water, overseas, ecological agriculture and productive, the bees. A follow-up committee maintains dialogue with meetings every six weeks. The Foundation for Biodiversity was created by decree of March 3, 2008: one of the first tools from the Grenelle. It brings together two groups of scientific interest (GIS): the French Institute for Biodiversity and the Bureau of Genetic Resources.
Grenelle I and II Acts (2009, 2010)
The Grenelle I Act (2009) is composed of 45 articles to fight climate change, protect biodiversity and natural environments and prevent risks to the environment and health. Thus, the reduction of energy consumption of buildings, elements on urban planning, transport, energy and research in the field of sustainable development are voted on; as well as the reduction by 4 of greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2050; placing 2% of the territory under strong protection by 2018; the creation of 3 new national parks and the acquisition of 20,000 ha of wetlands; the establishment of 10 marine protected areas by 2012 and specific restoration plans to protect plant and animal species. The ZNIEFF must be updated for 2010. Sustainable agriculture involves the development of organic farming with the objective of 6% of the agricultural area in 2013 and 30% in 2020, 15% of organic products in the collective catering sector in 2010 and 20% in 2012. The green and blue frame needs to be developed for 2012.
The Grenelle II Act, or national environmental commitment act (ENE, 2010) details the application methods by objective, site and sector, supplemented by a Grenelle of the sea: triple objective of fighting global warming, preserving biodiversity and reducing pollution. An ecological awareness emerges through the implementation of standards and certifications (such as "High Environmental Quality"), especially in construction (buildings with low consumption made by developers because of subsidies), but without necessarily allowing a high quality of use. Inconsistencies thus exist between the objectives of the law and the implementation (few windows to consume less but with strong sunshine, for example).
Blue and green frames
Driven by the Region and integrated into planning documents, the green and blue frames must be developed locally for 2012. The national guide (2009) asks the regions to rely on 5 sub-frames: forest environments, open areas wetlands, open xeric environments (dunes, heathland, maquis, etc.), field crops and aquatic environments. Other subframes can be envisaged, while being complementary. This is the case of the aerial frame (fauna flying at high altitudes and constrained by infrastructures such wind turbines or power lines) to define a functional and secure ecological network for these movements. The brown frame concerns the soil biodiversity which concentrates bacteria, fungi, invertebrate fauna and mammals (rodents for example) or plants (and their roots). It is a place of life and travel, but the foundations of homes, energy or people transportation systems, material extraction systems or agriculture have direct impacts on the ground. Finally, the black frame allows to respect the diurnal / nocturnal rhythm of the species, but the night lighting has spread widely - which becomes a source of fragmentation of the displacement. Other frames could exist, such as that related to noise pollution (quite frame) or that related to chemical pollution.
Landscape Atlas
Between 2009 and 2011, the DIRENs were dissolved to create the Regional Directions for the Environment, Planning and Housing (DREAL). They are the only pilot at the regional level of the implementation of ministerial public policies, responsible for raising citizens' awareness, writing framework documents on sustainable development and management, ecological transition, the fight against climate change, the preservation of the quality of the environment (water, air, soil), biodiversity and landscapes, the prevention of pollution, risks and nuisances, as well as housing, urban renewal and transport, seeking coherence between these issues. The DREALs are in charge of producing landscape atlases: identification of landscape units (portions of territories offering homogeneity of the landscape at the scale studied), identification of cultural representations of the landscape, evaluation of dynamics and landscape issues. At the same time, inter-ministerial departmental directorates are created (DDI, 2010), under the authority of the departmental prefect who refers to the Prime Minister. The Departmental Direction of the Territories deals with urban renewal (application of the SRU Act, social housing programs, etc.), administrative coordination during the preparation of planning documents, implementation of prevention plans for natural hazards and investigation of the "Water Act", common agricultural policy, education and road safety. It is able to create sensitive natural spaces.
Green Climate Fund (COP17, 2011)
COP 17 (Durban, 2011) calls for the implementation and financing of the Green Climate Fund (COP 15, Copenhagen): regulation of the "climate debt" of industrialized countries. It is also an opportunity to avoid the legal void based on the validity of the Kyoto Protocol.
Rio + 20 Earth Summit (2012)
The fifth Earth Summit (Rio + 20, 2012) has to focus on the green economy and the institutional framework for sustainable development, but the green economy took precedence.
Sustainable Development Goals: 2030 Agenda (New York, 2015)
In 2015 (New York), more than 160 world leaders adopted the 2030 Agenda at the United Nations General Assembly, which brings together two international agendas: Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Rio Process. This program has 17 thematic objectives (the Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs) with 169 targets. Millennium Goals focused on poverty reduction and social development. In this way, the policy approach is inclusive: inclusive economic development, inclusive social development and environmental sustainability. Some themes are innovative in debates, such as inequalities (eradicating poverty); the same is true for the transversal dimension and the universal dimension of the SDGs (between all States and with stakeholders). This assembly established the High Level Political Forum for Sustainable Development (HLPF) to monitor the progress of the 2030 Agenda, replacing the Commission on Sustainable Development.
Climate Agreements (COP21, Paris)
The Paris Climate Conference (2015) validates an international climate agreement, setting the goal of limiting global warming between 1.5 ° C and 2 ° C by 2100. Gradual abandonment of energy fossils is encouraged.
Amendment to the European Landscape Convention (2016): Opening to non-European States
In 2016, a protocol amends the European Landscape Convention to open it to non-European states, because values and principles can be applied to them. It should be noted that the European Commission has a Directorate General for the Environment, and a Directorate General for Climate was created in 2010. Scientific and technical support is provided to the Member States by a European Environment Agency.
Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development (2007) "Ecological Pact"
The modification of DIREN in DREAL comes from the reorganization of the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea, which becomes the Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development in 2007. This Ministry merges Ecology and Equipment to respect the signature of the "ecological pact": a proposal for an environmental charter drawn up by the Nicolas-Hulot Foundation for Nature and Man (FNH) and the Ecological Monitoring Committee (CVE) and proposing to the candidates for the 2007 French presidential election ten objectives related to sustainable development. It is renamed in 2010: "Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing". Since 2012, the Energy is added, then it becomes the Ministry of ecological and solidarity transition in 2017, maintaining the same missions: environmental policy, energy policy and politics of the sea and transport.
Then the Ministry of ecological and solidarity transition (2017)
The Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are leading the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals at the national level. INSEE produces and coordinates the production of data. To carry out its 2016 report, France has surrounded itself with scientists, experts and stakeholders (companies, NGOs, associations, etc.) through public consultation. It recalls the inclusive system of social protection (unemployment insurance, social minima, etc.), universal access to care, basic goods and services (water, energy, food, education) and the development of state-of-the-art innovation, research, transport and communication, commitment to the energy transition (2015 Act) and ratification of the Paris Agreement (COP 21). The New Industrial France initiative (2013) positions companies in new growth markets by integrating environmental objectives. However, efforts still need to be made in terms of reducing social and gender inequalities, as well as in terms of reducing exposure to risks and nuisances such as pollution. The Inter-ministerial Delegate for Sustainable Development is responsible for monitoring and coordinating it.
In each SCOT, from 2008, the PADD (Sustainable Development and Planning Project) must incorporate a new objective of preservation and restoration of ecological continuity; the PLU (setting the land use rules) must now also define rules for the protection and preservation or restoration of ecological continuity. The coherence criteria correspond to the consideration of existing protection zonings, areas already identified by the water policy tools, species and natural settlements, the cross-border criterion. A Regional Ecological Consistency Scheme (SRCE) - drawn up by the Region and the State on the available scientific bases - is carried out by associating the departments, the groups of municipalities competent in urban planning, or municipalities with a land use plan or a local urban plan, National Parks, Regional Natural Parks, the approved environmental protection associations concerned, and representatives of interested socio-professional partners. This SRCE includes regional issues related to the preservation and restoration of ecological continuity; natural areas, ecological corridors, and rivers; a map comprising the green and blue frame; the contractual measures necessary to preserve and restore the functionality of ecological continuities. The development and programming guidelines (OPA) concern development, housing, transport and travel, including actions to enhance the landscape, particularly in terms of ecological continuity (in connection with the TVB).
Energy Transition Act (2015)
The energy transition act (2015) sets the objectives of a new French energy model to encourage "green growth" with a circular economy and better waste management: reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 40% between 1990 and 2030, reduction of final energy consumption by 50% in 2050 compared to 2012 reference, renewable energy share to 23% of gross final energy consumption in 2020, reduction of nuclear energy, reduction of pollution atmospheric, have a real estate renovated according to BBC standards, etc.
NOTRe Act (2015): SRADDET
NOTRe Act or act on the new territorial organization of the Republic (2015), is part of the third act of decentralization implemented under François Hollande. It follows the housing policy, which has become a priority (ALUR Act, 2014), which encourages the acceleration of the establishment of EPCIs whose environmental skills hitherto optional could increase. NOTRe Act aims at reinforcing the competences of the regions and public institutions of inter-municipal cooperation. They receive (by transfer of departmental skills) skills on middle schools (buildings, technicians, sectorization, etc.), on intercity and school transport, on departmental ports, on the planning of the waste sector. The Region would be responsible for drawing up a regional plan for economic development, innovation and internationalization (SRDEII) which would have a prescriptive value and define the aid schemes for businesses. Region has also to drawn up a regional urban planning, sustainable development and equal opportunities plan (SRADDET), which would be prescriptive with regard to planning documents and replace existing schemes in these areas. It amalgamates the regional plan of urban planning and sustainable development of the territory known as SRADDT, the Waste Plan, the regional intermodally plan, SRCE and SRCAE. This plan must set the medium and long-term objectives in terms of territorial balance and equality, the setting up of various infrastructures of regional interest, the opening up of rural areas, housing and the economic management of the area, of intermodally and of transport development, of control and recovery of energy, of fight against climate change, of air pollution, of protection and restoration of biodiversity, of prevention and management of waste. The map of inter-municipalities and regions is drawn again. A "Biomass Regional Plan" (SRB or SRBiomass) must be built in each of the new regions. It should aim for a balanced and coherent development of coexisting energy production and enhancement of biomass (which are sometimes competing for the same resource such as wood, or the same space such as agricultural and forestry land).
Recovery of Biodiversity, Nature and Landscapes Act (2016)
The framework for the recovery of biodiversity, nature and landscapes act is promulgated in 2016. It aims at protecting and enhancing biodiversity, in particular by reducing the negative impacts of human activities on the environment: concepts of ecological harm, non-regression of environmental law, compensation and ecological solidarity. Thus, planning documents can integrate areas of ecological continuity. A French Agency for Biodiversity is created with the aim of merging existing organizations (Water Board, Agency for Marine Protected Areas, National Parks) as well as priority areas for diversity. Content has been pushed back (limitation of the ecological effects of palm oil production, deep trawling, status of being sensitive for wild animals, etc.). This law is the result of a consultation process at regional level with all stakeholders.
Introduction of Environmental protection (1994)
The Republic of Croatia was established with the dissolution of Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ) in 1991, and it is one of its legal successors. Since its Independence, the ambition of the Republic of Croatia was to be close to EU economic system. This could only be achieved by a series of democratic, social and economic reforms, but also by directing laws towards European standards.In the first years of independence, most of the laws from former SFRJ were passed by amendments.
In 1994 the Republic of Croatia adopted its first general environmental law – the Environmental Protection Act (1994). The law defines environment as air, soil, water, sea, climate, plant and animal life in the totality of mutual activity and cultural heritage as part of the environment created by man.In this law, landscape is present as one of environment component, which cultural, natural and aesthetic values needs to be protected and restored.
The Environment Protection Act is considered a general ecological law, while special types of ecological laws are laws on the protection of nature, air, water, waste…One of the first new adopted laws in the Republic of Croatia was a special ecological law - the Water Act (1990).The Environmental Protection Act was followed by special laws which regulate specific problems of environmental protection: Nature Protection Act (1994), Act on Waste (1995), Air Protection Act (1995), Water Act (1995), Regulation on environmental impact assessment (1997) andOrdinance on environmental impact assessment (2000).
Ratification of European Landscape Convention (2002)
The Republic of Croatia signed the European Landscape Convention (2000) and in 2002 passed the Act on the Ratification of the European Landscape Convention (2002). According to Convention, each signatory is obligated to take necessary measures: to identify and classify landscapes, to assess them on the basis of professional evaluation criteria; to analyse the transformation pressures, to observe and to keep records of the changes.
After ratification of European Landscape Convention, the Republic of Croatia did not adopt a unified methodology for identification, inventory, evaluation, classification and protection of landscape on the national level. The consequence is that landscapes in Croatia arestill dealt from the perspectives of different sectors and several laws, within which landscape protection, management and planning is differently interpreted. Individual approaches in fieldsand in associated laws of cultural heritage protection, natural protection, environmental protection and spatial planning, only partially include landscape. Other fields and associated laws, whose application and execution strongly impact the appearance and state of landscape (like agriculture, water, forest, waste, regional development), do not recognise landscape in a specific way.
Landscape as a factor of Spatial Development Strategy
The 2014 Physical Planning Law requires the preparation of Spatial Development Strategy of Croatia, which is considered a key instrument for the national development. The Strategy should be based on spatial development which takes into account natural, economic, social, cultural and environmental conditions. One of background studies prepared for implementation into Strategy was study Landscape as Factor of Spatial Development Strategy of Croatia (2014) /KrajolikčimbenikStrategijeprostornograzvoja/.
The main objective of the study is to determine models of inclusion of landscape in spatial planning system and in spatial planning documentation of all levels, which are in line with goals of European Landscape Convention and in line with knowledge and continuity of spatial planning in Croatia. The guidelines / recommendations and proposals of measures for landscape protection, enhancement and planning were integrated in Spatial Development Strategy of Republic of Croatia (2017). Therefore, the Strategy recognizes landscape as a public good, national interest, and a basing living, identity and economic resource of the Republic of Croatia.
Act on Agrarian Reform and Nationalisation Act
After the World War II Croatia was part of Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (1945-1963) and in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1963-1992). Socialist political system, socialist economy (worker’s self-management), nationalisation of property – economic enterprises and building land, and nationalisation and collectivisation of land, had an influence on the use and design of landscape in Croatia. In 1945 new agrarian reform was carried out, based on the Act on Agrarian Reform and Colonisation (1945) and Agricultural Fund Act from 1953 which prescribed agrarian maximum of owned land and formed agricultural fund. Agricultural fund was the basis for development of social sector in agriculture and was (in part) assigned to the agricultural enterprises in public (social) ownership. From 1954 to 1990 communion procedures were carried out for the purpose of more economic utilisation of land, creating more favourable conditions for the development of settlements, roads, hydromelioration facilities and other works on land and landscape. The effect on agricultural landscape was the fragmented structure and unmanaged access to privately owned agricultural land, and organised and larger land units in the social agricultural property.
Nationalisation was carried out by the Act on Nationalisation of Private Economic Enterprises (1946) and with the Act on Nationalisation of Rental Buildings and Building Land (1958).With the act building land was nationalised but family residential buildings remained private property, and the user of the building had the right to use for free the (building) land needed for the regular use of the building. One of the effects on landscape was long-termspreading of settlements, outskirts of big cities, and tourist areas, on natural and agricultural landscape with private primary housing and secondary (vacation or weekend) housing, without respecting plans and regulations.
The unregulated construction also revealed the inability of the authorities to enforce planning recommendations and land use regulations, although physical plans (existing from the 1939s) have a legal force. Preparation of urban and regional spatial plans was prescribed by Law on Urban and Regional Spatial Planning (1961) which can be characterised with highly centralised and hierarchical structure.
First National Parks in Croatia (Plitvice Lakes, Paklenica, 1949)
The Act on protection of cultural monuments and natural treasures was passed in 1946. The legal protection of cultural monuments was introduced, services for protection were established (State Offices), and directions and rules for protection were determined. The Act introduced an evidence of cultural monuments and natural treasures, which can be considered an origin of contemporary Cultural Property Registry. With announcement of first National Parks in Croatia, NP Plitvice Lakes and NP Paklenicain 1949, the comprehensive approach to protection of nature was establish. The importance of overall nature protection of an area was emphasized, as opposed to the earlier acts which were concerned only with particular natural rarity.
In 1960 the protection of culture and protection of nature were divided in two separate acts: Nature Protection Act (1960, 1965) and Act on Protection of Cultural Monuments (1960). The nature Protection Act extended the power and task of the Nature Protection Institution. With Act on Protection of Cultural Monuments (1960) and Ordinance on Registration of Cultural Monuments (1961) the act established Cultural Property registry.
Act on Spatial Development and Use of Building Land (1973)
Under the influence of the Venetian Charter (1964) and Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris, 1972), laws for the revitalisation of both type of heritage were adopted. Nature Protection Act (1976) continues to extended the power and task of the Nature Protection Institution.
The Act on Protection of Cultural Monuments from 1960 was updated, but the changes concerned only the legal side, not the instruments for the improvement of practice. The act become outdated and had lost its authority through constant changes. The act was complemented by building construction and urban planning regulations: Act on Spatial Development and Use of Building Land (1973). The architectural heritage has become an essential part of the urban and regional planning. The law determined building permit, extensions and reconstruction of buildings of historical importance, thereby saving monuments from negligent investors. But, in practice there was no spatial development policy which would cover physical planning and structural expansion of built areas. Also, the practice of spatial planning moved from the system of rigid centralisation, dominated by economic development approach, to a more decentralised planning model of self-government.Local communities were in charge of urban development and spatial planning on local level.
Common grounds for coordinated regulation of protection and preservation of heritage (1982)
Under the influence of Council of Europe, First Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional Planning (Bonn, 1970), the document Common ground for the protection and development of natural and cultural heritage (1979) and Program of cultural development for FR Croatia (1980) was created. The document was adopted by republic institutes (1982) and introduced principles: the object of protection was extended from single monument to ensemble; monuments are integrated with their surroundings; active protection is introduced which revitalises monuments and puts them in use; the regulations concerning monuments have to be brought in line with urban planning and building construction legislation. Although the Common ground document was not passed by the Federation, these principles precede contemporary principles on protection and development of heritage.
Act on Physical Planning and Spatial Development (1980)
In 1980 the Act on Physical Planning and Spatial Development (1980)was passed.The participation of public in formulation of planning goals and objectives (general public, local communities, public institutions, business enterprises) became a requirement of the new system of self-management. In practice, the role of various actors in the urban development process was diminished by influential politicians and planning technocrats, who were strong proponents of the “top-down” approach.
Introduction of Environmental protection (1994)
The Republic of Croatia was established with the dissolution of Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ) in 1991, and it is one of its legal successors. Since its Independence, the ambition of the Republic of Croatia was to be close to EU economic system. This could only be achieved by a series of democratic, social and economic reforms, but also by directing laws towards European standards.In the first years of independence, most of the laws from former SFRJ were passed by amendments.
In 1994 the Republic of Croatia adopted its first general environmental law – the Environmental Protection Act (1994). The law defines environment as air, soil, water, sea, climate, plant and animal life in the totality of mutual activity and cultural heritage as part of the environment created by man.In this law, landscape is present as one of environment component, which cultural, natural and aesthetic values needs to be protected and restored.
The Environment Protection Act is considered a general ecological law, while special types of ecological laws are laws on the protection of nature, air, water, waste…One of the first new adopted laws in the Republic of Croatia was a special ecological law - the Water Act (1990).The Environmental Protection Act was followed by special laws which regulate specific problems of environmental protection: Nature Protection Act (1994), Act on Waste (1995), Air Protection Act (1995), Water Act (1995), Regulation on environmental impact assessment (1997) andOrdinance on environmental impact assessment (2000).
Spatial Development: Act, Strategy, Programme and Background study for Landscape Base (1990s)
Croatia started formal negotiations for joining the European Union in 1995. In 1996 Croatia was admitted to the Council of Europe, opening possibility for negotiations with the European Union. Since the Independence, Croatia tried to turn away the planning process and plan making, away from socialist methods of planning towards more flexible forms of urban management and governance.In 1994,Spatial Development Act was adopted. The general purpose of spatial planning system was to plan and develop territory (country, counties and municipalities) in order to create better conditions for managing, protecting and administering it as a valuable and limited national resource. Setting the ground for social and economic development, environmental protection and rational use of natural resources.
The Law introduced Spatial Planning Strategy of the Republic of Croatia (1997) which identified the aims of long term spatial development in coherence to the economic, social and cultural development.In 1999 was adopted the Programme of the Spatial Planning Strategy of the Republic of Croatia (1999) which contained the main objectives of spatial development, also identifying the basic criteria and guidelines for the management of spatial entities.
In accordance with the European efforts in creating instruments for protection, management and planning of landscape, the Spatial Planning Strategy of the Republic of Croatia (1997) has set the establishment of the Landscape Baseof Croatia /KrajobraznaosnovaHrvatske/as a long-term project. For development of Landscape Base, the cooperation of sectors and experts in the fields of spatial planning, protection of nature, environment and cultural heritage, is necessary. In 1999 the study Landscape, content and methodological background study for Landscape Base of Croatia (1999) /Krajolik, sadržajnaimetodskapodlogaKrajobrazneosnoveHrvatske/was designed to contribute to the preparation of the Landscape Base. The study sets proposals for recognition and evaluation of Croatian landscapes, and for design of recommendations for protection, management and use, in order to preserve natural and created values, diversities and place identities.
Act on Protection of Cultural Property (1999)
With the establishment of the Republic of Croatia, the socialist law regarding protection of cultural property, which has been in force since 1965, was incorporated in Croatian legal system and passed by amendments – the Act on Protection of Cultural Monuments (1965).
After more than three decades, in 1999 was adopted the new Act on the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Property (1999). The new law is fully adopted to the Constitution and legal order of the Republic of Croatia, to the implementation of the protection and preservation of cultural property throughout the territory of Croatia and the principles of the protection of cultural property which are based on the norms of international law, international conventions and recommendations. Recommendations of the relevant international organisations on the protection of cultural heritage emphasize the need to study and protect the character of landscape. According to those recommendations, the new law introduced cultural landscape as a new category of cultural property and as a type of cultural-historical ensemble.
National Environmental Strategy and Action Plan (2005)
The Republic of Croatia applied for EU membership in 2003 and was in negotiations from 2005 until 2011. In different sectors, multiple laws had to be put in line with the European Union legislation.
In 2002 were adopted the National Environmental Protection Strategy and the National Environmental Action Plan. In Strategy, two themes are particularly emphasised: adaptation of the Republic of Croatia to the concept of sustainable development and accession of Croatia to the European Union which requires implementation of European standards and criteria in environmental protection. The Action Plan defined list of priorities in individual sectors: (1) Legal, governance and institutional issues, (2) Environment and health, space, settlements and population, (3) Costal areas, tourism, sport and recreation, (4)Water, (5) Waste, (6) Air, (7) Industry, energy and mining, (8) Traffic, (9) Biological diversity and geological heritage, (10) Soil, agriculture, forests and forestry.Although development of all these sectors has strong implications on landscape, landscape is in Action Plan recognised only through Ratification of European Landscape Convention. In the Strategy landscape is recognised in the context of nature protection and definition of nature as whole of biological and landscape diversity, therefore disregarding cultural dimension of landscape.
In following years, general and specific environmental laws and strategies were adopted: Nature Protection Act (2003), Nature Protection Act (2005), Waste Management Strategy of the Republic of Croatia (2005) and Environmental Protection Act (2007).
Spatial Development and Construction Act (2007)
The implementation ofSpatial Development Act from 1994failed to adapt to new social and economic circumstances, which opened the way to a liberal and more flexible development of space, in some places with chaotic and irreversible consequences on landscape. The changes in economic, social and cultural conditions and the need to adapt to European practices of planning, contributed to introduction of the new Spatial Development and Construction Act (2007). The 2007 Act introduced a stricter top-down approach, lowering the pressure of chaotic development on landscape.
Strategy for Sustainable Development and Regional Development Act (2009)
Adaptation of the Republic of Croatia to the concept of sustainable development resumed in 2009 with setting Strategy for Sustainable Development of the Republic of Croatia. Strategy defined three general goals: stable economic development, fair distribution of social opportunities and environmental protection. In Sustainable Development Strategy landscape is recognised in the context of nature protection. One of Strategy goals is preservation of significant and characteristic features of landscape and maintaining biological, geological and cultural values, through establishment of Landscape Base as one of the measures.
Adaptation of the Republic of Croatia to the concept of sustainable development resumed in 2009 with setting Strategy for Sustainable Development of the Republic of Croatia. Strategy defined three general goals: stable economic development, fair distribution of social opportunities and environmental protection. In Sustainable Development Strategy landscape is recognised in the context of nature protection. One of Strategy goals is preservation of significant and characteristic features of landscape and maintaining biological, geological and cultural values, through establishment of Landscape Base as one of the measures.
One of overall objectives of the Sustainable Development Strategy, for achievement of stability and progress in development, is raising and equating regional development and achieving good internal connectivity of the Republic of Croatia. The theme of regional development is further shaped in the Regional Development Act (2009).
Environmental protection Act (2013)
In 2013 the Republic of Croatia joined European Union. The membership in EU was followed by setting new general and specific environmental laws, which were in line with European legal framework: Nature Protection Act (2013),Environmental Protection Act (2013), Act on Sustainable Waste Management (2013) and Regulation on environmental impact assessment (2014).
Definition of landscape is (for the first time) defined in new Nature Protection Act (2013) and Environmental Protection Act (2013). The definition is taken from European Landscape Convention, but incomplete or incorrect. In Nature Protection Act landscape is defined solely as area whose character is the result of interaction of natural and/or human factors. In Environmental Protection Act landscape is defined as a certain area seen with the human eye, an essential component of human environment, an expression of diversity of common cultural and natural heritage and the basis of place identity. Although the definition of landscape is extended in Environmental Protection Act, it is superficially translated from English and therefore omits perceptual dimension of landscape which transcends physical and objective dimension of landscape.
Legalisation, Physical Planning and Building Acts (2011 – 2014)
In 2011 the Republic of Croatia introduced Act on Proceeding with Illegally Built Buildings (2011), which enabled the legalisation of buildings without Building Permit which were built according to implementing regulations and inside construction areas defined by spatial plans (municipality and local level). In following year, the newAct on Proceeding with Illegally Built Buildings (2012) was adopted. The new legalisation act allowed the legalisation of buildings which were built without respecting implementing regulations and which were outside of construction areas defined by spatial plans (with few exceptions). Therefore, the legalisation act enabled the enactment of vast majority of unregulated (sub)urban development, which in some areas chaotically transformed landscape.
With the new spatial planning law, the sectors of construction and spatial planning (development) have been separated in two acts. On 1st January 2014, the Physical Planning Act (2013) and Building Act (2013) came into force. The Physical Planning Act reflected EU principles: sustainable spatial development, transparency and free access documents, monitoring and evaluation of plans, vertical integration (respecting objectives and interests set in broader scope documents), horizontal integration (cooperation of the state, regional and local self-governments and other bodies), flexibility of planning system. In Physical Planning Act, the definition of landscape is not set, but landscape is present in one of spatial planning objectives: creating a high-value built space with respecting specificity of individual units; respecting natural and urban landscape, and cultural heritage.
Regarding the planning authority, the Physical Planning Law divided the spatial and regional planning responsibilities to two different Ministries: The Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning, and the Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds. In 2014 the Regional Development Act was adopted with the aim of contributing to the socio-economic development of Croatia, in accordance with EU principles, principles of sustainable development and in order to ensure efficient use of EU funds.
Landscape as a factor of Spatial Development Strategy
The 2014 Physical Planning Law requires the preparation of Spatial Development Strategy of Croatia, which is considered a key instrument for the national development. The Strategy should be based on spatial development which takes into account natural, economic, social, cultural and environmental conditions. One of background studies prepared for implementation into Strategy was study Landscape as Factor of Spatial Development Strategy of Croatia (2014) /KrajolikčimbenikStrategijeprostornograzvoja/. The main objective of the study is to determine models of inclusion of landscape in spatial planning system and in spatial planning documentation of all levels, which are in line with goals of European Landscape Convention and in line with knowledge and continuity of spatial planning in Croatia. The guidelines / recommendations and proposals of measures for landscape protection, enhancement and planning were integrated in Spatial Development Strategy of Republic of Croatia (2017). Therefore, the Strategy recognizes landscape as a public good, national interest, and a basing living, identity and economic resource of the Republic of Croatia.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Climate change is the vulnerability in global world, related to risks such as flood, freshwater supply, waste management, air pollution, or urban heat stress. Initiatives are designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly in the transportation sector and renewable energy production. However, the demand for a further increase in energy production from renewable sources (e.g. wind or solar power) will have major impacts on the landscapes.
The loss of biodiversity and damages to ecosystems caused by uncontrolled urban expansion and intense agricultural practices are some of the major challenges. Agricultural land use nowadays is intensive and brings about its own landscape challenges with a general decline of land quality and loss of biodiversity. This was driven by processes of land consolidation and intensification of farm structures over the last decades, effects often manifested in monocultures in combination with an intense use of herbicides and pesticides by farmers. Enhancing the biodiversity is at political agenda but this failed because of an overall point of view (it works when focus is on an animal or species). Biodiversity is linked to issues of overfishing (including deep-sea fishing); fighting light pollution which contributes to the disappearance of species (insects, birds, bats, fish ...), because of dazzling effects that disrupt migrations, reproduction, etc.
Fighting climate change is a way to enhance biodiversity. Scientists observe a wealth of plant and animal species in the mountainous regions (+5.4 since 10 years, which is important in the inhospitable areas) because of the global warming pushing the species towards their last refuges; this can harm the native species of the summits (potential extinguishment debt). Each year, nearly 200 million tons of carbon are removed from the atmosphere and transported by rivers to the oceans, thus contributing to the fight against climate change but dams threaten this balance: hydropower causes the extinction of some species, displaces communities and contributes to climate change (rejection of carbon dioxide in the air).
More attention is needed for the impact of climate change on the economy. Adapting to changes in business conditions and development of sustainable tourism enhance economic resilience. Moreover, planning addresses the extension of green urban and peri-urban areas to contrast soil waterproofing and prevent hydrogeological risks and to contrast the abandonment and degradation of commercial and productive areas in order to promote functional mix. This shall lead to the creation of a reactive, inclusive economy (and society) that is capable of contrasting social conflicts and social inequalities and to promote socioeconomic, cultural, ethnic, and generational diversity.
Urban sprawl
There is an uninterrupted trend of urban expansion at the fringes of the larger agglomerations. Cities still grow in terms of sealed surface areas into their hinterland, which leads to an increase in grey and red landscape types versus agricultural and green land use types. Despite a growing awareness about the unwanted consequences of urban sprawling, the pressure is continuous on the availability of land for further urban development. There are still many actors promoting urban growth into the countryside. More than half of the wetlands have disappeared in one century: land degradation is the leading cause of extinction of animal and plant species, of climate change (deforestation and hard to capt carbon) and of floods (permeability of soils).
Despite significant local and regional differences, several peri-urban regions are characterized by lower utilization densities compared to more central city location. So urban planning is developing with high density but this outlook doesn’t fit to desires and economic abilities for people, to the demographic evolutions (suitable services with aging of the population in housing estates). Urban sprawl is associated with diverse, unwanted environmental effects, such as the loss of agricultural land and green spaces, fragmented land-use, and an increase in site distances, which in turn, impacts on commuting and transportation demands, currently still resulting in higher energy consumption and traffic emissions compared to inner-city commuting.
A big issue deals with the commercial and industrial areas on the outskirts of cities that consume a lot of agricultural lands due to political and financial balance of power and produce a specific landscape with the development of an "empire" of the hangar (D. Mangin, 2004). However, the waterproofing of soils is partly restrained because of the price of agricultural lands (farmers are powerful) and the development of density. Moreover, programming commercial and industrial areas takes a long time and needs a strong urban function as locomotive for development (such as a railway station). Associations are fighting this consumption of lands. A solution is creating relay poles of services. In fact, landscape doesn’t make project except when public authorities are involved such as for Regional Natural Parks or landscape atlas.
Socio-spatial justice
Another pressing issue of urban landscapes is the demand for affordable housing. This issue is linked to the housing desires (house with a garden and next to services) that encourage an urban sprawl, leading to urban pressure. The commercial and housing issues are related to mobility. The development of individual vehicles, and then the highways allowed to develop territories by increasing accessibility between wide distances. However, commercial and industrial areas at the entrance of the cities lead to a traffic congestion, especially during rush hours. So, commuting is a concrete issue for people living far away from their workplace, and especially for the most precarious that live far away from city centers because of the price of the land.
With urban populations expected to further grow over the next two decades, land and the availability of parcels to be developed will become an even more scarce resource; and the pressure on prices for real estate is expected to grow further. That means developing new residential areas, in particular for affordable and well accessible housing in cities remains an important challenge. It is challenging because the land ownership is diversified, market mechanisms and land speculation are still common practices and the set of instruments for public actors to intervene ask for advancements.
In fact, serious inequalities can be observed in terms of available housing, educational quality, unemployment, and the difficulty or inability to access some primary services (health, transport, etc.); spatial segregation, which has led to the aggravation of ghettoization, pushing socially marginalized groups into peripheral and most degraded areas; the progression of urban expansion, partially blocked by the economic crisis, constitutes the main threat to sustainable territorial development (since public services are more expensive and difficult to guarantee, natural resources are subject to overuse and pressure, public transport networks are insufficient, and the dependence on private transport is growing, with consequent increase in traffic and pollution). Urban degradation is one of the aspects that most affect the quality of life in cities and, more generally, the quality of the urban landscape, with consequences for the safety of populations.
Through these issues, an economic purpose is clearly visible. For instance, labelling UNESCO allow to preserve landscape as a heritage. But businessmen saw behind labelling an economic interest. Widely, economic operators note the need to develop a circular bio-economy with sustainable projects. For instance, biomass production is able to be increased for a production of energy by methanisor. The issue is, here, the articulation between agribusiness (production) and industrial poles (transformation and valuation of resources), then with a local consumption.
Providing enough green and blue landscape spaces
In order to fight soil artificialization and to treat the continuum between urban and rural territories, landscape designers wrote books. Thus, thick fringes and vegetable belts are though as a solution. However, implementing a green belt cut both urban and rural areas. Another scenario is to intertwine the two areas, such as farming in urban areas. In this way, some emerging practices are visible such as community gardens, green rooftops, organic farming, or the development of associations of farmers that implement vegetation in their landscapes in a coordinated way.
The expected population and economic growth present many opportunities for the cities and their suburban surroundings, for example, to make more effective use of its underused spaces and to upgrade sustainable buildings and infrastructures. However, it also generates challenges in how to balance among different uses for land within the urban areas – for housing, industry, green and blue spaces, infrastructure, agriculture, and others. Strategic planning documents in the particular cities often do already foresee urban expansion and environmental sustainability as mutually reinforcing goals. These are often intended to become realized with increasing the housing density within the existing settlement areas, transforming mono-functional areas into mixed-use developments, further improving regional public transport, increasing the quality of public spaces, protecting and investing into green spaces for recreation, and preparing for a post-fossil era. Defining these goals and measures, however, does not automatically lead to their immediate implementation.
Agribusiness contributes to soil contamination. Some lands (and drinking water) are polluted by hydrocarbons and nitrogen fertilization for agribusiness. The use of phytosanitary products leads to health issues (Parkinson’s disease, Prostate cancer, Hematopoietic cancers), pollution issues (soil and water), biodiversity (more than 75 % loss of insect biomass in 27 years, and 30 % of the populations of birds). But the cleanup of soils depends on the projects allocated to these kind of lands (according to public authorities): a golf course doesn’t need to clean the land contrary to a building (and its foundations). Consequently, greening (the idea to replant trees) allows to treat soils by using plants. Another kind of pollution is related to infrastructures of sustainable energy and its impacts on aesthetic point of view, a contradiction with preservation of landscape identity.
Landscape is becoming an object to enhance biodiversity. With this outlook, landscape is a way to enhance dialogue between stakeholders and communication about sustainable transition. The issue is to communicate the good practices to citizens and to train farmers towards another way to produce. However, this outlook needs to increase knowledge about landscapes and its features. Enhancing quality of life in sustainable towns with a diversity of functions (living, working, studying, fun…) and without regulation is the actual turning point.
Governance challenges
Governance of urban landscapes has evolved over the last decades away from a top-down, centralized decision-making process, to a decentralized procedure of combining regulatory (co-)steering by state actors with multiple interests from other actors with an increasingly important role of spatial visions that aim at providing long-term orientations. Landscape challenges do not simply occur within municipal boundaries. Instead, landscape issues do occur on broader scales, often on a regional scale level, which is nested between, neither relating to one municipality only, nor to a whole province. This leads to another governance challenge concerning the exchange and collaboration between the involved municipalities and province(s). Their diversity of development interests and their variety of available capacities to deal with landscape issues often still defines the level of priority that is given to landscape topics on the political agendas. Pyramidal system of physical planning, going from state level (strategies), to county level and local level of municipalities and cities, is in need for complex horizontal and vertical sectoral coordination.
The quality of the landscape is invoked as a strategic objective of territorial governance that requires a strong alliance among nature conservation policies, landscape policies, and other sectoral policies, within a framework that is still uncertain (Gambino and Peano, 2015). Difficulties refer to an incomplete integration of the landscape in policies and territorial and sector planning, the continued lack of identification of public and private subjects responsible for management and activation, as well as the absence of appropriate financial resources for its implementation (Voghera, 2018).
A change of approach is needed in the planning system and in decision making processes, to transform threats into opportunities. These include: i) the need to guarantee substantial multilevel and inter-sectoral approach, in order to face the growing complexity of urban and peri-urban landscapes, putting coherence between initiatives with territorial worth and local interventions. Each challenge should be projected to a wider territorial context. ii) The need to ensure dialogue and cooperation between the territorial and administrative levels. It is necessary to overcome the tension among different interests and reach a compromise among contrasting objectives and diverging models of development. iii) The need to overcome conservation, in favor of a much more integrated conservation, planning, and management strategies and actions. iv) The need to practice an original predictive capacity (draft scenarios) for managing transitions, overcoming conflicts and contradictions among the various objectives, and developing a better understanding of reality. v) The need for social participation in landscape management processes because transition to sustainability and quality of landscape are not only in plans and programs, but also on people behaviors. vi) The need for institutional and social flexibility to adapt policies, projects, and actions to processes of socio-economic and landscape innovation.
Notion of landscape
The project is developed around the notion of “landscape” as promoted by the European Landscape Convention (ELC). With the notion of landscape, the ELC refers in article 1 to “an area as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and human factors” (Council of Europe, 2000, p. 9). Thus, the landscape is an essential cultural element. For better or worse, it is the mirror of a society, and forces to look at it, both, in its entirety and in its different components. The landscape is a synthetic vision, capable of bringing together the physical and environmental features of places, with the interpretations, the emotions, and the expectations of human beings. To understand and intervene into a landscape asks for differentiating the synthetic vision of the landscape (ideally addressed first to understand or to intervene) from designing interventions in its different parts. The personal, subjective interpretation of the landscape is linked to a collective landscape vision of a population as a whole. Landscape can therefore be considered as a common good based on the diverse interpretations that the individual perceptions generate, which then may lead to a collective, shared vision. Without such subjective and collective interpretations, a landscape does not exist (Sargolini, 2013).
The concept of ´landscape´ not only refers to the physical features of an area, but also to the culture of its inhabitants and its economic and administrative features. As such, landscape is part of the collective identity and history of people (Proshansky et al. 1983; Kianicka et al. 2006; Debarbieux 2005; Sargolini 2013). The landscape is a boundary object defined through several disciplines, universes of reference and different worldviews (Star & Griesemer 1989; Star 2010; Noucher & al. 2012). It is an object of attention or development that has an interpretative flexibility, as an invisible infrastructure that carries conventions, standards and practices (Trompette & Vinck, 2009). From this perspective, human actions, their motives and values influence what people perceive and the ways in which they use and change their environment over time. The landscape constitutes a relevant guideline, trace and matrix, at the interface of the perception, the organization and the preservation of a biophysical and living environment (Sargolini 2005). This complexity requires reconciling the different and separated ways to conceptualize and govern the landscape.
Landscape quality
(The) "“Landscape quality objective” means, for a specific landscape, the formulation by the competent public authorities of the aspirations of the public with regard to the landscape features of their surroundings” (Article 1c, ELC, Council of Europe, 2000, p.10).
One way refers to the aesthetic and sensitive perspective on landscape — based on paintings, perception and affects. It dominated the cultural heritage regulations for a long period (Corbin 2001; Roger 1995) and it is always an active, distant perception of our environment. If the attractiveness for rural landscapes can be explained by the role of agriculture in for example French history (Buijs, Pedroli & Luginbühl 2006), similarly, its new aesthetic is a result from contemporary lifestyles (Donadieu 2003). During the 1990s the common image of landscape changed significantly, and nature replaced cultivated nature in the common conscious (Buijs, Pedroli & Luginbühl 2006; Sargolini 2010).
A second way is an objective geomorphological and social view, evolving in the fields of landscape geography and landscape ecology, mostly linked to rural settlements and adaptations to physical conditions (Deffontaines 1998; Bertrand 2002). Landscape is seen as a local resource in this community (Gumuchian & Pecqueur 2007). It functions also as an element of individual, social, and place identity (Di Méo 2004). Here, landscape transformations can be perceived as threats or as opportunities for communities and the local economy, and they have to be managed both towards their ecological and socio-economic planning goals.
A third way emerged in urban areas, during the 1960’s. An ordinary landscape, also referred to ‘townscape’, was linked to an attractive vision of urban spaces, with social interactions and human scale living spaces (Pousin 2007; Sargolini 2015). This urban landscape conception includes more green and ‘wild’ spaces (Aggeri 2010), yet remained dissociated from the rural landscape (Da Cunha 2009). However, between urban and rural landscapes, the peri-urban spaces, where a majority of inhabitants live in several countries, never had the quality and agility of urban life nor the aesthetic of the rural landscapes (Mancebo & Salles 2014).
Landscape policies
Landscape has observed an increasing political, social and cultural importance in debates, practices and rhetorical constructions concerning the quality of life and the future hopes of contemporary societies. The engagement and policy attempts to tackle the ongoing loss of bio-diversity launched with the United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro 1992, has continued to broaden its horizons to embrace the cultural and, therefore, landscape implications of development trends of areas.
At the global level, bodies such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), for example, continues to call attention to the role that landscape policies play in order to improve the effectiveness of nature conservation policies. Biodiversity is part of a wide ecological horizon, which includes humans in natural dynamics. With the year 2000 and the publication of the ELC, an outstanding and explicit shift could be observed. The ELC states the obligation of recognizing the landscape values of the entire territory, as well as adopting diversified protection, management and planning measures. From all these viewpoints – and, clearly, in contrast with the most traditional control and protection practices of the past – it is recognized that the principle of protection cannot be applied only to single “pieces” of natural-cultural heritage of great value, detached from their context.
This new landscape paradigm suggests the need to look beyond the individual objects present in a socio-spatial context (i.e. an area) in order to perceive their dynamics and relationships. This is a challenge crossing all spatial scales. Secondly, it is a dynamic challenge over time, between events and entities that have occurred at various points in time of the territory. Thirdly it is a challenge of social diversification and stratification between different subjects, social groups and various stakeholders (Sargolini 2012; Gambino 2012). Considering these three dimensions, the territory can be considered as a “network of networks” (cultural, social, ecological, economic, historical, etc.). Territory is appropriated by social actors, it is rational and functional, that can be minted, owned, administered, but territory is also affective, emerging through the interaction with humans. So we need to take into account how social actors live their territory in a circular and intertwined relation between materiality of space, its potentials and the system of values attributed. In the context of the ELC, the revitalization of the local dimension has seen significant support, because it is in the local dimension that landscapes are (co-)created.
Integrated landscape approach
Based on the multi-dimensionality of landscape (quality), we derive the need for an integrated approach in the governance of urban landscapes. The first question related to the conceptual level is how would the landscape paradigm relate to the landscape impacts of societal transitions? The second question is who (i.e. which actors) based on which the legitimicies (legal regulations, knowledge, experience, skills) takes decisions, which transformations are desirable (leading towards sustainability) in terms of their landscape impacts; and based on which shared criteria will these decisions be taken?
Diverse scientific disciplines have suggested schemes for assessing the sustainability of landscapes (e.g. Musacchio 2009). No principles or arguments in the discussion about desirable changes are free from values and subjectivity. An illustration is the (political) choice for the demarcation of a landscape or urban region. By changing the level of scale, a new perspective on landscape qualities can emerge.
Obviously, political and economic interests have, over time, brought (un-)desirable landscape transformations, which have affected historical notions of space and territory. The mostly cited example is the dynamic of urban sprawl. Through intertwined social, economic, technical and cultural transformations today's urban areas have either no boundaries or fuzzy ones. Therefore, classifying an “urban dimension” of landscapes in Europe is challenged by the fact that the current urban/metropolitan structures are no longer composed only by urban centers and peripheries, but by a patchwork of urban fringes with an increasingly dense and continuous conurbation shaping the remaining ´empty´ urban spaces.
This fuzzy urban dimension implies a profound difference with the historical city, which was for its survival strongly based on the relationship with its own “area of reference”, deriving not only material conditions, but also very important cultural and aesthetic features from it. This project uses of the notion of the urban-rural continuum (Nilsson and Nielssen 2013; Mancebo 2014a) to understand the dual impact of urbanization processes on urban landscapes and the “area of reference” of the people living there. The notion of urban-rural continuum, rather than urban-rural dynamics, is reassuring as it implies, that something will always remain throughout different types of landscape patterns.
Sustainability transition
Transitions are complex, unstructured, and non-linear processes of shifting from one dynamic system equilibrium to another. A transition involves the long-term process of disruptive societal change over decades. Sustainability transitions refer to particularly those large-scale disruptive changes that are deemed necessary to solve the grand societal challenges (Loorbach et al. 2017; Grin et al 2010).
Understanding how transformative processes unfold, which stakeholders contribute to these changes and how these stakeholders facilitate pathways of spatial development are of paramount importance for achieving the sustainability goals set for urban areas within the United Nations SDG’s and within the New Urban Agenda (e.g. UN Habitat, 2016). In order to influence landscape transitions towards sustainability, experimental (transition) governance has been proposed, for example in the context of climate change and urban transformation in general (Bulkeley & Castán Broto 2013; Evans 2016). This mode of governance is supposed to provide steering capacities to better navigate with the long-term dynamics of transition processes and to embrace the inherent complexities and plurality of actor interests. Transitions lead to tensions, conflicts but also to social innovation and opportunities to co-create future pathways.
Key to the transition theory are the three interrelated analytical concepts: socio-technical or socio-institutional landscape, regime and niche (Hodson et al 2017). Firstly, regimes represent the institutional structuring of tangible socio-technical or socio-ecological systems; the intangible rules, shared cognitive routines, regulations and standards which structure but do not fully determine practices (Hodson et al. 2017). Regimes emerge over time through structured processes between regime elements and also as a response to exogenous landscape pressures and interactions with niche-innovations. Secondly, niches are ‘protected spaces’, where radical innovations can evolve. Thirdly, socio-technical or socio-institutional landscapes refer to broader exogenous contexts, which often change slowly (e.g., demographics, climate change, macro-economics), but can also occasionally change quickly (e.g. wars, shocks, economic recession, oil price fluctuations).
In order to navigate within transition processes, Loorbach and colleagues proposed Transition Management (Loorbach 2010) as a governance framework. The dynamics of a system offer feasible and non-feasible means for navigating and require a solid system understanding and system analysis, which are an essential precondition for steering the process management. This implies that content (e.g. the urban landscape quality issue at stake) and process are inseparable (Loorbach 2010). Transition Management (TM) requires long-term thinking (at least 25 years) as a time horizon that helps shaping short-term policy in the context of persistent societal problems. Loorbach (2010) emphasized the focus on (social) learning from and about diverse actor perspectives and a variety of future development options as an essential precondition for change. Allowing the emergence of this type of learning is possible by participation from and interaction between stakeholders, as a necessary basis towards building up support for policies but also to engage actors in restructuring landscape challenges and solutions through social learning.
Transition governance
In both Agenda 21 and the Aalborg Charter, references to environmental themes are frequent but the landscape is not mentioned. The ELC expresses the conviction that the quality of European landscapes and the quality of life of European populations are an integral element of those landscapes. These elements are co-determined by the close interrelationship between economic, social, and cultural aspects that have settled over time and in space. Furthermore, these interrelationships are strongly rooted in each landscape. The landscape is meant as in indicator of sustainability, a sort of "interface between humans and nature", a "litmus paper" for the effects that human activities produce on natural components of the planet (water, land, air, flora and fauna), affecting their quantity, quality, and distribution, as well as the cultural value of the territory.
The current processes of planning and managing the development of urban landscapes share the intent to address sustainability challenges. At the same time, current planning approaches are criticized for still ignoring the integration of interventions and effects among different (spatial) scales (‘transversality’) and sectors (‘cross-sectorial’), while also often observing path dependencies among the involved actors and their actual agency towards decision making in landscape planning (van Assche et al. 2012; Truffer et al. 2010). Recent literature on landscape research suggests that creating sustainable landscapes is more successful when local communities feel ownership in their future environment (Opdam et al. 2018).
As a response, experimentation entails multiple actors collaboratively and creatively trialing new ways of organizing, doing, relating and in this way, generating alternative (forms of) innovative solutions with the potential to address contemporary urban (landscape) challenges (Frantzeskaki et al. 2018). To date, these actors from different contexts (e.g. private sector, knowledge organizations, public administration, civil society) involved in developing urban landscape futures do not automatically meet, understand and cooperate with each other. They still engage within different societal subsystems, institutional settings and spatial contexts.
Based on transition theory, the project aims to describe the conditions for niche-regime interactions challenging the current landscape governance regime (or regime of landscape management/planning). More specifically, we seek for ways to alter the existing coalitions of actors together with their given, immanent power to co-develop landscapes (e.g. the coalition urban developers and civil servants in planning departments of cities and regions). In addition, we aim at describing the platforms and spaces, in which transversality and cross-sectoral thinking and doing with respect to landscape governance in the light of the ELC can further emerge.
In theory, enabling the participation of these diverse actors in co-creating the urban landscape is seen as a democratic obligation in most European countries. Participation is often foreseen to generate legitimacy for the later decision-making by societal consultation and inclusion. However, the degree, type and actual uptake of participatory consultations vary substantially. For Smart-U-Green the recommendable form of governance would be a form of co-production involving both private and public actors, established actors as well as newcomers.
Participatory involvement of actors
The current scientific literature delivers a precise picture of the set of relevant stakeholders within the existing landscape development regime. In a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in Switzerland, Stauffacher et al. (2008) presented a framework for stakeholder involvement including representatives from the public sector (e.g. civil servants for economic promotion, agriculture & forestry, environmental protection, cultural heritage and tourism), mayors from involved communities, farmers and local business representatives for the private sector, and different representatives from the public at large. Central to such integrated landscape initiatives is the aim to facilitate the co-design of strategies for the landscape development by public, private, and civil society actors.
The diversity of stakeholders from different societal sectors is known from cross-sector concepts of inclusive innovation systems, also referred to triple helix or quadruple helix models (McAdam & Debackere 2018). For example, in the context of regional innovation ecosystems, the quadruple helix model suggests to connect actors from the private sector, public sector/government, academia, and civil society. However, facilitating knowledge generation and deliberative decision-making processes among large groups of divergent actors remain an ambivalent challenge. Providing procedural guidance on the appropriate selection and inclusion of stakeholders, the fair distribution of articulating interests and demands, the fruitful knowledge exchange and integration, as well as the legitimacy of collectively generated ideas and strategies remain subject to controversial aspects of any participatory multi-actor process. The private sector refers to all types of knowledge organizations with a main purpose to generate and exchange (scientific) knowledge about landscape governance with actors from other societal domains. The public sector subsumes all state functions and services with respect to landscape development. Finally, with civil society, primarily refers to the public at large in different roles, be it as engaged citizens, house owner, or citizens formally organized in NGO’s or other groups.
When considering the literature of sustainability transitions in general, and the theoretical work on transition management and strategic niche management, it appears useful to introduce the actor categories of ‘frontrunners’ and ‘urban niche pioneers’ here. This actor refers to their shown commitment of doing and organizing urban life differently. In transition theory, frontrunners are seen as actors with a concerted commitment to be a first mover in bringing radically new ways of doing, thinking and organizing into practice: “inhabitants and professionals who are passionate about and active in the neighborhood, feel the urgency for change, have new ideas and/or think about or engage in creative actions” (Wittmeyer et al. 2018, p. 194). Within the Smart-U-Green project a participatory integrated assessment (Cuppen 2010; Hisschemoller & Cuppen 2015) will give due attention to (1) the involvement of stakeholders representing the largest variety of perspectives on (green) urban landscape quality and (2) an open dialogue, which deviates from ´normal´ conditions in that stakeholders representing marginal viewpoints and stakeholders representing more mainstream viewpoints have equal weight in the process.
Integrated landscape governance
Adaptive planning
One of the tools for integrating and distributing environmental benefits is adaptive planning (Isgren et al. 2017). One key idea is that when too much emphasis is put in problem identification and solution, it usually ends in unintended negative outcomes (Verweij, Thompson 2007). As a matter of consequences, the planning of urban landscapes should be less about how to find solutions to pre-determined problems, than understanding the dynamics that give rise to desirable and undesirable phenomena: planning has to move from a prescriptive activity to a process of learning. Urban labs, joint fact-finding and public forums may help fostering synergistic urban lifestyles that are desirable, attainable, maintainable and reproducible— realizing what is usually called "meta design planning" (Justus, Taylor 2011). However — as part of adaptive planning — collaborative action is anything but obvious. The greatest and more general difficulty is a lack of legitimacy for the process itself and for its outcomes (Lang et al. 2012), that often interfere with legitimized procedures and official politics (Scholz 2010).
Urban living labs
Urban living labs (ULL) are critical public opinion spheres to find solutions and establish collaborations within cities. They define a setting where collaboration, co-creation, experimentation and learning can take place (Mancebo 2017; Puerari et al. 2018) between different actors from diverse societal spheres (e.g. Civil Society, Private Sector, Academia, Public Sector). ULL can fulfill a useful function as trialing and learning platforms for urban sustainability challenges. Co-creation in ULL enables cross-sectoral reflection and envisioning of solutions. ULL can increase contributions to public value by monitoring their activities and achievements and by continuously disseminating lessons learnt through storytelling, cooperating with network partners by establishing opportunities for the uptake of experiments in different places and in policies as well as finding business models of how to continuously operate the ULL (von Wirth et al. 2018).
Joint fact-finding
Joint fact-finding is a strategy for resolving factual disputes that are at the heart of scientific controversies. All stakeholders are engaged in an analytic discussion in order to facilitate agreement among them. Such debates integrate scientific and technical information into a decision-making process (McCreary, Gamman, Brooks 2001). The first part is information gathering, and second part is a negotiating process. A convenor initiates a possible consensus building process by asking a neutral party to conduct a stakeholder assessment. Through this assessment, the neutral party identifies stakeholders and assesses their interests, capacities, and potential for reaching consensus-based agreements. Then, the parties engage in a process of deliberation in which they create value by generating options or packages for mutual gain. The parties distribute the value that was created by forming recommendations or proposals for agreement. In joint fact-finding, experts and non-experts have both an important role during all phases. That means, the collection and use of scientific and technical data for decision-making processes become more transparent; as do the inputs for implementing decisions.
Disciplinary city
All these practices provide attempts to answer the criticism of functionalism in urban planning (Dreyfus 1976): a rationalized planning that gives full power to the project manager (e.g. the architect and real estate developer) and the land owner (e.g. the State, the farmer). The criticism addresses a currently segmented, technicized, bureaucratized and hierarchical organization of urban planning – occurring in a system of stable actors. The critic is brought up against a stable system of actors that control the license (qualification) required for a mandate to develop space and take decisions on behalf of other societal actors and their values and attitudes. Aiming at a radical transformation of these criticized structures creates uncertainties. That means, transformative attempts must also incorporate trust-(re)building and making legitimacy of new approaches strongly apparent.
In this context, the notion of user management is relevant, which refers to the field of urban studies rather than urban planning. The user manager is an actor that allows to position the user of urban space at the heart of urban thinking. The needs and expectations of different users (e.g. citizens, business, tourists) are taken into account during the process of developing an urban project. In this way, a user manager can contribute to create co-ownership of the project, long-term costs are controlled by efficient development and confidence is restored to the actors of urban production. One way of operationalizing this in practice is the idea to analyze the differentiated uses of city areas according to temporalities and socio-cultural groups. For urban authorities, this is another way of informing state programs for city dwellers, services and urban cycles. It aims at recognizing the user expertise to establish respect for each stakeholder within a project context. The calling for the position of urban user management is a political endeavor. It aims at defending a democratic approach to city making (Gehl 2013). However, the notion of "management" can refer to the fact of driving safe behavior (“insured risks”). However, here the aim is to restore the balance between mastery and non-mastery, letting uncertainty and risk expression evolve in order to have a flourishing rich urban life of diversity.
The Dutch Research Institute for Transitions DRIFT is coordinator of Smart-U-Green. It is renowned for its research on sustainability transitions and transition management. In Smart-U-Green, DRIFT acted as project leader, responsible for WP1 and 2.
Derk Loorbach is one of the founders of transition management, professor of socio-economic transitions and director of DRIFT. He led a number of projects around regional transformation and is a member of the committee on Landscape of the Dutch Council for the Environment and Infrastructure (RLI).
Matthijs Hisschemöller has contributed to theory and method of problem structuring in public policy analysis and participatory methodology with a focus on participatory integrated assessment and research methods for the articulation of stakeholder perspectives.
Timo von Wirth is postdoctoral researcher in DRIFT. He addresses transformative change in cities as well as in the energy sector. A geographer and economist by training, his current work as a Senior Researcher aims at understanding new approaches of urban governance and the role of person-place relations in urban sustainability transitions.
SAAD is particularly focused on interdisciplinary research in the fields of urban, landscape and territorial planning. It has a track record in interdisciplinary modelling of urban landscape quality indicators. SAAD UNICAM led WP3.
Massimo Sargolini is full professor in Urban, Territorial, and Landscape Planning, member of the IUCN, director of the Research Center on Territory and Landscape (Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies of Pisa, UNICAM), director of interdisciplinary research platform SUSTAINSCAPES.
Ilenia Pierantoni is postodoctoral researcher at SAAD. Architect, member of the Spin-off TERRE.it, University of Camerino since 2013, she is Assistant Professor on Territorial and Landscape Planning at the School of Architecture and Design of the University of Camerino from 2010, and works as planner on landscape and territorial planning in a number of different geographical contexts. The research and work activities are focused on the intersections between human activity, environmental change and planning policies.
The Institute of Urban Planning (IATEUR) and its laboratory (CRDT) have a leading position at the national level on sustainability science. Its central topic is: how can societies most effectively guide or manage human-environment systems toward sustainability transition? IATEUR CRDT was responsible for leading WP4 and dissemination activities.
François Mancebo is full professor of sustainability and planning at the university of Reims, lead faculty of the IHDP Earth System Governance, director of the IATEUR/IRCS. His research focus on updating planning so as to include sustainability and environmental issues.
Sylvie Salles is full professor in landscape project at the National Superior School of Landscape of Versailles, member of IRCS. Her scientific interests concern urban sustainability, landscape planning, landscape architecture and urban ecology.
Florian Guérin is post-PhD in urban sociology at CRDT, assistant professor at School of Architecture Paris Val de Seine, and consultant in mastery of use. His research focus on public spaces, temporality, governance and pedestrian mobility.
Drechtsteden Region is a cooperation of seven cities in the Delta area of Holland. Drechtsteden has an agenda focused on strengthening the region as a "Maritime Top Region". Drechtsteden has developed on the riverbanks of the rivers Noord, Merwede and Oude Maas. Surrounding this blue heart are three polder-landscapes, each one with their own distinct qualities. There are three unique icons that attract visitors from all over the world: the oldest city of Holland, the UNESCO heritage site of Kinderdijk Windmills, and National Park Biesbosch. Drechtsteden contributed to consortium meetings and supported the project.
Marche Region, through the Department of the Environment and Territory, has started for several years the so-called “Landscape Project” (“Progetto Paesaggio”). It aims at the creation of new landscape quality in all different contexts of the region. Marche Region can boast therefore long experience about these issues, starting from the elaboration of the Regional Landscape and Environmental Plan (1989), one of the first Italian examples of Landscape plan that features a strong relationship with specifically environmental issues. The co-operation partner provided information and data about the case study of Ancona. Marche Region contributed to consortium meetings and supported the project.
Reims is a medium-sized French city that gives its name to the agglomeration of Grand Reims, close to Paris and the Belgian borders. Many caves and tunnels under Reims form a sort of maze below the city where the Champagne is stored. Besides, Reims is transforming into a knowledge intensive, regional oriented economy with worldwide renown. It is specially interested in determining smart governance methods based on experimentation and social learning, that would help combining urban landscape protection, planning and management in a context of transition to sustainability in the urban-rural continuum. Grand Reims contributed to consortium meetings and supported the project.
Christopher Bryant, Adjunct Professsor with the Université de Montréal and the University of Guelph, holds a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and Political Science (1970). He is an internationally recognized leader in rural and small town research and on the planning and management of peri-urban agriculture in North America and Western Europe.
The Department of Urban Planning, Spatial Planning and Landscape Architecture is part of the Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb. Prof. Ph.D. Mladen Obad Šćitaroci (Full professor of Urban and Physical planning), and prof. Ph.D. Bojana Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci (Associate professor of Landscape architecture) have been studying for long time the relationship between natural and cultural heritage and the Croatian urban and landscape planning issues in a European perspective. As experts in spatial identity issues, they meaningfully contributed to the project Smart-U-Green by sharing their know-how in the management of natural and cultural assets in an urban-rural context.
PskovSU is the center of educational, cultural and scientific life of the Pskov region, which makes it into the main strategic center in the field of cooperation with the European Union and the Baltic region countries. The Faculty of Natural Sciences, Medical and Psychological education was organized in 2015. The group of researchers has been involved in many collaborative projects on environmental governance funded by inter alia EU TEMPUS, Erasmus and the Estonia-Latvia-Russia ENPI CBC Program. Pskov University contributed to all WPs, and offered to be venue for a consortium or dialogue meeting. Olga Likhacheva and Tatiana Vasileva worked on the project. Olga Likhacheva, associate professor at the Department for Botany and Plant Ecology at Pskov State University, has a background in biology and chemistry. Olga’s current research focuses on plant and lichen diversity of Pskov region in ecosystems under a gradient of environmental impacts.
NGO Ekapraekt was founded in 2002 by members of the Belarusian Green Party as an expert and science-policy panel of the organization. Ekapraekt contributed in kind 70 days to the project, and concentrated on WP2 and WP4. It proposed the city Mahilioŭ as a case study location for this project. It has interest of the local government in new policy tools and approaches, and gives Smart-U-Green a good chance for application and dissemination. Anton Shkaruba is Deputy Chair of the Central Council of Ekapraekt (since 2010), and a Research Affiliate within the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy at Central European University in Budapest (since 2007).
CivilScape is, since 2008, a Network of European Non-Governmental Organizations, Regional and Local Authorities which dedicate their work to landscape protection, management and planning, for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention. The network's activities aim at increasing dialogue between civil society, public authorities and economic stakeholders on all levels, by sharing opinions with responsible policy-makers and promoting outcomes and consequences of decision-making on all political levels. It took part in meetings and contributed especially to WP2, by identifying local NGOs for each of the three study areas, and WP4, by making recommendations for governing the sustainability transition and the quality of urban rural landscape continuum in the case study areas and beyond, with an approximate overall investment of 15 working days. The Director is Dirk Gotzmann.
