Workshop 6 – Managing and connecting ecological, landscape and cultural values of regions

Liveable landscapes: a key value for sustainable territorial development

Efrén Feliu / Gemma GarcíaUrban Environment and Territorial Sustainability TECNALIA efren.feliu@tecnalia.com

ESPON Internal Seminar 2013

“Territorial Evidence for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020and Territorial Agenda 2020”

LIVELAND project approach conceives that landscape (assessment, planning

and management) “could enrich and improve spatial planning in different ways (integrated and participatory approach),

being an asset for harmonious territorial development , smart and sustainable economic development”.

In order to prove this hypothesis LIVELAND analyses landscape practices and territorial development in different European planning systems at different levels of decision making.

2

Liveland frameworkLiveland framework

3

Local: Midden- Delfland (NL) y Offenburg (D)

Six cases Six cases studiesstudies

Regional Basque Country(ES), Navarra Region (ES), y Ljubljana Urban Region(SI)

National Thy National Park (DK)

4

Project work flowProject work flow

Benchmarking exercise as the research cornerstone

5

what we do understand by landscape?what we do understand by landscape?

an “area as perceived by people”; (ELC, 2003)

‘Landscape as a resource’ relates to a materiality found in physical space.

‘Landscape as institution’ refers to interactions of society with space and territory. A useful term in analysing landscape as an institution is that of ‘cultural landscape’.

LIVELAND project particularly focuses on the definition of

““LIVEABLE LANDSCAPES”LIVEABLE LANDSCAPES”

Liveability is more than what can be measured quantitatively by economic an environmental indexes.

Liveability is, in many instances, seen as closely related to quality of life. However ‘quality-of-life indexes’ are based mainly on economic factors.

Nevertheless as a starting point -by literature review- it is possible to identify a set of components that are commonly agreed on to be important for liveability (embraced)

6

How have we defined ”Liveability”?How have we defined ”Liveability”?

Components of Liveability

By means of “Landscape functions”

“the capacity of the natural processes and components to supply goods and services that satisfy human needs, direct or indirectly” (De Groot)

7

Analysis of landscape´s liveabilityAnalysis of landscape´s liveability

Qualitative assessments based on cases Baseline Analysis and stakeholders interviews , combined with quantitative procedures

Common Analytical Framework (CAF)

8

Benchmarking landscape practicesBenchmarking landscape practices

Double entrance matrix to systematically identify best practices in addressing functional aspects of liveability at the different components and stages of planning

• Evaluation and analysis• Planning processes and

participation• Strategy and vision• Actions and measures• Monitoring• Procedures and

decision making

• Cultural• Economic• Social• Health• Freedom

9

Benchmarking resultsBenchmarking results

Mature spatial planning system and well developed planning systems allow better integration of landscape concept and approaches

Early participation and consultation

Cooperation and coordination – multilevel governance

Funding and financial support

Multi-scale and multi-sectoral approach to landscape: combined bottom-up and top- down approaches

10

Success factors Success factors

11

Landscape as an asset

Landscape’s and nature’s contribution to liveability landscape, open green spaces and a certain amount of natural elements in the environment contributes to increase wellbeing and higher liveability1

Landscape is no longer perceived only as ecological value.

Landscape functions includes economic perspective: Material resources. Tourism, leisure, recreation, etc. Education, research. Attractiveness, territorial branding

How could ecological, landscape and cultural assets support growth and job creation in regions How could ecological, landscape and cultural assets support growth and job creation in regions and cities?and cities?

1 (e.g. Abraham, Sommerhalder and Abel 2010; Finke 2009; Körner, Nagel and Bellin-Harder 2009; Ward Thompson, Aspinall and Bell 2010).

Investment for Landscape protection, planning and management is considered aligned with economic development (territorial asset – linked to cultural and economic functions) Strengthen Landscape link with territorial identity: Territorial cohesion in

EU all regions should identify their own potentials- differentiation, singularity as a strong value for endogenous territorial strategies

Enhancing territorial branding, as is the case of Navarra, Basque Country or Midden-Delfland, interesting for Thy NP

Strengthen Landscape Attractiveness and its link to: Quality of life Tourism, real state Other economic sectors: Public-private partnerships and investments.

Contribution to strategies of deprived areas boosting landscape management as a way of promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, and avoid losing population

Liveable landscapes as a response to degradation and social exclusion12

Manage spatial development patterns for enhancing landscape functions in terms of

• Multifunctional landscapes wherever possible

• Integrating compatible uses such as sustainable agriculture and forestry e.g

• Connectivity

Incorporation of landscape perspective into other policies like the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

Also landscape is addressed as a key element in adaptation strategies (regulatory functions), water cycle -quality and supply- flooding regulation direct correlation between “precipitation / run-off / land cover-use”

13

Where could ecological systems and natural heritage areas be integrated Where could ecological systems and natural heritage areas be integrated into green infrastructure networks?into green infrastructure networks?

There is a debate regarding the need for an formal plan legally binding versus the integration of landscape considerations in the already available plans and instruments of the planning system (land use plans at local level or spatial planning plans at regional/subregional level).

The analysis of the practices revealed that having a formal landscape plan is not guarantee of best practice in terms of liveability and other landscapes practices could be as relevant as the formal plans.

What additional territorial evidence do policy makers need in this context?What additional territorial evidence do policy makers need in this context?

14

Strong and comprehensive methodology for landscape evaluation within the landscape practices as a precondition of success – Landscape evaluation has a value in itself

Multifunctionality of landscape: there is a need for development of methods where the question of harmonious and disharmonious functionalities could be a way of improving the planning process.

Need of developing tools which enables the inclusion of differences in relation to both intensity and diversity in landscapes use.

Development of landscape quality objectives and criteria for action in relation to European infrastructures

Reinforce the relations between environmental policies and territorial development through landscape policies

Strengthen the role of landscape in the urban-rural relationship

Inventory of Landscapes of general interest

15

Landscape key issue for territorial development in cross-border areas- LP3LP

More research is needed for detecting territories with complementary potential towards sustainable land use

Landscape and Governance: Considering the political, technical and administrative dimensions of Landscape management, it could be argued that they perfectly fits into the governance principles, above all: subsidiarity and participation (social vision of landscape), openness and liability (administrative coordination and effective articulation and management of competences) efficiency and coherency (organization with respect to the different polices and administrative levels from local to European)

16