IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v70y2018icp52-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uses of the word ‘landskap’ in Swedish municipalities’ comprehensive plans: Does the European Landscape Convention require a modified understanding?

Author

Listed:
  • Sandström, Ulf G.
  • Hedfors, Per

Abstract

This paper examines the potential of Swedish comprehensive plans and thematic additions to such plans in the implementation of the European Landscape Convention (ELC): specifically by comparing how the word landscape is used. First, we reviewed a selection of Swedish municipal comprehensive plans by recording the use of variations of the term landscape. Second, we studied the contextual usage of these recorded variations to see if it was compatible with the seemingly holistic approach in the ELC. Third, we discuss whether our sample of comprehensive plans presented obstacles to the implementation of the ELC. We carried out this research by identifying the Swedish word 'landskap' (Eng. landscape) in a sample of comprehensive plans published prior to the implementation of the ELC in Sweden. A requirement for the study was that the meanings of landscape in English are not necessarily equivalent to the meanings of ‘landskap’ in Swedish. In the reviewed plans 119 different terms originating from the word landscape were detected although no clear definitions of the terms were given in the plans. The authors of the plans used the word 'landskap' in multiple ways in order to specify a wide range of aspects related to landscape. The absence of definitions entails a risk that planners and decision-makers incorrectly assume that the concepts are familiar to potential readers of the documents. Many different uses of the word indicate that the word itself was considered to be useful in planning processes, but hardly connected to an explicit theoretical framework as intended in the ELC. Based on the usage in our sample, we discuss classifications of the word landscape and distinguish three main categories for its use: policy, process, and characterisation. The results contribute to an understanding of the introductory guidelines that need to be developed if the comprehensive plans would operate as effective instruments for comparable implementation of the ELC across the country. Nevertheless, this study indicates that the comprehensive planning in Sweden is suited for the implementation of ELC. An appropriate approach in planning may be to arrange negotiations between the parties concerned in the process regarding the local landscape in terms of values that people associate with the particular landscape and its roles at a current location. The comprehensive planning processes are suggested as natural arenas for such negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandström, Ulf G. & Hedfors, Per, 2018. "Uses of the word ‘landskap’ in Swedish municipalities’ comprehensive plans: Does the European Landscape Convention require a modified understanding?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 52-62.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:52-62
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837715300053
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.060?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maggie Roe, 2013. "Policy Change and ELC Implementation: Establishment of a Baseline for Understanding the Impact on UK National Policy of the European Landscape Convention," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 768-798, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simensen, Trond & Halvorsen, Rune & Erikstad, Lars, 2018. "Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: A systematic review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 557-569.
    2. František Petrovič & Martin Boltižiar & Iveta Rakytová & Ivana Tomčíková & Eva Pauditšová, 2021. "Long-Term Development Trend of the Historical Cultural Landscape of the UNESCO Monument: Vlkolínec (Slovakia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    3. Angélique, Begue & Esméralda, Longépée & Anne-Elisabeth, Laques, 2021. "Local public authorities’ and French mainland landscape advisers’ perception of landscape in Mayotte Island: The issues of quality of life in a developing region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. František Petrovič & Martin Boltižiar & Iveta Rakytová & Ivana Tomčíková & Eva Pauditšová, 2021. "Long-Term Development Trend of the Historical Cultural Landscape of the UNESCO Monument: Vlkolínec (Slovakia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Andrew Lothian, 2022. "Visual Resource Stewardship—An International Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-38, March.
    3. Barbanente, Angela & Grassini, Laura, 2022. "Fostering transitions in landscape policies: A multi-level perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:52-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.