IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i4p3486-d1068019.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which Landscape for Which Community? Opportunities and Pitfalls in the Application of the European Landscape Convention in Uncollaborative Context

Author

Listed:
  • Annalisa Giampino

    (Department of Architecture, University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy)

  • Gloria Lisi

    (Department of Architecture, University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy)

  • Filippo Schilleci

    (Department of Architecture, University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy)

Abstract

This article attempts to assess the various ambiguities in the application of the principles of the European Landscape Convention (ELC) in Italy and is divided into two main sections. In the first, a theoretical framework is constructed, analyzing the link between “environment”, “territory” and “landscape”. Attention is focused on the consequences that the different perspectives open up on both the value and operational levels, as well as dealing with attempts at definition. The idea of community is then questioned and some theoretical and practical challenges related to involvement and participation in landscape planning processes are analyzed. In the second part of the paper, the relationship between the city of Palermo (IT) and the Oreto River is taken as an extreme example in the theoretical argumentation and is examined from the perspective of development and current bottom-up practices. The aim of the research is to provide a divergent point of view on the concept of community and identity as this constitutes the foundation of the ELC definition of landscape, through an argumentation that is applicable in general and not only related to particular circumstances, in order to fully apply the ELC also in controversial and peripheral situations where landscape struggles to be accepted by local communities as a common good.

Suggested Citation

  • Annalisa Giampino & Gloria Lisi & Filippo Schilleci, 2023. "Which Landscape for Which Community? Opportunities and Pitfalls in the Application of the European Landscape Convention in Uncollaborative Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3486-:d:1068019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3486/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3486/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Butler & Ulla Berglund, 2014. "Landscape Character Assessment as an Approach to Understanding Public Interests within the European Landscape Convention," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 219-236, June.
    2. Bas Pedroli & Marc Antrop & Teresa Pinto Correia, 2013. "Editorial: Living Landscape: The European Landscape Convention in Research Perspective," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 691-694, December.
    3. Thomas Oles & Karin Hammarlund, 2011. "The European Landscape Convention, Wind Power, and the Limits of the Local: Notes from Italy and Sweden," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 471-485.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Andrew Lothian, 2022. "Visual Resource Stewardship—An International Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-38, March.
    2. Barbanente, Angela & Grassini, Laura, 2022. "Fostering transitions in landscape policies: A multi-level perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    3. Rocío Silva-Pérez & Gema González-Romero, 2022. "GIAHS as an Instrument to Articulate the Landscape and Territorialized Agrifood Systems—The Example of La Axarquía (Malaga Province, Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Zizhen Hong & Wentao Cao & Ying Chen & Sijia Zhu & Wenjun Zheng, 2024. "Identifying Rural Landscape Heritage Character Types and Areas: A Case Study of the Li River Basin in Guilin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-24, February.
    6. Fabrizio Galadini, 2022. "Ruins and Remains as a Background: Natural Catastrophes, Abandonment of Medieval Villages, and the Perspective of Civilization during the 20th Century in the Central Apennines (Abruzzi Region, Central," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-43, August.
    7. Enrico Pomatto & Marco Devecchi & Federica Larcher, 2022. "Coevolution between Terraced Landscapes and Rural Communities: An Integrated Approach Using Expert-Based Assessment and Evaluation of Winegrowers’ Perceptions (Northwest Piedmont, Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-27, July.
    8. Fei Ye & Enjie Su & Yanchun Wei & Changxin Xu & Xing Liang, 2020. "Investigation of esthetic evaluation and its influencing factors for a tunnel portal based on dynamic vision," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Anna Bocheńska-Skałecka & Maria Ostrowska-Dudys & Edward Hutnik & Wojciech Jakubowski, 2022. "Parameterization in the Analysis of Changes in the Rural Landscape on the Example of Agritourism Farms in Kłodzko District (Poland)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-21, June.
    10. Yulian Pan & Yunong Wu & Xi Xu & Bin Zhang & Weifu Li, 2022. "Identifying Terrestrial Landscape Character Types in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Ricardo Martín & Víctor Yepes, 2023. "Landscape Values in a Marina in Granada (Spain): Enhancing Landscape Management through Public Participation," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, February.
    12. Johan Svensson & Wiebke Neumann & Therese Bjärstig & Anna Zachrisson & Camilla Thellbro, 2020. "Landscape Approaches to Sustainability—Aspects of Conflict, Integration, and Synergy in National Public Land-Use Interests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, June.
    13. Iván Franch-Pardo & Brian M. Napoletano & Gerardo Bocco & Sara Barrasa & Luis Cancer-Pomar, 2017. "The Role of Geographical Landscape Studies for Sustainable Territorial Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-23, November.
    14. Merethe Dotterud Leiren & Stine Aakre & Kristin Linnerud & Tom Erik Julsrud & Maria-Rosaria Di Nucci & Michael Krug, 2020. "Community Acceptance of Wind Energy Developments: Experience from Wind Energy Scarce Regions in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, February.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3486-:d:1068019. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.