Founded in 1946, Kohtla-Jarve resembles hundreds of mining towns across the former Soviet Union: ... more Founded in 1946, Kohtla-Jarve resembles hundreds of mining towns across the former Soviet Union: all of them developed under advantageous conditions, but now facing problems typical to rust-belt zones. The neglected buildings in Kohtla-Jarve have scarred the urban fabric for 20 years, and the city has only managed to tear down some of them. Most of these abandoned houses remain as symbols of the radical change in socio-economic system, from central planning to a market economy. Production of oil-shale in the area has dropped by half, but still accounts for roughly 90 % of Estonia’s total energy production—Kohtla-Jarve has thus avoided becoming a ghost-town, but because of the difficult financial situation only cosmetic changes take place in the townscape. Urban renewal happened fast, for a while, but has now come almost to a complete halt. This chapter combines two levels of analysis: one, an abstract cartographical analysis of the townscape development, particularly in terms of physical buildings; and two, an account of insiders’ life-course and quotidian movements, drawing also on my own personal experience. Combining quantitative and qualitative data in this way might further an improved understanding of urban landscape renewal—and standstill. Shifting between scales, the argument also highlights how apparent rupture or continuity may be an artefact of analytical frames.
This paper explores the landscape preferences and value assessments of local people in six Estoni... more This paper explores the landscape preferences and value assessments of local people in six Estonian counties plus two more detailed test areas. Based on questionnaires and interviews, we study the sense of place and landscape valuations of the local people. We describe which places local people value, how they assess the changes which have occurred during the last decade and which landscapes they consider characteristic to Estonia. We argue that knowledge and, thereby, identity are local and a county is too large a unit for studying this. We also suggest that there are mental borders beyond which the knowledge does not reach, that knowing the history of the area helps people to appreciate their places and maintain them and that social sustainability is crucial in landscape
Dear Colleagues,
The nexus of culture, landscape, and sustainability is not a new research area ... more Dear Colleagues,
The nexus of culture, landscape, and sustainability is not a new research area (Palang et al. 2017). The issue of sustainable future management of old cultural landscapes had already been raised in 1999 by Vos and Meekes. Although culture is not so self-evident in the visions of United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, Routledge has been running a book series on Studies in Culture and Sustainable Development, since 2015. Furthermore, based on its integrative, interrelating, and interlinking character, as a strand of sustainability, should cultural sustainability altogether be considered a separate pillar, intersecting the ecological, economic, and social dimensions or forming the basis of them all (Dessein et al. 2015, Soini and Dessein 2016)?
Although we claim that all landscapes are cultural, cultural change continues to impart upon and imbue landscapes with new qualities and characteristics (e.g., renewable energy ones or eco-villages) with newly emergent lifestyles and expectations. How are we to operationalize sustainability in these new contexts of landscape change (Antrop 2006)? In the ongoing series of crises (i.e., climate change, energy and food crises, war, pandemics, migration and economic depression, tourism, etc.) unforeseen developments — both positive and negative — may become a mainstay, despite long-term landscape planning visions and strategies. How to tackle reactionary, adaptive, counter-active (i.e., re-wilding), resilient, interim-usage and conservative, or other processes in our landscapes? Landscape transformation has been seen as a rather stable development in recent decades, while acknowledging changes in the values that landscapes represent in their constant state of becoming (Pavlis and Terkenli 2017). What is or may be the role of culture in landscape planning, use, management, stewardship and governance, and vice versa (Terkenli and Georgoula 2022)?
Meanwhile, landscape sustainability as a science continues to evolve (Wu 2013, 2021). In light of the ‘new reality’ presently faced by humanity, do we need to accommodate (cultural) sustainability in landscapes accordingly, as in, for example, ‘quiet sustainability’ (e.g., Smith and Jehlička 2013) or degrowth? Is sutainability (Kuhlman and Farrington 2010), as well as cultural sustainability (Soini and Birkeland 2014), relevant or even meaningful and desirable, in newly emergent landscape contexts? How do top-down policy-making interacts with bottom-up needs and priorities and how may these best accommodated in the landscape? Finally, how do these overly complex and often vaguely-defined concepts (culture, landscape, and sustainability) come together in socio-spacial experience and practice?
This Special Issue seeks to ascertain and highlight recent theoretical and epistemological contributions, as well as methodological innovations and empirical applications, in the contemporary interdisciplinary field constituting of research areas on culture, landscape, and sustainability. We invite research ranging from specific case studies to theoretical-methodological inroads into scientific areas of interface between and among these three research subjects: culture and landscape, cultural sustainability, and landscape sustainability.
References Antrop, M. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75 (3–4), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.014 Dessein, J.; Soini, K.; Fairclough, G.; Horlings, L. (eds.) Culture in, for and as Sustainable Development. Conclusions from the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability. University of Jyväskylä, Finland, 2015. Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113436 Palang, H.; Soini, K.; Printsmann, A.; Birkeland, I. Landscape and cultural sustainability. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 2017, 71 (3), 127−131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1343381 Pavlis, E.; Terkenli, T.S. Landscape values and the question of 'cultural sustainability': exploring an uncomfortable relationship in the case of Greece. Norsk. Geogr. Tidsskr. 2017, 71 (3), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1345977 Smith, J.; Jehlička, P. Quiet sustainability: fertile lessons from Europe's productive gardeners. J. Rural Stud. 2013, 32, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.002 Soini, K.; Birkeland, I. Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum 2014, 51, 213–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.001 Soini, K.; Dessein, J. Culture-sustainability relation: towards a conceptual framework. Sustainability 2016, 8, 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020167 Terkenli, T.S.; Georgoula, V. Tourism and cultural sustainability: views and prospects from Cyclades, Greece. Sustainability 2022, 14 (1), 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010307 Vos, W.; Meekes, H. Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 46 (1–3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00043-2 Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 2013, 28 (6), 999–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9 Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science (II): core questions and key approaches. Landscape Ecol. 2021, 36 (8), 2453–2485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01245-3
SustainBaltic projekt, st Rannikuala integreeritud korralduskavad toetamaks rannikualade ja mere ... more SustainBaltic projekt, st Rannikuala integreeritud korralduskavad toetamaks rannikualade ja mere sotsiaal-ökoloogilisi võrgustikke Läänemere regioonis, teostati 27 kuu jooksul 2016-2018. SustainBaltic (CB354) on rahastatud Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondi (European Regional Development Fund – ERDF) Interregi Kesk-Läänemere Programmi 2014–2020 kaudu. SustainBaltic koostööprojektis osalesid Eesti Maaülikool, Tallinna Ülikool, Turu Ülikool, Soome Keskkonnainstituut ja Satakunta maakonnavalitsus. Projekti eesmärk on parandada rannikualade kavandamist Kesk-Läänemere piirkonnas rahvusvahelise koostöö käigus koostatud rannikualade integreeritud korralduskavade kaudu neljal testalal (kaks Soomes ja kaks Eestis). Seda teostati järgnevate tegevusetappide kaudu: 1) multidistiplinaarsete sotsiaal-ökoloogiliste andmete integreerimine projekti regionaalsete alade kohta (Eestis Läänemaa, Lääne-Viru ja Harjumaa); 2) rannikuala korralduskavade koostamiseks täpsemate testalade valimine; 3) korralduskava...
The project involved partners: Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tallinn University, Universi... more The project involved partners: Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tallinn University, University of Turku, Finnish Environment Intitute, and Regional Council of SatakuntaSustainBaltic i.e. ICZM Plans for Sustaining Coastal and Marine Human-ecological Networks in the Baltic Region project is implemented for 27 months during 2016- 2018. SustainBaltic (CB354) is funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the Central Baltic Programme 2014-2020. SustainBaltic is a joint cooperation project of University of Turku, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Finnish Environment Institute, Regional Council of Satakunta and Tallinn University. The project targets to improve the share of the managed coastal networks in the Central Baltic area by the cross-border preparation of the ICZM plans for total four case areas with their public assessment in Estonia and Finland. This was planned to achieve by 1) Integrating multidisciplinary human-ecological data on the whole project ar...
HERCULES develops insights, tools, technologies and strategies and applies and tests theseat regi... more HERCULES develops insights, tools, technologies and strategies and applies and tests theseat regional case studies that span major environmental and land use history gradientsthroughout Europe. As ...
T he following glossary of terms related to the European agricultural landscape shall serve as a ... more T he following glossary of terms related to the European agricultural landscape shall serve as a common basis for all parties, working in or on agricultural landscapes. Some of the terms are quite common and sometimes used in our every day language, but they often have different meanings in particular countries. These differences may be a result of varying linguistic developments, history and traditions. The glossary contains 40 terms in seven languages; English, Dutch, Estonian, French, German, Hungarian, and Spanish. Each term begins with an English definition, illustrated by a photograph. If there are differences in meanings and connotations of single countries, they are mentioned in the designated country’s column. This work is to be continued.
One of the goals of Work Package (WP) 3 of HERCULES is to reconstruct and assess the shortterm ch... more One of the goals of Work Package (WP) 3 of HERCULES is to reconstruct and assess the shortterm changes and dynamics of cultural landscapes, using a case study approach. In this deliverable, we aim ...
Work package (WP) 3 aim is to reconstruct and assess the short-term past changes and dynamics of ... more Work package (WP) 3 aim is to reconstruct and assess the short-term past changes and dynamics of cultural landscapes, using case study approach. As a more detailed analysis can be carried out in smaller spatial scale, Study Municipalities (SM) were distinguished within Study Landscapes (SL). The aim of this deliverable is to present the results of the task of “Compiled timelines of cultural landscape change (CTCLC)” based on land use / land cover (LULC) change analysis of maps and aerial images since mid-19th century from scales 1:10,000 – 1:50,000 digitised and generalised to 1:50,000 level. The variety of available maps, scales and level of detail for each SM in different natural, physical, political, social and cultural environment is enormous and does not justify cross-SM comparisons on LULC level. Still, some individual conclusions for CTCLC for specific SM can be drawn: 1. Estonia: SL – Vooremaa and Kodavere, SM – Alatskivi and Peipsiaare. Constant struggle with amelioration h...
Founded in 1946, Kohtla-Jarve resembles hundreds of mining towns across the former Soviet Union: ... more Founded in 1946, Kohtla-Jarve resembles hundreds of mining towns across the former Soviet Union: all of them developed under advantageous conditions, but now facing problems typical to rust-belt zones. The neglected buildings in Kohtla-Jarve have scarred the urban fabric for 20 years, and the city has only managed to tear down some of them. Most of these abandoned houses remain as symbols of the radical change in socio-economic system, from central planning to a market economy. Production of oil-shale in the area has dropped by half, but still accounts for roughly 90 % of Estonia’s total energy production—Kohtla-Jarve has thus avoided becoming a ghost-town, but because of the difficult financial situation only cosmetic changes take place in the townscape. Urban renewal happened fast, for a while, but has now come almost to a complete halt. This chapter combines two levels of analysis: one, an abstract cartographical analysis of the townscape development, particularly in terms of physical buildings; and two, an account of insiders’ life-course and quotidian movements, drawing also on my own personal experience. Combining quantitative and qualitative data in this way might further an improved understanding of urban landscape renewal—and standstill. Shifting between scales, the argument also highlights how apparent rupture or continuity may be an artefact of analytical frames.
This paper explores the landscape preferences and value assessments of local people in six Estoni... more This paper explores the landscape preferences and value assessments of local people in six Estonian counties plus two more detailed test areas. Based on questionnaires and interviews, we study the sense of place and landscape valuations of the local people. We describe which places local people value, how they assess the changes which have occurred during the last decade and which landscapes they consider characteristic to Estonia. We argue that knowledge and, thereby, identity are local and a county is too large a unit for studying this. We also suggest that there are mental borders beyond which the knowledge does not reach, that knowing the history of the area helps people to appreciate their places and maintain them and that social sustainability is crucial in landscape
Dear Colleagues,
The nexus of culture, landscape, and sustainability is not a new research area ... more Dear Colleagues,
The nexus of culture, landscape, and sustainability is not a new research area (Palang et al. 2017). The issue of sustainable future management of old cultural landscapes had already been raised in 1999 by Vos and Meekes. Although culture is not so self-evident in the visions of United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, Routledge has been running a book series on Studies in Culture and Sustainable Development, since 2015. Furthermore, based on its integrative, interrelating, and interlinking character, as a strand of sustainability, should cultural sustainability altogether be considered a separate pillar, intersecting the ecological, economic, and social dimensions or forming the basis of them all (Dessein et al. 2015, Soini and Dessein 2016)?
Although we claim that all landscapes are cultural, cultural change continues to impart upon and imbue landscapes with new qualities and characteristics (e.g., renewable energy ones or eco-villages) with newly emergent lifestyles and expectations. How are we to operationalize sustainability in these new contexts of landscape change (Antrop 2006)? In the ongoing series of crises (i.e., climate change, energy and food crises, war, pandemics, migration and economic depression, tourism, etc.) unforeseen developments — both positive and negative — may become a mainstay, despite long-term landscape planning visions and strategies. How to tackle reactionary, adaptive, counter-active (i.e., re-wilding), resilient, interim-usage and conservative, or other processes in our landscapes? Landscape transformation has been seen as a rather stable development in recent decades, while acknowledging changes in the values that landscapes represent in their constant state of becoming (Pavlis and Terkenli 2017). What is or may be the role of culture in landscape planning, use, management, stewardship and governance, and vice versa (Terkenli and Georgoula 2022)?
Meanwhile, landscape sustainability as a science continues to evolve (Wu 2013, 2021). In light of the ‘new reality’ presently faced by humanity, do we need to accommodate (cultural) sustainability in landscapes accordingly, as in, for example, ‘quiet sustainability’ (e.g., Smith and Jehlička 2013) or degrowth? Is sutainability (Kuhlman and Farrington 2010), as well as cultural sustainability (Soini and Birkeland 2014), relevant or even meaningful and desirable, in newly emergent landscape contexts? How do top-down policy-making interacts with bottom-up needs and priorities and how may these best accommodated in the landscape? Finally, how do these overly complex and often vaguely-defined concepts (culture, landscape, and sustainability) come together in socio-spacial experience and practice?
This Special Issue seeks to ascertain and highlight recent theoretical and epistemological contributions, as well as methodological innovations and empirical applications, in the contemporary interdisciplinary field constituting of research areas on culture, landscape, and sustainability. We invite research ranging from specific case studies to theoretical-methodological inroads into scientific areas of interface between and among these three research subjects: culture and landscape, cultural sustainability, and landscape sustainability.
References Antrop, M. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75 (3–4), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.014 Dessein, J.; Soini, K.; Fairclough, G.; Horlings, L. (eds.) Culture in, for and as Sustainable Development. Conclusions from the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability. University of Jyväskylä, Finland, 2015. Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113436 Palang, H.; Soini, K.; Printsmann, A.; Birkeland, I. Landscape and cultural sustainability. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 2017, 71 (3), 127−131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1343381 Pavlis, E.; Terkenli, T.S. Landscape values and the question of 'cultural sustainability': exploring an uncomfortable relationship in the case of Greece. Norsk. Geogr. Tidsskr. 2017, 71 (3), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1345977 Smith, J.; Jehlička, P. Quiet sustainability: fertile lessons from Europe's productive gardeners. J. Rural Stud. 2013, 32, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.002 Soini, K.; Birkeland, I. Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum 2014, 51, 213–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.001 Soini, K.; Dessein, J. Culture-sustainability relation: towards a conceptual framework. Sustainability 2016, 8, 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020167 Terkenli, T.S.; Georgoula, V. Tourism and cultural sustainability: views and prospects from Cyclades, Greece. Sustainability 2022, 14 (1), 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010307 Vos, W.; Meekes, H. Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 46 (1–3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00043-2 Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 2013, 28 (6), 999–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9 Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science (II): core questions and key approaches. Landscape Ecol. 2021, 36 (8), 2453–2485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01245-3
SustainBaltic projekt, st Rannikuala integreeritud korralduskavad toetamaks rannikualade ja mere ... more SustainBaltic projekt, st Rannikuala integreeritud korralduskavad toetamaks rannikualade ja mere sotsiaal-ökoloogilisi võrgustikke Läänemere regioonis, teostati 27 kuu jooksul 2016-2018. SustainBaltic (CB354) on rahastatud Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondi (European Regional Development Fund – ERDF) Interregi Kesk-Läänemere Programmi 2014–2020 kaudu. SustainBaltic koostööprojektis osalesid Eesti Maaülikool, Tallinna Ülikool, Turu Ülikool, Soome Keskkonnainstituut ja Satakunta maakonnavalitsus. Projekti eesmärk on parandada rannikualade kavandamist Kesk-Läänemere piirkonnas rahvusvahelise koostöö käigus koostatud rannikualade integreeritud korralduskavade kaudu neljal testalal (kaks Soomes ja kaks Eestis). Seda teostati järgnevate tegevusetappide kaudu: 1) multidistiplinaarsete sotsiaal-ökoloogiliste andmete integreerimine projekti regionaalsete alade kohta (Eestis Läänemaa, Lääne-Viru ja Harjumaa); 2) rannikuala korralduskavade koostamiseks täpsemate testalade valimine; 3) korralduskava...
The project involved partners: Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tallinn University, Universi... more The project involved partners: Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tallinn University, University of Turku, Finnish Environment Intitute, and Regional Council of SatakuntaSustainBaltic i.e. ICZM Plans for Sustaining Coastal and Marine Human-ecological Networks in the Baltic Region project is implemented for 27 months during 2016- 2018. SustainBaltic (CB354) is funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the Central Baltic Programme 2014-2020. SustainBaltic is a joint cooperation project of University of Turku, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Finnish Environment Institute, Regional Council of Satakunta and Tallinn University. The project targets to improve the share of the managed coastal networks in the Central Baltic area by the cross-border preparation of the ICZM plans for total four case areas with their public assessment in Estonia and Finland. This was planned to achieve by 1) Integrating multidisciplinary human-ecological data on the whole project ar...
HERCULES develops insights, tools, technologies and strategies and applies and tests theseat regi... more HERCULES develops insights, tools, technologies and strategies and applies and tests theseat regional case studies that span major environmental and land use history gradientsthroughout Europe. As ...
T he following glossary of terms related to the European agricultural landscape shall serve as a ... more T he following glossary of terms related to the European agricultural landscape shall serve as a common basis for all parties, working in or on agricultural landscapes. Some of the terms are quite common and sometimes used in our every day language, but they often have different meanings in particular countries. These differences may be a result of varying linguistic developments, history and traditions. The glossary contains 40 terms in seven languages; English, Dutch, Estonian, French, German, Hungarian, and Spanish. Each term begins with an English definition, illustrated by a photograph. If there are differences in meanings and connotations of single countries, they are mentioned in the designated country’s column. This work is to be continued.
One of the goals of Work Package (WP) 3 of HERCULES is to reconstruct and assess the shortterm ch... more One of the goals of Work Package (WP) 3 of HERCULES is to reconstruct and assess the shortterm changes and dynamics of cultural landscapes, using a case study approach. In this deliverable, we aim ...
Work package (WP) 3 aim is to reconstruct and assess the short-term past changes and dynamics of ... more Work package (WP) 3 aim is to reconstruct and assess the short-term past changes and dynamics of cultural landscapes, using case study approach. As a more detailed analysis can be carried out in smaller spatial scale, Study Municipalities (SM) were distinguished within Study Landscapes (SL). The aim of this deliverable is to present the results of the task of “Compiled timelines of cultural landscape change (CTCLC)” based on land use / land cover (LULC) change analysis of maps and aerial images since mid-19th century from scales 1:10,000 – 1:50,000 digitised and generalised to 1:50,000 level. The variety of available maps, scales and level of detail for each SM in different natural, physical, political, social and cultural environment is enormous and does not justify cross-SM comparisons on LULC level. Still, some individual conclusions for CTCLC for specific SM can be drawn: 1. Estonia: SL – Vooremaa and Kodavere, SM – Alatskivi and Peipsiaare. Constant struggle with amelioration h...
Uploads
Papers by Anu Printsmann
The nexus of culture, landscape, and sustainability is not a new research area (Palang et al. 2017). The issue of sustainable future management of old cultural landscapes had already been raised in 1999 by Vos and Meekes. Although culture is not so self-evident in the visions of United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, Routledge has been running a book series on Studies in Culture and Sustainable Development, since 2015. Furthermore, based on its integrative, interrelating, and interlinking character, as a strand of sustainability, should cultural sustainability altogether be considered a separate pillar, intersecting the ecological, economic, and social dimensions or forming the basis of them all (Dessein et al. 2015, Soini and Dessein 2016)?
Although we claim that all landscapes are cultural, cultural change continues to impart upon and imbue landscapes with new qualities and characteristics (e.g., renewable energy ones or eco-villages) with newly emergent lifestyles and expectations. How are we to operationalize sustainability in these new contexts of landscape change (Antrop 2006)? In the ongoing series of crises (i.e., climate change, energy and food crises, war, pandemics, migration and economic depression, tourism, etc.) unforeseen developments — both positive and negative — may become a mainstay, despite long-term landscape planning visions and strategies. How to tackle reactionary, adaptive, counter-active (i.e., re-wilding), resilient, interim-usage and conservative, or other processes in our landscapes? Landscape transformation has been seen as a rather stable development in recent decades, while acknowledging changes in the values that landscapes represent in their constant state of becoming (Pavlis and Terkenli 2017). What is or may be the role of culture in landscape planning, use, management, stewardship and governance, and vice versa (Terkenli and Georgoula 2022)?
Meanwhile, landscape sustainability as a science continues to evolve (Wu 2013, 2021). In light of the ‘new reality’ presently faced by humanity, do we need to accommodate (cultural) sustainability in landscapes accordingly, as in, for example, ‘quiet sustainability’ (e.g., Smith and Jehlička 2013) or degrowth? Is sutainability (Kuhlman and Farrington 2010), as well as cultural sustainability (Soini and Birkeland 2014), relevant or even meaningful and desirable, in newly emergent landscape contexts? How do top-down policy-making interacts with bottom-up needs and priorities and how may these best accommodated in the landscape? Finally, how do these overly complex and often vaguely-defined concepts (culture, landscape, and sustainability) come together in socio-spacial experience and practice?
This Special Issue seeks to ascertain and highlight recent theoretical and epistemological contributions, as well as methodological innovations and empirical applications, in the contemporary interdisciplinary field constituting of research areas on culture, landscape, and sustainability. We invite research ranging from specific case studies to theoretical-methodological inroads into scientific areas of interface between and among these three research subjects: culture and landscape, cultural sustainability, and landscape sustainability.
References
Antrop, M. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75 (3–4), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.014
Dessein, J.; Soini, K.; Fairclough, G.; Horlings, L. (eds.) Culture in, for and as Sustainable Development. Conclusions from the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability. University of Jyväskylä, Finland, 2015.
Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113436
Palang, H.; Soini, K.; Printsmann, A.; Birkeland, I. Landscape and cultural sustainability. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 2017, 71 (3), 127−131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1343381
Pavlis, E.; Terkenli, T.S. Landscape values and the question of 'cultural sustainability': exploring an uncomfortable relationship in the case of Greece. Norsk. Geogr. Tidsskr. 2017, 71 (3), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1345977
Smith, J.; Jehlička, P. Quiet sustainability: fertile lessons from Europe's productive gardeners. J. Rural Stud. 2013, 32, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.002
Soini, K.; Birkeland, I. Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum 2014, 51, 213–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.001
Soini, K.; Dessein, J. Culture-sustainability relation: towards a conceptual framework. Sustainability 2016, 8, 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020167
Terkenli, T.S.; Georgoula, V. Tourism and cultural sustainability: views and prospects from Cyclades, Greece. Sustainability 2022, 14 (1), 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010307
Vos, W.; Meekes, H. Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 46 (1–3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00043-2
Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 2013, 28 (6), 999–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9
Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science (II): core questions and key approaches. Landscape Ecol. 2021, 36 (8), 2453–2485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01245-3
Anu Printsmann
Prof. Dr. Theano S. Terkenli
The nexus of culture, landscape, and sustainability is not a new research area (Palang et al. 2017). The issue of sustainable future management of old cultural landscapes had already been raised in 1999 by Vos and Meekes. Although culture is not so self-evident in the visions of United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, Routledge has been running a book series on Studies in Culture and Sustainable Development, since 2015. Furthermore, based on its integrative, interrelating, and interlinking character, as a strand of sustainability, should cultural sustainability altogether be considered a separate pillar, intersecting the ecological, economic, and social dimensions or forming the basis of them all (Dessein et al. 2015, Soini and Dessein 2016)?
Although we claim that all landscapes are cultural, cultural change continues to impart upon and imbue landscapes with new qualities and characteristics (e.g., renewable energy ones or eco-villages) with newly emergent lifestyles and expectations. How are we to operationalize sustainability in these new contexts of landscape change (Antrop 2006)? In the ongoing series of crises (i.e., climate change, energy and food crises, war, pandemics, migration and economic depression, tourism, etc.) unforeseen developments — both positive and negative — may become a mainstay, despite long-term landscape planning visions and strategies. How to tackle reactionary, adaptive, counter-active (i.e., re-wilding), resilient, interim-usage and conservative, or other processes in our landscapes? Landscape transformation has been seen as a rather stable development in recent decades, while acknowledging changes in the values that landscapes represent in their constant state of becoming (Pavlis and Terkenli 2017). What is or may be the role of culture in landscape planning, use, management, stewardship and governance, and vice versa (Terkenli and Georgoula 2022)?
Meanwhile, landscape sustainability as a science continues to evolve (Wu 2013, 2021). In light of the ‘new reality’ presently faced by humanity, do we need to accommodate (cultural) sustainability in landscapes accordingly, as in, for example, ‘quiet sustainability’ (e.g., Smith and Jehlička 2013) or degrowth? Is sutainability (Kuhlman and Farrington 2010), as well as cultural sustainability (Soini and Birkeland 2014), relevant or even meaningful and desirable, in newly emergent landscape contexts? How do top-down policy-making interacts with bottom-up needs and priorities and how may these best accommodated in the landscape? Finally, how do these overly complex and often vaguely-defined concepts (culture, landscape, and sustainability) come together in socio-spacial experience and practice?
This Special Issue seeks to ascertain and highlight recent theoretical and epistemological contributions, as well as methodological innovations and empirical applications, in the contemporary interdisciplinary field constituting of research areas on culture, landscape, and sustainability. We invite research ranging from specific case studies to theoretical-methodological inroads into scientific areas of interface between and among these three research subjects: culture and landscape, cultural sustainability, and landscape sustainability.
References
Antrop, M. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75 (3–4), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.014
Dessein, J.; Soini, K.; Fairclough, G.; Horlings, L. (eds.) Culture in, for and as Sustainable Development. Conclusions from the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability. University of Jyväskylä, Finland, 2015.
Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113436
Palang, H.; Soini, K.; Printsmann, A.; Birkeland, I. Landscape and cultural sustainability. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 2017, 71 (3), 127−131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1343381
Pavlis, E.; Terkenli, T.S. Landscape values and the question of 'cultural sustainability': exploring an uncomfortable relationship in the case of Greece. Norsk. Geogr. Tidsskr. 2017, 71 (3), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1345977
Smith, J.; Jehlička, P. Quiet sustainability: fertile lessons from Europe's productive gardeners. J. Rural Stud. 2013, 32, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.05.002
Soini, K.; Birkeland, I. Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum 2014, 51, 213–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.001
Soini, K.; Dessein, J. Culture-sustainability relation: towards a conceptual framework. Sustainability 2016, 8, 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020167
Terkenli, T.S.; Georgoula, V. Tourism and cultural sustainability: views and prospects from Cyclades, Greece. Sustainability 2022, 14 (1), 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010307
Vos, W.; Meekes, H. Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 46 (1–3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00043-2
Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 2013, 28 (6), 999–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9
Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science (II): core questions and key approaches. Landscape Ecol. 2021, 36 (8), 2453–2485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01245-3
Anu Printsmann
Prof. Dr. Theano S. Terkenli