The sense of Landscape has been considered on the one hand a foundation for local identity and shared decisions of small communities and on the other a foundation for the awareness of the universal goods, given by nature to all people on earth. Just to reinforce democratic practices, the two dimensions - local and global - must be integrated. Landscape is the ideal testing ground to strengthen the efficiency of democracy by the practice of shared decision-making process as well as its effectiveness by improving in overcoming conflicts between communities, in order to defend everybody`s values. Visit: https://landscapefor.eu/

In this paper, we engage with the topic of public participation in landscape planning. Academic discussions and policy rhetoric tend to build on a conceptualisation of landscape as a democratic entity, yet practices of participatory landscape planning often fall short of these ideals. Most scholars approach this rhetoric-practice gap from procedural and norma-tive positions, defining what makes a successful participatory process. We take an alternative approach, scrutinising the role of landscape planning theory in participatory shortcomings, and reveal how poor substantive theorisation of 'the political' nature of landscapes contributes to the difficulties in realising participatory ideals. We engage theoretically with the political dimension, conceptualising and explaining the implications that differences, conflicts and power relations have for participation in landscape planning, that is, politicising the landscape. This theoretical engagement helps bring about a much-needed realignment of substantive theory, procedural theory and practice for developing participation in landscape planning.

This paper analyses how the current concept of landscape, which overcomes a scenery-based characterisation and a confinement to classical aesthetics and art, relates to the notions of the common good, commons and commons pool resources (CPRs). I consider landscape as a complex process in which human beings (with their history and culture) and their environment are mutually defined. On the basis of this approach to landscape studies, and by considering contemporary documents on landscape (i.e. the European Landscape Convention, the Latin American Initiative for Landscape and the Unesco Florence Declaration) I analyse the similarity between the notion of landscape and the concepts of common good, the management of commons and the commons pool resources institutions. Through theoretical research supported by practical examples (e.g. community gardens) I argue that landscape can be defined as a common good, can include the commons, and the collective management of lands and common pool resources institutions. The paper relies on an excursus through the theories and legal documents, with a specific regard to the theoretical foundations of these different notions. The analysis carried out in the paper leads, in the end, to the possibility of defining the ‘right to landscape’. Even if the concept is new in the literature, and a right to landscape is not recognized as a right per se, it is already implicated and studied in many international rights laws. Three approaches to landscape as a right have been distinguished: the right to landscape as a perceived landscape (a collective right), as a right to the environment, and a right for addressing human rights. I integrated these approaches by arguing that landscape is a domain in relation to which human rights can be claimed, and that landscape can be considered as a right to which human beings are entitled.

The landscape belongs to everyone. We should all participate in deciding how it is used, and landscape resources should serve all populations regardless of social or economic status. But spatial planning education rarely includes topics such as democratic processes, participatory planning, community-based planning or other topics, and does not fully prepare designers and planners to effectively work in partnership with the communities they serve. This problem was the inspiration for LED – Landscape Education for Democracy, a new three-year educational programme created and implemented by a consortium and funded by the Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership Programme of the European Commission. The LED project is meant to raise awareness of inclusive processes for spatial planning by exposing students to relevant theories, methods and real-life practices that can help them be active leaders in shaping the democratic landscapes of the future. The mission of the LED Project is to teach students how to integrate politically sensitive, humane design approaches to how the the design process of openspaces and greenspaces (that are the components of the greenway). This design approach is relevant to many landscape contexts, but is particularly important in the context of greenways as it would add an important additional layer to the meaning of greenway systems, which are by their very nature designed to provide equitable, diverse use of the landscape for all.

Introduction The landscape belongs to everyone. We should all participate in deciding how it is used, and landscape resources should serve all populations regardless of social or economic status. But spatial planning education rarely includes topics such as democratic processes, participatory planning, community-based planning or other topics, and does not fully prepare designers and planners to effectively work in partnership with the communities they serve. This problem was the inspiration for LED – Landscape Education for Democracy, a new three-year educational programme created and implemented by a consortium and funded by the Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership Programme of the European Commission. The LED project is meant to raise awareness of inclusive processes for spatial planning by exposing students to relevant theories, methods and real-life practices that can help them be active leaders in shaping the democratic landscapes of the future. The mission of the LED Project is to teach students how to integrate politically sensitive, humane design approaches to how the the design process of open-spaces and greenspaces (that are the components of the greenway). This design approach is relevant to many landscape contexts, but is particularly important in the context of greenways as it would add an important additional layer to the meaning of greenway systems, which are by their very nature designed to provide equitable, diverse use of the landscape for all.

This chapter presents a conceptual perspective on political economies of landscape change. It begins with vignettes from metropolitan Chicago, and shows how those examples rapidly spin out to linkages and comparisons with other regions of the world. The first section surveys academic fields related to political economies of landscape change. While each of these fields makes important contributions, their literatures reveal surprisingly few concrete connections between landscape inquiry and social research on politics and economics. Surprising, because landscape planners and designers deal with “politics” and “economics” every day on every project. The second section thus develops a conceptual approach for bridging these gaps by adapting futurist Kenneth Boulding’s Three Faces of Power, which links political and economic power with a third face that Boulding calls integrative power – the enabling force of human respect, wisdom and love. The main thesis in this volume is that integrative power is the inherent aim of landscape inquiry, planning, and design. This conceptual framework seeks a deeper understanding of relationships between political economy and landscape change. Along with the chapters and case studies that follow, it reveals just how much needs to be done to attain the integrative power of landscape change in the 21st century. And finally, we introduce the substantive chapters, each of which sheds new light on political economies of landscape change and the prospects for progressive places of power.

The main topic of the article is the question of landscape democracy in a world where local issues are seldom just local. This topic is treated both in general terms and in relation to one particular case: the artificial Tange Lake in Denmark. The first part narrates the story of Tange Lake. It identifies the most important international drivers that have influenced landscape development in the area directly or indirectly through the actions of a variety of local actors with conflicting conceptions of landscape quality. The variety of drivers, actors and conceptions present at Tange as well as in a great number of similar cases raises questions concerning levels and models of landscape democracy. This is the main theme of the second part. First, three basic democratic values are identified together with three orders or levels of impartiality. Second, the relation between levels of democratic decision-making is discussed with the principle of subsidiarity and the concentric circle theory as guiding lines. In the final section, these general considerations are discussed in relation to the Tange case.