Lone Søderkvist Kristensen

Current use of impact models for agri-environment schemes and potential for improvements of policy design and assessment.

Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) to maintain or promote environmentally-friendly farming practices were implemented on about 25% of all agricultural land in the EU by 2002. This article analyses and discusses the actual and potential use of impact models in supporting the design, implementation and evaluation of AES. Impact models identify and establish the causal relationships between policy objectives and policy outcomes. We review and discuss the role of impact models at different stages in the AES policy process, and present results from a survey of impact models underlying 60 agri-environmental schemes in seven EU member states. We distinguished among three categories of impact models (quantitative, qualitative or common sense), depending on the degree of evidence in the formal scheme description, additional documents, or key person interviews. The categories of impact models used mainly depended on whether scheme objectives were related to natural resources, biodiversity or landscape. A higher proportion of schemes dealing with natural resources (primarily water) were based on quantitative impact models, compared to those concerned with biodiversity or landscape. Schemes explicitly targeted either on particular parts of individual farms or specific areas tended to be based more on quantitative impact models compared to whole-farm schemes and broad, horizontal schemes. We conclude that increased and better use of impact models has significant potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness of AES.

Intersecting Dynamics of Agricultural Structural Change and Urbanisation within European Rural Landscapes: Change Patterns and Policy Implications

Abstract European rural landscapes are, with few exceptions, characterised by farming and forestry as key functions. Whilst farming has been dominant historically and is still a significant dynamic in most regions, urbanisation is also a vital factor. This involves rural–urban emigration, urban expansion and migration from cities into the countryside (counter-urbanisation). A conceptual framework for the analysis and understanding of change patterns in European rural landscapes is presented and then applied at two spatial scales. First, the combined effect on local landscapes of agricultural structural changes and counter-urbanisation is analysed using data from two Danish case studies. Second, their expression at a wider European scale is explored using available regional statistics. Research and policy implications of the change patterns are identified and discussed, highlighting data limitations and challenges of managing the organisational and regulatory interface between local landscapes and international market policy institutions.

Agricultural change in Denmark between 1982 and 1989: the appearance of post-productivism in farming?

Abstract Regional agricultural development in Denmark in the 1980s is analysed by using surrogate statistics for three bipolar development trends: 1) intensification-extensification. 2) concentration-dispersal and 3) specialisation-diversification. The scale of analysis is the municipality. The results show that agriculture in eastern Denmark has intensified and specialised, whereas central parts of Jutland have extensified and diversified mainly due to the introduction of more complex crop patterns and a decline in the number of dairy cows. An increase in concentration is evident for the whole country. Aggregation of the development trends show that only 16% of the municipalities developed in the direction of ‘industrialisation’. a result which conflicts with the conventional understanding of the main development trends in Danish agriculture. However, part of this new interpretation may be related to the data and methodology employed in the analysis.

Introduction: Landscape Change and Rural Development

Abstract European rural landscapes are changing. Flows of capital, people, goods and information affect functions and forms of the rural landscape and change its character and, more or less, coordinated policies for agriculture, landscape and rural development are applied at different levels. Rural landscapes constitute a number of resources which in various ways can be mobilized by the rural actors and the local landscape is a suitable spatial level for studying and analysing rural transitions and their socio-ecological context. Studying landscapes in transition involves a change of symbolic values (cultural heritage, values and identities), productive structures and functions and ecological/environmental aspects of sustainability. Rural research, especially in the context of sustainable rural development, can benefit from such diverse approaches in understanding and analysing the different aspects of rural landscape and its changes. The papers of this special issue demonstrate the interchange of theories, concepts and methodological approaches in defining, describing, analysing, understanding and unravelling the complex realities of the rural landscape today, with a European emphasis, from different disciplines.

Functional and Structural Changes of Agricultural Landscapes: How Changes are Conceived by Local Farmers in Two Danish Rural Communities

Abstract The subject of this paper is the views of farmers concerning their local landscape. In two contrasting Danish case study areas previously analysed in the 1990s, a small number of farmers have been interviewed regarding their views of the landscape and recent changes in their respective area including landscape changes. One of the areas (Hvorslev) is characterized by good conditions for agriculture, intensive husbandry production and a relatively stable landscape history. The other (Nees) has more marginal conditions and major changes in land use characterize the recent landscape history. We analyze the way in which the landscape is perceived by farmers and compare their views of the changing landscapes with the actual recorded changes on the one hand, and with other significant changes on the other. Farmers in both areas emphasized the same type of structural changes in agriculture and in the villages as significant, whereas only farmers in Nees indicated that the landscape had changed. When asked to characterize the landscape, farmers in Nees replied with a greater degree of detail and were more locally focused compared to farmers in Hvorslev who mainly referred to (well known) sites located a few kilometres outside the area in question. Long-term experiences with landscape changes and collective actions concerning landscape issues are suggested as the main reasons that farmers in Nees share a well developed awareness of their local landscape. We conclude by discussing some implications of this study for landscape research and policy.

Landscape strategy making and landscape characterisation—experiences from Danish experimental planning processes

Abstract Landscape strategy making including landscape characterisation is the subject of this article. Traditional approaches to landscape planning is briefly and critically discussed and a more place based and strategic approach to rural landscape planning is argued for. Landscape characterisation and community involvement is discussed in relation to three dimensions: the landscape as a common good; landscape rights; and the landscape as a development factor. A landscape strategy making approach based partly on Patsy Healy’s work on collaborative planning and spatial strategy making is outlined, and experiences from two Danish case studies are presented. It is concluded that the landscape strategy making approach including highly specific landscape characterisations works and represents a promising way forward for more integrative and participatory approaches to landscape planning and policy, although more work on assessing the landscape condition is needed.

Introduction to Special Section by Guest Editors

This special issue of Landscape Research deals with cultural landscapes in general— their ownership and use, along with access and rights to landscapes. Our point of departure is a basic concern for the development of cultural landscapes, which often have a long history. In many cases all over the world, the original functionality of these landscapes is undergoing fundamental change. Current development in many old cultural landscapes threatens values in terms of cultural heritage, aesthetic qualities, biodiversity, and water and air quality. Numerous problems in the cultural landscapes of the world arise through conflicting interests. Agricultural activities may clash with nature conservation interests, quality of water and cultural heritage. Water extraction for drinking purposes may clash with wetland conservation; recreation often clashes with habitat qualities; cultural heritage interests sometimes clash with requirements of contemporary farm installations. These conflicts have certain inherited imbalances in common. The various functions are not treated and valued equally in the landscapes in legislation and planning systems. Traditionally, production interests often prevail over avowedly softer values such as aesthetics and recreation in land management. Solutions to conflicts have been addressed by landscape managers for decades. Tools such as expropriation, the creation of nature reserves, zoning of land areas according to intended use, subvention schemes and support for certain activities have been used to safeguard various interests in the landscape. Traditionally, the aim has been to separate uses that were not able to coexist in harmony, such as nature conservation and agricultural production or vulnerable species and recreational activities. These mainstream planning and management solutions, however, leave numerous problems unresolved. Despite a certain protection of values in designated areas, places outside these designations may still suffer from conflicts. Local inhabitants may still suffer from lack of access to their local landscape. Agricultural production