Transcript LIVELAND Nov 2013

ESPON Internal Seminar 2013
“Territorial Evidence for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020
and Territorial Agenda 2020”
Workshop 6 – Managing and connecting ecological, landscape
and cultural values of regions
Liveable landscapes: a key value for sustainable
territorial development
Efrén Feliu / Gemma García
Urban Environment and Territorial Sustainability TECNALIA [email protected]
Liveland framework
LIVELAND project approach conceives that landscape (assessment, planning
and management) “could enrich and
improve spatial planning
in different ways (integrated and participatory approach),
being an asset for harmonious territorial development , smart
and sustainable economic development”.
In order to prove this hypothesis LIVELAND analyses landscape
practices and territorial development in different European
planning systems at different levels of decision making.
2
Six cases studies
National Thy National Park (DK)
Local: Midden- Delfland (NL) y
Offenburg (D)
Regional
Basque
Country(ES),
Navarra Region (ES), y Ljubljana
Urban Region(SI)
3
Project work flow
Benchmarking exercise as
the research cornerstone4
what we do understand by landscape?
 an “area as perceived by people”; (ELC, 2003)
‘Landscape as a resource’ relates to a materiality found in physical
space.
‘Landscape as institution’ refers to interactions of society with space
and territory. A useful term in analysing landscape as an institution is
that of ‘cultural landscape’.
LIVELAND project particularly focuses on the definition of
“LIVEABLE LANDSCAPES”
5
How have we defined ”Liveability”?
Liveability is more than what can be measured
quantitatively by economic an environmental
indexes.
Liveability is, in many instances, seen as closely
related to quality of life. However ‘quality-of-life
indexes’ are based mainly on economic factors.
Components of Liveability
Nevertheless as a starting point -by literature reviewit is possible to identify a set of components that
are commonly agreed on to be important for
liveability (embraced)
6
Analysis of landscape´s liveability
By means of “Landscape functions”
“the capacity of the natural processes and components to
supply goods and services that satisfy human needs,
direct or indirectly” (De Groot)
7
Benchmarking landscape practices
Qualitative assessments based on cases Baseline Analysis and
stakeholders interviews , combined with quantitative procedures
Common Analytical Framework (CAF)
Double entrance matrix to
systematically identify best practices in
addressing functional aspects of
liveability at the different components
and stages of planning
•
•
•
•
•
Cultural
Economic
Social
Health
Freedom
•
•
•
•
•
•
Evaluation and analysis
Planning processes and
participation
Strategy and vision
Actions and measures
Monitoring
Procedures and
8
decision making
Benchmarking results
9
Success factors
 Mature spatial planning system and well developed planning
systems allow better integration of landscape concept and
approaches
 Early participation and consultation
 Cooperation and coordination – multilevel governance
 Funding and financial support
 Multi-scale and multi-sectoral approach to landscape: combined
bottom-up and top- down approaches
10
 How could ecological, landscape and cultural assets support growth and job
creation in regions and cities?
Landscape as an asset
 Landscape’s and nature’s contribution to liveability  landscape, open
green spaces and a certain amount of natural elements in the
environment contributes to increase wellbeing and higher liveability1
 Landscape is no longer perceived only as ecological value.
 Landscape functions includes economic perspective:




Material resources.
Tourism, leisure, recreation, etc.
Education, research.
Attractiveness, territorial branding
1 (e.g.
Abraham, Sommerhalder and Abel 2010; Finke 2009; Körner, Nagel and Bellin-Harder 2009; Ward Thompson, Aspinall
and Bell 2010).
11
 Investment for Landscape protection, planning and management is
considered aligned with economic development (territorial asset – linked
to cultural and economic functions)
 Strengthen Landscape link with territorial identity: Territorial cohesion
in EU all regions should identify their own potentials- differentiation,
singularity as a strong value for endogenous territorial strategies
 Enhancing territorial branding, as is the case of Navarra, Basque Country or
Midden-Delfland, interesting for Thy NP
 Strengthen Landscape Attractiveness and its link to:
 Quality of life
 Tourism, real state
 Other economic sectors: Public-private partnerships and investments.
 Contribution to strategies of deprived areas boosting landscape
management as a way of promoting social inclusion and combating
poverty, and avoid losing population
 Liveable landscapes as a response to degradation and social exclusion
12
 Where could ecological systems and natural heritage areas be integrated
into green infrastructure networks?
 Manage spatial development patterns for enhancing landscape functions in
terms of
• Multifunctional landscapes wherever possible
• Integrating compatible uses such as sustainable agriculture and forestry e.g
• Connectivity
 Incorporation of landscape perspective into other policies like the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP)
 Also landscape is addressed as a key element in adaptation strategies
(regulatory functions), water cycle -quality and supply- flooding regulation 
direct correlation between “precipitation / run-off / land cover-use”
13
 What additional territorial evidence do policy makers need in this
context?
 There is a debate regarding the need for an formal plan legally
binding versus the integration of landscape considerations in
the already available plans and instruments of the planning system
(land use plans at local level or spatial planning plans at
regional/subregional level).
 The analysis of the practices revealed that having a formal
landscape plan is not guarantee of best practice in terms of
liveability and other landscapes practices could be as relevant as
the formal plans.
14
 Strong and comprehensive methodology for landscape evaluation within the
landscape practices as a precondition of success – Landscape evaluation has a
value in itself
 Multifunctionality of landscape: there is a need for development of methods
where the question of harmonious and disharmonious functionalities could be a
way of improving the planning process.
 Need of developing tools which enables the inclusion of differences in relation to
both intensity and diversity in landscapes use.
 Development of landscape quality objectives and criteria for action in
relation to European infrastructures
 Reinforce the relations between environmental
development through landscape policies
policies
and
territorial
 Strengthen the role of landscape in the urban-rural relationship
 Inventory of Landscapes of general interest
15
 Landscape key issue for territorial development in cross-border
areas- LP3LP
 More research is needed for detecting territories with
complementary potential towards sustainable land use
 Landscape and Governance: Considering the political, technical and
administrative dimensions of Landscape management, it could be argued
that they perfectly fits into the governance principles, above all: subsidiarity
and participation (social vision of landscape), openness and liability
(administrative coordination and effective articulation and management of
competences) efficiency and coherency (organization with respect to the
different polices and administrative levels from local to European)
16