This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]On: 04 November 2014, At: 11:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural Resources: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Transformation Processes of AlpineLandscapes and Policy Responses: Top-Down and Bottom-Up ViewsMojca Golobič aa Urban Planning Institute , Ljubljana, SloveniaPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Mojca Golobič (2010) Transformation Processes of Alpine Landscapes and PolicyResponses: Top-Down and Bottom-Up Views, Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal,23:3, 269-280, DOI: 10.1080/08941920802029177

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920802029177

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Insights and Applications

Transformation Processes of Alpine Landscapes andPolicy Responses: Top-Down and Bottom-Up Views

MOJCA GOLOBIC

Urban Planning Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia

The prevailing scientific and political consensus considers accelerated landscapetransformations problematic and difficult to manage in a sustainable way. Thisarticle compares two possible views and responses: the traditional top-down view,and the increasingly promoted bottom-up view. Analysis of policy measures in theEuropean Union and Alpine countries confirms that the top-down response is inmany respects inadequate for achieving sustainable development. The bottom-upview is discussed here as an alternative, using the results of two research projectsin the Alpine area to reveal the views of local people and to identify local governancecapacity. Some empirical evidence about the effects of a participatory approach isprovided by an analysis and evaluation of a set of ‘‘best practice’’ examples. Thetentative conclusions support the introduction of a more bottom-up view, but alsoindicate that the most important success factor is adequate consideration of thesocioeconomic context and local governance capacity.

Keywords Alps, landscape transformation, participation, public policies

The pillars of sustainability, economy, environment, and society are closely relatedto the landscape concept. Landscape can be related to each pillar separately, butthe main added value of the landscape approach to the sustainability debate is inproviding a holistic view in defining and developing the interface between natureand culture. Landscape is therefore at the heart of sustainability (Wascher 2000).

The ecological approach applies concepts such as carrying capacity, whichmainly considers landscape as a part of a potentially effected environment(European Environmental Agency 1991). From an economic view, landscape is seenmainly as a resource for development and can be included in the total capital stock(Schnell et al. 2002). These two views are linked by the concepts of natural and socialcapital (Antrop 2006) and by recognizing the economic value of unmarketable goodsor landscape services (de Groot 2006; Dax 2001). Similarly, the sociocultural view oflandscape as a source of place attachment and identity (Proshansky et al. 1983;Kianicka et al. 2006) is linked to the economy by economic valorization of localheritage and identity. This approach has been successfully used for endogenous

Received 16 July 2007; accepted 22 October 2007.Address correspondence to Mojca Golobic, Urban Planning Institute, Trnovski pristan 2,

1127 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: mojca.golobic@uirs.si

Society and Natural Resources, 23:269–280Copyright # 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08941920802029177

269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

development in the Alpine area in the forms of product labelling, and a combinationof agriculture and tourism (Debarbieux et al. 2006). An example of the integrationbetween social and environmental aspects is presented in the arguments that thestrong identity role of landscape prevents neglecting the landscape and environmen-tal problems (Palang et al. 2006). The integration of all three aspects can also be seenin the definition of ‘‘sustainable landscapes’’ as multifunctional landscapes (de Groot2006), or as landscapes providing functions and services, which are valued asdesirable by society (Potschin and Haines-Young 2006).

Landscape transformation as a result of reorganization of the land in the processof adaptation to societal conditions (Antrop 2005) is another integrative concept,which introduces the dimensions of time and change. The landscape transformationprocess has become increasingly accelerated by external driving forces such as mar-ket globalization, demographic changes and climate change (Favry and Pfefferkorn2005; Schnell et al. 2002). The prevalent research and political discourse considersthese changes mainly as unsustainable (Dejeant Pons 2005; Palang et al. 2006).The main arguments are the decrease of species and ecosystem diversity (Tappeineret al. 2006) and loss of landscape diversity, coherence, and identity (EuropeanLandscape Convention 2000; Antrop 2005). Another reason why landscape changeis also perceived as negative by the local population is the lack of opportunity toactively influence the process (Buchecker et al. 2003).

These assumptions can be interpreted in two ways: as a requirement for theconservation of certain landscape values together with practices that have createdthem (Ashworth 1991; Waitt 2000), or by referring to landscapes as having a certainpotential to enhance sustainable development (Antrop 2006). These both implypolicy action and a social response, including markets, rules, norms, and scientificinformation. An important question is therefore which of these responses most effec-tively improves the social capacity to guide interactions between nature and societytoward more sustainable trajectories (Kates et al. 2001). It seems that our presentdecision-making practice does not lead effectively in the direction of sustainability(United Nations General Assembly, 1992a), because it tends to separate economic,social, and environmental factors, and the choice of goals and of the means forreaching them remain largely delegated, centralized, and hierarchical (OECD2001). The potential for change is mainly seen in the direction of increased publicparticipation (United Nations General Assembly 1992a, 1992b).

Methodology

This contribution begins with a review of scientific findings and discussion ondriving forces and transformation processes of Alpine landscapes and the relationto sustainable development. It also identifies the main challenges for sustainabledevelopment in the Alpine regions. The following two sections then deal with alter-native views and approaches: One clarifies the top-down view by analyzing policyresponses at European Union (EU) level and national policies of Alpine countries.The other takes a deeper look into the bottom-up views of Alpine inhabitants, aswell as the potentials and practices of participative governance in Alpine communi-ties. This section is based on the results of two research projects.1 Local views oflandscape transformation, as well as people’s attitude toward existing policyresponses, were collected in workshops in pilot regions2 (Cernic Mali and Golobic2005). Communication with participants included the use of future scenarios in

270 M. Golobic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the form of maps, narratives called ‘‘future stories,’’ and photomontages called‘‘future pictures.’’ The method of action planning (Wates 1996) was also used.The second part of this section assesses the effectiveness of participatory approachesin achieving sustainability objectives. The assessment is based on an analysis andexpert evaluation of selected cases from the database of ‘‘best practice’’ projects inthe Alps. Thirty-one examples from all Alpine countries and two examples fromthe European Union (EU) were selected based on the following criteria: inclusionof diverse representatives, integration and transfer of different types of knowledge,integrated approach, negotiation process with clear aims and rules, active supportto cooperation between the (conflicting) parties, and innovative potential either inconcept, methods, or the actors involved (Buchecker et al. 2003; Pfefferkorn et al.2006). Each example was described in standardized form and stored in an onlinedatabase. These entries were then used by experts as a basis for evaluation. Effective-ness was assessed based on results in the environment, society, and economy. Sincethere were no detailed indicators selected and measured, the evaluators had to relyon descriptive and qualitative assessments.

Driving Forces and Transformation Processes of Alpine Landscapes

The main historical driving forces that have changed landscapes, namely, traffic(accessibility), socioeconomic shifts (urbanization and globalization), and tourism,are still driving landscape change in the Alps (Antrop 2005; Favry and Pfefferkorn2005). Although the rate of landscape change is generally considered to have beenvery rapid in recent decades and accordingly more problematic to manage in a sus-tainable manner, a study done in the Swiss Alps (Schneeberger et al. 2007) showedthat the rate of change is heterogeneous, and highly dependent on the local contextand geographical conditions. Even though the Alps in many respects form a homo-geneous entity, they comprise a very varied mosaic of landscape and developmenttypes (Batzing et al. 1995; Favry and Pfefferkorn 2005).

The main trend is polarization, which is reflected in the Alpine landscape asurban sprawl and intensive tourist use on the one hand and extensification and aban-donment of poorly accessible areas on the other. This polarization also affects theAlps as a whole: The influence of the nearby metropolitan areas such as Lyon, Turin,Milan, Vienna, and Munich causes loss of functions in inner Alpine cities, while theAlpine borderland is being turned into a residential and recreational area for theseconurbations (Favry and Pfefferkorn 2005; Perlik et al. 2001). The still prosperouscities within the Alps are taking over specialized roles in the network of towns butare losing their supply role. This is causing exogenous and endogenous disintegrationof the Alps, weakening territorial cohesion (Perlik et al. 2001), and impedingcapacity for local governance and participation (Debarbieux et al. 2006). The periph-eral areas experience a general trend of decline and out-migration of young people,who go to cities to study and work. However, there are some examples of immi-gration: The middle-aged and retired populations are moving (back) to rural areas(European Commission 2007).

The rapid average increase of accessibility to the Alps in recent decades has beenmuch stronger in Alpine centers and transport nodes than in the periphery (Favryand Pfefferkorn 2005). This has shifted out-migration to commuting mainly withina distance of 30–50 km around the major Alpine cities (Milan, Munich, Zurich, orVienna) and close to smaller Alpine cities like Chambery, Trento, or Innsbruck

Landscape Change—Policy Responses 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Debarbieux 2005). An expected increase of accessibility—between 1995 and 2020 by150% to 500% or even more in the transport nodes of central areas (Favry and Pfef-ferkorn 2005)—will continue to be the main reason for increasing polarization in thefuture, especially if the upgrading of public transport services does not keep pacewith the infrastructure improvement (European Commission 2007). Althoughaccessibility is strongly (positively) related to the development potentials of a region,these also depend on so-called endogenous resources, which include naturalresources such as wood, water, and landscape, as well as the capacity for theiruse, local products or skills, policies, and attitudes. In some areas, which have notbeen able to activate their own potentials, good accessibility only spurred commut-ing and out-migration (Wipp valley, Emmental-Brienz region, Goms, Val Muestair,Cottic and Ligurial Alps, Valle d’Ossola). On the other hand, some of the remoteareas (Upper Inn valley, Central Carinthia, Sondrio in Italy) have been able to estab-lish a sound economy based on their own resources, often tourism (Favry andPfefferkorn 2005).

Taking into account these three main factors of development, i.e., polarizationtrends, accessibility, and resources, we can indicate four main types of Alpinecultural landscape transformation (Kucan and Golobic 2004), each facing specificchallenges of sustainable development.

1. Peri-urban concentrations. The existing cities are not expected to grow much, butthose with a strong tradition and flexibility to adapt to the trend of globalization,as well as those with specific institutional functions (administrative, education,health), may keep or even grow in their importance (Grenoble, Trento,Innsbruck). Population increase and the even faster growth of residential units(Favry and Pfefferkorn 2005), will be mainly accommodated in suburban areasaround existing cities (Perlik et al. 2001; Tappeiner et al. 2006). In recent decades,suburbanization mostly resulted in ‘‘dormitory villages’’ for young families,which offer a pleasant living environment but depend on urban centers for jobsand services. The newer trends of ‘‘post-suburbanization’’ involve a hetero-geneous population together with dislocation of shopping centers, retail services,central functions, and working places (Borsdorf 2006). These peri-urbanizationprocesses mostly affect the Alpine borders (especially the Bavarian part and Coted’Azure), which meet the peri-Alpine conurbation demand for easily accessiblejobs, picturesque countryside, and a minimum of urban services (Perlik et al.2001). The main landscape transformation in these areas is increased landconsumption and densification of built-up space, with the consequence of deterio-ration of the living environment. The challenges for sustainable developmentinclude environmental protection, developing urban amenities, and providing avariety of functions, as well as securing an adequate level of social cohesion.

2. Second as poles of growth within the Alps are the areas with intensive tourism.They do not depend very strongly on good accessibility, but primarily on naturalresources (snow, landscape, etc.). They have a high share of in-commuters and astrong increase in buildings, mostly due to individual second-home development;there has been as much as a 116% increase between 1981 and 2001 in France(Favry and Pffeferkorn 2005). The main challenges of sustainability are reducingthe heavy pressure on landscapes, sensitive mountain ecosystems, and culturalheritage due to tourism infrastructures and high land consumption, and avoidingweakening of cultural identity due to seasonal immigration.

272 M. Golobic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

3. The third type of emerging landscape is characterized by the opposite trend: that is,depopulation and extensification of land use in the peripheral areas. During the last20 years, more than 40% of farms have been abandoned in the Alps, while manywent from full- to part-time farming (Tappeiner et al. 2006; Favry and Pfefferkorn2005). Although this trend is general in the Alps, the intensity varies between theregions and along the altitudinal gradient (Tappeiner et al. 2006), and in someplaces agricultural subsidies have succeeded in slowing down the trend. Land aban-donment is followed by a decline of public services, especially schools and postoffices (Debarbieux et al. 2006). The main landscape transformation is regrowthof forest and transformation of the traditionally cultivated landscape into wilder-ness areas, which can also lead to a decrease of species diversity (Hochtl et al.2005). The main challenges for sustainable development concern developingstrategies to activate the endogenous potential, as well as finding suitable natureprotection strategies. Depopulation trends are also considered to be an importantsource of weakened cultural identity and social capacity (Debarbieux et al. 2006).

4. The fourth type of landscape is more specific for the Alps and is emerging as a‘‘sustainable’’ solution for the problems of both depopulating and intensive touristregions. ‘‘Alpine scenery’’ is staged and marketed according to the conception oflandscape that is consistent with tourists’ expectations (Kianicka et al. 2006;Debarbieux et al. 2006). Such scenery is considered an asset for the tourist industry,which is discovering traditional landscapes as a cultural heritage and attraction.These landscapes therefore require preservation of traditional cultural landscapeelements, which have a special position in the collective identity of Alpine (as wellas other European) people (Kucan and Golobic 2004). They also require theabsence or at least careful concealment of the signs of development (Kianickaet al. 2006). This landscape type is close to the contemporary concept of natureprotected areas in remote regions, which are seen as an asset for development oftourism and involve very precisely defined and strictly regulated economic activities(European Commission 2007). These places may face disagreements regarding theland use and protection regimes, and low local support for policy implementation.There is also a fundamental question of the sustainability of practices that explicitlyaim at conservation of (inherently changing) landscape, as well as the viability of acultural identity that builds on perception from outside.

Top-Down View: Policy Response

There are a number of laws and resolutions in the EU and Alpine countries address-ing landscape transformation and sustainable development (Arlot 2005). On theother hand, some key strategic documents, for example, the Fourth Report on Socialand Economic Cohesion of the EU (European Commission 2007), do not explicitlymention landscape. EU-level policies (European Spatial Development Perspectives1999; Alpine Convention 1991; European Landscape Convention 2000) are relevantand coherent on the level of objectives and orientations (Arlot et al. 2005), since theyaddress issues such as diversification of activities, planning aimed at integrateddevelopment, environmentally sound sector-based management, and environmentand cultural landscape conservation. Correspondingly, these measures aim at main-tenance of traditional agricultural cultivation, renovation of villages, preservation ofthe environment and development of countryside tourism.3 The natural value of thelandscape is taken into consideration in nature conservation policy by aims and

Landscape Change—Policy Responses 273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

measures for conserving its biodiversity and habitats, for example, through theNATURA2000 program. The recent Territorial Agenda (2007) also underlinescultural landscapes, as well as the quality of design, as added value for development.

These general orientations are implemented through national policy frameworksand regional and local legislation. The differences between the Alpine states are quitelarge, especially in the distribution of authority between the levels. In France, forexample, this is very centralized, while Austria has a strong regional structure. Onthe other hand, similar shortcomings in the implementation of policy measures havebeen identified across the Alpine countries (Arlot 2005). Although the actual effectof the policy is difficult to measure, it can be inferred that in the presence of globaleconomic, demographic and natural driving forces, the policies are only able toreduce unfavorable trends like polarization to a limited extent (Arlot 2005). Themain effect of these policies would therefore be in attenuating negative impacts onthe regional and local level. However, the success of policies in this respect has alsobeen considered to be rather weak (Antrop 2006; Dax 2001; Probst 2005). This canbe attributed to the following reasons:

. A too narrow (sectoral) and static view. Cultural landscape is almost alwaysrelated to ‘‘maintenance’’ and ‘‘conservation’’ and addressed by measures fromsector policies (nature conservation and agriculture). These typically lead to func-tional division of landscape, which does not prevent problems such as land useabandonment or uncontrolled peri-urbanization (Perlik et al. 2001). Integrativeissues such as landscape design, landscape valorization, and recreational andhistoric functions of cultural landscapes, which could address challenges inperi-urban areas, are very few.

. A lack of sensitivity to regional or local peculiarities. The shift of emphasis towardsupporting competitiveness and innovation in regional, planning, and mountainpolicies has affected less favored communities, which lack the resources to main-tain their own services, while private initiative only provides profitable servicesmostly adapted to the needs of tourism (Probst 2005; Debarbieux et al. 2006).The existing combination of policy responses therefore mainly supports the trans-formation of remote areas from declining to prosperous ‘‘Alpine scenery.’’

. A lack of openness and responsiveness of policy objectives and measures for publicdebate and bottom-up inputs. While participation should be enabled from the topdown, and a large part of the responsibility for opening up power distribution chan-nels lies with those in power (administrations), local societies and individual citizensalso have roles in administering these policy objectives and measures. Since this itemhas been often recognized as the main factor in improving policies and decisionmaking, the next section takes a closer look to the situation on the bottom-up side.

Bottom-Up View: Potentials and Assessment of Effectiveness

Bottom-Up View and Potentials for Participation

This subsection addresses two main questions closely related to the participation ofthe local population:

. Are the views of the local population regarding sustainable development and therequired policy responses compatible with those of scientists and policymakers?

. How do the driving forces affect the social capital and the capacity of the localpopulation for active participation in the decision-making processes?

274 M. Golobic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Workshops have been conducted in seven pilot regions that represent diverselandscape and development types (Cernic Mali and Golobic 2005). The resultsshowed that the loss of diversity of cultural landscapes and the expected forest over-growth ranked highest among the worries of the local population. This wasespecially notable in pilot regions with depopulation trends (e.g., Carnia in Italy),where people expressed the highest concern and found it increasingly difficult topositively identify with their area (see also Hochtl et al. 2005). Although the sourcesof concern were closely related to social and economic problems such as depopu-lation and economic decline, they were often expressed in terms of landscape changeand identity, which confirms the strong role of landscape in collective cultural ident-ity. The attachment to land(scape) was also shown to be an important factor pre-venting people from leaving their villages and encouraging them to keep uptraditional practices, as well as to implementing national policies. This is consistentwith the assumption that cultural identity is an important element of social cohesionand governance capacity, and may also help to explain why in some depopulatingcommunities (like Valposchiavo in Switzerland and Causse Mejean, France) peoplehave not lost their social capacity and ability to participate in local projects(Debarbieux et al. 2006).

The inhabitants of prosperous areas such as Isarwinkel, Germany, andVisp-Saastal, Switzerland, have a somewhat different set of concerns. Similarlyto the depopulated areas, these were often expressed in ‘‘landscape’’ terms, suchas (ugly) urban sprawl, loss of vitality of community centers, and lack of con-sciousness about the architectural heritage (Cernic Mali and Golobic 2005).Although it is true that loss of a meaningful and coherent structure of a territorycan impede the establishment and maintenance of local identity, the workshopsoften revealed other, socioeconomic concerns behind these complaints. Whileimmigration to rural areas pushes up gross domestic product (GDP) throughincome and taxes, it also pushes up housing prices, restructures the services, andintroduces different value systems. These can be difficult to sustain for the localpopulation and may lead to disparities, new tensions, and conflicts (see alsoDebarbieux at al. 2006). The new members of these communities often find it dif-ficult to establish social relationships and start active community life, which is abarrier to participation. As a result, commuter areas and areas of high immigrationexperience weakened social cohesion and cultural identity. However, here someexceptions exist, where in-comers become important generators of innovationand common action (Debarbieux et al. 2006).

The second part of these workshops, which involved devising an ‘‘actionplan’’ for sustainable landscape development, revealed that the declarative inter-est of locals in managing local sustainable development may prove rather weak inactual situations (Cernic Mali and Golobic 2005). Local inhabitants did not seethemselves as the actors of change, but they rather delegated these roles to ‘‘out-siders’’ (experts, local or even national authorities, agencies, etc.). Although thesefindings were similar in all pilot regions, as elsewhere (see also Buchecker at al.2003), the reasons probably differ according to the characteristics of individualcommunities. In general, governance capacity is better when there is a sharedperception of common interest and strong social cohesion, and there is a varia-bility and flexibility of opportunities, which allows individuals to take differentindividual and collective identities and build strong social capital (Debarbieuxet al. 2006).

Landscape Change—Policy Responses 275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Assessing the Effectiveness of Participative Governance for SustainableAlpine Development

All Alpine countries are facing difficulties in effective implementation of sustainabledevelopment concepts, norms and regulations (Pfefferkorn et al. 2006). These find-ings support the assessment that traditional decision-making forms, such as marketsand technocratic or consultative varieties of political decision making (Bartlett andOldgard 2002), do not effectively respond to the challenges of sustainable develop-ment. Increased participation is often seen as the main way toward better decisionmaking with improved ‘‘sustainability’’ effects (United Nations General Assembly1992a, 1992b; European Commission 2001, 2002). However the empirical evidencefor these assumptions is lacking.

This subsection presents an approach aimed at providing at least a tentativeinsight into the effects of participative decision-making forms. The set of ‘‘best prac-tice’’ decision-making examples analyzed relate to different aspects of sustainability:social cohesion, governance capacity, regional products, agriculture, nature conser-vation, mobility, forestry, and risk management. In general, their approach differsfrom the traditional sectoral one in that they seek integrated solutions to solvecomplex problems. We could also see that complex problems pose a greater chal-lenge to the traditional decision-making forms and needs innovative approaches.

Assessment of the effects proved to be a difficult task. The majority of theprojects are recent or ongoing, so the effects are sometimes only expected and notyet measurable. Also, the cause-and-effect chains are not always clear: In manycases, the project does not directly cause a certain effect but rather contributes toor enables an outcome. Thus, in many cases the effects could only be inferred ordeduced from the objectives and=or adopted measures. Nevertheless, a synthesisof the evaluation shows a rather coherent picture:

Only positive impacts on nature and the environment were identified in 27 outof the 31 examples analyzed. These include raising environmental awarenessamong the population or administration, changed mobility or consumers patterns,enabling cooperation of environmental groups in decision-making processes,introducing environmental criteria into policy and decision making, and initiation=implementation=support of projects in the areas of waste management, water supply,renewable energy, developing management plans for cultural landscape, habitatprotection, and urban environment quality (noise, open space, traffic).

Added economic value could be found in 24 projects, 5 projects were withouttangible economic effects, and in 2 cases explicitly negative effects were mentioned,such as downsizing or even the cancelation of the proposed development. Quiteoften the effects were only assumed or indirect. Often they could be assessedambiguously, depending on the time perspective and the interest group. Thesecases include protection or investment in assets such as landscape scenery, biodi-versity, or environmental quality. The positive effects were initiation of new enter-prises (mainly small and medium-sized enterprises) in agriculture-complementaryactivities (such as tourism, food processing and trade, biomass), improvement ofinformation and organization support (databases, contact points, networks, jointmarketing), improvement of administration and institutional conditions (simplifi-cation of licensing and building codes, preparation of spatial plans), infrastructureimprovement, improvement of human resources (activation of expertise, educationand capacity building, reduction of exclusion and unemployment), and changes in

276 M. Golobic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

consumer behavior (increased spending in the area, reduction of energy use andcommuting cost).

As would be expected, the relation of the best examples of decision-making prac-tice to criteria of sociocultural value added was strongest and exclusively positive.There was only one case where no added value was mentioned. The positive effectsinclude increased social capital and governance capacity, better integration of sociallyless active and marginal groups, improved correspondence of decisions to the needs insociety (social relevance), improved legitimization, increased local and regionalidentity, and enhanced cooperation, communication, and networking; increased trustamong stakeholders; and relaxing the traditionally rigid decision structure, that is,alternative distribution of decision-making power and responsibilities.

Conclusions

The driving forces that transform the Alpine landscape also pose new challenges forsustainable development. These address balanced regional development, culturalidentity, and governance capacity. Presently prevailing top-down views applypredominantly static cultural landscape concepts, which emphasize maintenanceand conservation. Correspondingly, policy instruments support the emergence of‘‘Alpine scenery,’’ while support for innovative development patterns—above all,for solving peri-urbanization problems—is missing. One of the main deficienciesof these top-down views is their low sensitivity to the local context, in terms ofnatural and socioeconomic characteristics, as well as their potential for governanceand a bottom-up attitude of local communities.

A closer view from the bottom-up perspective reveals that the priority concernsare rather consistent with the top-down view, but the actual problems and the poten-tial solutions differ between individual communities. The attempt to evaluate theeffectiveness of participative, bottom-up approaches reveals that gathering consis-tent empirical evidence is a difficult task. Nevertheless, the decision-making forms,which were assessed as presently ‘‘best practices’’ of decision making, have beenshown to be rather effective in meeting sustainability goals in the economy, theenvironment, and society. As expected, their effects in the social sphere were highestand most positive, and the contribution toward environmental goals generally high,but sometimes ambiguous, while the economic effects could sometimes be assessed asrather long-term and redistributive.

Although this study shows the relatively good effects of participativeapproaches, it should be taken into account that these were selected as ‘‘bestpractice,’’ which also includes their other merits, such as integrated solutions andadaptation to local needs and capacities. Some caution is advised when promotingparticipation as a panacea for all relevant problems and for policy effectiveness. Itmust be recognized that together with landscape, several other driving forces affectsocial cohesion and the capacity of local communities for self-governance. This het-erogeneous set of local situations can therefore not be addressed by a ‘‘one-fits-all’’approach successfully. There are many reasons why participative approaches aremore (or less) welcome and effective in individual communities.

Although the study was extensive and involved several dimensions of thecomplex interrelation between environment and society, its conclusions are only ten-tative. They can nevertheless provide some empirical support for introducing moreparticipative decision-making styles. The results are representative at least for the

Landscape Change—Policy Responses 277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Alpine area, but they may also be relevant for other regions with similar develop-ment trends and challenges.

Notes

1. The bottom-up views and local potentials for governance and participation were researchedin the Work package 5 of the project ‘‘RegAlp’’ within the 5th EU Framework Program,2001–2004 (Cernic Mali and Golobic, 2005). The evaluation of participatory decisionmaking practices was conducted within the Question team 5 of the project ‘‘Future inthe Alps,’’ financed by the MAVA Foundation and coordinated by CIPRA–InternationalCommission for the Protection of the Alps, 2004–2007 (Pfefferkorn et al. 2006).

2. The pilot regions were: Le Trieves, France, Visp=Saas Valley, Switzerland, Isarwinkel,Germany, Wipp Valley and Lower Enns Valley=Lower Tauern, Austria, Upper SavaValley, Slovenia, and Carnia, Italy.

3. Typical examples of such policy measures are: Common Agricultural Policy instruments,Structural Funds, and LEADERþ.

References

Alpine Convention (Convention on the Protection of the Alps). 1996. Off. J. Eur Commun.L061(12=03=1996):32–36.

Antrop, M. 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape UrbanPlan. 70(1–2):21–34.

Antrop, M. 2006. Sustainable landscapes: Contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landscape UrbanPlan. 75:187–197.

Arlot, M. P. 2005. The diagnosis of achievements and deficiencies in the public action regard-ing the interrelation between regional development and cultural landscape. In Regionaldevelopment and cultural landscape change in the Alps—The challenge of polarization,eds. W. Pfefferkorn, H. R. Egli, and A. Massarutto, 147–168. Geographica BernensiaG74. Berne, Switzerland: Institute of Geography, University of Berne.

Ashworth, G. J. 1991. Heritage planning: Conservation as the management of urban change.Groningen, The Netherlands: Geo Pers.

Bartlett, S., and M. Oldgard. 2002. Expertocratic, consultative, participative or deliberativeSEA? Towards guidelines for determining an appropriate level of public involvement inSEA. http://www.wu-wien.ac.at/inst/fsnu/easy2/papers/a2_oldgard.pdf (accessed 13April 2007).

Batzing, W., P. Messerli, and M. Perlik. 1995. Regionale entwicklungstypen. Analyse undGliederung des schweizerischen Berggebietes. Bern, Switzerland: Schriftenreihe desBundesamtes fur Industrie, Gewerbe und Arbeit, Zentralstelle fur regionaleWirtschaftsforderung.

Borsdorf, A. 2006. Land-Stadt Entwicklung in den Alpen: Dorf oder Metropolis? In Die Alpenim jahr 2020, eds. R. Psenner and R. Lackner, 83–92. Alpine space—Man and environ-ment, vol. 1. Innsbruck, Austria: Innsbruck University Press.

Buchecker, M., M. Hunziker, and F. Kienast. 2003. Participatory landscape development:Overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape Urban Plan. 64:29–46.

Cernic Mali, B., and M. Golobic. 2005. The Alps in 2020: The view of locals. In Regionaldevelopment and cultural landscape change in the Alps—The challenge of polarization,eds. W. Pfefferkorn, H. R. Egli, and A. Massarutto, 95–112. Geographica BernensiaG74. Berne, Switzerland: Institute of Geography, University of Berne.

Dax, T. 2001. Endogenous development in Austria’s mountain regions: From a source ofirritation to a mainstream movement. Mountain Res. Dev. 21(3):231–235.

Debarbieux, B. 2005. Alpine people and culture: Challenges for political recognition. InSoco-economic dimension of Alpine convention with particular consideration of Alpine

278 M. Golobic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

cities, eds. I. Brendt and A.-L. Stille, 34–41. Wien, Austria: Alpenkonvenzion andLebensministerium.

Debarbieux, B., C. Luminati, A. Mignotte, and G. Wiesinger. 2006. Governance capacity, Q2Final report, Future in the Alps. Schaan, Liechtenstein: Commission Internationale pour laProtection des Alpes (CIPRA). http://projects.cipra.org/documents/general/reports(accessed 14 April 2007).

de Groot, R. 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflictsin planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan.75:175–186.

Dejeant Pons, M. 2005. The implementation of the European landscape. http://www.visualdiversity.net (accessed 10 September 2005).

European Commission. 2001. European governance. A white paper. COM(2001) 428 Final.Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

European Commission. 2002. Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue—General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by theCommission. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

European Commission. 2007. Growing regions, growing Europe, Fourth report on economic andsocial cohesion, Provisional version. EU—Regional policy. Brussels, Belgium: EuropeanCommission.

European Landscape Convention. 2000. T-LAND 06e. Document established by the SecretaryGeneral, the General Directorate of Education, Culture, Sport and Youth, and Environment.Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.

European Spatial Development Perspective. 1999. Document agreed at the Informal Council ofMinisters responsible for Spatial Planning in Potsdam, May 1999. Luxembourg: EuropeanCommission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Favry, E., and W. Pfefferkorn. 2005. The Alps over the past 30 years: Changes in spatialstructures and cultural landscapes. In Regional Development and cultural landscape changein the Alps—The challenge of polarisation, eds. W. Pfefferkorn, H. R. Egli, and A.Massarutto, 21–60. Geographica Bernensia G74. Berne, Switzerland: Institute ofGeography, University of Berne.

Hochtl, F., S. Lehringer, and W. Konold. 2005. Wilderness: What it means when it becomesa reality—A case study from the southwestern Alps. Landscape Urban Plan. 70:85–95.

Kates, R. W., W. C. Clark, R. Corell, J. M. Hall, C. C. Jaeger, L. Lowe, J. J. McCarthy, H. J.Schellnhuber, B. Bolin, N. M. Dickinson, S. Faucheux, G. C. Gallopin, A. Grubler, B.Huntley, J. Jager, N. S. Jodha, R. E. Kasperson, A. Mabogunje, P. Matson, H. Mooney,B. Moore III, T. O’Riordan, and U. Svedin. 2001. Sustainability science. Science292:641–642.

Kianicka, S., M. Buchecker, M. Hunziker, and U. Muller-Boker. 2006. Locals’ and tourists’sense of place: A case study in a Swiss Alpine village. J. Mountain Res. Dev. 26(1):55–63.

Kucan, A., andM.Golobic. 2004. The future for Slovenian cultural landscapes.Topos 47:79–86.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2001. Governance in the 21st

century. Paris, France: OECD.Palang, H., A. Printsman, E. Konkoly Gyuro, M. Urbanc, E. Skowronek, and W. Woloszyn.

2006. The forgotten rural landscapes of central and eastern Europe. Landscape Ecol.21(3):347–357.

Perlik, M., P. Messerli, and W. Batzing. 2001. Towns in the Alps: Urbanization processes,economic structure, and demarcation of European Functional Urban Areas (EUFAa)in the Alps. Mountain Res. Dev. 21(3):243–252.

Pfefferkorn, W., M. Golobic, M. Zaugg Stern, and M. Buchecker. 2006. New forms of decisionmaking. Question 5 Final report. Future in the Alps, Schaan. Liechtenstein. http://projects.cipra.org/documents/general/reports (accessed: 7 May 2007).

Potschin, M., and R. Haines-Young. 2006. Rioþ10, Sustainability science and landscapeecology. Landscape Urban Plan. 75:162–174.

Landscape Change—Policy Responses 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Probst, T. 2005. Proposals for future policies: An orientation towards a balance betweenregional development and cultural landscape in the Alps. In Regional Development andcultural landscape change in the Alps—The challenge of polarisation, eds. W. Pfefferkorn,H. R. Egli, and A. Massarutto, 169–189. Geographica Bernensia G7. Berne, Switzerland:Institute of Geography, University of Berne.

Proshansky, H., A. K. Fabian, and R. Kaminoff. 1983. Place-identity: Physical worldsocialization of the self. J. Environ. Psychol. 3:57–83.

Schneeberger, N., M. Burgi, and F. Kienast. 2007. Rates of landscape change at thenorthern fringe of the Swiss Alps: Historical and recent tendencies. Landscape UrbanPlan. 80:127–136.

Schnell, K.-D., R. Scherer, A. Berwert, T. Bieger, and H. Rutter. 2002. Managing andmonitoring sustainable regional development in alpine regions. In Proceedings of the4th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, ed. F.-J. Bade, 358–376,27–31 August, Dortmund, Germany.

Stanners, D., and P. Bourdeau. 1995. Europe’s environment: The Dobris assessment—Anoverview. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environmental Agency.

Tappeiner, U., E. Tasser, G. Leitinger, and G. Tappeiner. 2006. Landnutzung in den Alpen:Historische entwiclung und zukunftige szenarien. In Die Alpen im jahr 2020, Alpinespace—Man and environment, vol. 1, eds. R. Psenner and R. Lackner, 23–39. Innsbruck,Austria: Innsbruck University Press.

Territorial Agenda of the European Union. 2007. Towards a more competitive and sustainableEurope of diverse regions. Informal ministerial meeting on urban development andterritorial cohesion. Leipzig, Germany: Federal Ministry of Transport, Building andUrban Affairs.

United Nations General Assembly. 1992a. Earth Summit: Agenda21, United Nationsprogramme of action. Rio de Janerio, Brasil: United Nations.

United Nations General Assembly. 1992b. Rio declaration on environment and development.United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Rio deJanerio, Brasil: United Nations.

Waitt, G. 2000. Consuming heritage: Perceived historical authencity. Ann. Tourism Res.27(4):835–862.

Wascher, D. M., ed. 2000. Proceedings of European Workshop on Landscape Assessment as aPolicy Tool, 92. Tilburg, Cheltenham, UK: European Centre for Nature Conservationand The Countryside Agency.

Wates, N. 1996. Action planning. London, UK: The Prince of Wales’s Institute ofArchitecture.

280 M. Golobic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

1:59

04

Nov

embe

r 20

14