No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract:This article reinterprets open space as the theatre of adaptive regimes in the interfering wakes of two major waves of transformation: the agricultural and the urban transformation. The aim of the wave regime concept is to accommodate traditional and emerging land uses in a logical scheme of co-existing regimes separated by transition waves in space and time. Each wave corresponds to a transitional stage from one set to another set of value regime, which by the agents of the transformation is interpreted as a major value increase. The current struggle for space and the difficult interpretations of quality and sustainability can be explained as expressions of competition between value regimes. These value regimes tend to be driven and perpetuated by customary paradigms of land-use planning and management (urban planning, ecology, agronomy, etc.). Land-use sectors ask for rather unambiguous definitions and clear use rights of land use categories and zoning, leaving limited possibility for interaction, mixed regimes and innovative multifunctional land-use. New service demands, new sustainability and resilience urgencies challenge these customary land-use planning paradigms and their rules and instruments. This paper acknowledges a third wave and consequent fourth regime. This regime seeks overall increased sustainability and resilience in open spaces, stressing the strategic importance of unsealed soils and other life conditioning substrates. Different existing land-use models, such as "transition towns", "agroforestry" and many more, can be interpreted as fourth regime examples, but altogether there is a need for more coordination or integration to turn the third wave concept into a real "wave". A specific target is to scan territories for characteristics and values according to the prevailing regimes, and assess each unit in terms of third wave transition opportunities, even within active uses that may be at odds with customary rules and expectations. This is illustrated for cases of illegal intake of farmland for non-agricultural activities and for domestic gardens as a missing category in customary rural and land use policy.