Regional identity is the shared sense of regional 'one-ness', distinctiveness and difference. However, it is an undervalued factor to promote development in lagging rural areas and little is known about methods to reveal its content. This paper aims to develop and apply a method to explore regional identity in rural areas. We argue that the most important cultural markers -understood as rural landscapes and heritage features, perceived as regional identity reference points -can be analyzed and used to characterize regional identity. To this end, a case study was undertaken in two rural areas in northern Germany. We conducted 55 semi-structured interviews and determined cultural markers, using a new procedure with different analysis stages (identification, collectivity, historical depth, relationships). Results revealed a broad spectrum of cultural markers exhibiting collective significance with respect to landscape, built structures, history, intangible heritage and land-use. Next to traditional cultural markers, we found modern ones, introduced after the Second World War. Partially, traditional and modern cultural markers were perceived as related. Based on this knowledge, a first characterization of both regional identities was conducted, showing differences between our study areas. While one regional identity appears to be fragmented, conflicting and influenced by modern cultural markers, the other was characterized as coherent and rooted in traditional cultural markers. However, the integration of these characterizations into further planning steps remains challenging and needs additional, regionally adapted methods. A key finding of the study is that there is no single standard method for linking regional identity and rural planning.

Sense of place is increasingly advocated to support the management of social-ecological systems. Given the concept's complexity, we suggest that an indicator for sense of place is needed to facilitate its application in practical planning. We propose such an indicator called "meaningful places," defined as geographic locations to which (i) immediately perceived as well as socially constructed meanings are ascribed and (ii) evaluative attachments are tied. We applied the indicator in two independent case studies, Lübeck and Lahn, both of which aimed to integrate sense of place in an actual planning process. The case studies differed in the spatial scale of the meaningful places, the indicator's operationalization, and the specific assessment methods. In the Lübeck case, semi-structured interviews and a simple mapping method were used to analyze participants' "home-regions." The results revealed diverse but overlapping locations characterized as aesthetic, different from others, close to nature, and quiet (place meanings). In the Lahn case, a public participation GIS (public participation geographic information system [PPGIS]) survey was conducted and yielded insights into the spatial distribution of meaningful places. The results reflect a wide range of place meanings linked to, for example, activities, aesthetic qualities, or well-being. Furthermore, participants expressed different intensities of place attachments. Although the indicator is still in an exploratory stage, it allows for reflection on potential benefits for planning practitioners. The resulting data can be combined with spatial information usually used in planning processes, e.g., about the state of the underlying physical environment and/or foreseeable drivers of change. This offers new opportunities for managers regarding the determination of priorities to conserve meaningful places, the anticipation of conflicts, and the utilization of the communicative power of meaningful places. We argue that the benefits for planning justify a new direction of research devoted to the development and further advancement of the indicator.

KurzfassungAusgangspunkt des Beitrages ist die Annahme, dass nachhaltige Raumentwicklung in substanzieller Hinsicht an ein relationales Raumverständnis und prozedural an die Auseinandersetzung mit Konflikten gebunden ist. Diese Anforderungen werden auf einen konkreten Gegenstand der räumlichen Planung bezogen: landschaftsbezogene Identitäten. Deren Konzeptualisierung erfolgt als individuelle Deutungen landschaftlicher Spezifik, die sich der Materialität ebenso wie gesellschaftlicher Deutungsmuster bedienen. Für die empirische Erfassung werden landschaftsbezogene Identitäten als Zuspitzung der ‚angeeigneten physischen Landschaft‘ konkretisiert. Im Zentrum des Interesses stehen also solche Merkmale, die zur individuellen Konstruktion spezifischer Landschaft ‚zusammengeschaut‘ werden und auf die sich Zugehörigkeits- bzw. Zusammengehörigkeitsvorstellungen sowie emotionale Zuwendungen beziehen. An diesen als Referenzpunkte bezeichneten Merkmalen kommen auch identitätsrelevante Konflikte zum Ausdruck, also gegensätzliche Deutungen landschaftlicher Spezifik. In einer ländlichen Fallstudienregion werden so verstandene landschaftsbezogene Identitäten mit qualitativ-rekonstruktiven Methoden sichtbar gemacht. Die Ergebnisse von 28 leitfadengestützten Interviews belegen ein vielfältiges Spektrum an Referenzpunkten, die zwar individuell unterschiedlich besetzt sind, aber dennoch wiederholt auftreten. Zudem zeigen sich gegensätzliche Deutungsmuster: Dieselben Merkmale gelten den einen als identitätsstiftend, den anderen nicht. Die Diskussion resümiert die theoretisch-konzeptionellen und methodologischen Überlegungen vor dem Hintergrund der empirischen Ergebnisse und leitet Implikationen für die räumliche Planung ab. Ein besonderer Fokus liegt dabei auf Handlungsempfehlungen zur Bearbeitung konfliktär verfasster Lesarten landschaftsbezogener Identität.

No abstract