Politicising the landscape: a theoretical contribution towards the development of participation in landscape planning

Abstract

In this paper, we engage with the topic of public participation in landscape planning. Academic discussions and policy rhetoric tend to build on a conceptualisation of landscape as a democratic entity, yet practices of participatory landscape planning often fall short of these ideals. Most scholars approach this rhetoric-practice gap from procedural and normative positions, defining what makes a successful participatory process. We take an alternative approach, scrutinising the role of landscape planning theory in participatory shortcomings, and reveal how poor substantive theorisation of 'the political' nature of landscapes contributes to the difficulties in realising participatory ideals. We engage theoretically with the political dimension, conceptualising and explaining the implications that differences, conflicts and power relations have for participation in landscape planning, that is, politicising the landscape. This theoretical engagement helps bring about a much-needed realignment of substantive theory, procedural theory and practice for developing participation in landscape planning.

Greenway Network: A Participatory Planning Approach for Municipalities of the South Region of Brazil

“…Dialogue is the basis of social learning processes, which take place when a group of people work together to find solutions for a local problem (Wildemeersch, 2009), interact in a favourable social climate and communicate in a relatively open conversation wherein diverse and even contrasting views are welcomed and used as drivers for knowledge production (Wals, 2011). Dialogue facilitation in participatory landscape planning processes can help diminish communication barriers associated with hierarchical relations that might occur between experts and local community members, wherein dominant agendas tend to keep being reproduced (Calderon & Butler, 2020). Accordingly, the approach proposed by this study enables a space for inquiry and creation of alternatives to exclusively top-down interventions through dialogue interaction with members of the local community already in the initial stage of the plan, which is expected to be extended and intensified in later phases of the plan's development.…”

“…However, transdisciplinary, iterative and reflexive approaches wherein experience and knowledge from local stakeholders are integrated into landscape greenway planning are less prevalent than typical top-down and technically-oriented processes (Opdam, 2013;Calderon & Butler, 2020). Despite the increasing appeal for genuine participation in landscape planning, guided by inclusiveness, power balance, and consensus-building (Calderon & Butler, 2020), there is a need for enhanced horizontal communication and social learning processes between experts and the population at large as well as capacity-building of stakeholders so that they can effectively take part in the debate and design of solutions (Valencia-Sandoval, Flanders, & Kozak, 2010;Meli et al, 2016).…”

Knowing the landscape: a theoretical discussion on the challenges in forming knowledge about landscapes

“…Participatory planning is advocated for providing opportunities for social and institutional learning, development of trust and relationships as well as a common understanding of a landscape-its history and possible future changes (Selman, 2010). However, providing arenas for and leading such processes are challenging tasks, so efforts to engage stakeholders, enhance the public's influence and limit prioritisation of powerful stakeholders' interests and values may have disappointing results (Calderon & Butler, 2020). Hence, Calderon and Butler (2020) argue that greater attention is needed in participatory landscape planning practices to differences, conflicts and power structures regarding landscapes and their political nature.…”

“…However, providing arenas for and leading such processes are challenging tasks, so efforts to engage stakeholders, enhance the public's influence and limit prioritisation of powerful stakeholders' interests and values may have disappointing results (Calderon & Butler, 2020). Hence, Calderon and Butler (2020) argue that greater attention is needed in participatory landscape planning practices to differences, conflicts and power structures regarding landscapes and their political nature. 'Instead of only aiming for consensus outcomes, the focus of certain processes would be to help participants better understand (the legitimacy of) their own values and interests and those of their opponents; unpacking the roots and types of differences and conflicts that may exist and finding tailored ways to manage them, without necessary consensus' (Calderon & Butler, 2020, p. 8).…”

Place Attachment and Its Consequence for Landscape-Scale Management and Readiness to Participate: Social Network Complexity in the Post-Soviet Rural Context of Latvia and Estonia

“…Previous poorly implemented participatory approaches and historical tensions also raise barriers to development [9,25,27], requiring a need for flexible policies and the development of participatory tools [18,23]. The political nature of landscape, e.g., the multiple stakes, power relations and conflicts associated with it, necessitates that these aspects are made more explicit in practical landscape planning [28].…”