Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 85±94
Holistic aspects in landscape development: a scenario approach È lo Mander Hannes Palang*, Helen AlumaÈe, U Institute of Geography, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, 51014 Tartu, Estonia
Abstract A holistic approach to landscape development includes biological, physical and human components. This approach becomes even more useful when landscapes face rapid change. This paper is based on a landscape model (Keisteri, 1990) that consists of visible material features, perceivable non-material features, and underlying processes. Landscape change is sometimes unpredictable because the transformation consists of autonomous as well as human-steered processes. This study argues that study of the perceivable, non-material features and underlying processes in¯uencing landscape change can be used to create scenarios that predict the visible, material changes in the landscape. As an example, a case study has been carried out in Obinitsa, Estonia. Four scenarios were created to project the possible landscape changes in that marginal area. After that the locals' preferences of these scenario were tested. Of the different development options people prefer those which resemble the identity of the landscape or those which, although introducing larger changes, create a feeling of certainty, predictability, welfare and well-being. # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Scenarios; Landscape change; Landscape coherence; Landscape preference
1. Introduction 1.1. Landscapes and cultural landscapes Landscape researchers often face the situation that landscape changes are neither quanti®able nor measurable. As a landscape consists of many components, it is relatively easy to measure the changes in these separately. The overall change is a bit more than the sum of component changes, and the changes in components only have meaning in the context of a landscape as a whole (Antrop, 1998; Naveh, 2000). Setting aside the natural succession of landscape, there are several other ways to de®ne and determine *
Corresponding author. Tel.: 372-7-375826; fax: 372-7-375825. E-mail address:
[email protected] (H. Palang) 0169-2046/00/$20.00 # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 2 0 4 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 8 1 - 5
landscape change. One of these is to trace the appearance of human elements within the natural background, or, in other words, formation of cultural landscape, as some authors pose it (e.g. Naveh, 1995). Accordingly, humans transform natural landscape into cultural landscape, constantly increasing human impact until the original natural landscape is totally replaced by something anthropogeneous, with townscape or urbanscape representing the ultimate development. However, as there is almost no purely natural landscape left (Jones, 1991; Isachenko, 1991), one has to abandon the strict division of landscape into either natural or cultural ones (so common in Eastern European landscape studies) and adopt a de®nition by which cultural and natural landscapes are understood as layers of the total landscape. In that case, the study of landscape changes focuses on the change in land use, which has its speci®c
86
H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 85±94
driving forces, as well as its ecological and social consequences. Keisteri (1990) has developed a model landscape well suited for holistic landscape research. The total landscape is divided into three parts: visible material area that is seen by the human observer; invisible experience of the area created in the human mind; and the underlying processes of human and natural activity with all interrelations between these. These three components form a set of phenomena that are associated with the landscape. Landscape is thus divided into an experiential, more subjective part and a more easily measurable, more objective part, each with its own underlying factors. Thus, subjectivity and objectivity complement each other in the evaluation of landscapes rather than being opposite poles. This model also enables identi®cation of the different hierarchical levels. It can be used to study major regions on a global scale, or in an attempt to combine the examination of areas of different sizes into a multilevel hierarchy. In our approach, socio-economic processes and natural succession act as the major underlying factors; values and preferences form the `invisible' landscape, while the appearance of the landscape is what we actually see. In another article, Keisteri (1994) asks for studies in cultural landscape and cultural ecology to be based on the ideas of circulation landscapes. This idea, similar to that of Emmelin (1996), views landscape as the result of previous activities and as the basis for future alternatives. The current landscape may have had several alternatives in the past that can be restored with the aid of old maps, photographs, and descriptions. At the same time the landscape has several future alternatives that depend on decisions made today. The choice between these alternatives depends on the values and valuations associated with the landscape. Landscape can also be de®ned as the visual expression of the sum of objects and the processes in a given locality at a given time (Emmelin, 1996). Accordingly a present landscape is the result of past processes, and in turn forms a basis for future landscapes. However, the emergence of a particular future landscape, among the numerous potential landscapes, depends largely on policy decisions. Landscape change is a continuous process. The mechanism of landscape change is explained in
Fig. 1. Cycle of landscape change at regional level.
Fig. 1. The degree of change depends on policy options, on the prevailing attitude in society, and on culture. Landscape values include life-supporting (ecological), aesthetic, economical, intrinsic, cultural, orientational, identity, scienti®c, recreational assets (see Jones, 1993). As landscape values change, policy shifts, which in turn may lead to socio-economic changes, thus generating further changes in landscape values. Socio-economic changes may also lead to changes in valuations and attitudes, which induce new policies. However, landscape change is seldom a planned process. Instead, it is a mixture of autonomous actions and actions planned by people. Accordingly, the landscape changes chaotically, while at certain times man tries to steer and redirect the evolution by planned actions (Antrop, 1998). 1.2. Using scenarios to predict landscape changes One way to predict the future of landscapes is to use scenarios. These scenarios should be based on landscape history and provide options for future development. Despite much criticism, these scenarios should include biological and physical as well as human aspects. Although creating scenarios is not an aim in itself, it provides insights into the mechanisms and outcomes of future landscape change. Based on these options, decisions could be make to affect landscape changes in the desired direction. Although scenarios rarely manifest themselves fully, they help us gain insight into future prospects if we try to steer landscape evolution in a particular direction. Scenarios can be generated using two techniques (Harms, 1995). Forecasting scenarios project current trends or expectations to the future. Backcasting scenarios design possible alternatives which are contrasted with the present situation. Jones and
H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 85±94
Emmelin (1995) list four possible types of scenarios: trend extrapolation that extends the present trends of landscape development into the future; effects of concrete policy measures that try to describe the effects of policy on the landscape; normative future which presents landscape containing desirable elements; and surprising future that expresses the role of unexpected landscape change. Examples of these kinds of scenario studies are found in Meeus et al. (1990), Schoute et al. (1995), Harms (2000). To analyse the effects of policy on a landscape, a landscape impact analysis method has been proposed by Emmelin (Emmelin, 1982, 1995, 1996). The analysis starts with policy analysis, which identi®es the factors most likely to have important in pacts. Together with contextual factors, these factors are used to construct scenarios. A `synopsis' or a ®rst sketch of a scenario is envisioned, which in turn leads to scoping. After that, the present and past landscapes are reconstructed and visualised. The scene is then constructed as a surprise-free trend extrapolation and an extrapolation of the present landscape. Finally, the impact analysis is `matched' with a given landscape. 1.3. The Obinitsa case The driving forces behind land use changes in Estonia are well documented (Mander and Palang, 1994; Palang et al., 1998; Peterson and Aunap, 1998, etc.). However, much less attention has been paid to the changes in valuation and behaviour of land users (Kartau et al., 1999; Palang et al., 1999). The following case study tries to link the actual changes in the appearance of landscape with future visions and values of the actual land users. Obinitsa, situated in South-East Estonia, is among the nation's poorest regions. Since Estonia regained independence in 1991, the population of most villages has decreased. Because much of the population decrease is re¯ected by emigration by young adults, land use has also diminished. About half of the arable in use in 1994 now lies abandoned. Arable land comprises 41.7% of the territory of the community. In 1998, people applied for state subsidies for only 18.4% of the arable land. This suggests either that the actual land use in the area is much smaller or that landowners are unaware of or are apathetic towards the subsidies (Table 1).
87
Table 1 Main socio-economic characteristics (1997)
Population Average income, EEK Pensioners Unemployment Arable land
Obinitsa
Tallinn
Estonia
1960 2627 31% >4% 41.7%
420000 1453000 4391 3573 13.4% 14.1% 1.8% 2.1% 24.7%
This case study had three main objectives. First, it aimed to determine future options for the area. For this, four scenarios were created. Second, we tried to compare the future alternatives with the present landscape in terms of coherence, diversity, and continuity. Third, it investigates the public preferences of the alternatives. 2. Methods and material The case study was carried out in four steps. As the ®rst step, policy analysis was used to create the scenarios. This analysis was based on differences in formally published political policy re¯ecting national strategies and policy aims (Kevvai, 1997; Norton, 1997; Raagmaa and Terk, 1997; Thomas, 1998; Hontelez, 1998), and on similar studies carried out elsewhere (Willis and Garrod, 1992; Jones and Emmelin, 1995; Silson, 1995; Bullock and Kay, 1997; Stenseke, 1997; Crabb et al., 1998). In addition, natural conditions, former land use, and current trends were taken into account. As the second step, the scenarios were illustrated by an artist who used the descriptions and comments by the authors. All pictures feature the same place near HaÈrma, a village situated on the rim of the Piusa primeval valley. Because ephemeral features, such as changing colours and aspects of vegetation could in¯uence the perception of a landscape (Brassley, 1998), all pictures were drawn to depict similar seasonal and weather aspects, a sunny day in late summer or early autumn in an agricultural area. Each picture was accompanied by a short text describing the most important changes. The third step included the comparison of the scenarios with the current situation. The three criteria used included diversity, coherence, and
88
H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 85±94
continuity. Diversity refers to the amount of landscape components as the expression of the vertical relationship between land use and abiotic features. The number of land use types and number of elements in the area served as parameters to assess diversity. Coherence was used to assess the agreement between landscape components as the expression of horizontal relationships between sites. Coherence was assessed from two viewpoints. Vertical coherence shows how the appearance of the landscape re¯ects local geomorphology, soil and hydrologic conditions, while horizontal coherence shows the interconnectedness of landscape elements in order and structure as a whole. According to Van Mansvelt et al. (1998), there are two types of horizontal coherence: functional and visual-spatial. The former considers the potential variety of species and habitats in landscape, the latter shows the accordance of the habitat mosaic and various constructions in the landscape with abiotic landscape factors. Finally, continuity refers to the temporal relationships of land use and spatial arrangement from the past to the future. Continuity re¯ects the presence of land use tradition, cultural history, and presumed future sustainability (Kuiper, 1998; Van Mansvelt et al., 1998; Van Mansvelt and van der Lubbe, 1999). All scenarios were assessed according to these criteria. They were ranked in descending order such that the scenario representing the highest value or performance in any of the criteria received the highest rank 1 and the weakest was ranked 5. Therefore, the rank sum is the lowest for the most preferable scenario. The fourth step was an examination of the public's landscape preferences and their demand for various landscapes re¯ected by a willingness to pay for the desired landscape. The examination consisted of a questionnaire and interviews with land owners/users. First, the respondents were shown the pictures of the scenarios and asked to rank the pictures according to their preferences. Second, contingent valuation technique (Willis and Garrod, 1992; Bullock and Kay, 1997, etc.) was used to assess the preferences of local people and their demand for a certain landscape through their willingness to pay for it. This method also determines which bene®ts local people could expect from landscape changes.
3. Results 3.1. Future scenarios The policy analysis indicated four possible future scenarios, each of which departs from the current situation (A): (D) Ð No action scenario, or trend extrapolation (B) Ð Effects of the European Union (EU) agricultural policy named `status quo' (C) Ð Effects of the EU agricultural policy named `implementation of the model of the year 1992' (E) Ð Surprising future. The no action scenario (scenario D) indicates the deepening marginalisation of the area. Birch forests cover larger areas, mainly at the expense of abandoned ®elds, while pine forests are felled and agricultural ®elds diminish. Agriculture focuses mainly on selfsubsistence, although some market-oriented production remains. The socio-economic situation worsens, emigration continues, and abandoned, half-demolished buildings begin to dominant the human element in the landscape. Brushwood marks the location of abandoned ®elds, and possibly an increase in the beaver population might happen, which results in dammed up rivers and streams thus creating new mires. The status quo scenario (scenario B) leads to specialisation of farms capable of competing with production from other EU countries. The landscape changes are similar to those during Soviet times. The ®elds remain large and become more monotonous. However, the natural conditions, such as soils and relief, but also the position in deep hinterland, do not support this kind of development in the area. An advantage might be the opening of the nearby Russian market, but in general this scenario seems unrealistic. The 1992 model of the EU agricultural policy (scenario C) leads to a decline in agricultural lands in Estonia. Many lands are left fallow for years. These may later become grasslands and pastures, but if abandoned, brushwood take over. Finally, agricultural production in the area ceases, although some new activities begin. Finally, we considered two options for the unpredictable surprising future (scenario E). First, exploitation of the clay deposits in the area might transform
H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 85±94
89
tion was directed toward their most preferred landscape. The hypothetical payment elicited from respondents was in the form of a yearly donation to a trust fond established to preserve or create their preferred landscape. The outcomes of the survey reveal that 85% of the respondents would prefer the landscape related to the surprising future, which is the only scenario that predicts development in the area, while the least favoured scenario was the `no action' landscape. On average, the respondents were willing to donate 225 Estonian crowns per household per year to support their most preferred landscape. The respondents felt that they generally prefer diverse over monotonous agricultural landscape. Because agriculture is the traditional source of income for much of the Obinitsa population, many of the respondents share a fear of ultimate agricultural collapse. Landscape preferences were supported by an additional question in which respondents were asked whether they would prefer change in certain features or attributes in the landscape. Nine characteristic landscape features in the Obinitsa area were selected for the question. The results indicate that people would like to see fewer neglected households and more modern farm buildings. People felt satis®ed with other features, such as small ®elds of crops, pastures, hay meadows and tree stands, and preferred maintenance or an increase in the number of these features. In general, the people of Obinitsa favour the current state of their surrounding landscape, but they would like to see increased development and life, and tidier households in the area to pretty and enliven the landscape. The scenarios created in the course of the study include different possible future trends that in turn have different impact on land use and thus on
the traditional agricultural activity to small industry and thus alter the landscape. Second, a glass industry based on local sand resources might lead to a similar outcome. The establishment of an ecological museum to exhibit the nature of the area and artefacts of previous human activities has also been considered. 3.2. Diversity and coherence Diversity and coherence were used as the main indicators to evaluate the quality of the possible future landscapes. Each of the four scenarios was compared with the current situation. Diversity served as an indicator of the relationship between land use and abiotic features as the basis of landscape identity. Coherence in turn should facilitate people to orient themselves in time and space, thus indicating the traditionality of the landscape. Table 2 summarises the results of the expert assessment of the scenarios. De®nitely scenario A (the current situation) ®ts best to the current concept of the Obinitsa landscape. However, this scenario is unrealistic and can be disregarded from future development plans. The remaining scenarios form two groups, with scenarios E and C being more coherent with the current landscape, while scenarios B and D introduce large-scale changes and total loss of the present landscape appearance. 3.3. Perception of the scenarios The public was shown ®ve renditions of the scenarios: one showing today's landscape, plus a painting of each of the future landscapes (Fig. 2). The respondents were asked to rank the pictures according to their preference, and a contingent valuation technique quesTable 2 Ranking of scenarios
Vertical coherence Horizontal coherence Ð functional Horizontal coherence Ð visual-spatial Diversity Ð land use types Diversity Ð No. of elements Continuity Public perception Sum of rankings
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Scenario D
Scenario E
2 1 3 2 1±2 1 2 12.5
5 5 5 5 5 4±5 4±5 34
3 3 2 1 1±2 2 3 15.5
4 2 4 4 4 3 4±5 25.5
1 4 1 3 3 4±5 1 17.5
90
H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 85±94
Fig. 2. (A) The current situation. On both sides of the road there are households with different buildings, next to them are located small ®elds, bigger haymeadows and pastures, forest in the background. (B) The result of the EU status quo policy. On the both sides of the road there are large ®elds. The old houses are demolished, they have been replaced by a ®eld on one side of the road and a modern grain dryer. Fields have been expanded also on the expense of forest. (C) Result of the EU model 1992 policy. The household on the left is abandoned, the one on the right is still populated, but the buildings are in a miserable condition. The ®eld on the left is also abandoned, the ®eld on the right is used as a pasture for couple of cows. There are still small ®elds close to the household. (D) The zero scenario or prolongation of the current trend. Household on the both sides of the road are abandoned and falling slowly into pieces. The ®eld on the left has been abandoned long time ago and is overgrown with brushwood, the ®eld on the right has been abandoned recently. The logs in the background refer to increased forest cutting. (E) Surprising future. On the left side a stable has been built instead of old buildings. On the right some older buildings still remain, but a new home has been added. The surroundings are taken care of, there is a small patch of ®eld. The land on the left is used as a grazing ground for horses, while a pond and a camping site have been created on the right.
H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 85±94
landscape changes. Realistically, we have to be ready for the implementation of any of these scenarios. It is clear that no single, clean scenario will take place. The reality will be a mixture of scenarios. By evaluating scenarios it will be easier to analyse the desirable and undesirable changes and we can take action to promote or to prevent certain changes. The search for positive and negative aspects of each of the scenarios for Estonia or for the local level and the implementation of related methods and actions remains the responsibility of decision-makers. 4. Discussion 4.1. Abandonment of agricultural landscapes Agriculture has been traditionally the most important factor shaping landscapes in Estonia. When Soviet farming style collapsed, the land ownership pattern was turned upside down once more Ð the third time during the 20th century and the economic situation, especially lack of government support, to some, a lack of agricultural policy in general, has lead to great changes in landscape values. This abandonment has often been seen as breaking the very essence of the Estonian countryside. Agricultural land has always been held in high regard as the result of the labour of previous generations. While fallow lands have been goal of agricultural policy in many other countries, in Estonia it is a sad outcome of socio-economic changes. Farmers, when deliberating abandonment of farmlands, usually consider fertility and economic conditions as the main factors, followed by soil type and water regime (Crabb et al., 1998). Landscape values and accessibility have the least in¯uence on the decision. Silson (1995) indicates that ®eld margins are left fallow in the ®rst order. These grass strips are considered beautiful, they support managing hedgerows, and also prevent spread of plant diseases. In hilly areas, ®elds on steep slopes are abandoned ®rst, followed by ®elds distant from the farm centre or close to highways and roads. According to Crabb et al. (1998), most of the British farmers have found that fallow lands enrich the fauna, but have a negative impact on the appearance of the landscape.
91
Landowners often consider themselves as carriers of more than one value in their actions. Thereby land use changes become a battle®eld of different, sometimes opposing interests. Solutions also differ; some choose a compromise, others put one value somewhat higher than others, some others take advantage of the current situation. In Sweden, valuations and attitudes of the farmers cause most land use changes (Stenseke, 1997). Others seek stability in landscape. Overly rapid changes might be disturbing both emotionally and psychologically. People tend to prefer landscapes that have a potential for short-term, small-scale and predictable changes (Brassley, 1998). People are used to the landscape and drastic changes are considered annoying and are resisted. In Estonia, the recent changes have been rapid and drastic enough to provoke people to action. During Soviet times, planning was perceived as force majeure that did not depend on the will of local people. Now local governments are responsible for carrying out planning and sustaining landscape values. However, often people are not aware of landscape values, nor do they understand their own role in landscape change. On the other hand, as part of EU accession, the Estonian government is currently developing plans how to implement agri-environment directive 2078/ 92, and a support scheme is foreseen for those farmers who plan to keep their land fallow. 4.2. Diversity and coherence Of the four probable scenarios, two fall in line with the present developments while the other two predict large-scale changes. Scenario C seems to be desirable for most rural politicians, because preconditions for this scenario include some small subsidies for farmers. It would include some decrease in the area of ®elds and an increase in fallow lands and forests, but also foresees increase in pastures, creates employment for local people and thereby maintains the human presence and the agricultural appearance of the landscape. However, in the long term, this scenario would lead to the replacement of agricultural production with some other activity, while natural conditions and this area's isolated location in the corner of the country creates dif®culties in competing with other places. Scenario E could be handled as a prolongation of scenario C. The subsidies foreseen for farmers are
92
H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 85±94
insuf®cient to maintain production, so presumably at least the most active of the farmers would switch to other ways to generate income. Possibilities include farms with specialised production or the promotion of tourism. All these changes would lead to the creation of a new landscape identity. At the same time, this scenario was most preferred by local people, who saw it as an icon of a secure future, and as an image of southern Scandinavia, a symbol well-being. Scenarios B and D represent the undesirable changes in the landscape. Scenario B presumes implementation of the full-scale EU agricultural support system. In the short term it could lead to the formation of a small number of highly productive farms, while other people would need to seek employment elsewhere. The landscape would become industrial-agricultural, dominated by large ®elds and production buildings with almost no human presence. This scenario was the penultimate preference by locals; fortunately also the least probable. Scenario D is in some sense the opposite of scenario B. It presumes that the processes of the previous 5 or 6 years would continue. Farms are small and unable to create suf®cient income. There are no market opportunities, production is unpro®table and therefore many people decide to stop agricultural activities. Fields are abandoned and become covered with brushwood and later forest. Young adults migrate to towns, leaving agriculture in the hands of those physically unable to manage. Buildings fall into ruin without maintenance; landscape loses its identity completely. This scenario was the least desired by locals; yet is perhaps the most probable. 4.3. Role of scenarios As shown previously, landscape consists of material features, non-material features and the underlying processes that drive those features. We have also shown that landscape is more than just the sum of its single elements. Finally, we have argued that landscape change is not fully predictable, but rather contains autonomous `natural' development and planned human actions aimed at directing development. Natural processes proceed of their own accord; their time span is much different from those of human processes. Humans attribute values to the landscape and periodically perceive one or another value is being
lost or diminished. To compensate this loss, a planned action is undertaken. However, a plan or policy seldom gives exactly the expected result. It gives instead the land users a framework or limits to their actions. Within those limits land users act according to their particular sets of values. The role of scenarios can be seen as providing insights into the future (Emmelin, 1996); they are an attempt to picture the future landscape, i.e. all the elements of the future landscape plus the extra something the landscape has (sensu Antrop, 1998); or, based on an analysis of the underlying processes attempting to depict the material and the perceivable in the future (sensu Keisteri, 1990). In any case, such insights help us to understand the aftermath of our decisions concerning the landscape. 5. Conclusions Landscapes consist of material and non-material features and underlying processes that in¯uence these features. Despite being a continuous process, landscape change is not fully predictable, as it is a mixture of autonomous development and planned human actions. Furthermore, landscape tends to be more than just the sum of elements comprising it; landscape has its identity, its distinguishable character. While planning actions, this identity of a landscape should be kept in mind. Socio-economic changes tend to induce landscape changes as well. For Estonia, one of the main driving forces of landscape change is the changing agricultural and rural policy. To foresee the outcome of these political changes, four scenarios created for one of the least developed areas of the country, the Obinitsa area. Later local inhabitants were questioned about their preferences concerning these scenarios. The results show that of the different development options people prefer those which resemble the identity of the landscape or those which, although introducing larger changes, create a feeling of certainty, predictability, welfare and well-being. Finally, future landscapes depend largely on political decisions. It is not a decision made somewhere at the top of a political hierarchy that in¯uences the landscape; instead, future landscape is an agreement between the users of the landscape. Using scenarios
H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 85±94
could help to come to this agreement, and to reveal possible problems and shortcomings. Creating scenarios and checking the preferences of local people gives good feedback for politicians and decision-makers about the outcome of different policies. Finally, it is up to landscape ecologists to help people and decisionmakers to make the choices which alter the landscape, and a holistic approach integrating both natural and human factors is essential in it. Acknowledgements The case study behind this paper was ®nanced by the Estonian Ministry of Education, grant No. 10810. The illustrations (Fig. 3) were drawn by Meelis Krigul. References Antrop, M., 1998. Landscape change: plan or chaos? Landscape Urban Plann. 41, 155±161. Brassley, P., 1998. Ephemeral landscapes. Landscape Res. 23, 119± 133. Bullock, C.H., Kay, J., 1997. Preservation and change in the upland landscape: the public bene®ts of grazing management. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 40, 315±335. Crabb, J., Firbank, L., Winter, M., Parham, C., Dauven, A., 1998. Set-aside landscapes: farmer perceptions and practices in England. Landscape Res. 23, 237±255. Emmelin, L., 1982. Painting the future Ð visual impact analysis of changes in the Swedish landscape, ForskningsraÊdsnaÈmnden, Rapport 1982, 15 pp. Emmelin, L., 1995. Landscape impact analysis: a method for strategic environmental impact analysis. In: Schoute, J.F.Th., Finke, P.A., Veeneklaas, F.R., Wolfert, H.P. (Eds.), Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 449±454. Emmelin, L., 1996. Landscape impact analysis: a systematic approach to landscape impacts of policy. Landscape Res. 21, 13±35. Harms, W.B., 1995. Scenarios for nature development. In: Schoute, J.F.Th., Finke, P.A., Veeneklaas, F.R., Wolfert, H.P. (Eds.), Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment. KIuwer Academic Publishers, pp. 391±403. Harms, W.B., 2000. Modelling landscape changes in the Netherlands: Central City Belt case study. In: Jongman, R.H.G., È . (Eds.), Ecological and Socio-economic ConseMander, U quences of Land Use Changes. Computational Mechanics Publications, Southhampton and Boston, serie Advances in Ecology, in press. Hontelez, J. (comp.), 1998. Euro-Eesti, Keskkond. Euroopa Liidu keskkonnapoliitikast ja EL laienemise moÄjust Eesti loodusele ja
93
elukeskkonnale (On the impact of the EU enlargement on Estonia's nature and environment). Estonian Green Movement, 107 pp. Isachenko, A.G., 1991. Landshaftovedeniye i ®ziko-geogra®cheskoe rayonirovaniye. Vysshaya shkola, Moscow, 366 pp (in Russian). Jones, M., 1991. The elusive reality of landscape. Concepts and approaches in landscape research. Norsk Geogra¯sk Tidsskrift 45, 153±169. Jones, M., 1993. Landscape as a resource and the problem of landscape values. In: Rusten, C., Wùien, H. (Eds.). The Politics of Environmental conservation. Proceedings from a Workshop in Trondheim 26 March 1993. Univ. of Trondheim, pp. 19±33. Jones, M., Emmelin, L., 1995. Scenarios for the visual impact of agricultural policies in two Norwegian landscapes. In: Schoute, J.F.Th., Finke, P.A., Veeneklaas, F.R., Wolfert, H.P. (Eds.), Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 405±416. Kartau, K., Kaur, E., Sepp, K., 1999. Looduskaitse Ð rahulolematuse kaudu kokkuleppeni. (Nature conservation Ð agreement through antagonism). Eesti Loodus 7, 258±261. Keisteri, T., 1990. The study of change in cultural landscapes. Fennia 168 (1), 31±115. Keisteri, T., 1994. Landscape ecology from the viewpoint of cultural landscape. In: Nissinaho, A. (Ed.), Cultural Ecology: One Theory? Publication of the project Changing Environment Ð Changing Society, Turku, pp. 57±74. Kevvai, T., 1997. Production and processing. In: Agriculture in Estonia 1996, Ministry of Agriculture. Kuiper, J., 1998. Landscape quality based upon diversity, coherence and continuity Ð Landscape planning at different levels in the river area of the Netherlands. Landscape Urban Plann. 41, 91±104. È ., Palang, H., 1994. Changes of landscape structure in Mander, U Estonia during the Soviet period. GeoJournal 33 (1), 45±54. Meeus, J.H.A., Wijermans, M.P., Vroom, M.J., 1990. Agricultural landscape in Europe and their transformation. Landscape Urban Plann. 18, 289±352. Naveh, Z., 1995. Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landscape Urban Plann. 32, 43±54. Naveh, Z., 2000. What is holistic landscape ecology? Landscape Urban Plann. 50, 7±26. Norton, R., 1997. Eesti riiklik poÄllumajanduse strateegia: eesmaÈrgid ja alternatiivstsenaariumid (Estonia's agricultural strategy: aims and alternatives). In: Koov, M. (Ed.), PoÄllumajandus ja Ä ppe- ja NoÄuandekeskus, pp. 13±20. maaelu. JaÈneda O È ., Luud, A., 1998. Landscape diversity Palang, H., Mander, U dynamics in Estonia. Landscape Urban Plann. 41, 163±169. Palang, H., Kaur, E., AlumaÈe, H., JuÈrimaÈe, K., 1999. Con¯icts between landscape values as driving force for landscape management. Norsk Geogra®sk Tidskrift 532, 153±159. Peterson, U., Aunap, R., 1998. Changes in agricultural land use in Estonia in the 1990s detected with multitemporal Landsat imagery. Landscape Urban Plann. 41, 193±201. Raagmaa, G., Terk, E., 1997. Eesti tulevikustsenaariumid. Eesti Keskkonnaministeerium (Estonia's scenarios for the future), Eesti Tuleviku-uuringute Instituut, 155 pp.
94
H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 85±94
Schoute, J.F.Th., Finke, P.A., Veeneklaas, P.R., Wolfert, H.P. (Eds.), 1995. Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Silson, A., 1995. The scenery of set-aside. Geographical Magazine 67 (3), 58±59. Stenseke, M., 1997. Farmers and landscape. Concerning the prospects of sustainable agriculture. Paper presented at the conference Transformation of agricultural landscapes Ð interdisciplinary approaches to future management. Roskilde, 1997. Thomas, R.S. (comp.), 1998. Euroopa Liidu uÈhtse poÄllumajanduspoliitika (CAP) areng tulevikus. Ministry of Agriculture, 56 pp. Van Mansvelt, J.D., Stobbelaar, D.J., Hendriks, K., 1998. Comparison of landscape features in organic and conventional farming systems. Landscape Urban Plann. 41, 209±227. Van Mansvelt, J.D., van der Lubbe, M.J., 1999. Checklist for Sustainable Landscape Management. Elsevier. Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., 1992. Assessing the value of future landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 23, 17±32. Hannes Palang (1968), Ph.D., is a researcher at the Institute of Geography, University of Tartu. Ph.D. in geography from the University of Tartu 1998, M.Sc. in Environmental Management from the University of Amsterdam 1996. His main research
interests include on landscape changes and landscape diversity, recent studies focus on landscape values and their assessment. Helen AlumaÈe (1975) is a M.Sc. student at the Institute of Geography, University of Tartu Estonia, specializing in landscape ecology and environmental sciences. She has done research into landscape preferences of local people as well as participated in a local pilot project of developing methods for assessing the values of landscapes. È lo Mander (1954) Prof., Ph.D., physical geographer and U landscape ecologist, Professor at the University of Tartu, Institute of Geography. Studied geography in Tartu, Estonia, from 1972 to 1977, and worked at the Estonian Agricultural University, Department of Land Reclamation from 1977 to 1991 (lecturer, assistant professor) Ph.D. in ecology from the University of Tartu, 1983. Professor for physical geography and landscape ecology, and Head of the Institute of Geography, University of Tartu 1992±1998. Current research topics: nutrient cycling in agricultural watersheds, nutrient retention and transformations in wetlands and riparian buffer zones, design and study of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, long-term changes in land-use structure and their influence on fluxes through landscape.
