Whose collective voice? Landscape, power, and participation

Engaging with participatory approaches in landscape issues is far from a new or novel topic. Rhetoric within academia and practice frequently calls for the engagement of citizens and stakeholders in landscape decision-making to give individuals and groups influence over their landscapes (Calderon & Butler, 2020; Egoz, Jørgensen, & Ruggeri, 2018; Jørgensen, Clemetsen, Halvorsen Thorén, & Richardson, 2016). Present practices can be traced back to the 1970’s, when landscape practitioners and academics alike attempted to address issues of human rights and social responsibility in planning and design (Rodiek, 2002, 2006; Roe, 2018), a development which has continued steadily if sporadically to the present day (Roe, 2018; Selman, 2006, 2012; Swaffield, 2002). At the turn of the 21st century, across much of Europe, rhetoric of participation was brought into mainstream landscape policy through the European Landscape Convention (Jørgensen et al., 2016). This is expressed explicitly in the conventions call for signatory parties:

“to establish procedures for the participation of the general public, local and regional authorities, and other parties with an interest in the definition and implementation of the landscape policies…” (Council of Europe, 2000a, Art 5,c)

It is considered that providing the public with a role in decision-making about their everyday landscapes will help societies better connect to their surroundings reinforcing distinctiveness and identity (Council of Europe, 2000b). Durability and quality of decisions can be greatly improved if local considerations are taken into account, as outcomes reflecting the interests of the participants are better adapted to the local conditions and increase the likelihood of catering for that local needs (Reed, 2008). At the same time, bringing groups together in such processes can enhance community resilience (Nemeth & Oliver, 2017). Yet participation is based on diverse beliefs that are seldom questioned (Cleaver, 2001; Guijt & Shah, 2001) and inevitably create exclusion.

When in the late 1960’s, Sherry Arnstein devised the ‘ladder of participation’ (see Arnstein, 1969), the view was that the more citizen participation the better. It has since been recognised that while developing participation may be desirable it is not necessarily more participation which is needed but ‘better’ participation (Reed, 2008). Higher levels of community involvement have not always been aligned with more favourable outcomes for communities, as marginalised voices are often not included in community consultation methods and consequently have to operate outside the formal planning process (Laskey & Nicholls, 2019; Lovie, 2021). Over the ensuing decades Arnstein’s view have been critiqued and become more nuanced, with the realisation that varied levels of participation are required for different processes and different phases of design and planning (see, e.g. Butler & Sarlöv-Herlin, 2021; IAP2, 2007).

Participation, per se, is an integral part of direct democracy as well as a healthy supplement to representative democracy, where it provides citizens with the possibility to challenge established democratic structures, questioning the reasoning of ‘authority’ (Arler, 2008; Arler & Mellqvist, 2015). Participatory processes frequently focus on the need for agreement and effectiveness in reaching consensus. However, liberal democratic systems preference certain values, and thus certain value holders and their voices over others (Hillier, 2003). As a consequence, a consensual ‘us’ will always be create at the expense of excluding the ‘other’ as certain views, values and aspiration are subordinated or excluded (Mouffe, 2000; Pløger, 2004). When these ‘others’ challenge ‘consensus’ is then viewed as antagonistic, and counter to the ‘consensual process’ (Hillier, 2003). Scholars of radical democracy, view that attaining true consensus, is impossible (Hillier, 2003; Mouffe, 2000; Pløger, 2004). Consensus, achieved through such processes results at best in shallow agreement or accord on the lowest common denominator on which groups can concur (Calderon & Butler, 2020; Mouffe, 2000). Hence, agreement is often the least significant outcomes of a successful participatory process (Innes, 2004).

If undertaken fairly, holistically, and with transparency, participatory processes can provide for complexity of society enabling those who are marginalised to be heard and increasing trust in civic society (Reed, 2008). Thus, participatory processes have the potential to build common ground between participants as individuals come to understand their adversaries, learning the legitimacy of ‘others’ and creating increased mutual tolerance (Innes & Booher, 2003, 2004). A process which claims to be participatory yet excludes individuals or groups conceals the power at play and can be destroyed by those it excludes (Mouffe, 2000).

The planning theorist Judith Innes recognised that the decisions which best benefit from participation are those with a high level of diversity of issues and a high independence of interests (Innes & Booher, 2003). Such situations are frequently encountered in landscape issues and are represented in the paper presented in this special issue.

Landscape creates room for participatory engagement, as landscape provides the tangible space that democracy needs in order for various communities to form (Egoz, 2011; Olwig, 2005). Such a common space constitutes the everyday surroundings of life, where individuals and society relate to environmental issues; an arena to which all have the opportunity to relate to (Gobster, Nassauer, Daniel, & Fry, 2007; Lowenthal, 1986; Selman, 2012; Tuan, 1977). As such landscape functions as a concrete realisation of the Aristotelian idea of public space (Strecker, 2011). The tangible, ‘universally’ understood aspects of landscape act an anchor for exploring intangible and contested values, allowing differing voices to be legitimised rather than considered conflicting and thus being suppressed them through ‘democratic’ processes of consensus (Egoz, 2011). Such a view moves participants away from solving conflicts to focusing on common ground and developing shared meanings (Dakin, 2003; Macpherson, 2006; Nassauer, 2012).

To create truly sustainable landscapes, those affected by landscape issues need to be on-board (Selman, 2012). To achieve this calls for the engagement of a broad range of stakeholders, rather than the interests of a few. Through engaging with this plurality of values held by individuals and groups a more nuanced and ‘just’ voice of the landscape can be heard. Addressing the diversity of landscape values and issues before planned change potentially provides individuals and groups with greater influence on the future development and discourse of the landscape. Early participation, even defining the problems and issues at hand (Hickey & Mohan, 2008), is recognised as facilitating community ownership of planning processes, providing communities with an opportunity to explore shared values (Butler & Sarlöv-Herlin, 2021; Prieur & Durousseau, 2006; Selman, 2012). It is at these early stages of decision-making when discourses on landscape are defined, values are recognised and knowledge and knowledge holders are legitimised. Contrarily, if landscape values and knowledge are not recognised when the landscape is framed, they cannot be considered in subsequent decision-making (Brunetta & Voghera, 2008).

This special issue has its genesis in a session at the Permanent European Conference for the Study of Rural Landscapes (PECSRL), titled ‘Whose collective voice? Conflicting and shared values in defining landscapes’. Due to Covid, this session drew out over several years. The session was initiated online in 2020 with a follow-up digital event in 2021 and eventually a physical meeting in Jaén-Baeza, Andalucía, Spain, 2022. Fundamental to the session was how different values, voices, and aspirations are dealt within landscape issues. Which values are recognised and whose voices are heard, a view central to the reflection of Morillo-Rodríguez et al. in this issue ‘one landscape, a thousand perspectives’. This focus builds on Mike Jones’ paper from 2007, where he questioned, in relation to the implementation of the ELC, whether the public, and thus those invited to participate really means everyone? How do we deal with ‘guest workers, temporary migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, who have restricted rights and entitlements?’ (Jones, 2007, p. 622). The exclusion of affected groups continues social inequality and exploitation, raising issues of social justice (Egoz, 2011; Mitchell, 2007).

The six papers that make up this special issue cover a diversity of empirical studies, theoretical reflections, and even worldviews. The papers provide a broad geographical coverage spanning Europe and are being enhanced by a paper from Marques et al. from New Zealand. The papers cover a diversity of scales, ranging from local parks to regional landscapes studies; and drawing on a broad spectrum of methodological approaches including design, action research, and discourse analysis. The papers address both the processes (the influence and knowledge transfer in the participation) and the products (documents, policies, etc.) of early-stage community engagement in landscape issues. The contributors to this Special Issue recognise that the diverse issues connected to the landscape are founded on multiple and often conflicting values (Butler, 2016; Jones, 1993; Stephenson, 2008).

The paper by María José Morillo-Rodríguez, Nayla Fuster, Ángela Mesa-Pedrazas & Joaquín Susino-Arbucias, from Universidad de Granada, Spain, published in Landscape Research (Morillo-Rodríguez, Fuster, Mesa-Pedrazas, & Susino-Arbucias, 2023, 48:5) focuses on the landscapes or non-landscapes of Granada and Almeria in southeast Spain. The authors, lift the perennial question of what is landscape, but also what is not recognised as landscape. Asking whether it is actually possible, as promoted in academic and political discourse for all land to be viewed as landscape (e.g. Council of Europe, 2000a; Tudor, 2014) and who decides what is landscape. In the context of their study, when not recognised as landscape, land is viewed with indifference. They find that individuals with the strongest connection to the land often take it for granted, while outsiders may be more receptive to diverse values and viewing an area as a landscape. This carries implications for management and conservation. The authors argue that merely asserting that all land is landscape is not enough; society must acknowledge landscapes for them to be properly valued and cared for.

Bruno Marques, Jacqueline McIntosh & Celia Hall, from Wellington School of Architecture, New Zealand, in their paper published previously in Landscape Research (Marques, Mcintosh, & Hall, 2023, 48:8), also lift the question of what is landscape and whose landscape is legitimised. However, their study draws on two different worldviews, based on Māori and Western cultures. The authors use speculative design as a tool for engaging underrepresented communities in a park design for ‘health, healing and well-being’ which addresses Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Bi-cultural needs. The authors recognise that drawing on Traditional Ecological Knowledge can help overcome disparities between established land resource management practices and indigenous understanding of plant and animal life. The study points to the necessity of integrating Western and Māori knowledge to create and nurture culturally and environmentally sensitive places. Yet they highlight the pitfall of being uncritical when promoting indigenous knowledge of the landscape, as it runs the risk of colonialisation of this knowledge; for example the commodification and commercialisation of botanical knowledge.

Mela Žuljević, from Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography, Germany, and Giulia Carabelli, from the School of Politics and International Relations, at Queen Mary University, London (2023, this issue) draw on the reconstruction of the historic bridge in the old town of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The bridge was previously destroyed during the war in 1993. The projects focus on developing a symbolic multicultural reconciliation, actually excluded the local community from the process. Development was driven by outsiders, guided by a ‘Neoliberal peacebuilding project’ which prioritised tourism and market goals over the well-being of local communities. The projects use of heritage as a tool for development, exacerbated pre-existing inequalities and forwarded a gentrification agenda. The development brought about a commodification of the site, which created expectations for a ‘sanitised’ landscape, a perception which was seen as being threatened by ‘unwanted’ everyday disruptions. The development threatened the use of the site as a true public space. Disconnecting locals from the reconstruction process undermined the ability of local communities to reflect on their past and diminished the possibility for public arenas to develop for negotiating a shared future. The authors call for an infrastructural perspective on the development, an approach with recognises the everyday function of the landscape as a means to counter the dominant outsider perspective.

In their study of the Walloon landscape of Belgium, Lauriano Pepe and Serge Schmitz, from the Department of Geography, University of Liege, Belgium address landscape protection approaches and how they integrate local communities’ expectations and visions (2024, this issue). The authors question what the purpose of involvement in landscape policies is; who is recognised as a stakeholder; at what stage stakeholders are involved; as well as how local knowledge is manifested in the landscape decision processes. While they recognise that early engagement allows for discourses on the landscape to nurture and mature among stakeholders, in their study, Pepe and Schmitz identify participation in planning documents at an early stage as often being limited to top-down awareness-raising exercises. However, the authors observed that locals increasingly invoke landscape interests to confront development issues. The growing number of these citizen initiatives engaging directly with landscape points to protectionist landscape policies being misaligned with the interests of the local communities, who feel the need to take issues into their own hands.

In his paper, Tom Ratcliffe, from York Business School, St John University, UK, addresses the moorland plateau of the North York Moors National Park, England (2024, this issue). Ratcliffe recognises the moorland as a disputed space, where multiple values linked to public right of access, habitat conservation, and grouse shooting become conflictual in relation to questions of land management. Central to this study is what is the purpose of the National Park landscape. Engaging with a variety of actors, including local residents, landowners, land managers, NGO’s, and tourism groups, the author teases out the voices and power structures at play in this landscape. The study shows that management clearly reflects the values of the most powerful stakeholders; while soft values built on connections to the moorland, and relevant to the ethos of the National Park are subordinated. The author calls for a ‘rich, continuous conversation(s)’, an ongoing process which accepts that a true consensus is unattainable.

The paper from Lotte Ruegaard Petersen, Jørgen Primdahl, and Lone Søderkvist Kristensen from the Department of Geoscience and Natural Resource Management, Copenhagen University, Denmark, engages with a landscape strategy for the Nørreådal River Valley, Denmark (2024, this issue). The complexity of governance of river valleys, which typically cross multiple administrative borders, informs the context of this study. The paper highlights the diversity of values attached to Nørreådal. This is a landscape that is facing new demands, a traditional agricultural landscape, that is increasingly impacted by an environmental agenda characterised by carbon sinks and energy crops. Yet at the same time, the river valley is a natural and cultural resource for local communities. The authors engaged an action research approach to make sense of the multiplicity of values and aspirations in the Nørreådal area. The collaborative process the authors engaged in recognised the need to give voice to the river. In their paper, the authors show that the voices that dominated the initial stages of the strategy shaped the development of collective knowledge. While landowners may dominated these discussions the authors emphasise that they are not just one voice, as individuals they draw on personal values and identities.

As highlighted by the papers presented through this special issue, power dynamics, and conflict are central concerns of participation in landscape issues. Landscapes are constantly created and recreated through ongoing struggles of inclusion and exclusion between communities and other stakeholders, as a dominant ‘we’ creates a subordinate ‘other’ (Lovie, 2021). Hence, all landscapes are contested and all landscapes are political (Calderon & Butler, 2020; Gailing & Leibenath, 2017). Rather than aiming for consensus in participatory landscape processes, a crucial objective would be to uncover and address the power structures inherent in the landscape. This involves allowing conflicts to emerge and the dominant voices to be legitimately contested. Such an approach can allow subordinated voices to emerge (Marques et al., 2023), potentially questioning existing power dynamics. This perspective views the landscape as a democratic space where different voices can be heard and acknowledged (Egoz et al., 2018).

The collective reading of these papers expresses the need to engage the multitude of voices which exist in the landscape, and the pitfalls of not doing so. That the aim need not be to strive for consensus, but rather to create a space for voices to discuss. The focus of certain processes, or certain stages of these processes would be to help stakeholders appreciate their own values and interests, as well as those of their adversaries; unpacking conflicts that exist, finding ways to manage differences. This allows for a more constructive or productive approach to differences and conflicts based on agonistic rather than antagonistic relationships (Mouffe, 2005).

Acknowledgements

We would like to express a heartfelt thank you to the other participants of the Permanent European Conference for the Study of Rural Landscapes (PECSRL) session ‘Whose collective voice’: Iwona Markuszewska, Niels Dabaut, Charlotte Porcq, Annelies Van Caenegem, and Maria Fernanda Gebara. Your engagement in both the online sessions in 2020 and 2021 and physical meetings in Jaén-Baeza, Spain in 2022, helped inform this special issue. In addition, a huge thank you to all of the unsung reviewers who put their time into shaping these texts, your work is greatly appreciated.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

There is no data available.

Additional information

Funding

No funding was received.

Notes on contributors

Andrew Butler

Dr. Andrew Butler is a senior lecturer in Landscape Planning at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, in Uppsala. His teaching and research engage with issues of landscape assessment, public involvement in decision-making, and individual connections to the landscape. His empirical focus increasingly lies in dramatic landscape change, exemplified by wildfires in the northern boreal forest of Sweden. Recent and forthcoming publications include: ‘“There will be mushrooms again” – Foraging, landscape and forest fire.’ (Butler et al., 2021, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism); ‘Navigating swift and slow planning: planners’ balancing act in the design of participatory processes’ (Calderon, Mutter, Westin, & Butler, 2022, European Planning Studies); and a forthcoming chapter in ‘Research agenda for landscape studies of planning’ (Edward Elgar Publishing), titled ‘Forest fire, conflict and disrupted landscapes’.

Rod Lovie

Dr. Rod Lovie received his PhD from the University of Highlands and Islands; Perth, Scotland, in 2021. His thesis titled ‘The Meaning of Landscape for Communities: Integrating Perceptions of Change with Spatial Planning’, addressed how community perceptions of landscape are dealt with in the Scottish planning system. Up on completing his PhD, Rod took up the role of Principal Climate Change Strategy Officer at Moray Council, Scotland, In this role his responsibilities include the development of policy and actions, aimed at making the council carbon neutral by 2030, in collaboration with the public, private, and third sector organisations.