ARTICLE IN PRESS

Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 434442 www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Afrmation of territorial identity: A development policy issue

Zoran Rocaa,, Maria de Nazare Oliveira-Rocab
a

fona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Lisbon, Portugal CEGEDCentre for Geographic and Development Studies, Universidade Luso b e-GEOCentre for Geographic and Regional Planning Studies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Received 25 July 2005; received in revised form 5 January 2006; accepted 19 May 2006

Abstract The quests for the (re)afrmation of the identity of places and regions in the era of globalised economy and culture gained momentum on local and regional development research and policy agendas since the early nineties. However, there has been a gap between the proidentity/development discourse and reality, especially in some rural areas of the peripheral and lagging European regions and countries, such as Portugal, marked by land use anarchy, environmental degradation, loss of cultural authenticity, etc., as well as by the asymmetrical interests and power-relations between local and global development stakeholders. The gap between the pro-identity discourse and reality could be overcome if territorial identity, basically an ambiguous and inoperative concept, would be transformed into an analytical category, susceptible to measurement, monitoring and evaluation. It is argued in this paper that territorial identity features can be studied empirically if conceptualised as sets of spatially anchored contents of natural and cultural landscape features (spatial xes) that are associated with activities, relations and meanings within horizontal and vertical networks and systems that determine lifestyle features (spatial ows) in a given geographical area. To this end, a new conceptual-methodological framework, the IDENTERRA Model, is proposed. Its application, based on macroscopically established evidence and eldwork records of the changing identity features, could lay grounds for a greater synergy between the pro-identity quests and their operationalisation in development policies and instruments. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Territorial identity; Local and regional development policies; Development stakeholders; Local/global nexus

Introduction The need to prevent losses and/or to promote afrmation of the identity of places and regions in the context of globalised economy and culture gained momentum on development research and policy agendas since the early nineties (Massey, 1991; Amin and Thrift, 1994; Hadjimichalis, 1994; Todtling, 1994; Santos et al., 1994; Massey, 1995; Massey and Jess, 1995; Rose, 1995; Agnew, 2000; Haartsen, 2004; Harner, 2001; Boneschansker et al., 2004). In the European Union, a major argument has been that the (re)valorisation and strengthening of the identity of the peripheral and lagging rural regions is the key to their competitiveness on the global market of goods, services and ideas, and may be decisive for sustainable

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: zoran.roca@netcabo.pt (Z. Roca). 0264-8377/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.05.007

local development engineering (Commission Europeenne, 1994). However, there has been a growing gap between the proidentity/development quests and anti-identity/development realities of many places and regions: degradation of environmental, economic, cultural and other identity features have taken place more frequently and at a much larger scale than their effective enhancement. For example, in Portugal, most rural areas have suffered from sharp declines in small-scale agricultural diversity, under-utilisation or abandonment of cultivable land, lack of investments in alternative productive activities, as well as from the continuous weakening of demographic vitality and depletion of endogenous human resources, referred to as human desertication (Cavaco, 1994; Roca, 1998; Barreto, 2000; Oliveira-Roca, 2000). Conicting interests and unequal power-relations between local and global development stakeholders have left marks in land use anarchy and environmental degradation, fading cultural

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Roca, M.D.N. Oliveira-Roca / Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 434442 435

and economic authenticity and arbitrary adoption of the deterritorialised (Barel, 1986) identity features. Quite symptomatically, the Portuguese vocabulary recently became enriched by the word descaracterizac a that perfectly - o denes what has become notorious: loss, defeat, abuse, waste, disregard, etc., of the distinctive identity features of places and regions. The preoccupation with the (re)afrmation and valorisation of territorial identities has been increasingly present in the academic and political discourse about the shortfalls of, and prospects for, an increasingly global dependence of the local, regional and national economic and cultural transformation. In the above-mentioned context, the objective of this paper is twofold: rst, to highlight and discuss salient conceptual-methodological questions that can explain the gap between the pro-identity/development discourse and reality and, secondly, to propose a new conceptualmethodological framework for the study of the relationships between the changing territorial identity and globally conditioned local and regional development.

Conceptual limitations and controversies Diversity of meanings attributable to the notion of territorial identity is very broad, ranging from the generic references about local uniqueness, singularity, specicity and authenticity of local/regional material and immaterial assets, systems and networks, to the more rened dichotomies suggesting, for example, traditional vs. modern, extroverted vs. introverted, networked vs. isolated places and regions, or geographical areas endowed, or not, with capacities and potentials and/or comparative (dis)dvantages for gaining and/or loosing from local/global interdependencies. Important contributions to the clarication of the complexities inherent to the interpretation of the concept of territorial identity as a local and regional development issue were provided, for example, by Ilbery et al. (1995), Rose (1995), Agnew (1999), Haartsen et al. (2000) and Haesbaert (2004). Nonetheless, in spite of the miscellany of possible meanings, the issue of the (re)afrmation and valorisation of territorial identity has been brought to the pedestal of a panacea for the promotion of local development sustainability in the era of the globalised economy and culture. However, how to determine which identity feature need to be strengthened, preserved, diversied, or made more competitive, so that it becomes developmentally relevant? Which quantitativequalitative benchmarks to use to monitor and/or evaluate changing territorial identity features in order to appreciate or predict desirable from unwanted ones in relation to local and/or regional development objectives? And last but not least, who are, or should be, the legitimate guardians of specic identity features, i.e., which institutions or individuals are entitled to cope locally with the (un)favourable forces within the local/global nexus?

Such questions are at the core of the conceptualmethodological constraints to the bridging of the gap between the pro-identity discourse and reality. Difculty in providing answers is best evidenced by the fact that the pro-identity arguments and claims remain, as a rule, conned exclusively to the preambles of development strategies, plans, programmes and projects and are seldom present in their operative sections. In Portugal, the proidentity rhetoric has had a very prominent place in the introductory section of the National Regional Development Plan 20002006, with the argument that harmony between modernity and tradition means, both territorially and geostrategically, combining the generalised cosmopolitan living patterns with the valorisation of collective identity (Ministerio do Planeamento, 1999, p. 10), but without any follow-up reference to this question in the operative sections of the document. Likewise, National Assemblies of Local Development Agencies have made continuous claims in favour of the valorisation of cultural identity, building local self-esteem, strengthening local diversity, encouraging community feeling, mobilising active local citizenship and enabling decentralised development, as well as calls for reafrmation of local identities in all of its dimensions in order to combat exclusion and massication generated by globalisation (Animar, 2001; Roca, 2004). Yet, efforts to curtail the process of economic and cultural descaracterizac a has not - o gone beyond isolated, ad hoc interventions aimed at the conservation of nature, restoration of monuments and/or revitalisation of historic urban nuclei, always depending on the nancial support schemes of the European Union. As regards the controversy of the pro-identity rhetoric and reality within the local/global nexus, at least two conceptual and analytical limitations need to be highlighted. First, the macroscopic and top-down perspectives have prevailed in the interpretations of locally experienced conditions and consequences of globalisation, while there has been too little insight from the grassroots level, i.e., from the perspective of the local specicities of natural environment, economy, culture, etc. True, geographers, sociologists, industrial economists and business analysts, political scientists and others have explored effects of globalisation on local cultural identities, local business strategies, local industrial agglomerations, local political struggles, etc., but such contributions have tended to cover only sporadic and isolated cases, mostly the successstories, to rely almost exclusively on secondary sources of information and, worst, to suffer from monodisciplinary interpretations (Agnew, 2000; Amin and Thrift, 1994). The second limitation largely stems from the rst one and has to do with too little effort made to divert from a tendency to interpret economic growth and changes in social, cultural, political and other spheres of life primarily from the perspective of systems and institutions, and to ignore the fact that every institutional setting is being r un and/or used by individual stakeholders and that, consequently, all interpretations and activities affecting

ARTICLE IN PRESS
436 Z. Roca, M.D.N. Oliveira-Roca / Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 434442

territorial identity are necessarily subjective. It must be borne in mind that development objectives and means to achieve them are highly subjective and, above all, that development is more than economic growth: it is the realisation of the full potential of a places resources, the most important of which are its people. For people to achieve their fullest potential, they must recognise who they are and envision possibilities for the future. They must have a strong identity with their community and with place (Harner, 2001, p. 678). In this context, more light needs to be brought to the issue of whose identity or identities are we talking about, and who determines the regional identity of an area (Groote et al., 2000, p. 2). The true challenge, therefore, is to nd ways and means for functional integration of territorial identity-related concerns with local and regional development options and initiatives, or, as Albino suggests, local identity must be operationalised into a development resource. The strategy of local development should be based on the appreciation of ancestral typicality as a means of encouraging further evolution of new local innovations (Albino, 1997, p. 113). A new conceptual framework: the IDENTERRA model

Fig. 1. Spatial xes constitute landscapes.

elements of the natural heritage, population and humanmade economic and cultural heritage in a geographical area, where

 


To transform the concept of territorial identity into an analytical category implies devising an appropriate conceptual model for the study of the changing uniqueness of places and regions in the light of power-relations amongst the local and global development stakeholders. An attempt in this direction is the IDENTERRA Model, proposed here as a conceptual-methodological framework for the study of territorial identity as a sustainable development policy issue. The rst step to be taken is to disaggregate the key conceptsterritorial identity, development stakeholders and local/global nexusby decomposing them into discernible and measurable dimensions and components. The next step is to functionally combine the topdown and bottom-up approaches to the issues of sustainable development by complementing macroscopic (desk) and grassroots (eld) research methods and tools. While the term development is understood here as social, economic, cultural, political, environmental and other change that results in the improvement of the quality of life, the sustainability depends on the level of harmony and/or reconciliation of needs, interests and powerrelations between the Nature and the Humanity, as well as among individuals and societies at all spatial, temporal and functional levels. Disaggregating territorial identity According to the IDENTERRA Model, the territorial identity can be conceived as a set of spatial xes and ows that mark a geographical unit such as a place, or a region. Spatial xes (Fig. 1) are dened as the sum of permanently or temporarily rooted and/or anchored

Natural heritage involves all elements and objects that constitute natural environment (atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere) of a territory. Population involves spatial distribution patterns and structural (i.e., biological, social, economic, cultural) features of the people who are permanently and temporarily present in a territory. Human-made economic heritage are all objects of the created environment (i.e., modied nature, and built environment) intended for production, distribution and/or consumption of tangible goods and services (i.e. those related to the satisfaction of physical human needs) in a territory. Human-made cultural heritage are all objects of the created environment (i.e., modied nature and built environment) related to production, distribution and/or consumption of intangible goods and services (i.e. those related to the satisfaction of spiritual human needs) in a territory.

As shown in Fig. 1, sets of spatial xes constitute natural (primary or modied, preserved or degraded, etc.) and cultural (agricultural, industrial, rural, urban, mixed, etc.) landscapes. By providing support to the spatial xes and by integrating them with spatial ows, landscapes can be considered as the custodians and witnesses of the local/ global (re)production and/or consumption of the material and immaterial territorial identity features. Spatial ows (Fig. 2) are dened as activities, relations and meanings within horizontal (territorial) and vertical (functional) networks and systems, which determine Nature, Society, Economy and Culture. Sets of spatial ows determine specic lifestyles, understood here as patterns of use and management of spatial xes. Consequently, as shown in Fig. 3, territorial identities are determined by the uniqueness of a geographic area in terms of its landscape- and lifestyle-related features. Another important dimension of the territorial identity are its images and interpretations, given that landscape is

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Roca, M.D.N. Oliveira-Roca / Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 434442 437

Spatial flows Nature Society Economy Culture Lifestyle

Fig. 2. Spatial ows constitute lifestyles.

Fig. 3. Landscapes and lifestyles constitute territorial identities.

both the representation and reality, both symbol and form, both image and actual lived conditions. The representation of landscapethe ideal that seeks to naturalise power relationsconfronts the reality of the material world in specic place (Harner, 2001, p. 663). The same landscapeand lifestyle-related identity features have different meanings to different people, and their changes reect diversity of their representations and of power-relations among their consumers and (re)producers, both local and global. Thus, at least two basic dimensions of territorial identity should be distinguished in development research, policies and interventions: rst, the objective, factual, undisputable and/or certiable identity and, secondly, the subjective, perceived, interpreted and/or imagined identity. The objective territorial identity is made of visible and hidden spatial xes and ows, both material and immaterial ones. They are recordable and veriable through data on and images of spatial xes that are evident in land use patterns and, thus, natural and cultural landscape features, including records of geo-symbols, metonymic symbols and mnemonic signs. Likewise, in the case of spatial ows, the objective territorial identity can be recognised and assessed through data on and images of bio-geo-physical, socioeconomic, cultural, technological, and political and other activities, relations and meanings that characterize a place or a region. Essentially, the objective territorial identity is

synonymous to factographic identity because it is dened by those spatial xes and ows whose state and dynamics can be measured and assessed free from subjective perceptions and interpretations, on the basis of, for example, macroscopic analyses of secondary and remote sources of data and images of landscape- and lifestyle-related facts. A good example of altered objective territorial identity are the alterations in the land use patterns and the consequent changes in landscapes and/or lifestyles induced through the industrialisation of wine production by introducing new, mechanically cultivable rowed vineyards in regions where terraced vineyards have been the most important part of economic and cultural tradition. In Portugal, such alternations of identity have been evidenced (and not yet sufciently studied and much less opposed) in quite drastic manner in the Regions of Douro and Minho, famous for their production of the Vinho do Porto and Vinho Verde, respectively. The subjective territorial identity can be studied from the point of view of two basic sets of spatial xes and ows: rst, those that are practiced and/or experienced (in the real life) and, secondly, those that are claimed and/or pretended (in the mind). The experienced and pretended xes and ows of the subjective territorial identity can be identied and assessed from the point of view of differences in the sense of place and power-relations among different development stakeholders (Haartsen, 2004; Haesbaert, 1997; Harner, 2001). As shown in Fig. 4, the IDENTERRA Model distinguishes the experienced from the pretended (claimed) subjective territorial identity. The materialisation of the pretended identity normally results in the generation of new objective identity features. In the above-mentioned example, when wine producers who, unhappy with less protable labour-intensive production on terraced vineyards, effectively introduce the claimed more protable mechanised wine production in rows, they actually generate a new objective identity of a region. This, however, should be analysed in the context of (un)matched interests between local and global development stakeholders. In Portugal, the interests of medium and large-scale wine producers clearly match with nancial and other incentives available in the framework of the European Agricultural Policy (CAP). To them, the newly

Fig. 4. Objective and subjective territorial identities.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
438 Z. Roca, M.D.N. Oliveira-Roca / Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 434442

formed objective identity, based on the industrialised wine production, is normally a positive new experienced identity of their regions, but it may be disapprovingly experienced by other stakeholders, both local and global(ised) ones. For example, in the case of the Portuguese Regions of Baixo Douro and Alto Minho, local, national and international promoters and operators of high-quality rural tourism have been reducing and/or altering their activities based on the consumption of idyllic bucolic sceneries of terraced landscapes and of traditional economy and culture that are nowadays disappearing as dominant features of the objective identity in these regions. Disaggregating development stakeholders The IDENTERRA Model envisages the identication of a wide range of development stakeholdersdened as individuals or groups of people and institutions that directly or indirectly stand to gain or lose given a particular development course or activity (Roca, 1998)and their categorisation on the basis of their knowledge, attitudes and practice (KAP) with regard to landscape- and lifestylerelated identity features, both objective and subjective ones. The KAP studies can bring about distinctions among stakeholders in terms of their sense of place and relation to changes in landscapes and lifestyles in a given territory. For example, they could be categorised as concerned or unaware, as consumers or producers, as protectors or destructors, as conservative or innovating, etc. in relation to the specic landscape- and lifestylerelated territorial identity features. Furthermore, stakeholders should be stratied according to several spatial and temporal criteria, such as, for example, by the duration of their presence in a given territory (old vs. new, permanent vs. temporary, disappeared vs. emerging, etc.), by the geographical area of their origin, i.e., if they are endogenous (local and regional), exogenous (national, international), or mixed, and by the geographical scope of their operations (local, regional, national, international, mixed). Another important distinction among the stakeholders needs to be made in terms of distinguishing development actors and agents. All stakeholders who directly or indirectly contribute to the improvement of the quality of life in a given territory can be considered as development actors. However, stakeholders who, on the basis of qualied knowledge (e.g., scientically based diagnoses) of development issues and problems, prioritise and deliberately act towards their solutions by valorising local/regional potentials in harmony with global forces and whose role in valorising territorial identity features may be decisive for a desirable social change should be are regarded as true driving forces, or agents of development (Roca, 2004). The degree of diversity of stakeholders is likely to be proportional to the diversity of economy and culture of a geographic space. For example, only in the Valley of Rio

Lima of the abovementioned Region of Alto Minho, a rural area characterised by increasing multifuncionality of agriculture, a great variety of development stakeholders were identied, ranging from pluriactive family farmers, exclusive small family farmers, rural artisans and permanent residents in post-working age to students, temporary migrants, daily external commuters, non-agricultural entrepreneurs, emigrants, retired sojourners and second home non-retired residents (Oliveira-Roca, 2000). All of them have been a part of (i.e., as spatial xes) and, at the same time, contributed to (i.e., through economic, social and cultural ows) the changing sub-regional landscape- and lifestyle-related features (i.e., the objective identity, marked by increasing multifuncionality of agriculture) in accordance with their individual and/or institutionalised interests and power-relations at both local/regional levels and within the local/global nexus. Disaggregating local/global nexus According to the IDENTERRA Model, emphasis should be placed on the study of the role of development stakeholders in relation to the natural, social, economic, cultural and other processes stemming from globalised spatial xes and ows and have impacts on local landscapes and lifestyles. To this end, as shown in Fig. 5, the local/global nexus is conceptualised as a series of dichotomised disaggregations of possible global impactsranging from no to full effectson natural, societal, economic and cultural spheres of local territorial identity, as outlined hereunder:

Global impacts on local nature: destruction vs. conservation, degradation vs. recovery, loss of vs. revalorisation of natural resources and/or landscapes; conicts vs. synergies between the economy and natural resources management; etc. Global impacts on local society: social innovation vs. stagnation; segregation, marginalisation and exclusion vs. cohesion, integration and inclusion; lack of vs. promotion of knowledge and qualications; population ageing vs. rejuvenation; consumerism vs. environmental conscience; social crises vs. synergies, etc. Global impacts on local economy: recession vs. growth; traditional vs. modern means of production; lack of vs. diversication of activities and products; lack of vs. adoption of innovations and entrepreneurship; lack of vs. access to external markets; lack of vs. access to external investments; external dependence vs. selfsufciency, etc. Global impacts on local culture: loss of vs. preservation and/or revitalisation of urban, rural and other cultural landscapes; homogenisation vs. diversication of intangible goods and services; xenophobia vs. multiculturalism; traditionalism vs. modernism; localism vs. cosmopolitism; imitation vs. creativity; isolation vs. networking; etc.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Roca, M.D.N. Oliveira-Roca / Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 434442 439

Fig. 5. Local/global nexus and territorial identity.

Besides the aforementioned effects of globalisation on local natural environment, economy, society and culture, the IDENTERRA Model is open to the study of other processes that mark the local/global nexus. For example, in the Portuguese context, it is important to explore globalisation effects on local politics and governance of places and regions, such as, centralisation vs. decentralisation, authoritarianism vs. participation, isolation vs. integration, dependency vs. empowerment, etc. Theoretically, the globalisation could have no effects on any aspect of territorial identity (thus reecting a total isolation of such places or regions from the rest of the world) on one side and, on the other, all territorial identity features could be totally absorbed (eliminated and/or permeated) by the globalisation (Fig. 6). Such a conceptual framework could serve as a basis for empirical studies at the grassroots level about the changing role (i.e., interests, power-relations, practice) of individual and institutional stakeholders in (re/de)generating of territorial identities along the scale from the state 0 (i.e., total isolation, no change, impermeability, etc.) to the state 1 (full integration, utmost alteration, total permeability) of places and regions in terms of environmental, economic, societal and/or cultural processes within the local/global nexus. Combining macroscopic and grassroots methods The IDENTERRA Model promotes the idea of territorial identity as a development issue marked by a multitude of cross-cuttings between endogenous and exogenous, local and global, individual and collective, natural, social, economic and cultural phenomena and processes. There-

fore, research on such complex issues must face the challenge of selecting, testing and adapting the existing analytical methods and instruments and devising new ones, while, at the same time, detecting and/or generating complementarities of their application. As shown in Fig. 7, a balanced integration should be sought between the macroscopic and indirect (top-down) approaches and methods, based on deskwork studies of secondary and remote sources of data and images on one side, and, on the other, the participatory and grassroots (bottom-up) perspectives, based on eldwork studies of primary sources of data and images, collected and processed in loco and ad hoc. As part of the top-down perspective, diagnostic studies of changing objective identity features, materialised in natural and cultural landscapes and specic lifestyles are to be elaborated in order to enable:

exploration of the scope and intensity of changes in the local spatial xes (i.e., natural, human and material resources and heritage) and ows (i.e., bio-geo-physical, and socio-economic systems and networks) and their linkages with global physical and human conditions; and identication of the existing and potential new development stakeholders (i.e., local and global, old and new, consumers and producers, etc.) and their interests and power-relations in terms of the experience and claims (i.e., KAP) regarding territorial identity features.

The secondary and remote sources can include a wide range of data such as, for example, those from satellite

ARTICLE IN PRESS
440 Z. Roca, M.D.N. Oliveira-Roca / Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 434442

Fig. 6. From total isolation to full integration of territorial identities within the local/global nexus.

Fig. 7. Combining top-down and bottom-up approaches.

images, aerial photographs and thematic cartography related to xes of the objective territorial identity, as well as those from national and international statistics related to both xes and ows of the objective territorial identity. Data collected from public opinion polls and surveys related to xes and ows of the subjective (both, the experienced and pretended) territorial identity, can also be considered as part of the macroscopic approach. Primary sources of data and images can be obtained directly from different development stakeholders by means of KAPinterviews, focus group discussions and other participatory methods. Also, photographic and audiovisual records can be collected in the eld, as well as other primary data and information through direct observation methods, drawings, mapping, gathering of diverse informal documentation, such as unpublished technical reports, local monographic and diagnostic studies, carrying out discourse analyses based on public speeches and policy statements, local written and oral literature, folk and pop-culture products, etc. The bottom-up approach should be applied mostly to assess the subjective identity features on the basis of eld-

surveys of the stakeholders KAP in relation to the objective spatial xes and ows (landscapes and lifestyles) and to their relations with other stakeholders. The KAP case-studies, both exploratory and in-depth, and comparative analyses should be carried out at different territorial levels (i.e., local community, municipal or inter-municipal) and functional contexts (social, economic, cultural, environmental systems and networks). The KAP surveys can become precious in detecting complementarities and disparities between cognitive and behavioural spheres among specic stakeholders, as well as in comparative analyses of different stakeholders, both individual and institutional ones. Policy-related analyses of specic landscape- and lifestyle-related issues could also be made by contrasting results obtained from the KAP surveys on these issues with the objective (factual) data on same issues, obtainable from the secondary sources of information. Conclusion Bridging the gap between the pro-identity/development rhetoric and anti-identity/development reality means to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Roca, M.D.N. Oliveira-Roca / Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 434442 441

grasp territorial identity as a local/regional development resource in an operative manner, i.e., translatable to concrete policy measures and instruments. As suggested by the IDENTERRA Model, this could be achieved by macroscopic and participatory studies of the role of individual and institutional development stakeholders in changing landscape- and lifestyle-related features of places and regions. Functional cross-cutting of top-down and bottom-up approaches, methods and instruments could enable the detection and assessment of existing and potential conicts and cooperation, hegemonies and synergies of interest (e.g., urban vs. rural, economic vs. environmental, commercial vs. social, central vs. local, etc.) and power-relations among local(ised) and global(ised) individual(ised) and institutional(ised) development stakeholders in consuming and producing territorial identities. In fact, studies of changing territorial identities in the context of local/global nexus could facilitate assessment of the transition from traditional to modern (or, post- and neo-modern) landscapes and lifestyles, with multiple repercussions on land use and local/regional development prospects. This could be especially, though not exclusively, relevant in isolated, peripheral and/or lagging regions (e.g. in rural Portugal) that are still marked by endogenously generated and externally impermeable natural, social, economic and cultural identity features but have increasingly been subject to losses in local diversity and homogenisation of landscape and lifestyles, imposed by forces emanating from the globalised economic and cultural hierarchies (Haesbaert, 1997, p. 42). The application of the IDENTERRA Model may enable bringing forward some strategically important elements for land use planning and management principles and instruments as parts of local and regional development policy design and implementation. For example, search for empirical evidence of changing landscape- and lifestylerelated identity features can reveal the sense of belonging to a territory of residence, work and/or leisure, which reects the levels of satisfaction with the environmental, social, economic, cultural and other conditions provided in that territory and, thus, different levels of topophilia, or the affective bond between people and place or setting (Tuan, 1990, p. 4), among different development stakeholders. Promoting certain types of topophilia could be decisive in encouraging/discouraging cohesion and/or divergence among the existing and potential local(ised) and global(ised) economic and cultural agents in the afrmation, (re)valorisation or (re)generation of natural and created heritage in a territory. The land use planning and development strategies aimed at the valorisation of local and regional identities should rely, inter alia, on the strengthening of the sense of territorial belonging, since it could, for example, promote environmental and sociocultural consciousness, encourage protection of natural and cultural heritage, improve social relations and community spirit, facilitate efciency and effectiveness of local institutions, reinforce self-respect and the feeling of security

and satisfaction. The sense of territorial belonging could be strengthened on the basis of empirically veried knowledge and understanding of how different stakeholders dene and interpret the space of their residence, work and/or leisure, how they identify themselves with that space, and how they would like to change it. Furthermore, through confronting objective with subjective (i.e., experienced and pretended) territorial identities amongst individual and institutional stakeholders more light can be shed to the issue of territorial attractiveness. Promoting certain types of territorial attractiveness could prove essential through land use planning and management as part of sustainable development planning, programming and project formulation, especially in the peripheral and/or lagging rural areas that nowadays struggle for the xation of viable economic activities, social innovation and, in fact, the afrmation and valorisation of their endogenous potentials in terms of globally competitive identity features. Local and regional development agents, especially those responsible for territorial development strategy design, spatial organisation and management, could apply the IDENTERRA Model in the process of identifying the magnetism of places and regions and promoting its sustainability; exploring and dening criteria of the quality of life, as well as dening the levels of peoples satisfaction; identifying elements of territorial attractiveness that are vanishing, evaluating their relevance, actual and potentials, and promoting their revalorisation; identifying potential for the introduction of new elements of territorial attractiveness and stimulating their constitution; providing support to investment policies adjusted to the specicities of territorial structural and dynamic features. At a more conceptual level, the application of the IDENTERRA conceptual-methodological framework in land use planning and local/regional development strategy design could help illustrating and explaining how exactly landscapes become materialised discourse of different social interests (Schein, 1997), so they are always a compromise (Harner, 2001, p. 663), or how to achieve the recreation of local identities in all of its dimensions y [in order to] y combat exclusion and massication generated by globalisation (Animar, 2001). Empirical verications and further development of theoretical constructs such as those about landscapes as part of hegemonic culture (Cosgrove, 1998), detraditionalisation (Heelas et al., 1999), regions on the mind and of the mind (Agnew, 1999), deterritorialisation (Barel, 1986), end of territories (Badie, 1995), annihilation of space by time (Harvey, 2003), reterritorialisation (Haesbaert, 1997), glocalisation (Benko, 2000), coherent identity and equilibrium between landscape reality and representation (Harner, 2001), shifting identities of economic actors (Yeung, 2003), or construction of local identities when the world is too big to be controlled and social actors make it return to graspable size (Castells, 2003) could be also encouraged.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
442 Z. Roca, M.D.N. Oliveira-Roca / Land Use Policy 24 (2007) 434442 Haesbaert, R., 1997. Des-territorializacao e identidade: a rede Gaucha - no nordeste. Editra da Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niteroi. Haesbaert, R., 2004. O Mito da Desterritorializacao. Editora Bertrand - Brasil, Rio de Janeiro. Harner, J., 2001. Place identity and copper mining in sonora, Mexico. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (4), 660680. Harvey, D., 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Heelas, P., et al., 1999. Detraditionalization: Critical Reections on Authority and Identity at a Time of Uncertainty. Mass Blackwell Publishers Inc, Malden. Ilbery, B., et al., 1995. Telematics and rural development: evidence from a survey of small businesses in the European union. European Urban and Regional Studies 2, 5567. Massey, D., 1991. A Global Sense of Place. In the making of the regions, Open University, D103 Block 6. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, pp. 1251. Massey, D., 1995. Imagining the World. In: Allen, J., Massey, D. (Eds.), Geographical Worlds. University Press/The Open University, Oxford. Massey, D., Jess, P. (Eds.), 1995. A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalisation. Oxford University Press/The Open University, Oxford. Ministerio do Planeamento, 1999. Plano de Desenvolvimento Regional 20002006. Ministerio do Planeamento, Lisbon. Oliveira-Roca, M.N., 2000. EU Policies and Development Stakeholders at the Local Level: The Case of the Lima Valley, Northern Portugal. In: Conference European Rural Policy at the Crossroads, Arkleton Centre for Rural Development, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen [on line]. Available from: /http://www.abdn.ac.uk/arkleton/conf2000/papers/ roca-m.docS. Roca, Z., 1998. Positive experiences in increasing the involvement of young men and women in rural development in Portugal. In: Youth and Rural Development in Europe: Policy Issues and Responses, FAO, Rome, pp. 3961. Roca, Z., 2004. Afrmation of regional identity between rhetoric and reality: evidence from Portugal. In: Boneschansker, E., et al. (Eds.), Cultural Uniqueness and Regional Economy. Fryske Akademy, Ljouwert/Leeuwarden, pp. 2952. Rose, G., 1995. Place and identity: a sense of place. In: Doreen, M., Pat, J. (Eds.), A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalisation. Oxford University Press/The Open University, Oxford, pp. 87132. Santos, M., et al. (Eds.), 1994. Territorio, Globalizacao e Fragmentacao. - - Editora Hucitec, Sao Paulo. Schein, R., 1997. The place of landscape: a conceptual framework for an American scene. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87 (4), 660680. Todtling, F., 1994. The uneven landscale of innovation poles: local embeddedness and global networks. In: Amin, A., Thrift, N. (Eds.), Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford University Press/The Open University, Oxford, pp. 6890. Tuan, Y.F., 1990. TopophiliaA Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. Columbia University Press/Morningside Edition, New York. Yeung, H.W., 2003. Practicing new economic geographies: a methodological examination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93 (2), 442462.

Acknowledgement An early version of the IDENTERRA Model was presented in the conference paper Roca, Z. and OliveiraRoca, M. N., Spatial Fixes and Flows, Development and Local/Global Nexus: A Contribution to the Landscape Research Agenda at the 21st Session of the PESCRL (Permanent European Conference for the Study of the Rural Landscape) One Region, Many Stories: Mediterranean Landscapes in a Changing Europe, Limnos and Lesvos, Greece, 1521 September 2004. References
Agnew, J., 1999. Regions on the mind does not equal regions of the mind. Progress in Human Geography 23 (1), 101110. Agnew, J., 2000. From the political economy of regions to regional political economy. Progress in Human Geography 24 (1), 101110. Albino, C., 1997. Desenvolver DesenvolvendoPraticas e Pistas para o Desenvolvimento Local no Alentejo. ESDIME C.R.L., Messejana. Amin, A., Thrift, N., 1994. Living in the global. In: Amin, A., Thrift, N. (Eds.), Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 122. Animar, 2001. Manifesta 2001Declaracao de Tavira. In Loco, Faro. - Badie, B., 1995. La n des territoires. Fayard, Paris. Barel, Y., 1986. Le social et ses territoires. In: Auriac, E., et Brunet, R., (coord.). Espaces, jeux et enjeux. Fayard-Diderot, Paris. Barreto, A., 2000. A Situacao Social em Portugal, 19601999. ICS, - Lisboa. Benko, G., 2000. La recomposition des espaces. AgirRevue general de strategie 5, 1118. Boneschansker, E., et al. (Eds.), 2004. Cultural Uniqueness and Regional Economy. Fryske Akademy, Ljouwert/Leeuwarden. Castells, M., 2003. O Poder da Identidade. Fundacao Calouste - Gulbenkian, Lisboa. Cavaco, C., 1994. Do Despovoamento Rural ao Desenvolvimento Local. DGDR, Lisboa. Commission Europeenne, 1994. Valeur ajoute et ingenierie du developpement local. Luxemburg: Ofce des publications ofcielles des communautes europeennes. Cosgrove, D.E., 1998. Cultural landscapes. In: Unwin, T. (Ed.), A European Geography. Addisson Wesley Longman Ltd, Harlow, pp. 6581. Groote, P., et al., 2000. Claiming rural identities. In: Haartsen, et al. (Eds.), Claiming Rural Identities. Van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 17. Haartsen, T., et al., 2000. Claiming Rural Identities. Van Gorcum, Assen. Haartsen, T., 2004. Whose nature? Ownership and representations of nature in the Netherlands. In: Boneschansker, E., et al. (Eds.), Cultural Uniqueness and Regional Economy. Fryske Akademy, Ljouwert/ Leeuwarden, pp. 139152. Hadjimichalis, C., 1994. Globallocal conicts: examples from Southern Europe. In: Amin, A., Thrift, N. (Eds.), Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 237256.