Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) 3–8
Rural Landscapes: past processes and future strategies
Hannes Palang a,∗ , Staffan Helmfrid c , Marc Antrop b , Helen Alumäe a
aInstitute of Geography, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, 51014 Tartu, Estonia
b Department of Geography, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 264 S8, Ghent, Belgium
c Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
1. Introduction
This volume contains some of the papers presented
at the 20th session of the Permanent Conference for
the Study of the Rural Landscapes, held in Tartu and
Otepää, Estonia, in August 2002. The conference fo-
cused on four themes that are also reflected in this
issue.
First, the conference concentrated on the lessons of
the past: how landscape change is a trigger for future
strategies. Through the years and centuries landscapes
have always been changing. As a consequence, the
dynamics of cultural landscapes has always been an
important issue in the study of landscape history. An
important question is how this dynamical view on
landscape history can be made operational in future
strategies for the protection, management and de-
velopment of cultural landscapes. What lessons can
be learned from the past? Which conceptual models
and scientific methods can be used to understand the
long-term change of landscapes and how can they be
applied in landscape management?
Second, the language of the landscapes was dis-
cussed. Who is involved in the landscape and how
do they express it? How do local people perceive,
understand and participate in the planning, care and
maintenance of landscapes? What knowledge can
we read from places and place names? What are the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +372-7-375087;
fax: +372-737-5825.
E-mail address: palang@ut.ee (H. Palang).
0169-2046/$20.00 © 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.001
ethics and the morals materialized in the landscape?
Which are the symbols and meanings people use in
the rural landscapes? Why some landscapes are called
rural and some not? Who decides how landscapes
evolve?
Third, what is the role of nature in rural landscapes?
How have the rural landscapes been formed and mod-
ified? How can politics, sociology and historical ecol-
ogy help to understand actual landscapes and solve the
current problems?
Finally, the future of the rural landscapes. The cur-
rent socio-economic changes put an increasing pres-
sure on the European rural landscapes. Processes such
as marginalisation and urbanization, and tourism pose
serious threats to the traditional landscapes we still
know today. What is the possible outcome of these
processes? What is the role of agriculture and cultural
heritage protection in the future rural landscapes? How
can historical geography contribute to management?
One of the major aims of the conference was to
help promoting interdisciplinarity in landscape stud-
ies, mostly focusing on the interfaces between the past
and the future and the human and the natural in the
landscapes. The latter has also been the main focus
while compiling this special issue.
2. From historical geography to landscape
research
More and more is recognized that cultural land-
scapes are of great importance for the quality of life of
4 H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) 3–8
European citizens. They not only form the main envi-
ronment and carrier of European daily life, agriculture,
nature and tourism, but are also an extremely important
element of national, regional and local identity. For a
successful development of cultural landscapes in the
future new strategies for the European cultural land-
scape are needed, transdisciplinary strategies that need
to be developed in close cooperation between scientific
researchers, policy makers and landscape managers.
Not much is known about how Europeans perceive
and evaluate their traditional cultural landscapes; an
aspect that has been put on the agenda by several
environmental studies and documents related to cul-
tural heritage and landscape management, such as the
Dobřı̀š assessment (Stanners and Bourdeau, 1995), the
Dornach paper (2000) and the European Landscape
Convention of the Council of Europe (2000).
Landscape issues are of interest in many disciplines.
Demands and challenges from society, government
and the economy are seldom seen as an opportunity for
collaboration among disciplines. Communities, legis-
lators, industry, business, local stakeholders, and the
public at large make different demands on landscapes
while also contributing to landscapes.
Landscapes do not only have a physical reality, but
also a mental, social, and cultural one. An important
factor linking natural and human oriented sciences in
landscape research is the mutual relationship between
people and the landscape: social groups not only influ-
ence landscapes, but are also influenced by landscapes.
Various natural and cultural processes interact in land-
scape dynamics. However, human and natural sciences
as well as the arts still need to be integrated in a holistic
discipline. Holistic research could be achieved through
inter- or trans-disciplinary cooperation. This limits the
ability to account for real world complexity. Bridg-
ing human and natural sciences intends to foster and
coordinate communication about landscape-related
issues—within academia and between science and
society (Tress et al., 2001; Palang and Fry, 2003).
3. Alan Baker and critique of the morphogenetic
school in landscape studies
For the Stockholm meeting Alan Baker had been
commissioned to review the past 12 symposia of the
Permanent Conference for the Study of the Rural
Landscape. He did it in a thoroughly investigated,
thoughtful and critical evaluation under the title “His-
torical Geography and the Study of the European Ru-
ral Landscape”. His aim was to inspire a new direction
of the ‘Permanent Conference’ in accordance with
recent developments within Historical Geography,
even to convert the ‘conference’ into an ‘Association
of European Historical Geographers’. His proposal
failed to meet broad understanding among the par-
ticipants. My own (S.H.) reason not to support the
idea was the firm conviction that the ‘study of rural
landscape’ is much more than ‘historical geography’,
even if historical geography must remain the basic
discipline. At the same time ‘historical geography’ is
much more than just the ‘study of rural landscape’.
A background to Alan Baker’s critical evaluation
was the paradigmatic shift towards more analytical
and theoretical approach in the social sciences, which
since the middle of the 1960s also had reached ge-
ography in Britain, later than USA and Scandinavia,
but earlier than France and Germany, soon followed
by ‘post-modernism’. First critical remarks had been
heard at the Durham/Cambridge Symposium, where
Anngret Simms talked about “the intellectual chal-
lenge: the future health of the PECSRL would depend
largely on whether it adapted its aims in the light of
progress being made in other branches of historical
geography . . . ”.
The main target for Alan Baker’s criticism was the
dominance of papers on particular cases of what he
calls ‘empirical formal-morphogenetic’ studies and a
lack of process-oriented analysis, generalization and
theory. He was right. This reflects the fact that there
is no selection process involved in making the final
program.
Alan Baker’s point of view is illustrated by the
way he groups the papers according to three dif-
ferent ‘styles’, seen as stages in the modern his-
tory of social sciences: Traditional (‘humanistic’,
to which he to my mind (S.H.) falsely counts
‘morphogenetic’ studies)—modern (‘scientific’, posi-
tivist, quantitative analysis)—post-modern (‘meaning
and intentionality’, ‘search for symbolic significance’,
‘the social meaning of landscapes’, ‘place-synthesis’).
Alan Baker found very few papers of the modern
type, based on quantitative analysis and deductive
theory, but also the post-modern type contributions
putting full emphasis on Man as subject and agent
 H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) 3–8
in landscape forming, were negligible. No doubt he
would find that the ‘post-modern’ period has not
passed traceless in the program of later symposia.
Neither has his demand for a wider range of per-
spectives, like ecological and locational. But to my
mind he did not do justice to the contributions pre-
sented in the early period symposia. His references
are restricted to English and French papers, citations
are looked for in British and French books. Thus,
among others important papers of German geogra-
phers like Wolfgang Hartke, Helmut Jäger, Anneliese
Krenzlin, Hans-Jürgen Nitz or Harald Uhlig remained
unnoticed.
A classification of papers according to the periodi-
cally shifting styles or ‘-isms’ in social sciences seems
not to be the most fruitful way of describing what
has been reported at the symposia. Paradigmatic shifts
show an epidemiological diffusion pattern. What is
fashion in one discipline/country for a period may al-
ready be outmoded in another and never heard of in
a third. Looking back one often realizes there were
more new words than new knowledge produced. In
contrast to more rigid institutions this loosely knit net-
work has proven successful to survive paradigmatic
shifts as well as the challenges from a rapid transfor-
mation of society and landscape.
4. The formation of PECSRL and shifts in focus
The Liège Symposium in 1969 was the beginning
of intended series of meetings. As a first step to cre-
ate a formal structure the Belfast meeting adopted the
name: ‘Permanent European Conference for the Study
of the Rural Landscape’, thereby widening the the-
matic frame for the symposia. Xavier de Planhol, now
formally elected ‘secretary-general’ was a guarantee
for continuity that worked for another 10 years.
At Liège the process and results of the ongoing
agrarian revolution and urbanization was put on the
agenda and was treated in one third of all papers.
The Perugia meeting in 1973 was the first in the
Mediterranean world. Henri Desplanques, the orga-
nizer, presented an excellent survey of the rich variety
in traditional landscapes around the Mediterranean, al-
ready undergoing dramatic changes. The shift in fo-
cus from history to present time was strengthened and
covered by a majority of papers.
5
The Durham/Cambridge Symposium in 1981 in
many respects marks a turning point in the history of
PECSRL. De Planhol had resigned and the number
of participants from the Nancy-Vadstena generation
declined, prominent members of a new generation
made their début.
In an analytical survey of the contributions to this
symposium, the first outspoken critical questioning
of what was called in UK the ‘retrogressive method’
was heard in J.G. Hurst’s lecture, stressing the need
to consider the decision-making process in landscape
change, the actor’s perspective. Unfortunately, the
written evidence of this process is scarce for earlier
times, may be richer in UK than elsewhere.
Hans-Jürgen Nitz reported his findings of surviv-
ing patterns from a 9th century Carolingian state col-
onization. Nitz was to come back with more evidence
bringing to light traces of systematic state colonization
also from later epochs and other territories. The Rast-
ede/Hagen Symposium, organized by Nitz in 1985,
consequently put aspects of power in the foreground.
In his introduction to the meeting at Baarn/Gent in
1990, Jelier Vervloet stated that “also historical ge-
ographers have to discuss the future of our cultural
landscape”. “Much of the traditional European cultural
landscapes are rapidly disappearing. Yet only a very
limited number of historical geographers are trying to
think about possibilities to preserve the most valuable
phenomena . . . ”. The tenor was set for the following
symposia. The group found a proper spokesman for
this new mission in Tim Unwin.
For the Lyon Symposium in 1992, Tim Unwin made
a broad, synthetic ‘avant-propos’, a plaidoyer for the
cultural dimension in landscapes from a ‘holistic’
and ‘perceptual’ point of view, stressing the aesthetic
values in landscape. This underlined the English un-
derstanding of the word ‘landscape’ in first line as
‘scenery’, in contrast to the unmistakingly geographic
term used in German texts: “Agrarlandschaft”. Unwin
talks about interpreting the meaning of landscapes,
landscape understood as a category of fine art in the
great tradition of English landscape architecture.
At the same symposium Michael Jones stressed
the question of how to use the cultural heritage in
landscape for the future. The issue of preservation of
cultural heritage in a rapidly changing world raised
questions of criteria for selecting valuable landscapes
to preserve. Historical geographers, historians and
6 H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) 3–8
archaeologists can identify historical values to pro-
tect. When it comes to aesthetic values, however,
psychologists and art historians no doubt have better
tools and theories than geographers.
The meeting at Torino in 1994 was organized by
Paola Sereno, active participant since 1975. In her
excellent introduction to the proceedings she ob-
serves the shift in focus over time towards more
process-oriented studies. Following the ideas from
Rastede, she put focus on the decision-making lev-
els relevant to ongoing change in landscape. All
around the meeting place we saw a landscape in rapid
and dynamic change from small-scale variability to
large-scale monotony and old farm buildings in ruins.
The Dublin Symposium in 1996 confirmed the fun-
damental shift in themes as well as participation since
Lyon. Norway entered the scene with the biggest na-
tional representation. Participation from Germany and
France had ceased totally. The themes announced for
the meeting included ‘ethnicity in the landscape’ and
‘change in perception and use of rural resources’.
“Landscape values and perceptions” were the main
topic at Röros/Trondheim Symposium, organized by
Michael Jones in 1998. Stronger than before the botan-
ical aspects of cultural landscapes (biodiversity) were
emphasized in the field excursions as well as in papers.
Papers were also invited to the question of the ‘role of
landscape in the constitution of national and regional
identities’ a delicate research topic indeed in the con-
text of rising nationalism (“Blut und Boden”). To the
renewal of participation contributed a group of Esto-
nians, a happy sign of the reunion of this nation with
the European scholarly community. For the first time
also Lithuania, Russia and Belarus were represented.
Also in the Egham/Aberystwyth Symposium in
2000, organized by Tim Unwin, a Norwegian–Estonian
dominance was obvious. What had been signalled
at Lyon was completed in this meeting, Identity and
meaning were the key concepts and texts were rich in
terms like ‘aesthetics’, ‘ethics’, ‘values and choices’,
even ‘mytho-poetic’ as well as ‘moral account of
landscape’. Rural landscape studies had shifted from
the geographical environment to fragile structures in
human minds!
In summary, the most relevant way of describing
the history of PECSRL is found in shifts of thematic
focus in response to fundamental changes in rural
landscapes themselves and the problems they raise
in modern society. The main themes have logically
moved from the basic questions of origin and evo-
lution to the decision-making processes involved,
further to analyzing the recent and ongoing landscape
transformations on the one hand and to issues of land-
scape management and the application of historical
geography in the selection and care of landscapes to
preserve on the other hand.
The history, recent changes and future of rural land-
scapes (“Agrarlandschaften”) should remain the main
concern of PECSRL. Its scientific mission is to pro-
vide an expert network in the questions of identifying
historic values in Europe’s rural landscapes.
5. The 20th Permanent Conference in Estonia
2002
This issue gathers together some of the papers
presented at the 20th session of the Permanent Con-
ference for the Study of the Rural Landscapes, held in
Tartu and Otepää, Estonia, in August 2002. The issue
starts with Paul Claval’s discussion on the language
of the rural landscapes. Claval concludes that the
languages of the rural landscape could be classified
according to the position of the groups of people hav-
ing created the landscapes. First, there are languages
of function, the generative grammars of landscape
elements and the semiotics of religious signification
for traditional farming groups. Second, there is the
rhetoric of harmony, purity and social status and
power for upper or middle class urbanites from the
Middle Ages to the 20th century. Finally, there are the
languages of genuine nature, amenities and open-air
activities for the new rural population, which resulted
from the 20th century revolutions in mobility, and
activity (Claval, 2005). After that, Antrop (2005) ex-
plains why landscapes of the past are important for the
future. He distinguishes between three main periods
in landscape development: the traditional landscapes
before the important changes that started in the 18th
century, the landscapes of the revolutions age of the
19th to 20th century, and the new post-modern new
landscapes (see also Antrop, 2000; Palang and Fry,
2003). Accessibility, urbanization, globalization and
calamities are the main driving forces behind land-
scape change, while the combined effect of these
four differs in time and affects the nature and pace of
 H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) 3–8
changes as well as the human evaluation of the land-
scape. These values change in time and thus influence
the use and shaping of the landscape, but as well de-
fine how landscapes are being defined, studied, and
managed. Diversity and identity of the landscape stay
in the main focus in the discussion.
Hedin (2005) discusses the attempt of restoring a
past landscape in Estonia, where land is being resti-
tuted to the former owners after the collapse of the
communist system. In her study area, the former pop-
ulation was Swedish, fled to Sweden in 1944, and
now claims back the land formerly belonging to their
ancestors. They are not prepared to settle in their
farms, nor to continue agricultural practices. Moral
issues and continuity emerge as major concerns in
this process—whose landscapes, what the future, etc.
Skowronek et al. (2005) show how neighboring vil-
lages in Poland, despite having had a similar past,
have chosen different future options. The choice is
dictated by the differences in the present-day values,
but also different population and land reform patterns.
Nikodemus et al. (2005) show how the past is reflected
in the landscape structure of the Vidzeme upland in
Northern Latvia. This is one of the few areas in Eu-
rope where the time layers of the landscape are easily
visible and so manifold.
O’Rourke (2005) picks up the discussion on the
interaction of past and future in the Burren, Ireland,
where a former agrarian landscape, rich in both nat-
ural and historical heritage, is now turning natural
and hence management issues become crucial. After
exposing the temporality of the landscape, the paper
addresses issues of contemporary landscape protec-
tion and management practices on the ground. Höchtl
et al. (2005) explore the remaking of the concept of
wilderness during the abandonment of landscapes. The
main impacts on the inhabitants are psychological and
economic in nature. Around the villages, they regard
the effects of abandonment in a very negative light.
Visitors to the area judge the consequences of land
abandonment differently. While they regard the re-
sulting landscape’s wildness positively, they also re-
gret the cultural losses suffered by rural communities.
Peterson (2005) asks the question what do we really
protect when we speak about landscape protection, is
it the appearance of the landscape in one certain time
period—and if this is the case, which time?—or the
idea of the landscape in general. By interviewing farm-
7
ers in the area about their trees and shrubs, about plac-
ing and management treatment, from now and back as
long as they remember, large differences were found
from one farm to another almost independent of nat-
ural conditions in the landscapes. In conjunction with
this, regional advisors, as the other main actors, were
interviewed, and the differences between the various
actors are discussed as part of the article. The dis-
crepancy between the general idea of past traditions
and how uniform these have been if different farms
are compared is striking and shows the importance of
rethinking much of the routines of today.
Bender et al. (2005) develop a methodology of com-
bining cadastral maps and land plot records in GIS to
study the past landscapes, showing how the past pro-
cesses are still influencing our present-day decisions.
Van Eetvelde and Antrop (2005) go deeper, demon-
strating how the relic landscapes, defined for the Flem-
ish Landcsape Atlas, still follow the old communal
borders in the periphery of the ancient territories of the
villages. As the remains of the former patterns are still
visible, they allow restoring the past settlement sys-
tems, using the modern tools of GIS, Thiessen poly-
gons and spatial analysis.
What the future of the past landscapes? Van der
Vaart (2005) shows that the redundant farm buildings
in Friesland can have a future life in the form of for
example, villas, hardly displaying their rural past.
These changes have definitely architectural, econom-
ical, social and landscape effects at least. Vervloet
et al. (2005) show how the former military defence
line has been revived for the future through partici-
patory planning, thus preserving the cultural heritage
and not blocking other possible developments. Fi-
nally, Terkenli (2005) discusses the new landscape
‘spatialities’, caused by the accelerating local-level
landscape changes. Perhaps the most significant vari-
able in these new landscape ‘spatialities’ is geograph-
ical connectivity. Landscape may no longer be viewed
as a segment of the geographical world—real, per-
ceived or imaginary—but rather as a situated image
or system at the interface of different scales of contact
with an “observer”. In specific, landscapes today ap-
pear no longer spatially enclosed, restricted and tied
to locality. Both in terms of function and of symbol-
ism, processes, forms and signs with external, rather
than internal, references increasingly characterize the
actual new landscapes.
8 H. Palang et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) 3–8
The issue ends with a somewhat provoking paper
by Tress et al. (2005) who explore the differences
between policy expectations and research practice in
interdisciplinary landscape research. Their main ar-
gument is that although interdisciplinarity is placed
high in the political agenda, interdisciplinary projects
are more often undertaken because of curiosity. The
biggest problems seem to be underestimation of man-
agement aspects and disciplinary barriers, and there
remains a serious gap between expectations of funding
bodies and research deliverables. At the same time,
interdisciplinarity itself is seldom defined.
References
Antrop, M., 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important
for the landscapes of the future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70,
21–34.
Antrop, M., 2000. Background concepts for integrated landscape
analysis: agriculture. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 17–28.
Bender, O., Böhmer, H.J., Jens, D., Schumacher, K.P.H., 2005.
Using GIS to analyse long-term cultural landscape change in
Southern Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 111–125.
Claval, P., 2005. Reading the rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 70, 9–19.
Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention.
Firenze, 20 October 2000.
Hedin, S., 2005. Land restitution in the former Swedish settlement
areas in Estonia. Consequences for land ownership, land use
and landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 35–44.
Höchtl, F., Lehringer, S., Konold, W., 2005. Wilderness: What
it means when it becomes a reality—a case study from the
South-Western Alps. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 85–95.
Nikodemus, O., Bell, S., Grīne, I., Liepiņš I., 2005. Impact of
economic, social and political factors on the landscape structure
of the Vidzeme Uplands in Latvia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70,
57–67.
O’Rourke, E., 2005. Socio-natural interaction and landscape
dynamics in the Burren, Ireland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 69–83.
Palang, H., Fry, G., 2003. Landscape interfaces. In: Palang, H., Fry,
G. (Eds.), Landscape Interfaces. Cultural heritage in changing
landscapes, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 1–14.
Peterson, A., 2005. Has the generalization regarding conservation
of trees and shrubs in Swedish agricultural landscapes gone too
far? Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 97–109.
Skowronek, E., Krukowska, R., Swieca, A., Tucki, A., 2005.
The evolution of rural landscapes in mid-eastern Poland as
exemplified by selected villages. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 45–56.
Stanners, D., Bourdeau, P.H. (Eds.), 1995. Europe’s Environment.
The Dobris Assessment. European Environment Agency, EC
DG XI and Phare, Copenhagen.
Terkenli, T.H.S., 2005. New landscape spatialities: the changing
scales of function and symbolism. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70,
165–176.
Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G., 2005. Integrative studies on rural
landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 70, 177–191.
Tress, B., Tress, G., Décamps, H., d’Hauteserre, A.-M., 2001.
Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 57 (3–4), 137–141.
Van der Vaart, J.H.P., 2005. Towards a new rural landscape:
consequences of non-agricultural re-use of redundant farm
buildings in Friesland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 143–152.
Van Eetvelde, V., M. Antrop, 2005. The significance of Landscape
Relics in Relation to Settlement Pattern and Communal
Territories. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 127–141.
Vervloet, J.A.J., Nijman, J.H., Somsen, A.J., 2005. Planning for
the future; towards a sustainable design and land use of an
ancient flooded military defence line. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70,
153–163.