No abstract

This paper investigates the spatial importance of horses in a multifunctional and urbanized area. The growing spatial importance of horses in the open space was already mentioned by different authors, but never quantifi ed before. In many countries, including Belgium, statistics on horses are only partly covered by agricultural data. As a consequence, the amount of space in use for horses, especially hobby horses, is largely unknown but may encompass a signifi cant area of the open space. Especially within the context of an increasing urbanization and growing demands on the remaining rural area, this evolution must not be neglected. A reliable quantifi cation of the space used by horses is therefore essential and is given in this research for the case study Flanders. According to the results of fi eldwork, about one-third of the pasture land in Flanders is used to keep horses. A qualitative analysis showed a higher horse density within the more urbanized areas with a fragmented agricultural area and a quantitative analysis showed negative associations between the presence of horses and (i) the distance to gardens, (ii) the parcel area and (iii) the distance to forest. Moreover, an internet survey assessed evolutions and motivations of horse owners to keep horses. The survey resulted in clear data on the fact that the number of horses is increasing. This is mainly motivated by recreational purposes. The majority of horsekeepers do not consider themselves to be part of the agricultural sector. These results, showing an intensifi ed competition for land between stakeholders in the open space of urbanized regions put new challenges for sustainable land use planning. The major challenges are (i) to avoid increasing functional and spatial fragmentation of rural landscapes, (ii) to assure enough space for societal necessity urgencies such as food or energy selfeffi ciency, (iii) to increase positive interactions of horse keeping with other sectors such as agriculture, nature conservation and others and (iv) to develop a proper visual and cultural landscape strategy, helping in setting up guidelines for fencing and other infrastructural elements that do not deteriorate the landscape character.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract:This article reinterprets open space as the theatre of adaptive regimes in the interfering wakes of two major waves of transformation: the agricultural and the urban transformation. The aim of the wave regime concept is to accommodate traditional and emerging land uses in a logical scheme of co-existing regimes separated by transition waves in space and time. Each wave corresponds to a transitional stage from one set to another set of value regime, which by the agents of the transformation is interpreted as a major value increase. The current struggle for space and the difficult interpretations of quality and sustainability can be explained as expressions of competition between value regimes. These value regimes tend to be driven and perpetuated by customary paradigms of land-use planning and management (urban planning, ecology, agronomy, etc.). Land-use sectors ask for rather unambiguous definitions and clear use rights of land use categories and zoning, leaving limited possibility for interaction, mixed regimes and innovative multifunctional land-use. New service demands, new sustainability and resilience urgencies challenge these customary land-use planning paradigms and their rules and instruments. This paper acknowledges a third wave and consequent fourth regime. This regime seeks overall increased sustainability and resilience in open spaces, stressing the strategic importance of unsealed soils and other life conditioning substrates. Different existing land-use models, such as "transition towns", "agroforestry" and many more, can be interpreted as fourth regime examples, but altogether there is a need for more coordination or integration to turn the third wave concept into a real "wave". A specific target is to scan territories for characteristics and values according to the prevailing regimes, and assess each unit in terms of third wave transition opportunities, even within active uses that may be at odds with customary rules and expectations. This is illustrated for cases of illegal intake of farmland for non-agricultural activities and for domestic gardens as a missing category in customary rural and land use policy.