The concept of landscape has been increasingly used, in the last decades, in policy and land use planning, both in regard to so-called "special" and to "ordinary" or "everyday" landscapes. This has raised the importance of local and public participation in all issues that refer to landscapes and the definition of the groups that "have a stake" in the landscape. In this paper, we provide insights into how stakeholders perceive the dynamics of local processes of landscape change (and continuity) and which processes of landscape change they perceive as important, in positive and negative ways, from five communities within the European Union. These landscapes involve different landscape issues "at stake", different national and local planning and decision-making traditions and practices, and varying degrees of engagement. The understanding of these complexities and the unraveling of the insights is done through the concept of social capital and its different forms. We report on three series of workshops that have been organized to discuss landscape issues and approaches or ideas for landscape management. We witnessed interactions between the different stakeholders and gained insights into how social capital affects landscape change. We found that despite differences, similarities emerged concerning the interplay between "expert" and "local" knowledge and between "insideness" and "outsideness". Social capital plays an important part, as it provides the template for personal and collective evaluation of landscape changes, who should manage these changes and how they should be managed. These findings are important to develop in-depth insights on dynamics and values of cultural landscapes and visions for re-coupling social and ecological components in cultural landscapes and translate them into policy and management options.
Coastal and marine cultural heritage (CMCH) is at risk due to its location and its often indefinable value. As these risks are likely to intensify in the future, there is an urgent need to build CMCH resilience. We argue that the current CMCH risk management paradigm narrowly focuses on the present and preservation. This tends to exclude debates about the contested nature of resilience and how it may be achieved beyond a strict preservationist approach. There is a need, therefore, to progress a broader and more dynamic framing of CMCH management that recognises the shift away from strict preservationist approaches and incorporates the complexity of heritage’s socio-political contexts. Drawing on critical cultural heritage literature, we reconceptualise CMCH management by rethinking the temporality of cultural heritage. We argue that cultural heritage may exist in four socio-temporal manifestations (extant, lost, dormant, and potential) and that CMCH management consists of three broad socio-political steering processes (continuity, discontinuity, and transformation). Our reconceptualisation of CMCH management is a first step in countering the presentness trap in CMCH management. It provides a useful conceptual framing through which to understand processes beyond the preservationist approach and raises questions about the contingent and contested nature of CMCH, ethical questions around loss and transformation, and the democratisation of cultural heritage management.
This article discusses archaeological landscapes as narratives. Artefacts tell stories, but they are also parts of larger stories told by the landscapes of their time. Landscapes are considered to comprise not only the physical setting to people's activities, but also the social space of the inhabitants. As the social world itself always consists of stories, it is possible to read landscapes as narratives of an area in a certain period. However, these narratives are subjective, because the landscape has been ruptured by time: the physical and social landscape has changed a great deal over the centuries, and due to the temporal distance, it is not always easy for an archaeologist to tell the story of a past period. narratives can be collective or individual, and so can landscapes. Usually, archaeological landscapes represent the laws and traditions of a past society, so they are collective landscapes. Iron Age burial landscapes are at present spatially and temporally ruptured landscapes that narrate the collective stories of their time.The notions of collectivity and individuality are also used in the discussion of the case study, for understanding these concepts in society is an interesting problem, especially in the case of the Late Iron Age in Estonia. The transition from collective to individual burial is a spatial rupture, both in the sense of the physical landscape and the social space of society. In this article, the rupture will be studied first and foremost from the perspective of the landscape of the burial site, and this will be combined with different archaeological data from other areas and hypotheses on the Late Iron Age social system previously published. In conclusion, the spatially and temporally ruptured burial landscape of Lahepera will tell its story.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.