Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:59:42.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Human and Social Dimensions of Landscape Stewardship

from Part I - Foundations of Landscape Stewardship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2017

By
Elisabeth Conrad
Edited by
Claudia Bieling  and
Tobias Plieninger
Claudia Bieling
Affiliation:
Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart
Tobias Plieninger
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access

Summary

Landscape stewardship is an ethical concept that advocates for interactions between people and nature to be rooted in responsibility, humility and respect for land and its components. This chapter explores different perspectives on the relationship between humans and natural systems, and their implications for landscape stewardship. The chapter first focuses on the role of landscapes and landscape stewards within social-ecological systems (SESs), discussing how SES analytical frameworks can help us understand what may motivate people to adopt stewardship behaviors, and how landscape stewardship can help us as a society to collectively build the resilience of SESs. The chapter then discusses a cluster of related affective concepts (biophilia, nature connectedness, and place attachment) that could potentially help enhance the motivation for stewardship at the level of the individual, ideally creating a demand among upcoming generations for landscapes that are sustainably managed. There are also, however, challenges inherent in the plurality of perceptions and attitudes. Finally, we look at the extent to which these social and personal dimensions are reflected in present-day landscape practices, identifying aspects of the policy environment that may limit the extent to which such dimensions effectively influence planning decisions. The chapter concludes with a series of related recommendations.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship , pp. 38 - 53
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bawole, J. N. (2013). Public hearing or ‘hearing public’? An evaluation of the participation of local stakeholders in Environmental Impact Assessment of Ghana's Jubilee oil fields. Environmental Management, 52, 385–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohm, D. F. & Peat, D. (1987). Science, Order and Creativity. New York, NY: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Bone, J. (2009). Beyond biophobia: A response to Jackson and Rees. Sociology, 41, 917–930.Google Scholar
Brown, J. & Mitchell, B. (2000). The stewardship approach and its relevance for protected landscapes. The George Wright Forum, 17, 70–79.Google Scholar
Brunetta, G. & Voghera, A. (2008). Evaluating landscape for shared values: tools, principles and methods. Landscape Research, 33, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M. & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4, 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commons, M. & Stagl, S. (2005). Ecological Economics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conrad, E., Cassar, L. F., Christie, M. & Fazey, I. (2011a). Hearing but not listening? A participatory assessment of public participation in planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29, 761–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, E., F. Cassar, L., Jones, M., Eiter, S., Izaovičová, Z., Barankova, Z., Christie, M. & Fazey, I. (2011b). Rhetoric and reporting of public participation in landscape policy. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 13, 23–47.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2000). The European Landscape Convention. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Cumming, G. S. & Collier, J. (2005). Change and identity in complex systems. Ecology and Society, 10, 29. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art29/).Google Scholar
Cumming, G. S., Barnes, G., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K. E., Southworth, J., Binford, M., Holt, R. D., Stickler, C. & van Holt, T. (2005). An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems, 8, 975–987.Google Scholar
De Montis, A. (2014). Impacts of the European Landscape Convention on national planning systems: A comparative investigation of six case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, 53–65.Google Scholar
Fromm, E. (1973). The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Hagerty, B. M., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K. & Bouwsema, M. (1993). An emerging theory of human relatedness. IMAGE: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 25, 291–296.Google Scholar
Halliday, A. & Glaser, M. (2011). A management perspective on social ecological systems: A generic system model and its application to a case study from Peru. Human Ecology Review, 18, 1–18.Google Scholar
Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 409–421.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behaviour, 21, 509–530.Google Scholar
Klinenberg, E. (2002). Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago, MI: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, J. & Opdam, P. (2014). Valuing ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: Introducing a wellbeing-based approach. Landscape Ecology, 29, 1347–1360.Google Scholar
Matthews, R. & Selman, P. (2006). Landscape as a focus for integrating human and environmental processes. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, F. S. & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.Google Scholar
Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E. & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607–643.Google Scholar
Mikusiński, G., Blicharska, M., Antonson, H., Henningsson, M., Göransson, G., Angelstam, P., & Seiler, A. (2013). Integrating ecological, social and cultural dimensions in the implementation of the Landscape Convention. Landscape Research, 38, 384–393.Google Scholar
Miller, B. W., Caplow, S. C. & Leslie, P. W. (2012). Feedbacks between conservation and social-ecological systems. Conservation Biology, 26, 218–227.Google Scholar
Molotch, H., Freudenburg, W. & Paulsen, K. E. (2000). History repeats itself, but how? City character, urban tradition, and the accomplishment of place. American Sociological Review, 65, 791–823.Google Scholar
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry, 16, 95–100.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J. I. (2012). Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 221–229.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naveh, Z. (1995). Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, P. B. (2009). A practical procedure for assessing resilience of social-ecological systems using the Systems Dynamics Approach. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 7, 67–71.Google Scholar
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M. & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2008). The challenge of common-pool resources. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50, 8–21.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419.Google Scholar
Papayannis, T. & Mallarach, J. M. (2009). The Sacred Dimension of Protected Areas: Proceedings of the Second Workshop of the Delos Initiative – Ouranoupolis 2007. Gland: IUCN & Athens: Med-INA.Google Scholar
Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 455–463.Google Scholar
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 147–169.Google Scholar
Pyle, R. M. (1978). The extinction of experience. Horticulture, 56, 64–67.Google Scholar
Rappaport, R. A. (1968). Pigs for the Ancestors. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Romolini, M., Brinkley, W. & Wolf, K. L. (2012). What is urban environmental stewardship? Constructing a practitioner-derived framework (Research note PNW-RN-56). Portland: USDA.Google Scholar
Scannell, L. & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 1–10.Google Scholar
Schultz, B. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In Psychology of Sustainable Development, Schmuck, P. & Schultz, P. W. (eds.). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic, pp. 61–78.Google Scholar
Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J. & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42.Google Scholar
Scott, A. (2011). Beyond the conventional: Meeting the challenges of landscape governance within the European Landscape Convention. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 2754–2762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, A., Shorten, J., Owen, R. & Owen, I. (2011). What kind of countryside do the public want: Community visions from Wales UK? GeoJournal, 76, 417–436.Google Scholar
Silvas, D. V. (2013). Measuring an Emotional Connection to Nature among Children. PhD thesis, Colorado State University.Google Scholar
Simaika, J. P. & Samways, M. J. (2010). Biophilia as a universal ethic for conserving biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 24, 903–906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34, 561–581.Google Scholar
Sternlieb, F., Bixler, R. P., Huber-Stearns, H. & Huayhuaca, C. (2013). A question of fit: Reflections on boundaries, organizations and social-ecological systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 130, 117–125.Google Scholar
Van den Born, R. J. G., Lenders, R. H. J., de Groot, W. T. & Huijsman, E. (2001). The new biophilia: An exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environmental Conservation, 28, 65–75.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. M. & Gobster, P. H. l. (2007). Interpreting landscape change: Measured biophysical change and surrounding social context. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 67–80.Google Scholar
Willemen, L., Verburg, P. H., Hein, L. & van Mensvoort, M. E. F. (2008). Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 88, 34–43.Google Scholar
Willemen, L., Hein, L. & Verburg, P. H. (2010). Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecological Economics, 69, 2244–2254.Google Scholar
Williams, D. R. & Vaske, J. R. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49, 830–840.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Goodale, E. & Chen, J. (2014). How contact with nature affects children's biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biological Conservation, 177, 109–116.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×