Kulturlandschaft - “Cultural Landscape”

Excerpt from: Andreas Röhring, Kenneth Anders, Stefan Hotes (2010): Kulturlandschaft – Was ist das? (“Cultural Landscape” – What is it?) In: Hotes, S., Wolters, V. (2010) Fokus Biodiversität. Wie Biodiversität in der Kulturlandschaft erhalten und nachhaltig genutzt werden kann (Focus on Biodiversity. How biodiversity can be preserved and used sustainably in the “cultural landscape”): 36-37

The term “cultural landscape” is the subject of much debate in science and business practice. It becomes obvious in such debate that different notions exist beyond the generally accepted fundamental consensus that “cultural landscape” is a landscape that has been changed by man. By “Culture”, in contrast to “nature”, we generally understand the shaping effect of man and, consequently, “cultural landscape” is referred to in order to distinguish it from the term “natural landscape”. Since man has left his mark on nature almost everywhere in Central Europe, this differentiation has more of a rhetorical meaning (Schenk 2002). Even the frequently used term “landscape” usually refers to “cultural landscape” in the Central European context.
The way in which humans perceive the space around them and how they develop certain concepts of it, “appropriating” it, has a considerable impact on the respective purport of the term “landscape” (Anders 2006). Ecological aspects relating to the natural area and different social meanings are therefore combined in the concept of “cultural landscape”.
…

The term “cultural landscape” clearly reflects the field of tension between man and nature. “Culture” is often associated with qualitative criteria, causing the term “cultural landscape” to become normatively and emotionally charged (Wöbse 1994). The normativity and selectivity of the understanding of “cultural landscape” become evident in the accesses shaped by the sectors or disciplines, such as nature conservation and the preservation of historic monuments or agriculture and water management, which are oriented towards the conservation or use of the “cultural landscape” (Gailing 2008). This understanding of “cultural landscape” changes over the years; one example is nature conservation, which has become detached from the cultural perspective of cultural heritage in recent decades, focussing on the ecological perspective of the science-based protection of species and habitats (Haber 2006).

“Cultural landscapes” vary in their endowment with biotic and abiotic features, in their historical imprint, as well as with regard to regional usages, traditions and products. Social momentum and changes to the landscape are often linked to changes in structure and the loss of the “cultural landscape” elements. On the one hand, this has intensified efforts to preserve traditional elements and structures; on the other hand, new types of area have been included in the concept of “cultural landscapes”, including suburban areas, intensively used agricultural landscapes and areas affected by dramatic change, such as industrial landscapes and post-mining landscapes.

In addition to various qualitative characteristics, attention has also been focused on the specific spatial context of “cultural landscapes” (cf. Fürst et al. 2008). “Cultural landscape” is not only a physical phenomenon but becomes a social construct through man’s perception against the backdrop of the respective sectoral and disciplinary accesses (cf. Kühne 2006).

In recent years, “cultural landscape” has increasingly evolved into a concept of integration. This process has been considerably influenced by the European Landscape Convention (European Council 2000), one of the aims of which is to raise landscape awareness. Germany, however, has not yet joined this Convention. Nevertheless, this development is reflected in how the understanding of “cultural landscapes” changes within spatial planning which, with its general principle of “preserving resources – shaping “cultural landscapes”,” pursues an integrating and development-oriented approach and is aimed at a greater control of the development of “cultural landscapes” (BMVBS 2006).

It must be taken into account here, however, that “cultural landscapes” is mainly a by-product of human activities originally aimed at achieving other goals. According to Sieferle (2003), “cultural landscape” is “a residual product of numerous activities that all have their own purpose. “Cultural landscape” reflects the results of work, traffic, living, recreation, tourism, consumption, landscape planning and nature conservation, and yet no one ever intends its real entirety.” At the same time, “cultural landscape” is a community asset – everyone can benefit from its quality but, again, everyone is affected when it is impaired (Röhring 2008). Consequently, in its complexity “cultural landscape” is only controllable to a limited extent. Regulatory approaches must therefore tie in with the potentials of “cultural landscape” that create identity, they must enhance the self-reflexive potential of landscape-shaping actions and encourage humans to make use of the scope to commodify their own “cultural landscape” resources. To achieve this, an explicit spatial context is required that evolves when “cultural landscapes” are developed as scopes of action that follow the specific qualities of a “cultural landscape” and its identity-creating features. These scopes of action are constituted including discourse and communication processes in which various forms of knowledge and perception become visible and common objectives for the development of “cultural landscape” are exchanged.

References

1. Anders, K. (2006): Landschaft. In: Achim Trebeß (Ed.) Metzler Lexikon Ästhetik. Metzler, Stuttgart: 231-233
2. BMVBS (2006): Leitbilder und Handlungsstrategien für die Raumentwicklung in Deutschland. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung, Berlin
3. Europarat (2000): Europäisches Landschaftsübereinkommen . Florence. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/GER/Treaties/Html/176.htm
4. Fürst, D. / Gailing, L. / Pollermann, K. / Röhring, A. (Eds.) Kulturlandschaft als Handlungsraum. Institutionen und Governance im Umgang mit dem regionalen Gemeinschaftsgut Kulturlandschaft. Dorothea Rohn, Dortmund
5. Gailing, L. (2008): Kulturlandschaft – Begriff und Debatte. In: Fürst, D. / Gailing, L. / Pollermann, K. / Röhring, A. (Eds.) Kulturlandschaft als Handlungsraum. Institutionen und Governance im Umgang mit dem regionalen Gemeinschaftsgut Kulturlandschaft. Dorothea Rohn, Dortmund: 21-34
6. Haber, W. (2006): Kulturlandschaften und die Paradigmen des Naturschutzes. Stadt und Grün 12: 20-25
7. Kühne, O. (2006): Landschaft und ihre Konstruktion. Theoretische Überlegungen und empirische Befunde. Nat.schutz Landsch.plan. 38: 146-152
8. Schenk, W. (2002): “Landschaft” und “Kulturlandschaft” – “getönte” Leitbegriffe für aktuelle Konzepte geografischer Forschung und räumlicher Planung. Petermanns Geografische Mitteilungen 146: 6-13
9. Röhring, A. (2008): Gemeinschaftsgut Kulturlandschaft – Dilemma und Chancen der Kulturlandschaftsentwicklung. In: Fürst, D. / Gailing, L. / Pollermann, K. / Röhring, A. (Eds.) Kulturlandschaft als Handlungsraum. Institutionen und Governance im Umgang mit dem regionalen Gemeinschaftsgut Kulturlandschaft. Dorothea Rohn, Dortmund: 35-48
10. Sieferle, R. P. (2003): Die totale Landschaft. In: Oswald, F. / Schüller, N. (Eds.) Neue Urbanität – das Verschmelzen von Stadt und Landschaft. gta-Verlag Zürich: 59-76
11. Wöbse, H.W. (1994): Schutz historischer Kulturlandschaft. Beiträge zur räumlichen Planung 37