Landscape F~RR~Rg, 7~19SU~223-~23 223 OEIsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

CONTRIBUTION TO REFLECTIONS ON RURAL LANDSCAPES

R. PERELMAN

1.2 rue Saint Nom, 78620 I%tang la Vifle Q+ance)

(Accepted f April 1980)

ABS’PRACT

Perelman, R., 1980. Contribution to reflections on rural landscapes. Landscape Plann., 7 : 223-228.

City dwellers have become proportionately more numerous than rural inhabitants in European society, The countryside has often become the preferred setting for their lei- sure activity, which explains their extreme sensitivity to anything that, in their eyes, might damage the countryside, including the modernization of agricultural techniques,

A new kind of qualitative management of the countryside should be based on coop- eration between the farming community and city dwelters. The search for sofutions ea- pable of conserving the originaf individual qualities of the countryside, in contrast to the overall similarity of urban sites, must be made to counterbalance the risk of standard- ization as a result of the application of all-purpose formulas that may be encouraged by increased travel and commerce between European countries.

IN’I’RODUCTION

The remarks presented in this article constituted the conceptual frame- work within which a team from the French National Center for Landscape Study and Research JCNERP) made a comparative study of the current evolutionary trends of European rural landscapes. This study was undertaken by the author, Yves Luginbuhl economist) and Alain Levavasseur (land- scape architect). The study was based essentially on the analysis of three case studies (two of which the team knew at first hand, and a third which had been studied by a British team), The first study was of the Durance Valley in southern France to better evaluate the consequences of abandoning for- merly-cultivated middle-mountain zones, and those of intense development of metropolitan Marseilles. The second case was the Calabria region in Italy, with similar objectives to those used for the Durance Valley. The third case was the Arnside Silverdale area in Cumbria, Great Britain, where a study had been undertaken to illustrate the hypothesis that care given to rural land- scapes increases in proportion to the population density of the vicinity. In addition to analyzing these three cases, legislation regarding landscape was examined for each of the Common Market cuuntries.

224

A NEW LOOK AT CHANGING LANDSCAPES

European rural landscapes constitute a considerable heritage which, hence- forth, should be managed in a way other than that which is the case at pre- sent. Until quite recently, the value of landscapes was recognized primarily by artists. Painters, writers, musicians and poets have long drawn on the abundant riches of European landscapes. They have recognized that the land- scape is the meeting place of Man, Society and Nature; and for those who know how to interpret it, it is a complete reflection of Man’s history. Despite the introduction of the market economy to the countryside during the nine- teenth century, farming activity and rural life were largely dependent on the characteristics of each area, and this created a diversity of landscapes that does not exist on the same scale in other continents.

For the past 30 years, industrialization, urban concentration and the rationalization of farming techniques have created new attitudes towards the countryside. These attitudes can be seen to result from the increased separa- tion of city dwellers from the countryside (despite recent interest in the en- vironment and the use of the countryside for leisure activities) and a ten- dency towards the disappearance of traditional rural character, either as a result of agricultural modernization of the most fertile regions or a drift away from the land in the least fertile ones.

It is only a slight over-simplification to state that it is urban concentration which is removing a growing proportion of the population from rural activ- ities, which are the primary creators of the landscape. Suburban development absorbs the largest part of this population and serves them as a constantly visible reminder of this incessant form of landscape modification. In addition, urban populations are subjected to potentially alienating industrial working conditions, as well as the secondary effects of industrial activities which cre- ate environmental nuisances and pollution. Given this contemporary context, a demand for leisure activity in a different and more stable environment, better suited to individual aspirations and development, has come to be re- garded as an absolute necessity. Rural environments are placed in an exceed- ingly ambiguous position. If the preservation of such alternative environments seems worthwhile, such preservation should not be used as an excuse to ne- glect urban living conditions just because occasional ‘escape’ trips to the countryside can lessen the effects of environmental stress in urban areas.

Discussion of the role of the countryside is further complicated because several extremely varied transformations of the countryside occur simulta- neously and must be considered at the same time. Over the past few decades, the rationalization of techniques has favored farming on flat, fertile land, but not upland farming, which has led to a radical effect on the already existing disparity between these two types of rural area. Rural atmosphere and traditions decrease in fertile areas as soon as symbols of urban, industrial society become apparent. They survive, with great difficulty, in the uplands. In the eyes of city dwellers, transformations which lead to a commonplace

225

uniformity of the countryside diminish the quality of rural landscapes, es- pecially when they are the result of industrial techniques that they seek to escape by travelling out into the countryside. Also, the rapid increase in abandonment of marginal upland farming insidiously erases the traces of human activities which are so uniquely typical of European landscapes. Thus, the evolution of European societies creates a double separation (more or less obvious from one country to another), by creating conflicts between city and country, as well as between people at work and at leisure. The landscape is threatened by a latent crisis, which becomes more and more evident in the outcries that occur with greater frequency as public opinion tends to be more easily aroused. Having received strong warning of public reactions, French society has sought means of avoiding such objections by adopting environmental legislation, by using compensatory fiscal measures to decrease the more brutal effects of economic laws, by creating protected areas of rurti life in regional parks and by slowly modifying its planning, development and mining procedures to reflect ecological and aesthetic concerns. The idea of ‘progress’ will no longer be accepted unless its chosen forms of action integrate a number of values which narrow modes of economic thought have so far neglected to take into consideration.

Concern for resolving conflicts and the emergence of environmental val- ues, such as the concept of cultural and environmental heritage of landscapes, explain why landscape evaluation has become an important subject of study and debate. While is still remains as a source of artistic inspiration, the land- scape has become an object of research as well as an emotional link between city dwellers and nature. Deliberate creation of landscapes now goes well beyond the realm of park and garden projects, and is applied to vaster, com- posite rural areas. The activities that have traditionally taken place in rural areas are asked to play a new role of improving the quality of the landscapes created. An important role was formerly played by traditional activities with which successive generations of rural societies marked their physical environ- ment, thereby creating rural landscapes. Today, a similar role must be played by a combination of new participants using a different set of mechanisms, corresponding to modern industrial society. Such a radical change means that a broader understanding of landscapes and the phenomena that create them must be. fostered throughout the entire population. This is why it is so important that considerable attention be given to the landscape. This new interest may result in new forms of rural management quite different from those to which we are accustomed.

THE CONSCIOUS CREATION OF RURAL LANDSCAPES

Transportation can be improved by building a new road network and the quantity of grain harvested in a given area depends on the number of hec- tares seeded, average yields and weather conditions. Such results are arrived at by using easily definable techniques and organizational methods. It does

226

not appear that similar forms of logic can be applied to the evaluation of landscape quality and to envisaging means by which it may be improved.

Merely attempting to define the quality of a landscape will rapidly de- monstrate that landscapes are judged, in large measure, by the eye of the beholder. Thus, a priori, any program designed to improve landscape qual- ity must take into account the eye of the beholder as a variable of equal importance as any technical means chosen to preserve or modify the land- scape. For example, given modern living conditions, the preservation of elements of diversity in the landscape is a compensating factor which enables city dwellers to escape from the uniformity of modern urban and suburban developments. It can thus be argued, for example, that the value of a net- work of landscaped paths is as dependent for success on the availability of explanatory brochures and maps as on the physical planning and engineering techniques that are used to build or maintain the paths.

Historically, the use of landscapes reflected traditions that modern life has made out of date. Today, these traditions have been replaced by a social code that has dictated laws and statutes concerning the environment. Most environmental regulations and guidelines seek to designate areas worthy of conservation and to enforce measures that will protect them from outside pressures. European countries have created a variety of types of protected area, ranging from the fairly small ones where conservation measures are strictly enforced to restrict or prevent all development to the larger areas where development is permitted, provided that the req~remen~ of more or less formal planning procedures are met. At the same time, a more dy- namic outlook towards landscape quality is growing. This is more realistic, because it recognizes that bot.h natural and human activities are responsible for landscape evolution. Research is being directed towards finding adequate means of integrating new variables, ensuring the fulfilment of qualitative, socially-oriented goals that have been neglected in the past in favor of the individual pursuit of profit maximization.

In most countries, a great deal more attention is being paid to new ‘non- monetary’ resources of the countryside. In particular, leisure environments, which are by-products of farming, are valued in their own right by urban society. If, through recent times, agronomy has been used pro~essively to rationalize agricultural activities, one wonders whether new resources that are by-products of changes in these activities should not be the object of more serious reflection. Without making a radical departure from the ob- jectives and constraints of pure agriculLural production, it would appear ad- visable to reconsider short-term profit as the only goal, In this way, land- scape quality could become the center of a new debate between both rural and urban participants. A search for formulas designed to reverse the gener- al process of deterioration of rural landscape quality faces the double stum- bling block of the difficulty of defining a rational basis for action, and the impossibility of preserving the former status quo. Evaluation of landscape quality is largely based on cultural factors. This is precisely what strengthens

227

t,he links that exist between man and his environment (whether he be a tour- ist or a permanent resident). It also explains the passionate reactions of city dwellers when they witness rapid evolution of rural and wilderness areas. In short, European society, and more particularly French society, is seeking a consensus on the most appropriate means of using space, either perma- nently or for temporary leisure activities.

Thus, in order to be more clearly understood, each landscape transforma- tion must be placed in a two-fold context: firstly, that of the place which geography has created as a unit of components and nuances, and secondly that of the meanings that each place acquires, more or less clearly, in the eyes of different social groups. For example, the effects of land consolida- tion on hedgerow landscapes are not perceived in the same manner by city dwellers as by farmers; or amongst the latter, by farmers of different gener- ations. This is the reason for the difficulties of formulating general land- scapes rules that can satisfy everyone simultaneously, unless each person involved is willing to reconsider his original point of view in the light of new information and general interests. Formulating rules is made all the more difficult by the fact that knowledge of human attitudes and behavior towards space in general, and the landscape in particular, is still quite rudimentary. The creation of a new European rural community should help to eliminate certain imbalances that might hinder the recognition of common interests that bind all rural communities. However, it would be contrary to European character to seek to erase all the differences that have marked, and should continue to mark, its various regions.

The necessity for diversity expressed in terms of cultural differences is also true of space planning, particularly because responsibilities for quality are not necessarily well defined within any given country. Governmental theory and practice seem to follow a general, normative tendency towards homogeneity and uniformity. This tendency must be fought. Indeed, it seems preferable that international meetings, so useful when discussing basic issues, must not be permitted to favor blanket imitation of techniques and the adoption of common solutions to solve individual problems. Common Market policy should, on the contrary, demonstrate the positive side of diversity and consider appropriate means of preserving existing regional dif- ferences. The diversity of rural landscapes which generally has been main- tained until recent years, should be considered as a natural resource (and a most significant one for city dwellers) that should not be wasted. As a prac- tical measure, a professional code for those involved in planning outside their native cultural area might be established at the Common Market level to foster the preservation of traditions as well as the birth of new practices.

If, from a socio-economic point of view, it appears preferable to diversify the activities of agricultural communities by introducing new, non-agricul- tural activities to the countryside, this should not be done in ignorance of the indirect forms of competition that will result. For example, increased housing costs in the countryside may force farmers’ children to give up

228

farming because their incomes are below those of workers in nearby facto- ries or owners of second homes. In such cases, farmers will leave the land and the diversity of rural character will disappear, leaving scenery devoid of the profound human meaning that originally constituted its essential value. A new form of zoning activities in the countryside (nature reserves, histor- ical areas, forests, agricultural production etc.) will develop in the same man- ner as that which is commonly used for industrial and housing estates in urban areas. This evolution represents a loss, whose value is just beginning to be recognized, because the countryside remains a favored place for ex- periences necessary to man and which take place in an entirely different manner than those encountered in cities.

An essential task of creating awareness of landscape quality must be under- taken in urban areas as well as in the areas of the countryside undergoing rapid evolution. Rural dwellers are less attentive to landscape transformation than city dwellers. They tend to see the landscape merely as an accidental by-product of their work, and to consider that it has little or no intrinsic value because they judge the land essentially in terms of property and land use. For these reasons, rural dwellers tend to view any policy in favor of pre- serving environmental quality as the result of the attitudes of city dwellers on holiday in the countryside. They are often irritated by government pro- grams designed to implement environmental policy, for they fear that they will bear the financial burden. It thus appears obvious that the cost of mea- sures designed to result in positive landscape tranformation cannot weigh solely on farmers. In addition to organizing pilot projects, contests and in- formation programs, the government must offer financial support to spon- sor a change in attitudes that must necessarily govern new means of produc- tion and conservation of rural landscapes.

CONCLUSION

In the context discussed above, the landscape planner is faced with a dual task. First, that of the specialist designated by society to help it make choices regarding the landscape, mindful of values beyond those linked to short-term financial profits. However, the integration of non-monetary val- ues necessitates a consensus as to their nature. It is this which motivates the second task: that of increasing awareness of landscape quality. This second task puts the landscape planner in the role of an advocate and a teacher so that, little by little, the creation of landscapes can once again express the harmony between a place and the community that lives in it and by it.