Incorporating ‘cultural values’ in landscape management: challenges and potential from two Scottish Highland case studies Amy Holden School of the Environment, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD14HN/Email: a.e.holden@dundee.ac.uk/Twitter: @adventlandscape Research context and case study areas
Conflicting perspectives or finding balances within landscape management?
Landscape management is taking an increasingly ‘values-based’ approach and promoting greater stakeholder participation. The Scottish Land Use strategy, for example, argues:
‘… there’s so many people who have so many different visions for the future, there’s not one vision […] my vision is no more valid than somebody else’s vision of it […] but a lot of things happen in all sorts of directions, it’s like bubbling full of energy … there’s not enough people actually to sustain a lot of these things but quite often they’re not pulling in the same direction, even pulling apart, so it’s hard to know, it’s difficult …. But it’s exciting to be part of,’ (Graham, local resident, Assynt)
‘There should be opportunities for all communities to out about how land is used, to understand related issues, to have voice in debates and if appropriate get involved in managing land themselves,’ (Scottish Government 2011: 25). Landscape policy calls for the collaboration between a wide and diverse range of individuals and organisations. Furthermore it calls for greater incorporation of ‘cultural values’, exploring the more subjective relationship between people and landscapes. This poster explores one aspect—cultural values and landscape management– of a broader research project that also explores the relationship between individuals and the landscapes in which they live, work or are visiting. The research took place in two case study areas, Applecross and Assynt, in the north-west Highlands of Scotland. The research adopted a semi-participatory, ‘more-than-visual’ approach to the methodology, adopting walking interviews, arts-based methods, key-informant interviews and feedback sessions.
Participation and representation: negotiating different voices
Working landscape
Designated landscape
Landscape management can be highly emotional and political often reflecting the complex individual relationship people have with the landscape. Furthermore, some participants, such as Graham above, expressed the challenge of bringing together the different and sometimes conflicting values and visions of multiple individuals to best manage landscapes. This raises a challenge for management practitioners to be able to negotiate between these views if greater participation of multiple stakeholders is continued. Some participants identified barriers preventing them from participating with landscape management:
Crofting landscape
Estate landscape
Nature/Culture: from separation to hybridity A key finding of the research was the complexity with which people encountered and responded to the ‘landscape’:
Visually - at different scales, changes and continuity within the landscape Experientially - all the different sense of the body, the connection between body and mind Emotionally - personal memories, personal situation, history of the landscape and the people who have lived there
Sea
Land
Power—where participants perceived the power to be within the management chain and their ability to be represented by those structures. Ownership—private ownership of land—crofts and estates—were seen to exclude people from the landscape as the ultimate decision was with those who owned the land. Disillusionment—despite getting involved with management decisions in the past, often through going to public events, some participants felt that their voices still were not heard in favour of those with greater power and influence within the areas.
Conclusion: creating spaces
There was, however, a tension between the more individual responses and more collective, cultural responses to the landscape: ‘I just wonder whether the landscape exists of its own, of itself or is it only really ... you know reliant on what people either use or don’t use it for, it’s quite a difficult concept, the landscape,’ (Richard, local resident, Applecross, original emphasis). Many participants did not think that ‘landscape’ could be understood without understanding the relationship between people, ecology, land use and landscape. Some participants regarded current landscape management, however, as separating people (culture) from landscape (nature). They argued that management favoured preservation of the landscape visually and ‘devoid of people’ rather than allowing the landscape to develop and evolve with the local population. A more hybrid and connected approach to nature and culture becomes more useful, therefore, when exploring current management practices.
Woodland
Deer
The above key management issues identified by participants within both case study areas are seemingly conflicting perspectives. For some, however, finding connections and balance between them was key for future management approaches and practices: ‘[...] the deer are the problem but also a part of it, they need to be there, they are native species, a simple thing about why is that woodland so beautiful because it’s the deer, what’s the threat, it’s also the deer, how do you resolve that? Then you get into politics of land ownership and land management and it takes a lot to sort it out and that just shows I think the connections between wildlife reserve and people, and it’s true whatever you look at,’ (Josh, key informant, Applecross).
Feedback sessions were organised in each case study area. This included an exhibition and presentation of the key findings. The sessions attracted people who did not take part in the research as well as those that did. One attendee commented that having the issues clearly but anonymously there for anyone to read meant they felt more comfortable to talk openly about the challenges that was facing management in the area. Landscape management is highly emotive and contentious within these small Highland communities. The communities, though, are not homogenous but contain multiple visions for landscape management that must be negotiated. Creating spaces in which these emotions can be expressed freely and constructively could allow for more collective and collaborative resolutions and participation within landscape management.