EEuurrooppeeaann LLaannddssccaappee European Landscape Character Areas E u r o p In recent years, Landscape Character Assessment has become central to the e CChhaarraacctteerr AArreeaass a sustainable development and management of land. It is recognised as an important n L tool for policy makers and stakeholders, which provides them with quantitative and a n qualitative evidence to reach a dynamic management adjustable to new demands of d regional identity. In response to this need, the expert network LANDSCAPE EUROPE sc launched the European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI). The a Typologies, Cartography and Indicators for the p goal of the project was to review state-of-the-art landscape character assessment e at the national and international level and to analyse the role of policies and C Assessment of Sustainable Landscapes h stakeholders at various levels. Synthesising the results of an international a r stakeholder workshop and of research activities in14 participating countries, this a c richly illustrated final report provides a detailed account of all findings and presents te recommendations for future applications. r A r e a s E d it e d b y D ir k M . W a s Edited by c h e Dirk M. Wascher r LANDSCAPE EUROPE Landscape Europe Secretariat, Alterra Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen (The Netherlands) European Landscape Character Areas Typologies, Cartography and Indicators for the Assessment of Sustainable Landscapes Final Project Report Project: FP5 EU Accompanying Measure Contract: ELCAI-EVK2-CT-2002-80021 Home page: www.elcai.org Co-ordinator: Dirk Wascher i This report is based on the EU Accompanying Measure Project “European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative” (ELCAI). Alterra Report No. 1254/December 2005 © LANDSCAPE EUROPE 2005 This publication should be cited as follows: Wascher, D.M. (ed). 2005. European Landscape Character Areas – Typologies, Cartography and Indicators for the Assessment of Sustainable Landscapes. Final Project Report as deliverable from the EU’s Accompanying Measure project European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI), funded under the 5th Framework Programme on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (4.2.2), x + 150 pp. Published by LANDSCAPE EUROPE in collaboration with ELCAI project partners: Alterra, The Netherlands Norwegian Institute for Landscape Inventory (NIJOS), Norway Landscape Alliance Ireland (LAI), Ireland Institute of Ecology and Conservation Biology (IECB), University of Vienna, Austria Swiss Federal Institute of Forest, Snow and Landscape (WSL), Switzerland Institut National de la Recherch Agronomique (INRA), France Czech Agricultural University Prague (CAU), Czech Republic University of Western Hungary (UWH), Hungary Autonomous University of Madrid (AUM), Spain Centre for Agricultural Landscape and Land Use Research (ZALF), Germany European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC), The Netherlands National Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Denmark Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig Halle (UFZ), Germany University of Nottingham, England Institute of Nature Conservation (INB), Belgium University of Évora, Portugal Available from LANDSCAPE EUROPE Secretariat: Marion Bogers, Alterra Wageningen UR, PO Box 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen (The Netherlands) Phone: +31 317 474610 Fax: +31 317 419000 E-mail: [email protected] Cover design: NatureBureau International, using images from the editor Designed by: NatureBureau International, 36 Kingfisher Court, Hambridge Road, Newbury, Berkshire RG14 5SJ, UK Printed by Information Press, Oxford, UK No part of this publication may be reproduced or published in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the written permission of LANDSCAPE EUROPE The European Commission assumes no liability for any losses resulting from the use of the opinions or recommendations in this report. http://www.landscape-europe.net ii Contents Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................................................vii Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................................... viii 1. Landscape character: linking space and function (D.M. Wascher) 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Historical roots and future perspectives.............................................................................................................1 1.3 The ELCAI project implementation.....................................................................................................................2 2. Recent developments in mapping Europe’s landscapes (D.M. Wascher, G. Groom, C.A. Mücher and A. Kindler) 2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................5 2.2 The biogeographic context ................................................................................................................................5 2.3 International landscape maps ............................................................................................................................8 2.3.1World Map of Present-day Landscapes....................................................................................................8 2.3.2The Global Anthropic Systems Map........................................................................................................10 2.3.3The Dobríš Landscape Map by Meeus ...................................................................................................11 2.3.4ENVIP Nature – Natura 2000..................................................................................................................11 2.3.5EEA Dominant Landscape Types............................................................................................................12 2.4 National and regional maps and typologies .....................................................................................................13 2.4.1Introduction.............................................................................................................................................13 2.4.2National and regional approaches reviewed in ELCAI.............................................................................16 2.4.3Conclusions............................................................................................................................................25 2.5 A new integrated international approach: LANMAP.........................................................................................26 2.5.1Objectives and challenges ......................................................................................................................26 2.5.2Selection of European data sets.............................................................................................................27 2.5.3Methodology...........................................................................................................................................28 2.5.4The landscape typology..........................................................................................................................28 2.5.5Results....................................................................................................................................................30 2.6 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................30 3. Methodological review of existing classifications (G. Groom) 3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................32 3.2 Data analysis....................................................................................................................................................34 3.3 Results.............................................................................................................................................................34 3.3.1Modes of LCA work................................................................................................................................34 3.3.2The structural properties of the topologies and/or mappings of landscape character units....................36 3.3.3The factors used to make LCA ...............................................................................................................38 3.3.4The methods used to make LCA ............................................................................................................39 3.3.5Analytical integration of LCA ‘factors’ and ‘methods’ – the FM matrix....................................................39 3.4 Discussion........................................................................................................................................................41 3.4.1General discussion: modalities and patterns...........................................................................................41 3.4.2What is the SOTA of European LCA? .....................................................................................................42 3.4.3Do the international LCA examples represent models for an integrated European LCA? .......................45 4. Geo-spatial cross-analysis of LANMAP2 and national approaches (A. Kindler) 4.1 Introduction and objectives of WP4.................................................................................................................46 4.2 The development of a harmonised digital database.........................................................................................46 4.3 The comparison between national landscape typologies and LANMAP2 ........................................................48 4.4 Comparison of national classifications/typologies between neighbouring countries...........................................79 4.5 Results of the questionnaires on LANMAP2.....................................................................................................81 4.5.1Basic evaluation......................................................................................................................................81 4.5.2Principle assessment on the basis of national data sets.........................................................................82 4.5.3Specific assessment and suggestions ....................................................................................................85 4.5.4Discussion...............................................................................................................................................86 4.6 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................86 5. Building landscape character indicators (R. Haines-Young and M. Potschin) 5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................88 5.2 Landscape indicators and policy: state of the art.............................................................................................88 iii 5.2.1Landscape as an object..........................................................................................................................88 5.2.2Landscape and perception.....................................................................................................................88 5.2.3Indicator typologies.................................................................................................................................89 5.2.4Landscape indicators as spatially explicit measures...............................................................................90 5.2.5Landscape indicators and indicators of landscape character.................................................................93 5.3 Landscape indicators and indicators of landscape character at European scales: prospects and recommendations.....................................................................................................................95 5.4 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................97 6. Landscape character in the context of policy and stakeholder interests (G. de Blust, T. Damarad, A. Nieto and B. Delbaere) 6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................98 6.2 International policy instruments......................................................................................................................100 6.2.1World Heritage Convention...................................................................................................................101 6.2.2European Landscape Convention.........................................................................................................103 6.2.3Related European policies ....................................................................................................................104 6.2.4IUCN Category V Areas ........................................................................................................................105 6.3 National Policy Survey on Landscape Character Areas.................................................................................107 6.3.1Methodological approach.....................................................................................................................107 6.3.2Results..................................................................................................................................................107 6.3.3Purposes for using LCA........................................................................................................................108 6.3.4Bottlenecks in the use of LCA...............................................................................................................108 6.3.5Future developments in the use of LCA................................................................................................110 6.4 The stakeholder perspective..........................................................................................................................110 6.4.1Wine and Vine Inter-professional Technical Centre (ITV).......................................................................110 6.4.2Countryside Council for Wales (CCW)...................................................................................................110 6.4.3European Landowners’ Organisation (ELO)..........................................................................................111 6.4.4The Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD)...................................112 6.4.5European Travel Commission...............................................................................................................112 6.5 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................112 6.5.1Policy conclusions.................................................................................................................................113 6.5.2Stakeholder conclusions.......................................................................................................................113 7. Current applications and future perspectives for Landscape Character Assessments (D.M. Wascher) 7.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................115 7.2 Current applications.......................................................................................................................................115 7.2.1Landscape Risk Assessment as part of the EnRisk project ..................................................................115 7.2.2Transboundary assessments................................................................................................................116 7.2.3Sustainability impact assessment at the regional level..........................................................................117 7.3 Future perspectives........................................................................................................................................118 7.3.1Towards Landscape Character Assessment guidelines........................................................................118 7.3.2The role of landscape character in integrated assessment of landscape..............................................119 7.3.3The further development of LANMAP....................................................................................................120 7.3.4ELCAI and the European Landscape Convention.................................................................................120 7.3.5Agri-environmental indicators................................................................................................................120 Annexes Annex I. The questionnaire used to gather data on LCA examples from ELCAI project partners...............................122 Annex II. Landscape types of the European landscape by country............................................................................126 Annex III. Questionnaire of WP4 for evaluating status and development options of the European Landscape Typology Map (LANMAP2).................................................................................................134 Annex IV. National landscape policy review................................................................................................................135 IV.1 Examples for the use of LCA .........................................................................................................................135 IV.2 Information sources.......................................................................................................................................139 References.................................................................................................................................................................142 List of Tables Table 2.1 Biogeographic classifications and concepts based on ecosystem approaches.............................................6 Table 2.2 Correlations between the mean first principal component per EnC class and other available ecological data sets..................................................................................................................................................7 Table 2.3 Construction and identification of the European landscape typology ...........................................................27 Table 3.1 ELCAI reviewed examples of European LCA work .......................................................................................34 Table 3.2 The extent that each LCA example could be reviewed in terms of three main review aspects.....................35 Table 3.3 The mode of each reviewed LCA example...................................................................................................35 iv Table 3.4 Results of the review of structural properties of the LCA examples..............................................................37 Table 3.5 Results of review of the factors and methods used in each example of LCA work.......................................39 Table 3.6 The decade when work on LCA examples was mainly undertaken..............................................................43 Table 4.1 Comparison between the national landscape classification and the European landscape typology.............49 Table 5.1 OECD ‘DPSIR’ Indicator Model ....................................................................................................................89 Table 5.2 OECD typology of landscape indicators.......................................................................................................90 Table 5.3 Landscape Indicators in European countries and Europe-wide....................................................................91 Table 5.4 Variables reported from the Norwegian 3Q monitoring programme.............................................................92 Table 5.5 Summary of partner positions on role of landscape character concept in indicator development................94 Table 5.6 Review of ENRISK and IRENA indicators made by ELCAI partners..............................................................96 Table 6.1 Stakeholder participants at the Utrecht kick-off meeting..............................................................................99 Table 6.2 Policy sectors that show an interest in Landscape Character Assessment................................................100 Table 6.3 Contacted stakeholders from international organisations...........................................................................100 Table 6.4 Landscape conservation schemes and funding for selected countries in 1998..........................................106 Table 7.1 IRENA agri-environmental indicators relevant for landscape character ......................................................121 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Historical origins of landscape research in relation to other scientific and policy fields..................................3 Figure 1.2 ELCAI project implementation plan................................................................................................................4 Figure 3.1 Examples of map products from some of the reviewed European examples of LCA work..........................32 Figure 4.1 Stepwise approach for the development of a standardised digital database of the national and the European landscape typology...........................................................................................................................47 Figure 4.2 Comparison between the landscape typology of Austria and the European landscape typology................50 Figure 4.3 Comparison between the landscape character types of Belgium and the European landscape typology...53 Figure 4.4 Comparison between the landscape types of Switzerland and the European landscape typology .............55 Figure 4.5 Comparison between the landscape typology of Germany and the European landscape typology............57 Figure 4.6 Comparison between the landscape typology of Spain and the European landscape typology..................61 Figure 4.7 Comparison between the landscape character types of England and the European landscape typology...66 Figure 4.8 Comparison between the landscape typology of Hungary and the European landscape typology .............70 Figure 4.9 Comparison between the landscape typology of The Netherlands and the European landscape typology...........................................................................................................................75 Figure 4.10 Comparison between the landscape typology of Norway and the European landscape typology ............75 Figure 4.11 Comparison between the landscape typology of Portugal and the European landscape typology ...........77 Figure 4.12 Map of the national landscape classifications/typologies of the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.......79 Figure 4.13 Map of the national landscape classifications/typologies of Germany, Switzerland and Austria................79 Figure 4.14 Map of the national landscape classifications/typologies of Austria and Hungary.....................................80 Figure 4.15 Map of the national landscape classifications/typologies of Portugal and Spain.......................................80 Figure 5.1 Example of an environmental indicator........................................................................................................90 Figure 5.2 Dependencies between landscape metrics, landscape typologies and landscape character assessment ...........................................................................................................................96 Figure 6.1 Stakeholder Scheme...................................................................................................................................98 Figure 6.2 Stakeholder Scheme 2................................................................................................................................99 Figure 6.3 Stakeholder Scheme 4..............................................................................................................................111 Figure 7.1 Intrinsic diversity European (left) and Spanish (right) landscape maps.......................................................117 Figure 7.2 Use of LANMAP2 to examine landscape composition at high scale and identify homogenous sampling units.................................................................................................................................118 Figure 7.3 Combining socio-economic (Eurostat) and landscape information (LANMAP2) for identifying regionally homogenous areas in Europe.............................................................................................................118 List of Maps Map 2.1 The EEA-ETC/NC map for ecological regions in Europe (DMEER)...................................................................7 Map 2.2 The environmental stratification of Europe in 13 environmental zones and 84 classes ....................................8 Map 2.3 World Map of Present-day Landscapes, excerpt.............................................................................................9 Map 2.4 World Map of Anthropic Systems, excerpt.......................................................................................................9 Map 2.5. European Landscape Typology from J. Meeus..............................................................................................10 Map 2.6 ENVIP Nature Map on Landscape Types.......................................................................................................11 Map 2.7 Dominant Landscape Types of Europe ..........................................................................................................12 Map 2.8 Landscape Character Areas of England.........................................................................................................13 Map 2.9 German typology of landscapes.....................................................................................................................14 Map 2.10 Spanish typology of landscapes (Atlas de Paisajes Espanoles)....................................................................15 Map 2.11 The number of ELCAI reviewed examples of LCA for each country.............................................................15 v Map 2.12 Map of the landscape characters of Belgium...............................................................................................16 Map 2.13 Map of the landscape units and sub-units of Lower Normandy...................................................................21 Map 2.14 Map of the landscape character types of Scotland......................................................................................22 Map 2.15 Taxonomic distribution of natural landscape units in Hungary......................................................................23 Map 2.16 Physical geographic regions ........................................................................................................................25 Map 2.17 Distribution of viticulture regions as part of the special landscape structure assessment in the Landscape Atlas of the Slovak Republic...........................................................................................................26 Map 2.18 European landscape typology map LANMAP2 ............................................................................................29 Map 4.1 Overview of the national landscape classifications/typologies........................................................................46 Map 4.2 Map of the classification of Austrian cultural landscapes................................................................................50 Map 4.3 Map of the landscape characters of Belgium.................................................................................................52 Map 4.4 Map of the landscape quality of Mobilité Spatiale Regions in Switzerland......................................................54 Map 4.5 Landscape types of the European landscape typology map (LANMAP2) for the Czech Republic..................55 Map 4.6 Map of landscape types in Germany..............................................................................................................56 Map 4.7 Landscape types of the European landscape typology map (LANMAP2) for Denmark..................................60 Map 4.8 Map of the associations of landscape types in Spain.....................................................................................61 Map 4.9 Landscape types of the European landscape typology map (LANMAP2) for France......................................62 Map 4.10 Map of the landscape character types in England........................................................................................67 Map 4.11 Map of the landscape types of Hungary.......................................................................................................68 Map 4.12 Landscape types of the European landscape typology map (LANMAP2) for Ireland....................................73 Map 4.13 Map comparison of the landscape types of the Netherlands with LANMAP1 ..............................................73 Map 4.14 Map of the landscape regions of Norway with a sub-regional division.........................................................76 Map 4.15 Map of landscape units and groups of landscape units in Portugal .............................................................77 Map 6.1 Natural and cultural World Heritage Sites.....................................................................................................102 Map 6.2 IUCN Protected Areas Category V “Landscape” in Europe..........................................................................106 Map 7.1 Landscape diversity, vulnerability and livestock density...............................................................................116 Map 7.2 SENSOR Cluster Analysis (2nd draft) on the basis of LANMAP 2 and socio-economic data.......................119 List of Boxes Box 4.1 Cultural landscape type series and groups of Austria .....................................................................................51 Box 4.2 Landscape character code in Belgium............................................................................................................53 Box 4.3 Landscape character of Uckermark, Brandenburg.........................................................................................57 Box 4.4 Landscape character of Pleine-Fougères area................................................................................................62 Box 4.5 Legend-code of English landscape types .......................................................................................................66 Box 4.6 Landscape types of Hungary ..........................................................................................................................69 Box 4.7 Landscape character of the Zemplén-mountain..............................................................................................71 Box 4.8 Landscape units and groups of landscape units in Portugal...........................................................................78 Box 6.1 Six IUCN management categories for protected areas.................................................................................105 vi Acknowledgements I herewith would like to thank all ELCAI partners for Isabel Ripa Julia and Michael Green2, formerly UNEP- providing their valuable input throughout the project WCMC, UK; and implementation: Paul Reich3, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Wenche Dramstadt and Wendy Fjellstad, Norwegian Service, USA. Institute of Land Inventory (NIJOS); Terry O’Regan and Cathy Buchanan, Landscape Alliance Special appreciation also deserves the group of Ireland (LAI); stakeholders who have actively participated at the ELCAI Felix Kienast and Peter Longatti, Swiss Federal Research International Stakeholder Workshop (June 2004 in Évora, Institute, Switzerland (WSL); Portugal) and contributors to an earlier ELCAI-inspired Thomas Wrbka and Andrea Kiss, University of Vienna, publication on transboundary landscapes4: Austria (IECB); José Festas, Direccão General do Ordenamento do Jacques Baudry and Claudine Thenail, INRA SAD- Território e Desenvolvimento Urbane; Armorique, France (INRA); Javier Gallego, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Zdnek Lipsky and Dušan Romportl, Czech Agricultural Italy (JRC-IES); University Prague (CAU); Gordon Sillence, Instituto Português de Ecologia, Portogal Éva Konkoly Gyuró, University of Western Hungary (UWH); (INPECO); Rafael Mata Olmo and Joana Modolell, Autonomous Teresa Avelar, Ministério da Agricultura, DO University of Madrid, Spain (AUM); Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pecas; Ulrich Stachow and Gerd Lutze, Center for Agricultural Marie-Alice Budniok and Thierry de l’Escaille, European Landscape and Land Use Research, Germany (ZALF); Landowners’ Organisation, Brussels, Belgium (ELO); Tatiana Damarad, Ana Nieto and Ben Delbaere, European Lisa Davies, European Travel Commission, Brussels, Belgium; Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC); Luc Bas, Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Geoff Groom and Pia Frederiksen, National Environmental Development, Brussels, Belgium; Research Institute, Denmark (NERI); Nuno Lecoq, Comissão de Co-ordenacão para o Annegret Kindler, Centre for Environmental Research, Desenvolvimento da Região Alentejo; Leipzig-Halle, Germany (UFZ); Joël Rochard and Laurence Stevez, Centre Technique Roy Haines-Young and Marion Potschin, Nottingham Interprofessionnelle de la Vigne et du Vin, France (ITV); University, UK; and Geert de Blust, Institute of Nature Conservation, Belgium (INB); David Eager, Countryside Council for Wales, UK (CCW). and Teresa Pinto-Correia and Ana Paixã Ferreira, University of In addition I would like to thank my colleagues at Alterra, Évora, Portugal. especially: Sander Mücher, for his commitment and expertise in The scientific work presented and compiled in this report is developing a LANMAP as an indispensible contribution based on original contributions by the experts as referenced to ELCAI and other projects; in the table of contents and in the heading of each chapter. Elizabeth Rijksen, for overcoming some severe The experts maintain full rights of authorship for their administrative obstacles and for keeping track of costs contributions. and minutes; Michiel van Eupen, for providing first aid support in data Parts of this project report draw upon targeted contributions management and transfer from and to partners; to the ELCAI Policy Brochure1 as well as on input by Bas Pedroli and Marta Pérez-Soba for assisting with their external authors. I would like to especially thank the experience and advice throughout the project. following persons: Maguelonne Déjeant-Pons1, Council of Europe, Luxembourg; Last but not least I would like to express my sincere Carol Somper1, The Forum for the Future, UK; gratitude to Denis Peter and Marie Yeroyanni of the Jean-Louis Weber1, European Environmental Agency, European Commission’s DG Research for stimulating, Denmark; guiding and accompanying the project from its start-up Celia García-Feced1, Alterra, The Netherlands; phase in spring 2003 until its finalisation in summer 2005. Marta Pérez-Soba and Sander Mücher1, Alterra, The Netherlands; Dirk M. Wascher Project Co-ordinator and Report Editor 1 Perez-Soba, M. and Wascher, D.M. (eds). 2005. Landscape Character Areas. Places for building a sustainable Europe. Policy Brochure as deliverable from the EU’s Accompanying Measure Project European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI), funded under the 5th Framework Programme on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (4.2.2), 33 pp. 2 Wascher, D.M. and Jongman, R.H.G. (eds), 2000. European landscapes – classification, evaluation and conservation. EEA, Environment Technical Reports, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen (not published). 3 Contribution in Chapter 2 on the World Map of Anthropic Systems. 4 Wascher, D.M. and Pérez-Soba, M. (eds) 2004. Learning from Transfrontier Landscapes – Project in Support of the European Landscape Convention. Alterra Wageningen UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Alterra rapport 964. 58 pp. vii Executive Summary In recent years, Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) years, as well as making actual LCAs, produced detailed has become central to sustainable development and the guidelines for the making of LCAs for regional or local management of land. It is recognised as an important extents. These guidelines cover LCA very thoroughly, tool for policy stakeholders, which provides them with describing and discussing the principles and processes quantitative and qualitative evidence to reach a dynamic involved. The aim here is not to replicate those works, management, adjustable to new demands of regional but to identify and discuss the SOTA of the more identity. In response to this need, the expert network scientific and technical aspects that emerge from this LANDSCAPE EUROPE launched the European review. Thus, considering the current situation a number Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI) as an of important features that shape the SOTA for European EU project. ELCAI’s objective was to review the state-of- LCA work can be noted: the-art of landscape character assessment techniques ❚ Recognition of the difference between and among its 14 participating countries and to analyse the significance of LCA work addressing both landscape role of policies and stakeholders at various levels. character types (LC-Types) and Landscape Character Areas (LC-Areas). Furthermore, that LC- According to the project group agreement, Landscape Types relate to homogeneity, and LC-Areas can also Character Assessment is a technique that is scientifically relate to heterogeneity, i.e. distinctive patterns of sound, region-specific and stakeholder orientated, landscape, such as microgeochores that give “sense designed to describe landscape character. It can be of place”. applied at a range of scales, from the national, though to ❚ That the defining of LC-Types or LC-Areas and the regional and local. It may also integrate landscape drawing of map lines by interpretation of map data by character analysis with biodiversity assessments, the individuals or small committees of “experts” does not analysis of historical character, air, water and soil quality, represent an effective, sufficiently objective way of and socio-economic functions such as recreation and working. agriculture. So, in essence Landscape Character ❚ For definition and mapping of LC-Areas factors Assessment is primarily concerned with documenting covering natural science, human use and human landscape character rather than assigning quality or experience of the landscape are essential. value. It therefore implies a distinction between ❚ That for mapping of both LC-Types and LC-Areas characterisation and judgement. automated GIS-based techniques can provide vital assistance, but should be followed-up by interactive (field-based, workshop-based) and objective Scientific review of Landscape Character examination and refinement of the outputs. Assessments ❚ A recognition that LCA work addressing LC-Areas cannot be achieved through merely traditional, Data were gathered on a total of 51 individual LCA natural sciences working methodologies, but must examples, most of these presented through completion also draw upon consultative and textual methods that and submission of the questionnaire checklists. The are more familiar within the social sciences and reviewed set also includes three examples of LCA that humanities (see also the “Stakeholder Review” have been applied on multi-nation extents. The scientific chapter in this report). review is structured around four core aspects of the LCA ❚ A strong appreciation of the planning and land use examples: policy contexts relating to LCA work (see also “Policy ❚ the general modes of LCA activities across Europe; Review”). This is one of the strongest contrasts ❚ the spatial properties of the products from European between modern and earlier LCA work, in that the LCA activities; latter develops the academic and scientific aspects ❚ the criteria considered relevant to making LCA; and primarily, without explicit consideration of how the ❚ the methods used to make LCA. resulting landscape description, definition and delimitation might serve society or interact with other As a broad approximation, both the ‘relevant criteria’ and environmental activities. Clearly the whole context ‘method’ aspects were considered to comprise a of environmental work has changed through the last ‘natural spectrum’ of components. It was found 80 years. meaningful and useful to integrate analysis of these two aspects through use of a comprehensive matrix in which all national and international LCA examples have been Spatial review of landscape character included for allowing cross-comparisons and mapping description. The spatial review was mainly drawing upon the Several European countries (e.g. Czech Republic, European Landscape Typology and Map (LANMAP2). England, Scotland, Wales, and France) have in recent The map provides an overview of European landscapes viii and as well as background information and common can be used as a framework by those concerned language for monitoring landscape trends at the with describing landscape and landscape change at European level. However, the partner questionnaire the European scales. demonstrated, that the map requires further improvements in order to meet the interest at the ELCAI partners were asked to review the rationale for the national level. The investigations led to the following three landscape ENRISK indicators (openness, findings: coherence and diversity) and two IRENA indicators (state ❚ As expected the analysis of national landscape and diversity), together with the practicalities of classifications/typologies has shown the partly great developing them the European scales, and in particular distinctions between European countries. Different the opportunity offered by the spatial framework of the input parameter, methodologies and spatial European Landscape Classification (LANDMAP2). resolutions are the cause for the diversity of national Respondents generally felt that as landscape indicators landscape classifications. at the European scale, the rationale for the ENRISK ❚ There is a great need of a agreed-upon European- indicators was more secure than those of IRENA, and wide landscape classification/typology to overcome that, despite some qualifications, it was feasible to the incoherence especially in transfrontier landscapes develop such measures at European scales, given the and to fill the gap of missing national classifications. availability of CORINE land cover change data. Linking ❚ The LANMAP2 represents a new generation of these finding with those of the other sections of the landscape classification and mapping. It survey it is clear that while such an exercise is technically demonstrates how traditional methods could be feasible interpretation of the significance of change in the complemented by computer-driven methods. With ENRISK indicators by the spatial units of LANDMAP2, the availability of new techniques and European-wide would be difficult, unless the latter were supplemented datasets new ways can be established for by some kind of broad character assessment that standardising landscape classifications, in order to described what coherence, openness and diversity mean produce more comparable, more transparent, more for each of the major landscape types. In the absence of reproducible, and to some degree more objective a stronger cultural component, it is therefore unclear to and accurate results. what extent such typologies are able to fully represent ❚ The four input criteria parent material, topography, real landscapes if we view them in terms of the European land cover, and climate are definitely important Convention as areas ‘…..perceived by people, whose landscape characteristics for a landscape typology character is the result of the action and interaction of on the European level. But their accuracy and details, natural and/or human factors’. The development of a e.g. the created altitude classes, have to be checked more explicit cultural dimension to these typologies is and redefined. appears as a high priority for future work. ❚ There is a clear quest for integrating further components into the classification such as slope, additional soil types and possibly precipitation. Policy and stakeholder reviews Information about landscape history, visual, cultural and aesthetic aspects of landscapes (e.g. data on The ELCAI project investigated 14 European countries linear elements) should be integrated. It also deems on the use of LCA in developing, implementing and useful to link up with information on socio-economic monitoring policies. The study included the sectors of characteristics as well as on environmental conflict or agriculture, tourism/recreation, spatial/rural hazard zones. development, housing/town planning, landscape policies, economy and cultural education. It was found The European landscape typology and map can be that LCA has a different meaning for every country considered an innovative approach and a useful basis for expressing different views on what qualities and further investigations and discussions towards a elements of the landscape are considered as most European-wide consistent and international accepted relevant. While national authorities and experts are landscape classification for scientific and policy encouraged to maintain and further develop their on purposes. approach to LCA, international co-operation (including transfrontier activities) would benefit from a concise and generally accepted definition of LCA as put forward in Landscape character indicators the ELCAI project. Nevertheless, LCA is currently used as a mapping tool to design protected areas (e.g. The objective of this work package was to examine Denmark, Flanders, Czech Republic) and also as part of possible methodological approaches for selecting the landscape management and spatial planning landscape character indicators as part of a wider (England, Scotland, Wales, Germany and The European concept. In order to achieve this goal, the Netherlands). It is also the basis for monitoring and work has: evaluating features of the landscape (structure, ❚ examined the conceptual basis of landscape morphology, diversity) in all sectors, especially in the indicators and the way they have been developed in tourism, agriculture and forestry sector the interest in through recent European initiatives; applying LCA is growing (e.g. Monitoring /evaluation of ❚ undertaken a survey of recent policy applications that agro-environmental programme in Austria). The policy cover a landscape related issues; and review identified a need for harmonised definition and ❚ developed a typology of landscape indicators that approaches which will help assess and compare the ix