Search

Urbanization has brought dramatic landscape changes in rural areas, leading to the emergence of urbanized landscapes (ULs). Despite the extensive preference research on rural landscapes, the ULs has hardly been studied, especially from the outsider’s perspective. In this study, we chose three outsider groups of landscape professionals (PRs), governmental officials (GOs), and city residents (CRs) to explore their preferences towards five typical ULs: hardened water bank (HWB), big pavilion (BPA), big memorial arch (BMA), big ornamental lawn (BOL), and big square (BSQ). Quantitative method of questionnaire survey was used to identify how these ULs and their related landscape characters (LCs) were rated and ranked (N = 780), and qualitative method of semi-structured interview was used to explore a more comprehensive understanding about the outsiders’ view on rural constructions (N = 45). The results revealed 1) Although distinct ratings and rankings, the outsiders had general support for the constructions of ULs, with PRs being the most demanding group. 2) Despite various demographic backgrounds, there is surprisingly broad consensus in two preference themes, i.e. a livable village and a featured village, and it posed a challenge for the landscape designers to balance the relationship between them. 3) All the five ULs being surveyed were considered to be replaceable by other landscape forms, thus it could be unnecessary to decide which specific type to be moved away or kept in rural areas, but the more important is to investigate the site-based LCs. This study provides evidence to better understand public perception on rapid landscape change and rural constructions from the perspectives of different social groups, which has some implications for planners and decision-makers to incorporate the public shared values into planning process.

This paper addresses the complexity of change processes and related management challenges of rural landscapes. With a reference to the European Landscape Convention, a need for integrated and colla...

The geological conceptual model is considered a major source of uncertainty in groundwater modelling and well capture zone delineation. However, how to account for it in groundwater policy and management remains largely unresolved. We explore the drivers and barriers to account for geological conceptual uncertainty in groundwater protection amongst decision makers and stakeholders in an agricultural groundwater catchment in Denmark. Using a groundwater model, we analyze the impact of alternative geological conceptual models on capture zone delineation. A focus area, which covers multiple modelled capture zones, is defined and considered for groundwater protection. Model uncertainty and focus area are discussed at two workshops, one with local and national stakeholders and another with local farmers. The drivers to account for model uncertainty include: i) safer drinking water protection by considering a larger area for protection than identified from a single geological model; and ii) stability over time of management plans. The main barrier is the additional cost to the stakeholders for the protection of a larger area. We conclude that integration of geological uncertainty in groundwater protection plans may be improved through: i) better communication between the research community and the national water authority; ii) more constraining guidelines regarding the estimation of geological uncertainty; and iii) the development of a framework ensuring knowledge transfer to the local water authorities and detailing how to integrate uncertainty in management plans.

This paper aims to ground the research paradigm of public engagement within the field of landscape and heritage. Both the European Landscape Convention and the Faro Convention, major international agreements that shape both these dimensions, stress the need to reinforce the democratic nature of projects. This participation needs to go beyond informing stakeholders and formal hearings, and community values and ideas should be included in the planning process. This entails addressing the complexities of stakeholder deliberation and the solution of thorny problems. The present study examines in detail four case studies from the Netherlands, Slovenia and Denmark, in which public participation was crucial in different stages of the project development. The methodologies employed, as well as the effect that such engagement had on the general results, will be highlighted. Finally, the discussion of results will evaluate the findings through the lens of deliberative democracy within territorial planning.

Although collaborative, multi-level and adaptive governance is put forward as the right approach to manage water resources, it remains a challenge for local water managers to engage with multiple understandings and perspectives and to move towards more transdisciplinary approaches in water governance. In this research, we address this need by proposing a practical guide for water governance assessment and improvement, existing of three successive steps, i.e. (1) an assessment of water governance, (2) the implementation of a multi-actor process and (3) an evaluation of achievements. This guide is tested in the seven action labs of the WaterProtect project, which have in common that they are drinking water catchments suffering from agricultural pollution throughout Europe. By implementing the guide in the different action labs, we find that water managers appreciated the integrated approach of the guide, helping them in the efficient organization of the water governance process while taking into account the human dimension. Furthermore action lab leaders evaluated the governance guide as being hands-on and practical, allowing them to redirect and open up the governance process. Despite this, they welcomed the presence of a facilitator, who boosted the local action lab leaders' confidence and motivation to put things into motion. Looking at the results, we find that over the different action labs a lot of progress has been made towards intermediary goals, however that an improvement of the water quality cannot be expected in the short time frame of a project. We therefore recommend improving the design of the guide with insights from transition management, which will allow local water managers to better address change at different time-scale levels.

This paper focuses on a three-year rural landscape strategy-making process, which was driven by a Danish municipality and involved a large number of stakeholders. The project was part of an action research program aimed at developing new approaches to collaborative landscape planning. Gaining experiences with such approaches was part of this aim. During the course of the project, the focus and scale of the strategy changed significantly. The process developed in interesting ways in respect to three dimensions of collaborative landscape planning: collaboration, scale, and public goods. After a brief review of the three dimensions and their links to landscape planning, the case story is unfolded in three sections: (1) The planning process, (2) the process outcome (the strategy), and (3) the aftermath in terms of critical reflections from participating planners and local stakeholders. The process and outcome of the landscape strategy-making process is discussed in the context of collaboration, scale, and public goods, including a brief outline of the lessons learned.

Despite the growing quantity of ecosystem-services-related research, there is still a lack of deeper understanding on cultural ecosystem services (CES). This is mainly due to the perception of CES, which can vary by geographic location and population. In this study, we present a Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS) method in a Hungarian microregion. Our goal is to increase understanding on how cultural services are perceived in this geographical context and level, and how this relative importance is related to biophysical landscape features. We also consider the influence of accessibility on the perceived landscape and compare our findings with the results of other studies with different sociocultural backgrounds. The research consists of participatory mapping with 184 persons that were digitized and analyzed with GIS and statistical software. During the analysis, we identified CES hotspots and compared CES with landscape features, as well as CES perception with accessibility. Our results showed positive correlation of CES with land covers related to built-up areas, as well as aesthetic and recreational services with water bodies. Compared to other studies, we found different spatial relationships in the case of spiritual services, and higher importance of agricultural land covers during the CES perception, thanks to the Central-Eastern European (CEE) sociocultural background. Our study highlights the effect of accessibility on CES perception; nevertheless, these relationships varied by different infrastructural elements. We conclude by discussing the implications and limitations of our study and encouraging future landscape research to apply the PPGIS method in this geographical context.

Landscape strategy making including landscape characterisation is the subject of this article. Traditional approaches to landscape planning is briefly and critically discussed and a more place based and strategic approach to rural landscape planning is argued for. Landscape characterisation and community involvement is discussed in relation to three dimensions: the landscape as a common good; landscape rights; and the landscape as a development factor. A landscape strategy making approach based partly on Patsy Healy’s work on collaborative planning and spatial strategy making is outlined, and experiences from two Danish case studies are presented. It is concluded that the landscape strategy making approach including highly specific landscape characterisations works and represents a promising way forward for more integrative and participatory approaches to landscape planning and policy, although more work on assessing the landscape condition is needed.

This paper explores the connections between farm modernisation, rural development and the resilience of agricultural and rural systems. The paper starts by ascertaining why agricultural and food systems need to change systemically. Evidence from case studies in fourteen countries is used to explore the possibilities for, and drivers and limitations of systemic change in four thematic areas: the resilience of farms and rural areas; prosperity and well-being; knowledge and innovation, and; the governance of agriculture and rural areas. In each area, we identify a major mismatch between visions and strategies on the one hand, and market developments, policy measures and outcomes on the other. The first theme is of growing concern as there has been an observable decrease in the social-ecological resilience of farms and of rural communities in recent decades. The second theme emerges as important as the concentration of production in some regions or some farms is directly linked to the marginalisation of others. The third theme illustrates that local farmer-driven innovations can teach us much, especially since farmers focus on efficiently using the resources available to them, including their location-specific experiential knowledge. Through the final theme we show that informal networks can balance different interests and approaches, which is essential for integrated rural development strategies and projects. Our findings in these four thematic areas have implications for the strategic frameworks and policy of the EU (and beyond) and future research agendas. We explicitly draw these out. The 14 case studies show that practitioners, grassroots initiatives and pilot programmes are already generating a wealth of experiences and knowledge that could be fruitfully used to inform higher-level policy development. The paper concludes that systemic change requires more critical reflection of conventional wisdom and approaches, and openness to ideas and practices that are outside the mainstream.

Food production on the urban–rural fringe is under pressure due to competing land uses. We discuss the potential to improve resilience for urban–rural regions by enhancing food production as part of multifunctional land use. Through studies of peri-urban land in the regions of Gothenburg (Sweden), Copenhagen (Denmark) and Gent (Belgium), recent developments are analysed. Arable farming has been declining since 2000 in all three areas due to urban expansion and recreational land use changes. In city plans, networks of protected areas and green spaces and their importance for human wellbeing have been acknowledged. Policies for farmland preservation in peri-urban settings exist, but strategies for local food production are not expressed in present planning documents. Among the diversity of peri-urban agricultural activities, peri-urban food production is a developing issue. However, the competing forms of land use and the continuing high dependence of urban food on global food systems and related resource flows reduces peri-urban food production and improvements in urban food security. The positive effects of local food production need to be supported by governance aiming to improve the urban–rural relationship. The paper discusses the resilience potential of connecting urban–rural regions and re-coupling agriculture to regional food production.

The rural spaces in Europe are undergoing complex processes of transition, at multiple scales, and rhythms. In order to grasp and understand the changes occurring, the need emerges for new, conceptual approaches that make it possible to combine the different factors that shape spaces. Recent, literature on the multifunctional character of rural spaces and their transition pathways shows the, need for spatially based approaches, where the natural characteristics of a landscape are combined, with the socio-economic and cultural drivers that affect its changes. Experience shows how practical, questions on the changes affecting the rural, addressed by society to the scientific community, are of a, new character and require novel research approaches. This paper argues that landscape based, approaches can be useful basis for the required conceptual innovation. The paper presents and, discusses a set of examples of practice driven research developments, in contrasting regions of Europe. And it proposes a conceptual model which aims to contextualize empirical research driven by, problems set up in practice, and combining the ecological and structural dimensions with the socioeconomic, and cultural ones, all converging in the rural landscape, at multiple scales. The landscape, as, the spatial entity, in its material and immaterial dimensions, is presented in this paper as the most, comprehensive basis for the required step forward. This does not mean a disciplinary landscape, analysis revisited, but a new multi-scale and multi-domain place based approach, where the place is, the rural landscape.

Public policy interventions concerning rural landscapes have grown significantly in recent decades in many developed countries and internationally, in response to a range of imperatives. These include concern for declining biodiversity, heritage and social wellbeing in the face of urbanisation, and structural change in rural economies involving both agricultural intensification and extensification. The public policy response has been a fragmented array of measures, both horizontally (across policy sectors) and vertically (across political-administrative-organisational levels). Against this background, rural landscape policy approaches are analysed in respect to their instrumentality and spatial logic, informed by Hagerstrand's concepts of territorial and spatial competence. A framework for local policy making and policy integration inspired by landscape strategy making approaches is presented and illustrated through four Danish experiments in rural landscapes of various scale and with different policy issues. Results suggest that landscape strategy making represents a promising way to improve policy integration in rural contexts but research is needed to find suitable ways to engage large scale intensive farming with the community based process.

The relationship between farming and landscape is a topical and disputed issue – in academia, among policy analysts and between policy makers and involved citizens. At a general level, agriculture affects most rural landscapes, and when agriculture changes, landscapes change, often with great implications for biodiversity, cultural heritage, recreation and other functions. The farmer is the key agent concerning landscape management decisions and practices, and the landscape is managed through three roles. As producers of food, fibre and energy, farmers affect landscape processes and structures through the production practices applied. In this respect, farmers usually consider themselves and their colleagues as skilful and professional producers. As owners of farm properties, farmers take more long-term decisions concerning overall land uses and buildings, and owners are legally responsible for landscape changes more often than producers. When land is leased, producers and owners are two different agents, and when large cooperations are running the farm, the ‘owner’ dimension may be of limited significance. Finally, farmers are also members of local communities in which they may participate in collective landscape projects. In addition, farmers may also in their individual choices and practices include concerns for neighbours. Farmers may therefore also manage the local landscape in the role as citizens. A growing number of public policy measures are affecting farmers' landscape management with all three roles being of relevance. In these policies, however, farmers are often seen solely in their role as producers implying that they may be targeted inappropriately, because their management practices and the motives behind are interpreted too narrowly, and opportunities for more effective policies may therefore be missed.

Hunting represents an important activity in Danish rural landscapes. In this paper, we analyse recent developments in farmers' management of the right to hunt and associated landscape activities in three agricultural regions based on surveys from 1995/96 and 2008. The results show that the total area on which farmers hunt has increased, especially the area on which the owner is the hunter. This indicates that interest in hunting is increasing, and the interest for hunting may play an increasing role as a landscape activity and as a motive to become a farm property owner. Concerning landscape management, non-hunters, surprisingly, seem to have a more game-friendly management practice than hunters. On the other hand, hunters own farms with forests and/or farms located in areas of high landscape heterogeneity more often than non-hunters. Local hunting associations play an interesting role in relation to non-owners' accessibility to hunting and such associations may play a significant role in the fut...

Food production on the urban–rural fringe is under pressure due to competing land uses. We discuss the potential to improve resilience for urban–rural regions by enhancing food production as part of multifunctional land use. Through studies of peri-urban land in the regions of Gothenburg (Sweden), Copenhagen (Denmark) and Gent (Belgium), recent developments are analysed. Arable farming has been declining since 2000 in all three areas due to urban expansion and recreational land use changes. In city plans, networks of protected areas and green spaces and their importance for human wellbeing have been acknowledged. Policies for farmland preservation in peri-urban settings exist, but strategies for local food production are not expressed in present planning documents. Among the diversity of peri-urban agricultural activities, peri-urban food production is a developing issue. However, the competing forms of land use and the continuing high dependence of urban food on global food systems and related resource flows reduces peri-urban food production and improvements in urban food security. The positive effects of local food production need to be supported by governance aiming to improve the urban–rural relationship. The paper discusses the resilience potential of connecting urban–rural regions and re-coupling agriculture to regional food production.

Green structure planning has mainly been an instrument for urban planning as well as for developing and managing urban green spaces and green structures. This paper explores the potential of green structure planning for urban-rural integration in landscape development. This is studied for the case of a municipality-wide planning project in Ronneby, southern Sweden. Applying a policy and governance “arrangement model”, the paper investigates the social and inclusive dimensions of the proposed planning approach. The working method for developing Ronneby’s green structure plan has been highly participatory, aimed at creating a visionary document in which the respective qualities of rural and urban areas are mutually strengthening. Walk-and-talks were arranged with local “connoisseurs” across the municipality for identifying the most important places, routes, and landmarks in their respective village and it’s surrounding. These connoisseurs, in this case representatives from local associations, helped explore whether the green structure planning instrument can also contribute to a sense of belonging, strengthening the relations between people and their everyday landscape at a municipal level. Results show that a collaborative planning process supported a broad learning process on green structure by the involvement of the local connoisseurs, municipal staff and politicians. The long time span and repeated meetings were important for raising awareness of the potential in visionary green structure plans. Findings not only support the continued municipal planning process; they also contribute to the current debate on how “green infrastructure” can be applied as an interdisciplinary concept covering e.g. green space spatial pattern, aesthetic values, biological diversity, and ecosystem services.

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 111(2):107–116, 2011 Rural landscapes are mainly maintained and changed through farmers' decisions and practices. As a landscape manager the farmer has many different roles of which three roles related to the farm as a whole is investigated in this paper: producer, owner and citizen. Although most farmers take landscape decisions in all these three roles production based decisions are assumed to be more important for full time farmers than for hobby farmers who have their main income outside the farm and who may consider their farm more as a living place than as a production place. Based on a large survey carried out in Hvorslev, Eastern Jutland, Denmark in 2008 farmers' landscape practices are analysed in relation to their background, occupational status and view of their farms as a production place versus a living place. Altogether 377 farmers were interviewed and some comparisons are made to a similar survey in the same area in 1996. It was fou...

The subject of this paper is the views of farmers concerning their local landscape. In two contrasting Danish case study areas previously analysed in the 1990s, a small number of farmers have been interviewed regarding their views of the landscape and recent changes in their respective area including landscape changes. One of the areas (Hvorslev) is characterized by good conditions for agriculture, intensive husbandry production and a relatively stable landscape history. The other (Nees) has more marginal conditions and major changes in land use characterize the recent landscape history. We analyze the way in which the landscape is perceived by farmers and compare their views of the changing landscapes with the actual recorded changes on the one hand, and with other significant changes on the other. Farmers in both areas emphasized the same type of structural changes in agriculture and in the villages as significant, whereas only farmers in Nees indicated that the landscape had changed. When aske...

Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) to maintain or promote environmentally-friendly farming practices were implemented on about 25% of all agricultural land in the EU by 2002. This article analyses and discusses the actual and potential use of impact models in supporting the design, implementation and evaluation of AES. Impact models identify and establish the causal relationships between policy objectives and policy outcomes. We review and discuss the role of impact models at different stages in the AES policy process, and present results from a survey of impact models underlying 60 agri-environmental schemes in seven EU member states. We distinguished among three categories of impact models (quantitative, qualitative or common sense), depending on the degree of evidence in the formal scheme description, additional documents, or key person interviews. The categories of impact models used mainly depended on whether scheme objectives were related to natural resources, biodiversity or landscape. A higher proportion of schemes dealing with natural resources (primarily water) were based on quantitative impact models, compared to those concerned with biodiversity or landscape. Schemes explicitly targeted either on particular parts of individual farms or specific areas tended to be based more on quantitative impact models compared to whole-farm schemes and broad, horizontal schemes. We conclude that increased and better use of impact models has significant potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness of AES.

Cross-compliance has increasingly been used to integrate environmental considerations into the CAP. From 2005 it became compulsory for all Member States to ensure that recipients of Single Farm Payments adhered to Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs), stemming from 19 EU regulations and directives, and kept their whole agricultural holding in ‘Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition’ (GAEC), to be defined by Member States or regional authorities. The potential for cross-compliance to enhance implementation of EU environmental legislation and reach a large area of farmland seems good, although there are some questions remaining over whether it will reach the agricultural land at most risk of environmental damage or with the highest nature value. In addition, farmers could react in several ways to exempt themselves or some area of their holding from cross-compliance conditions. Member States or regional authorities have taken a variety of approaches to setting cross-compliance standards, some of which seem minimal and vague. There is scope for the SMRs and GAEC to cover more environmental issues. Better guidance at EU level and increased communication could enhance implementation of cross-compliance. Self-audits, co-operation with private assurance schemes or other methods of monitoring should be explored to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative efforts. De plus en plus, on utilise l'eco-conditionnalite pour integrer des considerations environnementales dans la PAC. Depuis 2005, tous les etats-membres ont l'obligation de s'assurer que les benefi ciaires des paiements uniques se conforment aux principes de gestion statutaires (SMR) qui resultent des 19 directives et reglements europeens. Ils doivent aussi verifi er que les agriculteurs conservent l'ensemble de leur exploitation en bonnes conditions agricoles et environnementales (GAEC) selon les regles defi nies par les etats membres ou les autorites regionales. Il est certain que l'eco-conditionnalite est de nature a renforcer l'application des lois sur l'environnement, et peut interesser de vastes etendues de terres agricole, meme si l'on peut se poser la question de savoir si elle concerne les terres les plus en danger de subir des dommages environnementaux, ou celles qui ont le plus de valeur pour la conservation de la nature. Il est vrai que les agriculteurs ont divers moyens de faire echapper tout ou partie de leurs terres aux conditions posees par l'eco-conditionnalite. Par ailleurs, siles etats membres et les autorites regionales ont adopte une grande variete d'approches dans la defi nition des standards, certains de ceux-ci semblent assez vagues et minimaux. Il serait possible aux GAEC et aux SMR de couvrir un champ beaucoup plus vaste de sujets lies a l'environnement. L'eco-conditionnalite pourrait etre amelioree s'il existait un meilleur cadre directif au niveau europeen, et une meilleure communication des autorites. Il faudrait envisager la pratique de l'autocritique, la cooperation avec les systemes d'assurance prives, et d'autres methodes de supervision pour maximiser l'effi cacite et l'effi cience des efforts administratifs. Cross Compliance wird zunehmend dazu genutzt, um Aspekte des Umweltschutzes in die GAP zu integrieren. Seit 2005 mussen alle Mitgliedstaaten sicher stellen, dass die Empfanger von einheitlichen Betriebspramien die gesetzlichen Anforderungen an die Betriebsfuhrung (SMR) einhalten; diese wurden in 19 Richtlinien und Verordnungen festgelegt. Das gesamte landwirtschaftliche Unternehmen ist in einem guten landwirtschaftlichen und okologischen Zustand (“Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition”, GAEC) zu halten. Die Bedingungen sollen von den Mitgliedstaaten oder den regionalen Behorden defi niert werden. Das Potenzial der Cross Compliance, die Implementierung der EU-Gesetzgebung zum Umweltschutz voran zu treiben und eine grose landwirtschaftliche Nutzfl ache zu umfassen, erscheint gros: Einige Fragen bleiben aber offen: Sollen auch jene landwirtschaftliche Nutzfl achen erreicht werden, bei denen das Risiko einer okologischen Schadigung am grosten ist, oder deren Natur der hochste Wert beigemessen wird? Daruber hinaus konnten sich die Landwirte auf verschiedene Arten anpassen, um sich oder einige Flachen ihres Unternehmens von der Einhaltung der Bedingungen fur die Cross Compliance befreien zu lassen. Die Mitgliedstaaten oder die regionalen Behorden haben verschiedene Ansatze gewahlt, um Masstabe fur die Cross Compliance zu setzen, von denen einige einen minimalen und vagen Eindruck machen. Es ist die Aufgabe der SMR und GAEC, weitere Aspekte des Umweltschutzes abzudecken. Eine bessere Fuhrung auf EU-Ebene und eine verbesserte Kommunikation konnte die Implementierung der Cross Compliance voran treiben. Selbstauditierung, die Zusammenarbeit mit privatwirtschaftlichen Kontrollinstanzen oder andere Uberwachungsmethoden sollten in Betracht gezogen werden, um die Effi zienz und die Effektivitat des Verwaltungsaufwands zu maximieren.

Recent landscape changes in a farmed landscape are analysed and related to farm and farmer characteristics. It is assumed that farm and farmer characteristics serve as mediators of large scale or macro driving forces of change-in the present case, a changing farming context including demands for a more environmentally friendly farming practise and a reduced output. The results are based on multivariate analyses of data collected from structured interviews of 160 farmers in a case study area, in central Jutland, measuring 5000 ha. The analysis shows that farmers are highly involved in landscape changes. The investigated landscape changes include creation and removal of landscape elements as well as certain management changes. The most common activity was creation of elements: hedgerows, small woodlands and conversion of rotational arable land to permanent grassland, whereas removal of elements, mainly hedgerows and semi-natural grasslands, were seen less frequently. Management changes like abandonment of permanent grassland were widespread. The results indicate a general extensification of the land use and the authors interpret the results partly as an indication of a change from productivism to a more multifunctional agricultural regime. The observed landscape changes at the farm level show a low, but structured relationship with the current farm and farmer characteristics, meaning that landscape changes were undertaken by various farmers and on various farms. On a general level, however, the age of the farmer and the duration of farm ownership seem to have a major influence on the landscape changes.

1. Collaboration and Design: New Tools for Public Innovation (Christopher Ansell and Jacob Torfing) 2. Necessity as the Mother of Reinvention: Discourses of Innovation in Local Government (Steven Griggs and Helen Sullivan) 3. Reconstructing Bureaucracy for Service Innovation in the Governance Era (Robert Agranoff) 4. The Complexity of Governance: Challenges for Public Sector Innovation (Susanne Boch Waldorff, Lone Soderkvist Kristensen, and Betina Vind Ebbesen) 5. The Impact of Collaboration on Innovative Projects: A Study of Dutch Water Management (Nanny Bressers) 6. Understanding Innovative Regional Collaboration: Metagovernance and Boundary Objects as Mechanisms (Stig Montin, Magnus Johansson Joakim Forsemalm) 7. The Importance of Joint Schemas and Brokers in Promoting Collaboration for Innovation (Barbara Gray and Hong Ren) 8. Collaborative Networks and Innovation: The Negotiation-Management Nexus (Robyn Keast and Jennifer Waterhouse) 9. Innovative Leadership Through Networks (Katrien Termeer and Sibout Nooteboom) 10. Designing Collaborative Policy Innovation: Lessons from a Danish Municipality (Annika Agger and Eva Sorensen) 11. Design Attitude as an Innovation Catalyst (Christian Bason) 12. Collaborating on Design - Designing Collaboration (Christopher Ansell and Jacob Torfing)

Regional agricultural development in Denmark in the 1980s is analysed by using surrogate statistics for three bipolar development trends: 1) intensification-extensification. 2) concentration-dispersal and 3) specialisation-diversification. The scale of analysis is the municipality. The results show that agriculture in eastern Denmark has intensified and specialised, whereas central parts of Jutland have extensified and diversified mainly due to the introduction of more complex crop patterns and a decline in the number of dairy cows. An increase in concentration is evident for the whole country. Aggregation of the development trends show that only 16% of the municipalities developed in the direction of ‘industrialisation’. a result which conflicts with the conventional understanding of the main development trends in Danish agriculture. However, part of this new interpretation may be related to the data and methodology employed in the analysis.

The Agri-Environment Footprint Index (AFI) has been developed as a generic methodology to assess changes in the overall environmental impacts from agriculture at the farm level and to assist in the evaluation of European agri-environmental schemes (AES). The methodology is based on multicriteria analysis (MCA) and involves stakeholder participation to provide a locally customised evaluation based on weighted environmental indicators. The methodology was subjected to a validation and feasibility assessment in a series of case studies across the EU. The AFI approach was able to measure significant differences in environmental impact between farms that participated in an AES and non-participants. Wider environmental concerns, beyond the scheme objectives, were also considered in some case studies and the benefits for identification of unintentional (and often beneficial) impacts of AESs are presented. The participatory approach to AES evaluation proved efficient in different environments and political contexts. The approach proved to be appropriate for environmental evaluation of complex agri-environment systems and is available now to complement any evaluation conducted under the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The applicability of the AFI in routine monitoring of AES impacts and in providing feedback to improve policy design is discussed., JRC.J.5-Agriculture and Life Sciences in the Economy

Agricultural support payments in the EU are increasingly connected to compliance with environmental standards, through cross-compliance and "Good Farming Practice"-conditions. In this paper, this relatively new approach is analysed regarding targeting, compatibility with legal procedures, and effects on income and production. Compliance with standards is reinforced by more systematic controls and reductions of support payments. As farms are affected by such sanctions to a different extent, risk-analysis for selection of farms to be controlled is a crucial element of implementation. The real environmental impacts have to be considered, especially if indirect control indicators are applied. Furthermore, technical assistance and audits have to be promoted for the implementation of environmental standards.

Farmers are important agents in rural landscape management as they modify landscape elements to suit their needs. The purpose of this study is to investigate if patterns of landscape activities undertaken by farmers are related to certain farm characteristics and if landscape activities vary from one location to another. With this purpose, we investigated the differences between the level of farmers' involvement in landscape activities in two study areas in central Jutland, Denmark. Particular attention was given to the analysis of the type and extent of landscape activities and their relationship with farm characteristics. In both study areas, landscape activities leading to a more extensive type of land use predominate. However, a multivariate analysis implemented on the set of landscape activity data reveals significant differences between the two study areas. Hedgerow planting and removal is more common in Sonder Omme, while pond digging and cultivation of permanent grass lands are characteristic activities in Gadbjerg-Givskud. Moreover, the proportion of farmers involved and the area affected by different landscape activities is larger in Sonder Omme than in Gadbjerg-Givskud. The farms of the two areas are different in terms of production type, size and socio-economic characteristics. These characteristics represent significant relationships with landscape activities. However, they are not sufficient to explain the differences between landscape activities undertaken in the two areas. The differences are caused by unique cultural and biophysical environment, which influence and modify the relationship between farm characteristics and landscape activities in a distinct manner for each study area.