Discursive Relationships Between Landscape Science, Policy and Management Practice: Concepts, Issues and Examples - Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture - page 231

Focus then shifted to the rural landscapes in Lihme, and this second phase
started with a two day workshop for all five groups at which the SWOT analyses
were presented and discussed with municipal planners, researchers and profes-
sionals. The first draft of landscape character maps carried out by a landscape
architect was presented and given to the working groups to be discussed locally
and modified to ensure it expressed local citizens perception of their 'own'
landscapes. Excursions and various thematic lectures (including a presentation of a
simple diagnostic tool for evaluation of the 'landscape conditions') were also part
of the workshop. During the next four months the working group shared under-
standing of how the landscape functioned, and developed a landscape strategy plan
for their parish. Regular meetings with municipal planners and workshops with
researchers and professionals were included in this process to mobilise external as
well as internal knowledge and ideas. The contribution of landscape ecologists can
be a vital part of the diagnostic process- characterising the condition of the
landscape as well as contributing to the preparation of a feasible strategy that
recognises the possibilities, potentials and constraints of the landscape context.
The third phase of the strategy—the final design—started with the presentation
of the strategy draft to a panel of 'landscape experts' (from university, consul-
tancy, and public institutions including Skive municipality). After this presentation
an invited expert panel (with an ecologist, a forester, a landscape historian, two
landscape planners and a farm building architect) presented an alternative draft
strategy worked out during a one day workshop. The 2 hour discussion following
these two presentations functioned as a sort of 'confrontation dialogue' and turned
out to be highly productive in shaping the final ideas for the strategy. During the
next few months the final strategy was drawn up by one of the landscape planners
participating in the panel in close contact with the working group. The strategy
includes proposals for new green corridors linking the village to surrounding
habitats, a new village forest, new recreational trails and new developments at the
harbour in the village (Fig. 12.2 ).
Finally the whole strategy was presented and discussed at a public meeting in
the parish. The community essentially took ownership of the strategy and parts of
the strategy (including trail and corridors) are being implemented. Five thematic
working groups in the parish are responsible for different aspects of the strategy,
which has also been incorporated into the municipal plan.
The four dimensions of Healey's spatial strategy making process (see above)
have been dealt in a number of different ways and at different stages in the Lihme
process (Dias-Sardina et al. 2012 ). In this context, the different ways to mobilise
and confront internal and external resources concerning knowledge, values and
imaginations have been especially fruitful. However, more experience and more
design proposals are needed before a more general culture of collaborative land-
scape planning can evolve. Systematically developed 'patterns' involving land-
scape ecologists, as proposed by Nassauer and Opdam ( 2008 ), would be highly
beneficial, particularly in helping identify critical patterns and processes, and in
helping prioritise where management interventions can be most effective and