University of the Aegean Department of Geography The post-productive rural landscape as a marker of quality and tradition Thanasis Kizos
Introduction Rural landscapes increasingly considered as desirable places and spaces for our increasingly urbanized societies Demonstrated in outlets of modern culture, e.g. advertisements, with ideal villages in an ideal countryside. Who are the people that live in this ideal countryside? And what does it look like? If traditions are invented, this ideal countryside is another invention, but romanticised in contemporary urban societies. So, rural landscape linked with tradition and authentic, wholesome, and quality products and experiences. Also, closely associated with national myths and identities. Another advertisement
The rural landscapes of Greece What are the actual rural landscapes of Greece? Few typologies: e.g. LANMAP with a typology at four levels and 8, 36, 81 and 350 classes for each level. But, types for Greece very broad and group together very different landscapes. Another recent example includes urban geography and coastal islands: with altitude, relief and land cover= 4 major landscape types and 57 sub-types: Built-up space (1.6% of total area); Coastal areas and islands (12.4%); Level areas (48.2%); Mountains (37.7% of total area).
The symbolic rural landscapes of Greece Except built-up space, rest types correspond to three archetypal symbolic rural landscapes of Greece: Mountainous settlement and forest landscapes of the shepherds (steep slopes and mountains, stone houses, sheep and goats); The hard working peasants and agricultural landscapes of the plain (level landscape of people working the land); The tourist landscapes of the islands, (blue seas, small settlements, sandy beaches and friendly farmers). Some idealized pictures And some real ones Some idealized posters
Management of the rural landscape Answer to the question: whose landscape? ; contested by at least two broad social groups: (a) the urbanites who visit, imagine and consume the rural and its landscapes and (b) the locals, who live in them, work and shape them. Common feature of urban societies today. The rural transformed into a post-productive space where the rural itself is a product, consumed, bought and sold. Planning and management has to find compromise between competing visions, needs and aspirations. Symbolic and idyllic rural landscapes of urban imagination pose challenges to policy makers and managers. Two examples
Management of the rural landscape II: the forests In mountainous areas intensification not feasible, farming marginalised or left to the elderly and hobbyists. Management systems abandoned and forest cover increased and consumed all former fields and grazing lands. Recently, after the '80s, mountains rediscovered by urban populations as reserves of cultural and architectural heritage and places for relaxation and getting back in touch with nature. Attitudes diverging: forests a threat for few remaining farmers and animal herders; and forests a national treasure for urban visitors, including environmental NGOs. How should such a landscape managed? Whose landscape values? Can these different views be reconciled?
Management of the rural landscape III: Rineia Small islet of Rineia, close to Mykonos and Delos. Few people, farmed and managed by Mykonos inhabitants until 1970s -1980s. Archaeological Service protection similar to Delos. Today, its landscape is viewed and valued widely diverging by three competing groups: (a) as a formerly agricultural landscape by locals who farmed the island and grew up there; (b) as an open air museum by the archaeologists who see it as a second Delos; (c) as an empty space, ripe for tourism development close to heavily infested Mykonos. Again the same questions: Whose landscape values?
Management of the rural landscape IV No easy answer to these questions. Attempt to answer must certainly include dynamics of these landscapes and symbols and symbolic landscapes they are associated with. Especially random, unplanned and unmanaged actions that accumulate over a landscape. A possibly fruitful process should use objective criteria to discern between broader landscape types and integrate the dynamics of change to avoid ending up with museum-type landscapes, but with mutating entities, subject to both objective and subjective evaluations and assessments. Not endorse these processes unquestionably, but consider them in the context of the values and qualities assigned to landscapes.
Return
Return
Return
Return
Return
Return