Mauro Pascolini & Roland Psenner

Keywords: Mountains, Network, Movement, Book

Alpine territories anticipate developments in other regions or are they 'innovation followers'? The 2014 Rete Montagna Conference The Alps in Movement (held in Bozen at EURAC on November 2014) aimed to be both a platform for the exchange of research results and experiences and a forum to discuss the prospects of future development in the Alpine region. The focus was on re-evaluation of the position and strategic role of the Alps as a field for research and experimentation, to test practices, patterns and sustainable lifestyles. The key issue was movement - moving people or things back and forth or moving more permanently to another place - as it changes over time, for instance, the movement of people, natural features, resources, ideas and movement as a direction in which to proceed. Interdisciplinary contributions were collected in the Conference Proceedings which will be presented in the panel session of the PECSRL 2016 Conference, along with information about the Rete Montagna Network. Founded on 11 November 2000 in Belluno upon the initiative of the G. Angelini Foundation, Rete Montagna ( is an international association bringing together institutes, organizations and research centres focused on mountain issues and engaged in the collection, coordination and promotion of cultural heritage and which promote debate and mutual updates on programmes and activities. The main goal of Rete Montagna is to gather (and compare) the different ways of life and agency in the Alps and in other mountain areas.


Ester Cason

Benedetta Castiglioni

Mauro Pascolini

Roland Psenner

Viviana Ferrario




Kim Philip Schumacher, University of Vechta / University of Hannover, Germany &
Rolf Peter Tanner, PH Berne, Switzerland


Amaral de Andrade, Bruno & Mourão Moura, Ana Clara:
Tyrol abroad and Tyrol within: First notes on the comparative study of the cultural heritage in the mountainous landscape in Brazil and in Austria

Jeschke, Hans Peter:
The city of Salzburg cultural landscape maintenance system (Kulturlandschaftspflegewerk©). Proposals for the whole gownscape of the city of Salzburg with its World Heritage Historic Centre

Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio:
Stakeholders’ perceptions of cultural landscapes: a comparative analysis of four study areas in Southern Italy

previous session

Sarah Woods, Rural Policy Learning Commons, Brandon University, Canada

Keywords: Cultural heritage, natural resources, community, migration, tourism

Landscape can have a large impact on the day-to-day life of those living in it. Whether it be the heritage landscape, the natural resource landscape, or the cultural landscape – all are equally as important but forever changing.

Traditional landscapes and organization of rural spaces may be significantly altered by the exploitation of natural resources (development of industrial agriculture, forestry and mining) or by demographic phenomena (depopulation or migration from other countries).

The aim of this panel session is to explore and discuss the nexus among landscape, cultural heritage and socio-economic processes by looking at comparative case studies across Europe and Canada.



Peter Dehne

Doug Ramsey

Per Angelstam

Guy Chiasson

previous session – next panel session

Andreas Haller, Interdisciplinary Mountain Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria & David C. Harvey, Historical and Cultural Geography at the University of Exeter


Axelsson, Ewa:
Woods, ownership, influence - Forest companies and local authority. The case of forest industry in Gudmundrå and Junsele 1870-1900

Hallberg, Erik & Nyström, Lars:
The power over land. Urbanization of the rural landscape in Sweden 1925–1975. Two case studies

Hudson, Mark:
The historical ecology of violence in mountain societies: A comparative study of France and Japan

Markuszewska, Iwona:
Past landscape – future landscape: contemporary changes of the traditional rural landscape through agriculturalist-environment interactions

Møller, Per Grau:
Potentialities of a ridge and furrow field system

Nyström, Lars; Hallberg, Erik & Palm, Lennart Andersso:
Rural landscapes and regional division of labour in Sweden c. 1570 to 1820

Schumacher, Kim Philip:
The geography of manure from a landscape perspective

Skokanova, Hana:
Anthropogenic pressure on natural forests in the West Carpathians in the last two centuries

previous session – next session

Erik Meijles, Centre for Landscape Studies & Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Theo Spek, Centre for Landscape Studies, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Keywords: Nature reconstruction, heritage, historical landscape

Natura2000 and Water Framework Directive policies aim for natural conditions in rural landscapes within the EU. As a result, many nature restoration, reconstruction or 'rewilding' projects are currently underway to (re)create natural landscapes. Such projects often strive for a multi-disciplinary approach to achieve an increase in biodiversity, sustainability or climate resilience. In addition, rewilding is expected to also benefit tourism development and landscape heritage preservation. Rewilding projects often involve intensive physical changes in ecosystems, such as re-meandering, undraining, removing ditches, creating nature-friendly embankments and top soil removal.

However, such physical changes may also be a threat to landscape values. There are examples of areas where important archaeological or cultural-historical structures were damaged. Elsewhere reconstruction of river beds has resulted in physical processes that are not endemic to the specific landscape. This raises the question to what extent rewilding projects are based on knowledge of historical natural landscape conditions and processes. It may be that they are based on expected natural conditions, relying on general, not location-specific processes. In such cases, rewilding either does not fully benefit from available knowledge about the historical landscape or there is simply a lack of available knowledge for a sound foundation of rewilding plans. This has resulted in expectations not being met after completion of the rewilding works or, even worse, extensive irreversible damage to heritage in some cases.

With this session we aim to assess and evaluate rewilding landscape projects in Europe and elsewhere. We would like to discuss to what extent the different types of landscape heritage (i.e. natural, cultural historical and geoheritage) are or should have been part of the rewilding process and what the consequences are for future landscape management.


Aalbersberg, Gerard:
The Onlanden project: a case for cooperation. The use of archaeological information in nature development

Schepers, Mans:
Dewilding past marshes: an archaeobotanical view on the historic Wadden Sea coast

Smeenge, Harm:
Defining a sound frame of reference for rewilding landscapes based on earth, life and human sciences

Veličková, Markéta; Velička, Petr & Prudík, David:
4Courts Park, Czech Republic – conversion of the military installation into a natural area

previous session – next session

Theano S. Terkenli, Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Greece &
Benedetta Castiglioni, Department of Historical and Geographic Sciences and the Ancient World, University of Padova, Italy


Rogge, Elke; Kerselaers, Eva; Dessein, J.; Belmans, Els & Messely L.:
The use of a serious game in region-specific rural development. The case of the Bulskampveld

Stevovic, Svetlana; Jovanovic, Jovana & Stevovic, Ivan:
Ski resort development and impact on landscape, environment and climate change

Terkenli, Theano S., Skowronek, Ewa; Tucki, Andrzej & Kounellis, Nikolaos:
What is a tourist landscape? A comparative study of locals’ and visitors’ perceptions and understandings of two tourist landscapes in Poland and Greece

Waterman, Tim:
The Nearness of You: Propinquity and neighbourhood from the urban to the rural

previous session – next session

Kerstin Potthoff, Department of Geography, University of Bergen, Norway &
Oliver Bender, Interdisciplinary Mountain Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria

Keywords: Landscape change, driving forces, comparative landscape research

In mountain landscapes, climate change and globalization very often encounter highly complex man-environment systems. Their impact on ecologic, socio-economic and demographic structures does not only result in changes in mountain landscapes themselves but also in the relationship between mountains and related lowlands. Current trends are, for example, a decline in agricultural activities, a centralization of tourism, urban sprawl in the main valleys versus marginalization of remote areas, an increasing amount of infrastructure and other technical installations, and an increase in forest cover.

In this session we seek to explore and explain these ongoing trends: What are important recent developments? What are important drivers or actors of change? In doing so we aim to establish a common ground for discussing similarities and differences between different mountain areas or between mountain areas and related lowlands. Questions of interest include: In which way do development trends differ? What role does the local context play? What role do different actors play?

The session is open to a broad range of themes covering both physical and ecological landscape processes and land-use changes in European mountain areas and their related lowlands. We welcome papers studying particular landscapes (case studies), which should be compared within the sessions’ discussions, but we particularly welcome papers on comparative themes – be they comparisons between different mountain areas, between mountains and their adjacent areas or between highlands and lowlands – either with a topical or thematic, theoretical or methodological emphasis.


Carrer, Francesco  & Angelucci, Diego E.:
Protecting and promoting upland archaeological heritage: a case-study from Val di Sole (Trentino, Italian Alps)

Dossche, Rebekka & Van Eetvelde, Veerle:
Historical and spatial dynamics and processes of mountain landscapes and its actors. A case of the northern Appenines (Val Borbera, Italy)

Janoušek, Zbyněk:
Agricultural land losses in the Czech Republic: mountains versus lowlands?

Marinelli, Mauro:
“Alle terre alte”: strategies to reuse rural architecture, projects to return to the Alps. An experimental case study in Trentino.

Potthoff, Kerstin & Bryn, Anders:
Tree and forest line dynamics in Norwegian mountain areas

Ryffel, Andrea; Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Huber, Robert:
Regional differences in preferences for ecosystem services: a choice experiment approach in two Swiss mountain regions

Schindelegger, Arthur:
Resettlement: A planning instrument to adapt landscapes for the future

Wagner, Klaus:
Agriculture in Alpine regions – heterogeneous structures, policy backgrounds and effects

previous session – next session

Kenneth R. Olwig, Landscape Research Group, London; Department of Landscape Architecture, Management and Planning, The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden &
Hannes Palang, Landscape Research Group, London; Institute of Humanities, Tallinn University, Estonia

Keywords: Pastoralism, wood pastures, rewilding, land abandonment, agro-environmental bureaucracy

Session organised by The Landscape Research Group: Mountain pastoralism traditionally involves a fluid mix of environments depending on the season, the age of the animals and a variety of other factors. It may involve free summer grazing on high extensive areas of unbounded treeless hill or mountain commons; spring and autumn grazing in common wood pastures with varying densities of trees; winter grazing and feeding on enclosed meadows, fields and barns on the valley floors. In addition, grazing in distant lowland areas may be important for young animals gaining strength for their future life in the hills and for older animals being prepared for sale. Pastoralism may also involve a blending of genetic material by crossbreeding hardy, but lean mountain breeding stock with weaker, but meatier and/or woollier lowland breeds. Environmental and agricultural bureaucracies, as well as environmentalist rewilders, however, tend to standardize and classify environments within manageable boxes corresponding to particular bounded typological areas (e.g. with regard to the classification and mapping of wood pastures, nature areas or food production districts). The result is that mountain grazing landscapes often fall into the gaps between agricultural, food and environmental policy and support schemes. This contributes to the abandonment of these landscapes and the consequent loss of their cultural and biological value. The papers in this session will examine the nature of these issues in different mountainous or hill environments and discuss possible alternative futures.


Golobic, Mojca:
Preserving cultural landscapes in the Alps – the implications of EU policies for landscape diversity

Käärt, Kaija; Ratas, Urve; Rivis, Reimo & Kont, Are:
Environmental and human impacts on dynamics of seminatural ecosystems – the case of Estonia

Contested Alpine grazing landscapes: a perspective from post-war Swiss folklore studies

How to maintain a ‘natural’ aspect of mountain pastoral landscapes better with public policies: some lessons from the history of the French volcanic Chaîne des Puys public policies?

Olwig, Kenneth:
Mountain grazing landscapes caught between abandon- ment, rewilding and agro-environmental bureaucracy. The Case of England’s Lake District

previous session – next session

Sebastian Eiter, NIBIO – Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Norway

Keywords: Biodiversity, cultural heritage, ecosystem services, land cover change, land use change

In recent decades human activities, driven by population growth and economic development, have led to massive changes in landscape character throughout Europe. Accurate tools for monitoring changes in landscape characteristics are available, but their use in integrated systems is lagging behind policy needs. Identification and quantification of processes in the landscape should provide timely feedback to policy makers, planners, decision makers and practitioners.

This session invites papers that present methodological approaches to landscape monitoring, including remote sensing, field mapping, automated field sensors, participatory approaches, statistics-based surveys, etc. Methods may also include communication of monitoring data to policy makers, landscape planners and managers, and other stakeholders. Monitoring results should be used to illustrate the type(s) of data generated through the chosen method(s).

Approaches are welcome from a variety of policy sectors (agriculture, forestry, environment, etc.) and from different scientific disciplines, such as geography, ecology, sociology, economy, architecture, cultural heritage and spatial planning.


Christensen, Andreas Aagaard & Brandt, Jesper:
Monitoring agricultural landscapes in Denmark. Combining fieldwork data with classified LiDAR imagery as a basis for analysing long-term change trajectories

Eiter, Sebastian; Fjellstad,Wendy & Stensgaard, Kari:
Monitoring mountain summer farming landscapes in Norway

Hunziker, Marcel & Kienast, Felix:
The Swiss landscape monitoring programme. Bridging the gap between biophysical space and perceived place

Klug, Hermann & Reichel, Steffen:
Automated geosynthesis: from sensors to real-time decision making

Lupp, Gerd; Konold, Werner; Syrbe, Ralf-Uwe ; Heuchele, Linda & Renner, Christina:
Outdoor recreation, biodiversity and climate change adaptation: challenges for protected area management

Riedel, Susanne:
ALL-EMA – National monitoring of species and habitatsin agricultural landscapes of Switzerland

Štefunková, Dagmar & Hanušin, Ján:
New findings on the changing landscape diversity of the traditional and modern vineyards (the case study of Svätý Jur, Slovakia)

Torreggiani, Daniele; Maino, Elisabetta; Diti, Irene; Benni, Stefano & Tassinari, Patrizia:
Accurate and efficient landscape analysis and monitoring methods lending support to rural planning

previous session – next session

Anders Wästfelt , Stockholm University, Human geography, Sweden &
Kristofer Jupiter, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Agrarian history, Sweden 

Keywords: Open field, historical geography, non-mechanized farming, farming practice, agriculture

The open field system dominated much of European agriculture for over a thousand years. In fact, it is still with us in some parts of Europe today. It is undoubtedly a successful and, given its long existence, a sustainable system. But what made the open fields successful and what made them preferable to other ways of cultivation? This session focuses on how non-mechanized farming in the open field system worked in practice. What were the benefits of the system’s most basic element, the scattered and intermingled plots?

Research into open field systems has long been related to a wider discussion of the origin of village formation and field systems. The main focus has been on why land was divided into strips and scattered, and a number and variety of explanatory models have been discussed: piecemeal colonization during the early medieval expansion; increasing fragmentation caused by partible inheritance; equitable distribution of holdings in good and bad soils, also associated with the idea of scattering as a way of risk management. The key to our understanding of the open fields and the reason for the widespread appearance of scattered strips is to understand the actual land use. To a certain extent there may have been valid causes to scattering, as mentioned above, but that does not explain why scattering was introduced in the first place. This leads to the idea that open field systems may have become too complex, which is not necessarily the case. For instance, equitable distribution and risk management is probably true to some degree, but could not be the only reason for the system’s prevalence and continuity.

Agriculture is basically about photosynthesis and managing labour input over time. You have to allocate the right amount of labour at the right time and over an area of manageable size. Therefore labour regimes in relation to localization are important as well as the distribution and shape of plots and their relation to time spent in ploughing them. How, for example, should the often associated labour efficiency in managing a combination of extensive, large-scale husbandry and intensive, small-scale grain production be understood? Then again, the social implications and institutional arrangements of open field farming cannot be ignored and are probably closely connected to the open field system and its benefits.

Paper proposals are welcome from all over Europe and for all time periods.


Jupiter, Kristofer:
Spatial organization and farming practice in unsystematic open field systemsin 17th century Sweden

Karsvall, Olof:
Solskifte and the constancy of the regulated hamlets onthe island of Öland

Svensson, Henrik:
Wanna swap parcels? Piecemeal changes towards individualism within the open field system

Van den Haute, Fanny; Kerselaers, Eva; Rogge, Elke & Van Eetvelde,Veerle:
Regional agricultural systems and their reflections inn the landscape in Flanders

previous session – next session