The participated landscape
(Benedetto Meloni, Stefano Carboni)
Confidence in a development model based on top-down planning able to control every territorial variable characterized the 1960s. The effectiveness of planning was entrusted to its intrinsic rationality and to regulatory instruments for its implementation. The plan was conceived of as a linear process starting from the identification of a number of problematic areas and ending with a plan conceived as a general guideline. Since the 1970s, it was understood in planning policy that general control of local variables is not only impossible but it is not even desirable since there is inherent risk in restricting territorial development within excessively rigid schemes, thus impoverishing the self-organizing capacities of local systems. A new point of view takes into account spatial systems, the heterogeneity of the subjects involved in the planning process, the capacity of local systems for self-organization and their variegated evolutionary dynamics. The diversification of territorial models puts at the center of the planning project the nexus between environment and local society, the assessment of the resources that each context can put into play in order to model the plan on the specificity of place to promote its development. It is necessary to take into account the environmental and landscape resources, the characteristics of the physical and built environment, but also human capital (diffuse knowledge), the legacy of material and immaterial culture that historical processes have layered in a specific location, relational systems, social capital. No longer seen as a mere container or support for different projects, territory is seen as a resource that can help identify approaches modeled on its specific spatial characteristics. Spatial differentiation makes it increasingly important to effectuate, on the one hand, an interpretive reading of a territory, with its social and economic, physical and environmental characteristics and, on the other, a reading of all the historically established relationships between a community’s fundamental natural, social and cultural elements. Planning goals and content change because planning activity is involved in social transformation processes that are already in place. A plan cannot be imposed from without but must work within those very processes, seeking to stimulate and guide them to achieve real benefits for the community in a particular geographical area. Planning and design methods are put forward as an understanding and clarification of relational systems, of the links between people and places, as a constantly evolving process (Maciocco, 1991). This process brings up the concept of integration, underlining the fact that spatial planning can be faced by acting simultaneously on several fronts and questions at the same time in an attempt to focus on such synergies as: improvement of the physical environment as connected to the development of economic initiatives; direct involvement (in the design, implementation and management phases) of those economic forces already active in any given area, giving rise to new local initiatives; reliance on youth seeking employment, improving their technical and organizational skills. Integration emphasizes the creation of complementarity in the management of the relationships between decision-makers, private subjects who act with a market logic and other subjects from the so-called “third sector” (charities, social enterprises, etc.). The stewardship role is not entrusted to government institutions but rather to specially formed "agencies" whose decision-makers are of a different nature and who act with a greater degree of independence from the funding and controlling bodies. Coordinated intervention implies that the state take a step back from the presumption of being able to develop and implement, with its own powers, projects that can to steer planning towards pre-established goals. Today, rather, the public moment is seen as a catalyst and coordinator of energy coming from many directions: from the state itself, and from its central and local governing bodies, but also from different kinds of individuals or groups. Thus the idea of territorial regeneration through policies of central planning or by exogenous rules has been abandoned. One such example is park planning. In park areas in the 1960’s and 70s, planning philosophy was basically founded on the idea that the need to protect habitat, on the one hand, and local development needs, on the other, were irreconcilable. This premise essentially produced plans oriented towards the separation of protected areas (with rigid constraints) from outside areas (with relaxed or even no environmental constraints). The effects were devastating, placing the onus of the costs on “insiders” (often individuals who were already weak, such as the population in rural or mountainous areas in decline). In this case, the park area was not considered a resource for local economic development; almost all benefits (symbolic, recreational, economic, but often economic) were of interest to “outsiders” (powerful social actors, mostly urban and well-educated etc).Ascolta Trascrizione fonetica
Today a new planning approach in natural areas, inspired by concepts of sustainable development, emphasizes the need to balance concern for the environment with the economic and socio-political dimension. Sustainable development policy should value local cultural resources and institutions to manage environmental resources. Local development and protection of natural heritage must work hand-in-hand. The participation of populations, communities and local government bodies in the planning process, in environmental resource management and in development cycles are prerequisites for avoiding forms of environmental "colonialism" – a new form of top-down planning destined to probable failure. The endogenous rules underpinning the planning of a specific area should be emphasized. The planning of places lies within its genetic rules because it correlates the physical, man-made and built environment in a positive way. Based on these premises, we faced two issues in this research project: the first the need for integrated and participatory landscape planning; the second, referring to the region's endogenous rules, the analysis of a series of social factors that regulate territorial transformation. In other words, the socio-cultural components of the traditional agro-pastoral landscapes.
Download: Il paesaggio partecipato.pdf