This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]On: 24 July 2011, At: 23:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Landscape ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

Reading and assessing the landscape ascultural and historical heritageLionella Scazzosi a Correspondence address: Lionella Scazzosi,Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 31, I‐20133 Milano,Italy. Email: lionella.scazzosi@tiscali.ita Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy

Available online: 23 Jan 2007

To cite this article: Lionella Scazzosi Correspondence address: Lionella Scazzosi, Politecnico diMilano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 31, I‐20133 Milano, Italy. Email: lionella.scazzosi@tiscali.it (2004):Reading and assessing the landscape as cultural and historical heritage, Landscape Research, 29:4,335-355

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142639042000288993

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Landscape Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 335–355, October 2004

Reading and Assessing the Landscape as Cultural andHistorical Heritage

LIONELLA SCAZZOSI

Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy

ABSTRACT Drawing upon research undertaken for the Italian Ministry of CulturalHeritage and Activities by a team at the University of Milan, an emerging andconverging conception of landscape which is shared by many nations in Europe isidentified. It is characterized by the integration of culture, by a shift of emphasis fromplaces of excellence to consideration of the whole territory, by the wish to conservecultural identity and by a concern for the quality of life of whole populations. In additionto regarding the landscape as an artefact, it can also be regarded as a document, anarchive or a palimpsest. Shortcomings in the way that landscapes are currently read areidentified, and the range of criteria employed to assess the values of particular landscapesare considered. Finally, there is a plea for a serious exchange of information regardingmethodology and operational expertise, in the light of the European Landscape Conven-tion.

KEY WORDS: European Landscape Convention, cultural landscapes, heritage,landscape assessment

Landscape Policies and Cultures in Europe: Convergences and Differences

The European Landscape Convention brings with it a modern, rich and wide-ranging approach to landscape. This approach is based on the cultural experi-ences matured in the various European nations, in international and nationallegislation, and in active policies. Moreover, the new concept of landscapeincludes elements that are themselves new, in an attempt to respond adequatelyto the problems posed by the contemporary situation.

In this context must be mentioned a series of research volumes produced bythe University of Milan,1 which has been producing them since 1997 for theItalian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities—the authority in charge oflandscape. These researches gather, analyse and compare landscape policies andcultures in different European countries (France, Great Britain, Germany, Den-mark, Holland, Italy, Spain, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Switzerland) and in theUnited States.2 They were launched at a time when landscape was an issue ofgreat interest in Italy,3 and the survey was designed to contribute to this debate,looking beyond national borders in search of inspiration, confirmation, oper-

Correspondence address: Lionella Scazzosi, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci31, I-20133 Milano, Italy. Email: lionella.scazzosi@tiscali.it

0142-6397 Print/1469-9710 Online/04/040335-21 © 2004 Landscape Research Group Ltd.DOI: 10.1080/0142639042000288993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

336 L. Scazzosi

ational and institutional solutions, in order to place the whole landscape, notmerely a few monuments, at the centre of the efforts to “increase the competi-tiveness of the country and the efficiency and coordination of the actions totransform the development hypothesis according to sustainable models, in thepost-industrial era”.4 The studies examine the instruments used to implementlandscape policy in various European countries, focusing on the cultural layout,the methodological apparatus and the analytical and operational instruments,especially within government administration, whether central or local. Theyprovide, for each country, a condensed but accurate description of the legalsystem, administrative organization, instruments of preservation, planning andmanagement in all their aspects (including economic and technical–operationalaids); they compare the relations between the state and the citizen, withparticular attention to the decentralization of competences, the forms of partici-pation in decision-making processes, and the instruments used to raise aware-ness and educate the population on landscape issues.5

The hypothesis for this research, confirmed by the final results, stated that,for all the differences—sometimes very pronounced—in the legal, institutionaland operational systems characterizing the solutions adopted in the variouscountries,6 and in spite of the differences in the cultural approaches characteriz-ing the history of the landscape issue and still characterizing it in the variousnational contexts (attention being directed variously towards the naturalistic,ecological, aesthetic, historic and other aspects), there is a significant mainstreamconvergence towards a global and unitary vision of landscape, i.e. a tendency tointegrate nature and culture, a shift in interest from outstanding places ofexcellence (natural or anthropic) to the whole territory, an assertion of the rightto quality in all the living places of the populations who are invited toparticipate actively in such a process, to try to find adequate instruments for thesustainable management of territorial transformations, aiming at civil and politi-cal goals to preserve identity and the specificity of people and places. This resultwas not foreseeable and allowed us to catch a glimpse of the presence, inEuropean countries, of cultural matrices that are historically more unified thanthose emerging from a comparison based exclusively on contemporary facts.7

Although the single cultural and political realities are structured, there is a cleardifference in understanding between the countries of northern Europe—whoseapproach is mainly focused on ecological/environmental problems or problemsconcerning the preservation of nature—and the countries of southern Europe—whose approach is rather concerned with the traces of human transformations,the cultural meanings of places, formal and visual characters.

The experience of the United States is very significant as it is unexpectedlysimilar, from a cultural point of view, to the European one. Indeed, it shows howthe preservation of nature in that country, linked to the creation of natural parks,has had from the beginning a strong symbolic objective—the willingness tobuild outstanding ‘monuments’, as a memento, a document of the history ofpeople and places, to construct a national identity, analogous to the stonemonuments of countries that own more diffused and stratified historical humantraces, such as Italy, France and Greece. In other words, to construct a landscape.As a matter of fact, the discovery and celebration of the Alpine landscape, in the19th century, played quite the same role in Switzerland, before the Americanexperience. This cultural view has been progressively obscured, in particularduring the period of the birth of the ecological movements, especially in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Reading and Assessing the Landscape 337

northern Europe, for example in Germany, Norway, etc. This has provokedsome clear conceptual and administrative divisions between issues about the‘nature–ecology–environment’ and those about the ‘history–culture’ of places.Nevertheless, today, the concept of landscape, further enriched by the ecologicalexperience, tends to appear with a larger and more complex semantic back-ground.

In Italy, the First National Conference on Landscape (1999) and the signingof the European Convention of Florence have brought with them new incentivesand have led to agreements and legal actions for landscape planning andenhancement,8 at various administrative levels. The acknowledgment of place, asa first and necessary step towards landscape preservation, is now so significantas to spur the Ministry to promote new studies, both on the methodologies usedin other countries to read and assess places from a landscape point of view9 andon specific methodological approaches.10 These studies (Scazzosi, 2002) haverevealed many different approaches and a great involvement, in various coun-tries, in developing and experimenting with methodologies for the reading andassessment of place, that better suit the concept of landscape as it is beingacknowledged in Europe and as defined in the European Landscape Conven-tion. They have shown the close relationship existing between the methodologiesto read and assess landscape and the instruments and operational goals. Butthey have also shown the existence of a considerable interest among operatorsand technicians for an integration of the various approaches, in the frameworkof mutual exchanges that now characterizes Europe, both on this issue and onothers.

Some Conceptual Specifications

The meaning of the term ‘landscape’ has become broader and richer than that ofa view or a panorama, which characterized many national protection laws andpolicies until the middle of the 20th century, and that of environment or nature,to which it has often been limited during the recent years of environmentalistbattles. ‘Landscape’ is actually a polysemic term, where different disciplinaryelaborations meet, collide and compare—elaborations of classical geography, orthose of a perceptive–visual kind, or of a historic–cultural kind, or even thoseaimed at understanding social and economic dynamics of places.11 The ongoingprocess of integration among the different cultural approaches to landscape, thatmodifies and enriches each one of them, requires continuous conceptual andterminological specifications, in order to reach a mutual understanding.

In shrewder cultural elaboration and in policies, we see a growing aware-ness (although with some contradictions) that landscape, environment, nature donot correspond to different objects, but to different concepts, i.e. different ways ofreading, planning and managing (as if we used specific coloured spectacles foreach) a single broad object—the place where people live. As a consequence, anyplace can be read for its cultural, natural and environmental meanings andvalues and for the specific problems such viewpoints put, although there may bedifferences from place to place—a hedge dividing fields may be read either asone of the walls which determine spaces, or as a document of an old landdivision (landscape glasses), or as part of an ecological network (environmentand nature glasses), or even as an opportunity to build a new use of soil, suchas for example a cycle track in the countryside (territory glasses). Thus it does

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

338 L. Scazzosi

not make sense, theoretically, to distinguish ‘cultural’ landscapes (but alsohistoric landscapes, anthropic landscapes, etc.) from ‘natural’ landscapes, as they allcan be read for their cultural and natural meanings—they are all landscapes.

Moreover, the term landscape on the one hand expresses our culturalrelationship with the world and our gaze12 on the places around us, a gazeloaded with our ancient and recent, and numerous, cultural traditions (to whichliterary men, painters, travellers, naturalists, historians, geographers, etc. con-tributed) giving the places a meaning.13

On the other hand, it depicts places in a concrete sense. Places are the resultof a centuries-old diffused building activity carried out by farmers and stock-breeders who used them, and also by vast unitary interventions, using naturalmaterial such as vegetation, water, soil.14 Then more recent transformationscame, which sometimes destruct and distort historic structures and sometimesrespect the places’ identity, the permanencies.

Some key words may prove useful. Through the coloured glasses of theconcept of landscape, places appear as a large and complex artefact (or manufacts,from the Latin manu-factus, hand made),15 the work of man and nature, in anindissoluble intertwining, in a centuries-long process of construction and trans-formation according to specific techniques and materials.

Simultaneously, places can be interpreted as a work of architecture, in abroad sense16—with its specific modes of organizing space17—made up of largerooms18. This work is in continuous, inevitable and necessary transformationunder the action of nature and man. Human beings intervene by adding,abandoning, cancelling and overlapping elements, but always transforming it(with detailed, diffused and continuous interventions through time as well aswith great and outstanding innovations), both physically and through the simpleattribution of new meanings to what has come to us, an open work.19

At present, landscape policies and cultures differ noticeably among Eu-ropean countries. The meaning given to the term ‘landscape’ can itself give riseto significant difficulties in understanding. Actually, the linguistic roots of theterm differ between southern and northern European countries.20 Changes ofmeaning have occurred over the years, even recently,21 and despite the conver-gences that are gaining ground, a variety of cultural roots have contributed todevelop, in each country, different instruments and methodologies to acknowl-edge and manage and govern places (from the point of view of landscape).These instruments have been developed in keeping with cultural traditions,geographical and historical realities, and more recent territorial transformationsof each country, and in accordance with the legislative, administrative andoperational solutions that have taken hold, and with the goals of territorialplanning followed. Although it may differ according to the specificities andarticulations, the ‘visual–perceptive’ approach (particularly in Great Britain, theNetherlands, Spain, etc.) and the ‘natural–environmental’ approach (in Germanyand north European countries) are certainly the most widespread and bestdeveloped. However, in recent years there has also been a strong interest inreading and assessing the historical–cultural character of places (particularly inGreat Britain and Italy, but also in France, Poland, Germany, Holland, Denmarkand Norway) whose preservation is seen as fundamental for maintaining andnurturing social identity, both in the local and in the wider population. Thisconcept (identity) is clearly underlined in the European Convention.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Reading and Assessing the Landscape 339

Landscape as Document or Monument

This new form of interest has its roots in the 20th century, in the culture ofacademic and professional figures, among these being historians, geographers,philosophers, environmental psychologists, artists and specialists in the field ofcultural properties. The development of new interests can be traced through the20th century, in the modification of both the concept and the field of historicalheritage and cultural property. The field had long included churches, villas andcastles as monuments, but it also came to include historic town centres, indus-trial archaeology, vernacular architecture and peasant culture.22 During the1970s people became aware of the value of historic gardens and plantings (true‘vegetal architectures’),23 as well as the products of Modernism. Recently, anhistorical value has been given to the products of the 1960s and 1970s, includingbuildings, industrial sites and infrastructure.24 The interest was no longer only inhigh-profile and outstanding elements, but also in the lesser fabric of materialculture, gathering in all the testimony of the life of man. It was only one stepfrom this path to a further conception of the entire landscape as an artefact, richwith traces of natural and human history. In this concept the landscape is theresult of centuries of small elements of construction and transformation carriedout by farmers and peasants, punctuated by single greater events—drainageworks, works by large landholders—and the construction of new urban settle-ments. The most recent ICOMOS Charter on the Conservation and Restorationof Cultural Heritage (Krakow, 2000) gathers the fruit of the new concept(ICOMOS, 2001). For the first time the landscape, ‘understood as culturalheritage’, took its place as an item of interest, alongside other movable andimmovable, material and immaterial cultural heritage. This document acknowl-edges that the awareness of past evidence, in a physical and/or a symbolicsense, is important for the construction of the collective memory of a population,one of the sources of its identity, and for the preservation of cultural and naturalspecificity and differences of places.

However, to answer the specificities given by landscape, we need to deeplyrethink and renew the theoretical basis, criteria, methodologies and instrumentsfor the preservation of historic and cultural heritage, as until now they havebeen experimented in particular on outstanding properties, or monuments.Working with landscape means potentially involving a large quantity of objects(of different kinds, significance and state of conservation) as well as operatorsand users.

Places are no longer read only in the visual sense, as simple spaces, or asnatural habitats in the ecological–environmental sense, but they are seen asdocuments. These documents permit growth in the awareness of past humancultures, modes of life and work, agricultural techniques and constructionmaterials, land uses, festivals and the symbolism of various elements, but alsoof climate, vegetation and habitat. In this sense, landscapes are a huge archive (aliving one as it changes continuously), full of material and immaterial traces ofthe history of men and nature.25 They are a palimpsest (not a mere stratificationof historical evidences),26 that is a single text where the remaining traces of alleras have been following each other and have intertwined with the onesgradually left by the present and that continuously modify it. Landscape is areading of the world in its complexity; landscape is a means to contemplate ourown history and to build our future, being fully aware of the past.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

340 L. Scazzosi

Moreover, past permanencies are to be seen in the present features of thearchitecture of places under different forms. Permanencies in the land planning ofplaces, such as centuriation, rural land parcelling, settlement location, roadtracks, water and channel networks, are most analysed in European studies forlandscape planning.27 Other permanencies include: those of physical features, suchas terraces where traditional materials and building techniques prevail, a row ofcentury-old trees, an ancient wooded area; permanencies in the way of use, eitherproductive or recreational; permanencies in the ways and techniques of cultivationand of traditional maintenance, as for a trained vine, an olive or fruit groveusing a non-mechanical system; permanencies in giving meanings to elements andplaces, which may be places of memory, places linked to feasts, historic events,local cultural traditions, or celebrated by ‘high’ culture through past and recenticonography, photography, and texts written by intellectuals and travellers.28

Different types and different eras coexist and intertwine in the present charactersof places, in different ways and measures in a self-same area that can beconsidered, at a larger scale, as homogeneous.

Nevertheless, this reading does not only concern areas where the traces ofthe past are evident and numerous, as to design of the land (morphology, landparcelling, waterways, visual links, etc.), or as to the artefact/manufacts they aremade of (terracing, tree rows, forests, canals, roads …) or as to the settlementsthat were built on it (single buildings, urban centres, etc.).29 Even the areaswhere recent innovation prevails and is diffused (suburbs, peri-urban areas,linear conurbations, etc.) are full of historic traces, in spite of first appearances.There are permanencies in the design of historic systems (land parcelling,centuriations, water and road networks, etc.), or simple isolated elements intransformed contexts, which still maintain visual, symbolic, spatial, functionallinks with other parts of the system to which they pertained. Everywhere, landis a palimpsest, rich with traces of the past intertwining with the present, visibleto anyone who is capable of seeing them.

Reading the Landscape: Current Problems and Italian Contributions

The reading and assessment of permanencies in urban areas and single architec-tural manufacts is quite well established in Italy and in other countries. However,landscape reading still demands the clarification of concepts and methodologies,by means of further theoretical and experimental work.

Italy has long focused attention on the traces of its own history, both bymeans of sector legislation for preserving the cultural heritage and by means ofhistorical reading of places during normal urban land-use planning and, to alesser extent, non-urban regional planning. Italy can also offer useful experiencefrom its introduction of techniques of historical reading into its landscapeplanning instruments.

However, there are still a number of open theoretical and methodologicalquestions under examination and experimentation, both in Italy and abroad.

1. Historical studies (especially those for local and regional land-use planning,in countries where they are generally carried out, such as France and Italy)are often limited to reading landscapes by era and by broad geographicalclassifications, giving an overall outline of the principal temporal changes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Reading and Assessing the Landscape 341

They more rarely search for and signal the smaller traces that may be left bythe passage of events.30

2. Inventories of historical objects in a given territory are often used as instru-ments for reading the landscape, in the conviction that a systematic anddetailed sum of data can amount to a thorough, or at least sufficient,awareness. These inventories are often quite detailed and may deal both withlarge- and small-scale items and with many types of landscape feature,extending from churches, castles, villas, historic urban centres and settlementsto landscaped gardens, industrial archaeology and vernacular rural architec-ture, and including the more recent enlargements in the concept of humanheritage such as land divisions, roads, canals and terracing.31

3. There has been little experimentation in reading landscapes as systems. Thelandscapes we inherit are not simply composed of sums of objects, but ratherof multiple landscape systems. They are not just a set of points, lines and areas,but rather a system of interconnections, among these being visual, spatial andsymbolic relations, as well as functional and environmental relations. Thesesystems must be understood, planned and managed as wholes. For example,as in the cases of Venice and its lagoon, historic villas and their grounds, ruralsettlements, regions of agricultural lands, or historic routes with their engin-eering manufacts must be seen together. Systems can also sometimes appearas areas (for example an agricultural settlement with its pertaining fields andlands); at other times systems can be networks of links between non-adjoiningelements (for example, systems of major and minor historic military manu-facts), and in other cases linear elements (for example roads or historic canals,with all their accompanying historic engineering and functional manufacts,such as enclosures, bridges, resting houses, small religious chapels, fountains,etc.). The systems can at times intermesh and superimpose one with anotherin the same region, in whole or in part. Likewise, cities and historic towncentres cannot be studied, understood or managed simply by means ofexamining and diagnosing the problems of their single buildings and thensumming up their problems. Although this is an important and useful typeof knowledge, it is also necessary to have a reading of the relationshipsbetween the parts (quarters, blocks of houses, squares and public areas, etc.).32

4. Reading the ‘architecture of places’—i.e. the present organization of spaces(like many rooms)—also means identifying landscape systems, which may bedefined as many formal and functional organizations of space, either historicor recent, characterized by a unitary logic (intent, design) or, in other words,a ‘project’ of landscape. In this way, masses and voids, walls, characterizingelements, views, visual and symbolic relations, and object–background rela-tions carry meaning while determining the landscape historic systems that,from ancient times to today, have structured spaces. These systems, or theirremains, are at present more or less well conserved and more or lessintertwined, overlapped and integrated one with another. For example, it ispossible to find in a present fringe area south of Milan an urban system(popular neighbourhood dating back to the beginning of the 20th century)built on a 19th-century rural system (farm and its agricultural land), which inturn had been built on a Roman centuriation; it is possible in a pre-alpinevalley that a linear system of a historic road to Switzerland passes through anagricultural system based on a mediaeval monastic settlement hosting, inter-twiningly, a system of 17th-century fortifications and a system of religious

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

342 L. Scazzosi

buildings and tracks on which an industrial settlement of the 1970s was set(or overlapped); in a peripheral urban area it is possible to acknowledge thefragments of a system of a villa with its garden, tree-lined roads, farm roadsand few agricultural fields, divided and torn by recent and absolutelydominant building transformations.33

5. The landscapes we have inherited, particularly rural landscapes, are complexconstructions realized by minute steps of construction and maintenance,carried out by many single individuals and dispersed through lengthyperiods of time. Today’s reading and management cannot be limited solely tothe general form and character of the landscape. It is also necessary to achieveawareness and management of the materials and building techniques repre-sented by every single terrace, boundary hedge, planting and other element.Refined survey and study of individual landscape components is necessary,examining their design, materials and construction techniques, just as is nowconducted for buildings. The potential for management can also be improvedby the study of traditional technical and material solutions, which are oftenrich in forgotten or undervalued knowledge. Traditional know-how can beintegrated with contemporary knowledge and adapted to contemporary lifeand work. Experience has been gathered in this area, but there is as yet nowidespread and systematic method.34

6. It is possible, then, to go beyond a landscape reading based on contiguousand homogeneous geographical–cultural units. This reading is certainly validfor a large-scale approach (for example the landscape atlases that are nowquite widely available, in France, Slovenia, Spain and Great Britain, or thedivisions by area of many Italian regional or provincial landscape plans, inLombardy, Liguria, Piemonte, etc.).35 But it is insufficient for small-scalelandscape description, which is the necessary basis for finding timely indica-tions for the protection of landscape features, compatible innovations andrecovery from decay.

Assessing the Landscapes

An examination of the methodologies for reading and assessing landscapes inEuropean countries reveals that several criteria of assessment are quite wellconsolidated in the present culture, although they are not equally diffused in thevarious countries and, above all, not very much used to plan and manage places.The following notes represent, on the one hand, a synthesis of some issues thatseem to be more interesting at present and, on the other hand, traces useful formethodological, theoretical and experimental in-depth analyses that seem to benecessary and could contribute to their concrete application.

1. The value of a document for collective memory, which is acknowledged forhistoric artefacts/manufacts (buildings, urban centres, parks, etc.), can also beextended to entire landscapes and their material and immaterial components.In the present situation, all evidence of the history of man and nature, eventhe most recent, is seen as having documentary value, but only places andartefacts that we no longer consider to be part of contemporary life havehistorical documentary value. In fact, traces of the past survive in the livingpalimpsest in forms such as design, materials and practices, and these traces

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Reading and Assessing the Landscape 343

are found not only in single manufacts but also in the relationships betweenthem, meaning in every single landscape system.

2. Antiquity, which might be described as the immediate readability of the non-contemporaneous nature of the work,36 is awarded value—if to a lesser extentand in a more confused way—by the general public as well as by experts.This value has also been termed ‘historical substance’ or defined, in somecountries, with a word that is much more discussable and bears variousspecific meanings, e.g. ‘integrity’.37 It is primarily understood as the perma-nence of past materials and techniques that can be seen in artefacts/manu-facts, but also as the traces of original planning and uses. However, this kindof assessment is not normally used for the landscape components.

3. Places that serve as social symbols have recently been given unique assess-ments, even if they do not present specific manufacts (battlegrounds, placesthat have been depicted in art or literature, places associated with importantevents or persons, religious traditions or ceremonies and feasts, among otherplaces).38 Studies of ‘places in memory’, accurate and diffused, which have avalue especially for the local population, are not as frequent nor as systematicas they should be to face the growing role of local populations in identifyinglandscapes and participating in government designation of places; themethodologies to read such places—not so often experimented—require ascientific research involvement of anthropologists, sociologists and historians.

4. Studies to understand cultural lenses also represent a significant field ofresearch. In an unconscious process, these lenses form over time and contrib-ute to defining and assessing places, adding to their fame or notoriety.Intellectuals and historians of art have long studied representations of land-scape in ancient and contemporary iconography, such as in prints, paintings,drawings, literary descriptions, tourist guides and accounts of travel. Somestudies of landscape planning and management are also beginning to makesystematic use of these types of evaluations, as well as evaluations based onrecent art forms such as film and photography.39

5. Concepts such as authenticity, integrity, completeness and entirety are oftenused in assessments. Terms such as restoration, rehabilitation, conservationand preservation are also being taken up, adapted from their roots in the fieldof building and monument restoration. However, landscapes are products ina state of continual and unavoidable transformation, and it is thereforenecessary to give careful consideration to the precise terms and contexts. It isnot just a question of definition, of drawing up a glossary and givingadequate translations in the various languages:40 it is above all a matter oftheoretical, methodological and experimental work at different levels. Theguidelines for landscape reading and assessment that already exist could beuseful.41

6. Concepts such as alteration, continuity, overlapping, contrast, harmony andde-contextualization are seen repeatedly in landscape-management instru-ments, perhaps more than in theoretical discussions. These terms refer toproblems arising from the relationship between new developments and thepre-existing situation. The problem of achieving creative quality and raisingthe quality of contemporary places is being defined, and is attracting study,criticism, development and experimentation in a wide variety of applications,such as buildings, infrastructure and parks. This may be in part because ofthe climate that the European Landscape Convention has stimulated, with its

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

344 L. Scazzosi

affirmations of the right to quality in all types of places. Specific internationaldocuments and national legislation and norms have appeared, including EUresolutions and laws for architectural quality in France and Italy.42 Retainingor recovering the unique quality of places in order to protect their inhabitants’identity means overturning the logic of ‘innovative planning’—intended asthe planning and designing of new elements such as buildings, infrastruc-tures, etc. In this logic, efforts focus on responding to requests for new formsand uses, and the place is seen primarily as a simple support or container,almost a blank page. Instead it is now necessary to begin from careful, preciseand minute attention to places, and to their formal and material character.This conceptual and methodological procedure is neither generally acceptednor frequently used by who those who plan territorial transformations,although it is completely obvious among landscapers. The aim is to insertnew choices and new forms in a compatible—or, better suitable—fashion,with respect for that which has gone before, even if of very recent creation.At the same time, there must also be care to avoid mimicry, false reconstruc-tions of the old, or doomed attempts at halting progress.43

7. The time is right to reflect on the themes of indicators and parametersassessing landscapes. Experimentation in recent decades has concentrated onindicators and evaluation methodologies using mathematical tools of award-ing points to elements or parts of landscapes, on a scale of absolute values(very good, good, moderate, poor; high, medium, low, etc.).44 These systemshave clear limitations. They have attempted to use quantitative principles andparameters analogous to those used in assessing nature and ecological–en-vironmental problems. However, when working with historical and culturalvalues it is necessary to work with the descriptive elements of pertinentfactors, and allow for motivations. Once again, this requirement is notgenerally accepted, and there are frequent attempts, both theoretical andmethodological, to tackle cultural, historical and perceptive aspects asquantifiable categories, just as one would measure the quality of the air or ofwater. Experience has already been gathered from a variety of experiments inprogress, analysing places and artefacts/manufacts in terms of their owncharacteristics (rarity, extension, localization, connection with other systems,state of conservation, historical value, visual impact, etc.), or in terms of theiravailability, their opportunity and their potential for use, re-use or otherdevelopment. Assessments have also dealt with the risks of deterioration andloss, described in terms of fragility, external pressure and other factors.Ample, well-articulated, punctual and well-motivated description of placesand artefacts/manufacts permits the immediate specification of broad operat-ive limits, including choices for protection and/or innovative development,for planning and programming of works. Such descriptions are needed fromthe many and diverse points of view that characterize our present culture.These descriptions necessitate effective communication with the population.It should be noted that instruments such as guidelines, manuals and frame-works of directions are becoming ever more common for this type of work.45

Nevertheless, these methodologies should be much further deepened andexperimented with.

8. It is always necessary to remain aware that every reading and assessmentconstitutes a process. As time passes, significant new attributes are added tolandscapes, whether through evolution and elaboration of the cultural con-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Reading and Assessing the Landscape 345

text, or because time renders once-new objects old and consequently historic,or because we develop new modes of understanding the place, new cognitivesources; new theorists and specialists come to bear and we change our actualforms of awareness and assessment. Landscapes evolve over time and socialand economic conditions change too. So society actually comes to change itsview of the potential of places and their elements.46

Relationship between Landscape Planning and Land-Use Planning

The European (including the Italian) experience foresees two possible relationsbetween landscape planning and town- and land-use planning, at differentadministrative levels, according to different laws:47 (a) studies and instrumentsfor landscape planning that are independent from land-use planning (for exam-ple, in Germany, landscape planning at all levels is a specific instrumentcompletely independent from land-use planning; in France, among the largequantity of instruments for landscape planning and management, many arespecific and autonomous); (b) studies and instruments for landscape planningthat are part of land-use planning where specific landscape issues are inserted(for example, in France, land-use planning at municipal level must deal, by law(Loi paysage 1993), with landscape aspects too). In Italy both solutions arepossible, at the different administrative levels, depending on the region’s choice.

Experience seems to suggest that:

1. there should be a specific process of identification and assessment of terri-torial landscape character, through specific studies and with professionals;the studies may be organized, used and implemented inside more generalinstruments of land-use planning;

2. proposals for landscape studies and plans should not only include legalindications (as in Italy) but also programmes to implement the choices(programmes of interventions for maintenance and innovation; economicaland financial programmes; activities for enhancement, awareness-raising andeducation, etc.), using instruments such as guidelines, aids, subventions,contracts with farmers, technical and scientific support to private and publicadministrations, enhancement activities and premiums. This technical instru-ment can either be part of a Landscape Plan or be autonomous. A usefulreference is to be found in the plans for the management of protected areas,such as natural and regional parks, UNESCO48 sites, historic gardens andparks, etc.;49

3. special attention should be given—during studies on landscape character anddynamics and during the preparation of laws, guidelines and implementationprogrammes—to the relations with other policies (agriculture, ecology,tourism, public works, etc.) that have a marked effect on the landscape. Thisprocess should involve from the very beginning, as far as possible, thedifferent administrative bodies responsible at the different levels and sectorsthat intervene in territorial transformations. The most advanced experimentsin both the Italian and the European context are searching for modes ofpreventive collaboration between institutions, meaning a common under-standing at the beginning of the decision-making process.50 The transversenature of the landscape issue across the policies of various sectors and thenecessity to integrate instruments and actions are among the first and most

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

346 L. Scazzosi

important items to discuss, both at the international level and within manyindividual European countries;

4. landscape studies and plans should be understood, from the beginning, as aninstrument to diffuse knowledge about landscape and to involve, in fullconsciousness, the populations (both local and concerned) in the process ofidentifying, assessing and managing the landscape.

The significance of the problems linked to the identification and assessment oflandscape, considered in the Convention as a first and fundamental operationalstep towards landscape protection, implies a serious exchange of informationand methodological and operational know-how among the actors of all thecountries involved. That is why organizing events to present, compare anddiscuss the different experiences matured in the various countries represents atruly fundamental instrument; the workshops at the Council of Europe aimingat promoting and supporting, technically and methodologically, the activity ofall adherent countries, both in its main offices and in the various partnercountries, represent a very useful forum for the exchange of experience; theLandscape Observatories, national and regional, actually recommended by theConvention, could be important bodies if they were well organized and man-aged, in view of an exchange of experiences between the administrative bodies;the trans-national research based on programmes to implement Communitypolicies (Interreg, Leader, Cultura 2000, Euromed Heritage, etc.) that involvelocal administrations as well as universities and research bodies is a very usefulform of methodological elaboration closely linked to the operational necessities;the networks of exchange and collaboration between universities and re-searchers in the field (for example, the Le:Notre Network51) are essential tocommunicate within the field of research and training, as are the conferences(e.g. International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA) conferences), eitherregular or exceptional; the role of specialized journals seems to be important atpresent, especially when they are recognized as supranational instruments,giving attention to theoretical, methodological and operational needs; and initia-tives like the Landscape Biennale of Barcelona are useful meetings too.

Acknowledgement

This document is partly meant to follow up and deepen the contributionpresented at the Conference on ‘Landscape in European Policies’, Rome, 10–11November 2003, organized by the Italian Ministry for Cultural Heritage andActivities, and the Workshop for the implementation of the Landscape EuropeanConvention (27 November 2003).

Notes

1. Polytechnic of Milan, Department of Architectural Designing, scientific director Lionella Scaz-zosi. Three volumes have been published. The first two concern the landscape policies andcultures in various European countries and in the United States (Scazzosi, 1999) and the secondone includes the English translation of the first volume too (Scazzosi, 2001a); the third volumedeals with the landscape reading and assessing methodologies, in all the various countriesalready studied: France, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United States,Denmark, Italy, Spain, Norway, Poland, Slovenia (Scazzosi, 2002).

2. The 1999 studies have been considered interesting and useful abroad too; integration of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Reading and Assessing the Landscape 347

situation of other countries that had not been taken into consideration initially (among themItaly) and translation of the texts was requested (Scazzosi, 2001a).

3. The Minister was assigned a specific Directorate General for landscape that supported Italy’sstrong involvement in the drawing up of the European Landscape Convention (eventually ithosted it for the signature in Florence, in October 2000) and in organizing the NationalConference on Landscape—the first one any Italian Government had ever staged (October1999).

4. This is how Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro—from the Directorate General for Environmental andLandscape Heritage—described the goals of the study, in her introduction to the first bookreporting the results of the research that had been presented and disseminated during theConference (Scazzosi, 1999, p. 7). The countries taken into account in the study were: France,Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United States.

5. The complexity of the issue and the broadness of the experiences underway impede the authorsfrom defining a systematic or exhaustive cognitive picture that would correspond to the differentrealities of the various national situations. Nevertheless, the study provides a valid comparisonbetween the different cultural conceptions and operational models although it cannot escapesome kind of conditioning due—of course, as in any such research—to the authors’ culturalviewpoint and to the original goals of the study.

6. Let us just mention the difference between: the rigid geometry of the German Landscape Plans,based on a Law for the Protection of Nature, which considers the whole territory especially fromthe ecologic and environmental point of view and chooses to apply the preservation laws tonatural areas; the broadness and multiplicity of instruments of planning, preservation, enhance-ment, participation, in France, that come out of a legal matrix that foresees the preservation ofoutstanding monuments and ends in a specific law for landscape (1993) that adds landscapecontents to local land-use planning; the Great Britain system with its recent and mainlyperceptive-visual reading methodologies set on a legal system aiming at preserving areas thatare outstanding thanks to their ‘natural beauty’ and their recreational value; the Polish andDanish experimentations that tend to apply to a vaster open territory those reading andpreservation methodologies already experimented with in the urban landscape; the long-lastingItalian tradition of preservation of outstanding areas intended as ‘natural beauties’ and culturalheritage, now applied to the whole territory through landscape planning and subject to a strongdecentralization of the competences, although the central role of the State remains; the use, inSwitzerland, of federal censuses (of historic roads, protected natural areas, etc.) as an essentialinstrument for landscape planning at local level; the more recent experiences, such as in Spain,that propose new types of areas to be protected and enhanced (cultural parks) and experimentwith many cognitive instruments of planning and management; and the Slovenia experience thataims at building its own and specific operational system.

7. It would be very useful to have a comparative study of the various European countries’ historyof law on landscape, nature and historic heritage and the underlying concepts of landscape; itis already significant to see, in a first analysis, that the laws for the preservation of nature andlandscape were drawn up and approved mainly during the first decade of the 20th century andthat they all contain—although not all equally nor with the same emphasis—some references tothe concepts of landscape intended as ‘natural beauties’ and of nature (Scazzosi, 1999, 2001a,2002).

8. Testo Unico dei beni culturali (1999), a document guiding the reorganization of the existing rulesfor the preservation of historic/cultural heritage and landscape; agreement between the Stateand the regions (Accordo tra Ministero per i Beni e le Attivita Culturali e le Regioni e le ProvinceAutonome di Trento e Bolzano sull’esercizio dei poteri in materia di paesaggio, Official Bulletin no. 114,18 May 2001) for a first application of the contents of the European Landscape Conventionalthough it was not yet ratified; and, finally, the Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio, in forcefrom May 2004, that brings together former laws, rules and agreements in order to reorganizethem and to introduce new ones in an additional part dedicated to landscape.

9. Here too, the studies (Scazzosi, 2002) have mostly reverted to the reading methodologies usedin the administrative and technical bodies, and somehow neglected scientific and universityresearch that is undoubtedly important but has contributed to a lesser extent and less directlyto the diffused culture of landscape.

10. These researches have been entrusted to the Polytechnic of Milan, in the framework of theCadses Interreg IIc programme—‘Let’s Care Method’ (Scazzosi, 2001b), to the Italian Society ofUrbanists (Clementi, 2002), to the Univeristy of Genoa, in the framework of the Interreg IIcprogramme—Western Mediterranean and Western Alps (Regione Sardegna, 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

348 L. Scazzosi

11. Here are some bibliographic references to recent texts that summarize and go through thehistory of the different disciplinary attitudes (Gambino, 1997, pp. 16–42; Guichonnet, 1998;Lange, 1999, pp. 170–183; Mangani, 1987, pp. 19–42; Olwig, 2002).

12. In-depth analysis about the concept of landscape through history at a ‘glance’ comes fromcontributions of philosophers who recently focused on this issue, both in Italy and abroad(Assunto, 1973, 1984; Venturi Ferriolo, 1996, 2002), also recalling fundamental texts (Ritter, 1963;Simmel, 1912–13). In particular they underline, as we do presently, the notion of ‘landscape’ asa ‘place to read the world’; that is, the space where the world can be read in its complexity orsay the place where our history can be gazed at (Venturi Ferriolo, 1996). The contribution isparticularly significant as it tackles the ever-tricky issue of landscape aesthetics, and points outhow the aesthetic values that we confer today to places—transforming them in this way intolandscapes—are closely connected to the possibility to read and observe in them the complexityof the world’s history, as it has been built by the combined action of men and nature. In thesevalues we can “single out the social changes, the changes in the ways of production, of dwelling,in urban shapes, in the ways of living, in the working and economic activities and, above all, inthe vision of the world and life” (Venturi Ferriolo, 1999, p. 59). In some landscapes “the materialbeing is the result of a human operational process”, while others just confer a mere meaning toplaces where “the aesthetic being is not the result of a productive process but rather of anattribution of meaning adding to the material being, i.e. of the discovery, as we used to say, whichtransforms into aesthetical objects what was first considered as mere things” (Assunto, 1973,p. 29). Such attribution of meaning may be completely contemporaneous but also a heritage ofpast cultural elaboration.

13. On this issue, see the contribution of Simon Schama (Schama, 1995) and E. Turri (Turri, 1974,1979), D. Cosgrove (Cosgrove, 1984).

14. Examples of such buildings may be: the terracings that have structured many hilly regions forthe cultivation of grapevines, olive trees, fruit trees, chestnuts, etc; the complex waterwaysystems to cultivate lowlands; the deforestations and systems of production and exploitation ofhighlands to allow cattle breeding, including seasonal moving of men and animals, to exploitwoods, flora and fauna, to the highest altitudes; the road and track systems that were toguarantee communication for commercial, productive, military, etc. purposes; the network ofreligious, military, etc. manufacts.

15. The use of the term ‘manufact’ (artefact) is meant to underline the significance of buildingmaterials and techniques in the character of places and the action of men’s hands intervening toshape it: the meanings of the terms manufatto (in Italian) and manufact (in French) still have todaya stronger adherence to the etymologic root than the terms artefatto, artifact, artefact (from theLatin arte-factus, art-made). It has a long tradition in disciplines related to historic heritagepreservation, in particular in Italy, where its introduction was aimed at underlining theimportance of preserving the matter of works.

16. One of the representatives of the wide concept of architecture, which bears a long tradition, isWilliam Morris, according to whom architecture is the ensemble of the changes made on theearth’s surface to satisfy human necessities, apart from plain desert (Morris, W., Prospects ofArchitecture in Civilisation, speech made at the London Institution, 10 March 1881). He also usesthe term architecture to point out the possibility of reading natural places too, from the point ofview of their spatial and material organization.

17. The use of the term ‘architecture’ is undoubtedly somehow imprecise: it can be understood ina restrictive way in various cultural fields of both northern and southern European countries(meaning only what is built and excluding the natural aspects of places; only what concerns thecharacters of open spaces and excluding the whole building, the town), or it can be understoodas too much related to the single field of architects. However, it is larger and more comprehen-sive than other terms such as ‘structure’, ‘shape’, ‘morphology’, ‘invariant’ and ‘design’, because:it includes the idea according to which places own a specific three-dimensional organization, orsay they are spaces made of elements that define them physically; it includes the awareness thatspaces are made of building materials and techniques that determine their specificity (a roadpaving can completely change the character of a landscape); it includes the awareness of theinseparability between matter and shape (the shaped matter: the work is not shaped with matter,but rather matter is shaped) (Pareyson, 1988); it refers to functional organization of places andrecalls economic, social, cultural etc. aspects that contribute to build places and imply variousdisciplines. Moreover, the disciplines tackling landscape are internationally called ‘landscapearchitecture’, although they are articulated in a very wide range of aspects and issues, goingfrom the ecological and naturalistic ones to those concerning historic heritage preservation, or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Reading and Assessing the Landscape 349

linked to the creation of new landscapes (IFLA, International Federation of Landscape Archi-tects). For the visual perception and the psychological approach to landscape, see: Gibson, 1950;Gombrich et al., 1972; Ittelson, 1973; Lynch, 1960; Norberg-Schulz, 1979.

18. The concept of the room applied to places has a long tradition in the art of making gardens andparks and is also used today for the landscape (Bogdanowsky, 1998).

19. ‘Open work’ is the reading model drawn up by Umberto Eco for contemporary works of art(Eco, 1962), and whose implications were developed in further publications (Eco, 1990). Thereading of what we inherited from the past as unconcluded work still has very old cultural roots.The concept seems to be particularly useful to express the willingness of a fundamental respectfor each distinctive characteristic of the inherited places in a historic period characterized bygreat territorial transformations but, nevertheless, aware of the importance of preservingdifferences and specificities: places do not belong to us and we are responsible for theirtransmission to future generations. Simultaneously, the concept expresses the awareness of theimpossibility of stopping time (and, even more, going back in time) and helps in defining themeaning of preservation, conservation and restoration as actions only able to guide and managetransformations, based on the full respect and on the transmission to the future of the inheritedvalues.

20. Paesaggio, paysage, paisaje, peisaj, landscape, landschaft, landschap, landscab, krai, taj: these aresome terms used in various countries to express the concept of landscape: the first words (whoseetymological root is pagus, village in Latin) mainly recall the presence of man on the territory,playing the double role of colonizer of Nature and observer of his own work; the others (whoseterminological root is the German-Anglo-Saxon land) mainly underline the concept of menbelonging to a community on a territory from which they extract their resources, and which isalso an administrative unit (Franceschi, 1997; Lange, 2000; Schama, 1995, pp. 10–12; VenturiFerriolo, 2002, pp. 23–33). However they have both assumed—mainly during the 18th and 19thcenturies—the meaning of ‘object of pictorial representation’, having an influence on nationallaws which were drawn up at the beginning of the 20th century to protect ‘natural beauties’,‘natural monuments’ or ‘pictorial frames’ (France 1930, Italy 1939, Great Britain 1949, Germany1935), according to the differences between one country and another.

21. It is interesting enough to follow such transformations through the encyclopaedias: in Italy, forexample, the entry ‘paesaggio’ in the Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani (1935) acknowledges basicallythe meaning of view, panorama, and gives much importance to the representation of places(paintings, drawings, photos, etc.) and to pictorial landscapism; the same can be observed in the1960s in the Enciclopedia Universale dell’Arte, while, some years later, the Dizionario di Architetturae Urbanistica (1969) also refers to town planning, geographic, socio-economic, perceptive andpsychological interpretations.

22. Ashworth and Howard (1999), Gurrieri (1983), UNESCO (1980); the magazine MonumentsHistoriques has dedicated some monographic numbers to the culture of the preservation ofhistoric heritage in different European countries. It is particularly useful to follow these changesthrough official documents, such as International Charters and Conventions on restoration, ofinternational bodies like the Council of Europe, the European Union and UNESCO, those drawnup during conferences, research, and international agreements between countries and bodies(Anon Feliu, 2001; Monti, 1995).

23. The definition of ‘vegetal architectures’ was introduced in Italy through a text of the LombardyRegion (Regione Lombardia, 1987, 1994), to define various typologies of architectures mainlybuilt with vegetal material, as a widening of the concept of historic park and garden, that untilthen was mainly linked to buildings such as villas and houses: squares and tree avenues;gardens and public parks; gardens of public buildings like stations, schools, municipalities,hospitals; gardens as memorials of events and personalities of national or local history;extra-urban avenues; monumental trees; urban kitchen gardens; kitchen gardens in residentialareas, etc. Since the end of the 1970s other countries have also begun to care about thesearchitectures that became an object of attention, survey and protection (Scazzosi, 1993, pp. 11–25). What is more, the locution ‘architectures vegetales’ had already been used in the treaty ofLe Baron Ernouf (1868), to indicate formal parks and gardens that were the core of his research.

24. DOCOMOMO (Documentation and Conservation of Modern Movement), founded in 1995, is aninternational association dedicated to the documentation and preservation of buildings of theModern Movement, sites and neighbourhoods of the recent past, broadly defined as 1920–1970:design objects, buildings, urban planning, landscapes and gardens, bridges, etc. The disciplinesof restoration of monuments must intervene ever more on buildings of great modern architectsthat suffer specific problems of restoration that are very different from those of the oldermonuments.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

350 L. Scazzosi

25. The concept of territory as a document and archive able to give back the knowledge of man’smaterial culture was developed during the 20th century, in particular thanks to historians,geographers and archaeologists (Scazzosi, 1993, p. 16; Lange, 2000). Let us remember thecontributions of the historians of the ‘Annales’, a review founded in 1929, with scholars such asBloch, Febvre, Braudel in France; the Polish school with Kula, or Sereni in Italy; the contributionsof geographers in France (Vidal de la Beache, Granchard, Claval, Guichonnet) and in Italy(Sestini, Biasutti, Saibene, Gambi, Quaini, Moreno); and the contributions of archaeologists inItaly (Bianchi Bandinelli, Carandini, Mannoni, De Guio) (Bortolotto, in Scazzosi, 2002; Sereno,1992) and in Great Britain (Perkins, Taylor, Barker, Aston, Rowley). Le Goff, recently, underlinedthe role of history in the construction of memory and identity (Le Goff, 1977).

26. The concept of ‘palimpsest’—used for a long time in disciplines such as historic heritagepreservation and archaeology and also applied to territory and landscape (Barker, 1977; Corboz,1983)—is here referred to in its etymological sense (from the Greek palın ‘newly’ and psan ‘toscratch out’, when antique parchment manuscripts were newly written on, on top of the oldwriting scratched out) to signal the existence, in the present state of places, of numerous physicaltraces left over time by the work of man and nature, each time adding to or changing or erasingor overlapping, etc. one another and not necessarily being re-interpreted or re-used.

27. See the archaeological studies in France on land parcelling, the Italian studies on centuriation,the censuses and databases on historic centres carried out in most countries, the studies onhistoric roads in Switzerland and Great Britain, etc. (Scazzosi, 2002).

28. The division into material and immaterial permanencies comes from the self-same concept oflandscape (i.e. attribution of meanings to places, but also identification of material traces as adocument of the past), while the attribution to the whole inherited territory of the value ofdocument and, in addition to that, of an historic document (Scazzosi, 2002, pp. 33–36 (Italian),pp. 53–55 (English translation), requires a systemization of the types of permanencies. From thispoint of view, let us mention the significant UNESCO division of the ‘cultural landscapes’(Fowler, 2003) into different categories: ‘clearly defined landscape’, ‘organically evolved land-scape’ (which can be: ‘relict or fossil-landscape’ and ‘continuing landscape’) and ‘associativecultural landscape’.

29. Europe hosts many initiatives aimed at preserving the landscapes which own much historicevidence, generally rural evidence. Let us cite, for example, the Permanent European Conferencefor the Study of the Rural Landscape (PECSRL), an international network of landscape re-searchers, focused on the past, present and future of European rural landscapes; or RURALIA,an Italian association for the preservation of rural buildings and places, that is part of a bignetwork of similar associations in other European countries.

30. The main contributions to a systematic reading of the historic traces left in the current state ofthe landscape at a quite detailed scale are: the Historic Landscape Assessment (HLA) in GreatBritain (Breda & Vasey, in Scazzosi, 2002), different experimentations carried out by local bodiesin Italy (Breda & De Bernardi, in Scazzosi, 2001a, 2002), the methodology built up by Bog-danowsky in Poland (Bossi, in Scazzosi, 2002), and the research and experimentations oflandscape archaeology in Great Britain and Italy (Bortolotto, in Scazzosi, 2002) and in France(Breda, in Scazzosi, 2002).

31. In Italy, the inventory of the historic, architectural and landscape heritage is a very diffuseinstrument at any level of administration (national, regional, provincial, municipal), but there islacking a unitary system of collection and networking of data, so that it is impossible to havea complete vision of the knowledge gathered to date. At a national level, the Istituto Centrale peril Catalogo e la Documentazione (ICCD)’s main task is only to carry out the inventory and filingof monumental heritage (and to define the concerning methodology), while local bodies (inparticular the regions and provinces) build up databanks that include major and minorproperties and a complex division into types, particularly useful as basic knowledge for theprotection of heritage and for territorial and landscape planning. For example, the regions ofnorthern Italy (Lombardy, Veneto, Emilia-Romagna) have studied, among other things, thetraces of Roman centuriation that still strongly structure the agricultural territory; the LombardyRegion has also worked on the knowledge (and protection) of ‘historic routes’, together withSwitzerland, which is the country that obtained the best results in Europe (Cazzani, in Scazzosi,2002); the Province of Milan, for its Territorial Plan, has built a databank that also includescultural properties—both major and minor—which, generally, are not systematically inventoriedalong the whole territory: gardens and vegetal architectures, rural centres, industrial archae-ology, etc. (Breda & De Bernardi, in Scazzosi, 2002, p. 186). Other countries present recentinnovative experiences: for example, Germany and Norway also register some particular

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Reading and Assessing the Landscape 351

elements (traces of antique methods of cultivations, antique clay banks, historic parcelling, oldphone lines, etc.) that can be considered as ‘minor’ in front of well-acknowledged properties(religious buildings, villas, castles, archaeological findings, etc.) (Bossi, in Scazzosi, 2002; Bran-duini, in Scazzosi, 2002; Mazzoli, in Scazzosi, 1999).

32. Some examples of reading the ‘historic systems of landscape’ on the whole territory are to befound in the project ‘Times Landscape Strategy’ in Great Britain (De Donno, in Scazzosi, 1999,pp. 120–123) and in the research ‘Let’s Care Method’ carried out by the Politecnico di Milano forthe Italian Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Activities (Breda & De Bernardi, in Scazzosi, 2002,pp. 192, 197–200). In Switzerland the study of historic roads, carried out at national level by theIVS (the Institute for Historic Roads) for the Federal Government, is an example of how to reada linear landscape system, as it examines both roads and all technical and service manufacturersthat are linked to them either functionally or symbolically (Cazzani in: Scazzosi 1999 and 2002);in the USA the same goes for historic roads and trails.

33. To date, there has not been any study or interpretation of the kind that would supportinstruments of territorial and landscape planning; there have only been theoretical elaborations.

34. For example, the Territorial Plan of the Province of Florence does include an accurate study ofthe terracings on the hills of Chianti aimed at preserving them (with geometric surveys of thebuilding materials and techniques at a scale of 1:25) (Breda & De Bernardi, in Scazzosi, 2002,pp. 188, 193–196), and similarly, Switzerland surveyed the historic routes to make a census(Cazzani, in Scazzosi, 2002). Great Britain used to be famous for its production of technicalhandbooks, some of which include the description of building materials and techniques, andguidelines for the correct maintenance and restoration of historic buildings and their compo-nents (roofs, floors, fastenings, fences, etc.), but also of territorial elements such as small walls,hedges, etc. through bodies like the Countryside Agency, English Heritage, English Nature, localbodies, trusts, and historical associations like the SPAB (Society for the Protection of AncientBuildings), etc.

35. For example, in France, the campaign to draw up the Atlas de paysages, promoted by the Ministerede l’Amenagement du Territoire, de l’Equipement et des Transports, whose working methodology isexplained by Yves Luginbul (Luginbul, 1994). The ECOVAST International Association (Eu-ropean Council for the Village and Small Towns), founded in Germany in 1984, carries out initiativesin order that each European country develops a list and a map of all the landscape units of itswhole territory (www.ecovast.org).

36. In Riegl (1903).37. In particular, the expression ‘historic substance’ is used in Switzerland for historic roads and in

Germany for historic gardens. And although the term ‘integrity’ is diffused in the documentsand handbooks of the National Park Service of the United States and in the documents ofUNESCO, it seems inadequate as it supposes that there could be a conclusion, a completeness,in places’ process of transformation while, on the contrary, it is an ever-evolving process.

38. This criterion is used for the protection of sites in the USA, Great Britain, etc. and by UNESCO,and is one of the reasons to maintain national laws on the preservation of monuments (Italy).In the case of landscape, it is important to obtain a detailed and diffused identification of thevalues and sites: for example, in Italy, both the Lombardy Region and, recently, the Province ofMilan, have carried out studies and set up a databank of the places of historic memory (places,itineraries and events of popular worship and devotion, places of military events, placescelebrated in literature, iconography, literature of travels and tourism, places of industry andwork) on their territories (Breda & De Bernardi, in Scazzosi, 2002, pp. 187, 190).

39. In France, the Institut d’amenagement et d’urbanisme de la Region d’Ile-de-France (IAURIF) hasdeveloped studies and surveys to identify the places that have been reproduced in paintings orused in movies (Breda, in Scazzosi, 2002, p. 84); the above-mentioned research ‘Let’s CareMethod’ for the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities has recurred to manydifferent sources to identify the iconems (Turri, 1979), built by literature, literature of travels,travel guides and representations in paintings, photos, postcards, etc., that we have inheritednow; it also identifies accurately the places on the map (the island of Torcello and lagoonhinterland of Altino, near Venice) (Scazzosi, 2001b) .

40. The problem of defining a glossary or, at least, a comparative terminology in the main Europeanlanguages on the themes related to landscape is very much needed, especially among inter-national research groups and in the experiences of international co-operation (for example,Interreg programmes, etc.); we know that some partial attempts are under development.

41. Among others: the handbooks of the National Park Service, in the USA; of the Ministere del’Amenagement du Territoire, de l’Equipement et des Transport, in France; of the Countryside

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

352 L. Scazzosi

Agency and English Heritage in England for the Landscape Character Assessment and theHistoric Landscape Character Assessment; and of the Countryside Council for Wales in Walesfor the Landmap. UNESCO is preparing the Management Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes.

42. Resolution of the Council of Europe on architectural quality in the urban and rural environment(Brussels, 12 January 2001); Law on the architectural quality (France 1997); Bill on architecturalquality (Italy); and Law of the Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy (L.R. 15 July 2002, no.16, Standardsfor the protection of historic and artistic buildings and the promotion of the architectural andlandscape quality on the territory). The Italian Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Activities,General Directorate for Architecture and Contemporary Art (DARC), organized an internationalconference ‘Quality of contemporary architecture in European towns and territories’ (21–23November 2003) in which institutions of European countries that have tackled such issues in thelast 10 years (France, Spain, Finland, Belgium, Holland, Germany) participated (DARC 2003a,b, c).

43. The different attitudes towards the material inheritance of the past, of monuments, wereexplored at the beginning of the 20th century by Alois Riegl in his particularly clear presentationof one of the first bills of law for the preservation of monuments in Austria (Riegl, 1903): hewould describe the contrasts and convergences between the different ‘values’ stated by thecultural and social groups (value of memory or commemoration, historic value, value ofantiquity, value of use, value of innovation, artistic value, etc.) that are still alive today in thecontemporary culture, maybe with a different emphasis. Moreover, such attitudes reflect thetheoretical, methodological and operational positions at stake among the disciplines of resto-ration of monuments, which have been—for many centuries—either in favour of keeping thetraces of transformations undergone over time and the authenticity of materials and constitutiveshapes, or in favour of a replacement, rebuilding or reconstruction of those parts that havebecome old, that have disappeared, or even that were never finished. All the components oflandscape are faced with problems of a similar nature.The problem of the preference of peopleand expert/non expert technicians for mimetism, or for keeping the characters of antiquity ofhistoric heritage, or for a strong formal innovation, is presently very complex and differentaccording to the different European cultural areas. It also produces strong contradictionsbetween the various cultural and geographical areas, between different urban situations eitherinside or outside the town centre, between the different perspectives of economic developmentand land use. For example, large conurbations are generally intolerant towards the inheritanceof the past and prefer innovations as a symbol of modernity, well being, progress; the respectfor the values of antiquity and authenticity of the historical building heritage is often linked toa willingness to support the cultural identity on the one hand, and to enhance the touristic valueof places on the other hand, while mimetism is rather chosen in some particular areas whichare—for some reason—linked to others (in Italy, for example, especially in the Alpine areas atthe border with Austria and Germany with whom they nurture a cultural resemblance). Thephenomenon of ‘facadism’, i.e. the demolition of the whole building except for its facade, incountries like Belgium, Holland, France and Switzerland, especially during the 1980s, is acompromise between the willingness to renew the building heritage and the needs of conser-vation, limiting the latter to a mere preservation of the image of ancient public spaces; a similarlogic was followed in reading and assessing the historic building heritage in its relation withlandscape, as developed in Denmark with the SAVE and INTERSAVE method (Scazzosi, 2002):the interest goes to buildings that define the ‘scene’ of public spaces, and not the internal partof the lots, that in other countries such as Italy are equally considered.

44. The famous procedure of the overlay mapping of I.L. McHarg (McHarg, 1969) was until the1980s an essential reference in many countries (France, Italy, Great Britain). The willingness tofind a quantitative assessment has guided the procedures developed for landscape—some yearsago, on the basis of Anglo-Saxon experiences—in Spain for the Ministry of Environment, butcurrently almost unused (Ottone, in Scazzosi, 2002), or in Poland, but complementary to otherkinds of analysis and assessments (Bossi, in Scazzosi, 2002). The methodologies for Environmen-tal Impact Assessment (EIA), at least in Italy, usually try to find unitary modalities to measureand assign a value to the characters of environment and landscape. The methodologies ofLandmaps in Wales and of LCA in England use both synthetic assessments (for example, good,medium, bad) and descriptions including images and texts about the characters and values ofplaces and their constitutive elements, from a cultural, visual, historic or other point of view(Breda & Vesey, in Scazzosi, 2002).

45. In developing handbooks and guidelines, the experience of Great Britain is undoubtedly thewider and the more experimented: agencies and local bodies recur to specific categories, for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Reading and Assessing the Landscape 353

example farmers (the guidelines are often linked to possible aids), the inhabitants of smallcentres, involved even in the formulation of the choices (in particular with an instrument calledthe Village Design Statement), or of rural areas having specific features (for example, dry-stonewalls, hedges dividing the fields, etc.). France too is very familiar with the guidelines to preserveor transform the landscape quality: many documents are addressed to technicians and landown-ers and provide them with indications about, for example, the shapes, colours, materials andexternal furniture for industrial or residential areas, etc., or the botanic species and theequipment modalities for plantations, especially conceived for specific landscape areas; the‘Charte paysagere’ also includes many representations and synthetic descriptions aiming atencouraging the widest social participation.

46. Many studies on landscape planning have analysed the dynamics of places, both from thenaturalistic and environmental point of view, and from the point of view of the soil, settlements,and social, economic and productive changes that take account of both the past and possiblefuture developments. In contrast, only a few studies have tended to identify and map concretelyand systematically (not just running through them again historically in the culture) the changesover time of men’s perception of a specific place, of the ‘cultural lens’ through which places havebeen observed and assessed, either by the higher and international culture or by the more localand popular one. The above-mentioned experiences of France (IAURIF) and of the LombardyRegion and Province of Milan (see endnotes 38 and 39), are an indispensable cognitive reference.The research ‘Let’s Care Method’, already mentioned (see endnote 39), has also produced acritical reading of the changes over time of the attributions of meaning, with which the analysedareas have been considered by the expert culture. Another interesting source is the legalconstraints for the preservation of places in countries like Italy and France, which use this kindof instrument.

47. The problem of the relationship between landscape planning and town and land-use planninghas been tackled during the meeting of the Workshops for the promotion of the EuropeanLandscape Convention, at the Council of Europe. See in particular the text of F. Zoido Naranjo(2004).

48. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. For UNESCO policies onlandscape, see UNESCO, 2003, 1980; Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali, 1998; Droste etal., 1995.

49. For some years now, before acknowledging any site as World Heritage, UNESCO has asked fora Management Plan. There exist various examples of such plans (one of the first was in GreatBritain for the large linear site of Adrian Valley, or for the archaeological site of Stonehenge).Moreover, a guideline document is under preparation that will help draw up such a technicalinstrument. The protected areas, such as national or regional natural parks, generally have anadministrative body and a management plan and programme (France, Germany, Italy, Spain,etc.). Another useful source is to be found in the management plans of historic gardens andparks, diffused in particular in Great Britain and Germany, that happen to involve territories oflarge dimensions. German landscape plans sometimes foresee some kind of organization in themanagement of general activities. In France, the various instruments for landscape planning andmanagement include various management modalities, such as the involvement of local bodies,institutions, public and private bodies, associations, the drawing up of guidelines and technicalhandbooks, etc.

50. In Italy, the recent ‘Codice per i Beni Culturali e il Paesaggio’ proposes a collaboration betweenthe decentralized offices of the State in charge of the preservation of historic heritage andlandscape (Superintendencies) and the local bodies, to choose the landscape contents that mustbe included in land-use planning or landscape planning; some regions, such as Umbria andLiguria, are experimenting with collaboration agreements between different sectors of theregional administrations and other local bodies. In Great Britain, the experience of the ThamesLandscape Strategy, which involved local bodies, public and private bodies and associationsfrom the diverse fields in charge of the transformation management and land use of the Thames,is another significant model (De Donno, in Scazzosi, 1999, pp. 120–123).

51. www.le-notre.org

References

Anon Feliu, C. (2001) Cultura y naturaleza. Textos internacionales (Torrelavega: Asociacion culturalPlaza Porticada).

Ashworth, G. & Howard, P. (Eds) (1999) European Heritage, Planning and Management (Exeter: IntellectBooks).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

354 L. Scazzosi

Assunto R. (1973) Il paesaggio e l’estetica (Naples: Giannini).Assunto R. (1984) Il parterre e i ghiacciai (Palermo, Novecento).Barker, P. (1977) Tecniche dello scavo archeologico (Milan: Longanesi)Bloch, M. (1952) Les Caracteres originaux de l’histoire rurale francaise (Paris). Italian transl. (1973) I

caratteri originali della storia rurale francese (Turin: Einaudi).Bogdanowsky, J. (1998) Konserwacja i ohcrona krajobrazu kulturowego (evolucja metody), in: Teki

Krakowski, VI (Krakow: Regionalny Osrodek Studiow) (with parallel English translation).Clementi, A. (Ed.) (2002) Interpretazioni di paesaggio (Rome: Meltemi).Corboz, A. (1983) Il territorio come palinsesto, Diogene, 121(January–March), pp. 14–35. Italian transla-

tion in: Casabella (1985), 516, pp. 22–27.Cosgrove, D. (1984) Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape (London: Croom Helm). Italian transl.

(1990) Realta sociali e paesaggio simbolico (Milan: UNICOPLI).DARC (Ministero per i beni e le attivita culturali, Direzione Generale per l’architettura e l’arte

contemporanea) (2003a) Quality of Contemporary Architecture in European Towns and Territories,21–23 November 2003, Bologna.

DARC (Ministero per i beni e le attivita culturali, Direzione Generale per l’architettura e l’artecontemporanea) (2003b) Quality of Contemporary Architecture in European Towns and Territories.Buyers, Contexts and Diffused Quality. Proceeding of 1st Preparatory Workshop, 15 May, Rome(including Italian and French versions).

DARC (Ministero per i beni e le attivita culturali, Direzione Generale per l’architettura e l’artecontemporanea) (2003c) Quality of Contemporary Architecture in European Towns and Territories.Design of the Infrastructure and Project Quality. Proceeding of 2nd preparatory workshop, 22September, Milan (including Italian and French versions).

Droste von, B., Plachter, H. & Rossler, M. (1995) Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value (New York:G. Fischer).

Eco, U. (1962) Opera Aperta. Forma e indeterminazione nelle poetiche contemporanee (Milan: Bompiani).Eco, U. (1990) I limiti dell’interpretazione (Milan: Bompiani).Fowler, P. J. (2003) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992–2002. UNESCO World Heritage Papers

no. 6 (Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).Franceschi, C. (1997) Du mot paysage et de ses equivalents dans cinq langues europeennes, in: M.

Collot (Ed.) Les enjeux du paysage, pp. 75–111 (Brussels: Ousia).Gambi, L. (1972) I valori storici dei quadri ambientali, in: Storia d’Italia, vol. I, pp. 5–60 (Turin:

Einaudi).Gambino, R. (1997) Conservare innovare. Paesaggio, ambiente, territorio (Turin: Utet).Gibson, J. J. (1950) The Perception of the Visual World (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).Gombrich, E., Hochberg, J. & Black, M. (1972) Art, Perception, and Reality (Baltimore & London: Johns

Hopkins University Press). Italian transl. (1978) Arte, percezione e realta. Come pensiamo le immagini(Turin: Einaudi).

Guichonnet, P. (1998) Il paesaggio, in: D. Benetti & S. Lange (Eds) Il paesaggio lombardo, pp. 15–22(Sondrio: Regione Lombardia).

Gurrieri, F. (1983) Dal restauro dei monumenti al restauro del territorio (Florence: Sansoni).ICOMOS (2001) Carta di Cracovia 2000 “Principi per la conservazione e il restauro del patrimonio

costruito”, Il Giornale dell’Arte, no. 195 (January).Ittelson, W. H. (Ed.) (1973) Environment and Cognition (New York: Academic Press). Italian transl.

(1978) La psicologia dell’ambiente (Milan: Franco Angeli).Lange, S. (1999) Soggetti. Storia. Paesaggio (Milan: Mursia).Lange, S. (2000) Scuole e correnti dell’analisi storica del paesaggio. Il Novecento, in: Proceeding of the

Let’s Care Method Workshop, ‘Paesaggio’, Venice, 23 June, available on CD, Regione Veneto (2000),Interreg II C-CADSES—Let’s care method.

Le Goff, J. (1977) Storia e memoria (Turin: Einaudi).Luginbul, I. (1994) Methode pour des Atlas de Paysages. Identification et qualification (Paris: Ministere de

l’Amenagement du Territoire, de l’Equipement et des Transports).Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Italian transl. (1964) L’immagine

della citta (Venice: Marsilio).Mangani, G. (1987) Verso un nuovo concetto di paesaggio, in: M. Boriani & L. Scazzosi (Eds) Natura

e architettura. La conservazione del patrimonio paesistico, pp. 19–42 (Milan: Citta studi).McHarg, I. L. (1969) Design with Nature (New York: Doubleday/Natural History Press).Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali (Eds) (1998) Il paesaggio culturale nelle strategie europee.

Proceedings of the meeting, Turin, 16–17 May 1996 (Naples: Electa).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Reading and Assessing the Landscape 355

Monti, G. (1995) La conservazione dei beni culturali nei documenti italiani e internazionali. 1931–1991(Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato).

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1979) Genius Loci. Paesaggio ambiente architettura (Milan: Electa) (Italian transl.).Olwig, K. (2002) Landscape, Nature, and the Body Politic: From Britain’s Renaissance to America’s New

World (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press).Pareyson, L. (1988) Estetica (Milan: Bompiani).Regione Lombardia (1987) Ecologia, Ambiente, Ricerche, no. 1, pp. 92–95.Regione Lombardia (1994) Indirizzi per la tutela, conservazione e gestione di parchi, giardini e alter

architetture vegetali, Deliberazione della Giunta regionale, 18 maggio 1994, no. 5/52777, BollettinoUfficiale della Regione Lombardia, 30, 29 July 1994, 3rd extra number.

Regione Sardegna (2002) Paesaggi mediterranei e alpini, Progetto Interreg II C Med-Occ (Cagliari:Doglio).

Riegl, A. (1903) Der moderne Denkmalkultus, sein Wesen, seine Entstehung (Einleitung zumDenkmalschutzgesetz) (Wien: Braunmuller). Italian transl. (1982) Il moderno culto dei monumenti. Lasua essenza, il suo sviluppo. Introduzione alla legge sulla protezione dei monumenti, in: G. La Monica(Ed.) Alois Riegl. Scritti sulla tutela e il restauro, pp. 27–82 (Palermo: Ila Palma).

Ritter, J. (1963) Landscaft (Munster: Verlag Aschendorff).Scazzosi, L. (1993) Il giardino opera aperta. La conservazione delle architetture vegetali (Florence: Alinea).Scazzosi, L. (1999) (Ed.) Politiche e culture del paesaggio. Esperienze internazionali a confronto (Landscape

Policies and Culture. A Comparison of International Experiences) (Rome: Gangemi).Scazzosi, L. (2001a) (Ed.) Politiche e culture del paesaggio. Nuovi confronti (Landscape Policies and Culture.

New Comparisons) (Rome: Gangemi).Scazzosi, L. (2001b) (Ed.) The Landscape Heritage: Study Methods and Indicators for Landscape Planning

and Governance. The Torcello and Altino case-study, Programma Interreg II C- CADSES “Let’s caremethod” (Milan: Politecnico di Milano).

Scazzosi, L. (2002) (Ed.) Leggere il paesaggio. Confronti internazionali (Reading the Landscape. InternationalComparisons) (Rome: Gangemi).

Schama, S. (1995) Landscape and Memory (London: Harper Collins).Sereno P. (1992) L’archeologia del paesaggio agrario: una nuova frontiera di ricerca, in: M. Boriani

& L. Scazzosi (Eds) (1992) Natura e Architettura, pp. 51–72 (Milan: Citta Studi).Simmel, G. (1912–13) Filosofia del paesaggio, in: G. Simmel (1985) Il volto e il ritratto. Saggi sull’arte,

pp. 71–83 (Bologna: Il Mulino) (Italian transl.).Turri, E. (1974) Antropologia del paesaggio (Milan: Ed. di Comunita).Turri, E. (1979) Semiologia del paesaggio italiano (Milan: Longanesi).United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Ed.) (2003) Cultural

Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation, Proceedings of the Workshop, 11–12 November 2002, Ferrara.UNESCO World Heritage Papers, no. 7 (Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization).

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) German Commission(1980) Protection and Cultural Animation of Monuments, Sites and Historic Towns in Europe (Melsun-gen-Bonn: Bernecker).

Venturi Ferriolo, M. (1996) Leggere il mondo. Il paesaggio documento della natura e della storia, in:A-Letheia. Giardino e paesaggio. Conoscenza, conservazione, progetto, no. 7, pp. 130–131 (Florence:Alinea).

Venturi Ferriolo, M. (1999) Lineamenti di estetica del paesaggio, in: M. Venturi Ferriolo, M.Giacomini & L. Pesci, E. (Eds) Estetica del paesaggio, Antologia (Milan: Guerini).

Venturi Ferriolo, M. (2002) Etiche del paesaggio (Rome: Editori Riuniti).Zoido Naranjo, F. (2004) Landscape and Spatial Planning, T-FLOR 4, available at www.coe.int/Eu-

ropeanLandscapeConvention

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

23:

55 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011