Landscape perceptions and experiences


The aims of this blog is
1) to gather material which helps us to view 'Landscape' from many different perspectives (Science, Phenomenology, Aesthetics, Ethics etc)
2) and secondly to record 'Landscape experiences' from our workshops (Reports) and my own experiences (Diary).
For our workshops see our website

My Articles

This page will contain some of my articles; 
The first one is my Goethean Science essay, which I did for my university course. The main subject is what do we experience through the senses. You have to imagine that it is written on paper and not on a screen. And by the way I could also have called it  'Phenomenological Science'! 
The second article is ' Landscape, the reality where in we live'  was meant for publication, but it was not accepted! I agree as I am not a good writer, but it does contain the story how I came to do Landscape Perception Courses.
The third article is entitled:  Aesthetics; A new way of knowing...or of experiencing?,which was my assignment for my university course in 2012. This a fairly good article and was well received, so have a go at it!

The Importance of Goethean Science for the Future
In this paper I would like to address
a) Through a study of the senses in an experiential way, a foundation of how we experience the world and ourselves.
b) Through an epistemological study to see where natural science went wrong particularly in its presuppositions and thereby to justify the Goethean approach.
c) And then relate the importance of Goethean science to the needs of modern man.
Part one; What do we experience through the senses?
Sense of Touch
Most likely you will have this piece of paper in your hands and be touching the paper from two sides, back and front. Try to put your consciousness there where you touch the paper and you will become aware that you experience a boundary. Not only the paper’s but also your own boundary. The paper can’t be there where you are.
So with this sense we become aware of other physical boundaries and the boundary of our physical body.
Sense of Life (Somatic sense)
We are not normally aware of this, only when we have a feeling of being well or unwell. By inhaling and exhaling air and taking in food we become aware that our body occupies space, has a certain volume. When we are tired we have to exert energy, we experience our body as having mass.
With the piece of paper you have in your hands, you become aware not only of its volume, but also that it has a certain mass.

Sense of Movement (Kinaesthetic sense)
We become aware of movements mainly in relation to muscle movements. Through this we become aware of form.
If you want to know the form of the paper, without using your eyes, you need to go over it with your hands and using a combination of the senses mentioned before, you become aware of the overall form, size and quality of the paper.
Sense of Balance
With this sense we become aware of above and below, right and left, front and back. This sense enables us to orient our bodies in space. We stand upright in space, against the force of gravity. Through balance we become aware also that other forces like gravity are present.
The piece of paper in your hands is orientated within a 3-dimensional space.
All the above senses make us aware of our bodily organism with its boundary, volume, weight and form in space. Let us call them the bodily senses.
Now it is important to realize that the eye incorporates the four above senses through its muscle movements. We have two eyes, which we can focus and as it were touch the surface of objects.
You can’t look through the paper, there is a boundary. But on the left or right or above or below you can look further.
Your eyes scan the outline of the patch of colour (white paper A4 size) and if you hold the paper sideways, it has a certain thickness.
Here it is the sense of movement you use. Please note it is the muscle movements, which are primarily involved in the processes above, not solely the optic organ.
Also the sense of balance is involved. If you tilt your head the letters are still the right way up or when you turn the paper the letters are not straight up.
These four bodily senses convey the so-called primary qualities, Space, Matter, Time, Force and Energy.
Classical Science bases itself on these as being the only objective reality of the world, independent of human experience and has used them as its objective base. However we have now realised that this is not the case.
If not, then you have to do the exercises more slowly. It might help to do it blindfolded!
What we experience in relation to the outside world is at the same time how we experience our body. Both are in a certain aspect outside ourselves, but because we identify ourselves with our body we see the ‘outer’ world as outside ourselves.
Now we will continue with the next four senses.
Sense of Smell
With this sense we come to a more conscious relationship with the outside world. In this case the outside world penetrates us, we can’t stop a smell, although after a short time we don’t notice the smell anymore. The smell is always very particular, (smell the paper!) and we can always (but with difficulty) relate it to a particular chemical substance.
Our sense of smell is relatively weak, with animals it is very well developed.
Smell is the initial sense through which we really become aware of qualities of the outer world and at the same time we become conscious of ourselves (the smell is not us!) and that we are separate.

Sense of Taste
With this sense we have to take in substance and dissolve it. This sense also relates us to particular qualities of the substance we have taken in. A taste is long lasting and is more intimate than smell, although the sense of smell is also involved with taste.
Sense of Vision
What is the main thing we see; colours
We don’t see form and movement because of the eye itself but because we move the eye muscles. If you stare you don’t see forms.
So what do you see when you look at the paper you have in your hands. Black and white patches.
You don’t see words. I know you do because you have learned to read, but if I would write in Chinese, (中國) then it would be clear to you what I mean.
So what is colour? Without prism experiments it is only possible for me to touch on a few aspects of this.

If we look at both the dark and light side of the horizon during sunset/sunrise we see colours arising.
When darkness is lightened through a lightened medium (=atmosphere) we see respectively blue, indigo and violet. If light is darkened through the atmosphere we see respectively yellow, orange and red.
If through the use of a prism we can let the blue and yellow meet, then green arises.
If through the use of a prism we can let violet and red meet then magenta arises.
Colours we can arrange in a colour circle, which we can’t do with electromagnetic waves.
Colours also effect our feelings very strongly. Just imagine you are in a bright yellow room or a blue one!

Another phenomenon is that the eye is very active.
Concentrate on one of the colour squares below and then direct your gaze onto a blank sheet. You will see what is called the after image.


Another peculiarity of the eye is that it is actually a part of the brain, so in a certain aspect, we think with the eye. And through this we can have optical illusions. It is not the eyes which give the illusion, but the thinking, otherwise we wouldn’t come to know it is an illusion.
Also what we see depends on our intentionality. To illustrate
In fig 3 you will notice a whitish rectangle and in fig 4 partly too. (It is actually not.  Either you can see it as that the rectangle is off see through material, so you can see the black circles in totality or and that is more difficult,  that the whitish part of the rectangle is part of the whole sheet, but the darker grey is part of a grey rectangle which you can only partly see through the back holes.  Got it?  Once you have it, you can shift back to your old way of thinking and then back again.
The upshot of this is that we have a very free relationship with the visual world.
Freedom of choice; we don’t have to look in a certain way, we can change our point of view, change our interest and intentionality.

Etc. And what we see depends very much on our way of thinking!
Sense of Warmth
Here we are not becoming aware of a certain temperature but the in and outflow of warmth in or out of our body. Warmth or cold penetrates our whole being, so in this respect we are certainly involved in the world.
The above four senses relate us more deeply with certain qualities of the world.
The first two, more with the essence of material quality, the last two more with the imponderable quality. As these senses are more consciously experienced and we are more involved, they were regarded as subjective and for this reason they are said to convey secondary qualities.
Now to the next and last four senses.
Sense of Hearing
Rustle the papers or hit them on an object and listen to the sounds and you become aware of the materials involved; wood, metal, paper or cloth etc. It is the otherness we become aware of, not so much ourselves.
You don’t hear vibrations of air. You might feel them but not hear them.
If there are two tones, then you hear the interval. And if the tone sequence becomes more complicated, but still in a certain order, you will hear music.
Sense of Word
This is not usually recognised as a sense, but without it we would constantly have to make an effort to see how the black forms on this paper form letters and then words.
Perhaps with speech it is clearer. If somebody is speaking to us and we concentrate on the sounds alone we would not know what words they were.
What actually happens is that we ignore the letters or sounds, but see or hear the whole combination as a word.
Sense of Thought
If we only concentrate on the words, we wouldn’t know the meaning. This for example happens when we don’t understand a word at all and we reread the word more exactly, but this doesn’t help. So when we read or listen, we don’t have just to ignore the sounds, but even the words in order to experience the meaning.
Sense of Ego
When we listen to someone intently, penetrating behind all the sounds, words and thoughts we start to meet the other. We learn to be aware of the other person as an individuality.

With the above four senses we become more aware of the otherness of the world. They relate us more with the spiritual side of the world, with the other beings in nature, but we have to use at the same time the faculties of our own spirituality or being.
Summary of the above in a historical context
Modern consciousness came about at the beginning of the scientific revolution when scholars, intellectuals etc strove to become more independent and wanted to get away from dogmas and learn from their own observations. Also at this time ordinary people became more aware of their individuality. Before that they were totally involved in their practical affairs and didn’t think independently or perhaps better said abstractly. This was only reserved for the privileged classes (scholars).
But to reiterate, the scholars e.g. Galileo, divided the world up into primary and secondary qualities.  What Galileo forgot was his own involvement with the four bodily senses and he was unaware of his own thinking activity.
Since the battle between nominalism and realism (Averoes and Aquino) thoughts were mainly experienced as names or words. This is still present in the many branches of knowledge and our own consciousness. We experience our thinking as a private affair, that it has no connection with the world.
But is thinking not just that element in the human being, which makes us human and is the faculty which connects us with everything that is in the world?
Part two; Epistemological justification of Goethean Science
What have we done in the above explorations of the senses?
1) Within the world of perception we took out certain items and related them to each other and ourselves through our thinking.
Because we are actively involved in creating thoughts and relating them to each other and our sense perceptions, we are unaware that we do it. Normally we reflect on the process only afterwards.
2) Pure thinking is not a subjective activity, "because the subject does not think, because it is a subject. Rather it appears to itself as subject, because it can think."

3) Through thinking’s analytic activity (intellect) we take out certain aspects of the experiential world (this includes ourselves) and relate them to each other. One thing is more important than the other; one thing is more essential than the other etc. With this activity we discover only a part of reality. However using thinking’s synthetic activity (reason) we need to put this part of reality back into its original context. To discover the whole of reality we would need to look again at other relationships within the context of the whole.
E.g. How far do we use the sense organs in combination? Or can we look at the sense organs from an embryological point of view? Etc.
4) So what is perception? Actually it is does not make sense to ask this as it is simply given. Colours, smells, boundaries etc. all unconnected! 
So there is no ground for differentiating within the sense-perceptible world between primary or secondary perceptions. They just are. We can only ask how does thinking relate these sense perceptual qualities.
Because classical science based itself only on the lower bodily senses it saw the world only as pieces of material, and interestingly, thought according to the nature of that world. Quite rightly we explain the physical world by causal thinking, because that is the nature of the physical world. A physical object only moves through a cause outside of itself, which precedes it in time.
However to understand living organisms we need to follow changing and moving forms and this needs pictorial thinking and this is what Goethean Science calls Imagination.
Living creatures develop over time; therefore we need to form pictures of their changing state, which correspond to the sense-perceptible reality. This needs inner activity and a great effort since we have to make ourselves as an instrument for letting the object concerned, I would say express itself in us.
When we manage this, we soon realise that this activity corresponds with a certain activity in the object concerned. We come aware of it’s gestures, mainly expressed in movement of form, colours etc. This step is called Inspiration.
Next we need to somehow ignore all the impressions and then we are able to perceive/experience the inner being of the object concerned. This step is called Intuition. 
The above sequence is similar to the steps from the four bodily senses (form and movement) to the four middle senses (a more personal relationship) and then on to the higher senses where we have to let go of outer sound/letter, outer speech/word and thought and come to the core of the being that is before us.
From the above it becomes clear that this way of science involves our whole being. Not only thinking, but also our feeling, which is used as an instrument to let the being and its manifestations, enters us. This certainly engages our will, as it demands a selfless effort.
Is this not the most important aspect needed to overcome the present ‘on-lookers consciousness’, so that we can integrate wholesomely within the world?
Appendix;
I would like to refute one obstacle to the above in science and philosophy.
And that is the opinion that colour and sound, smell etc are not real, but brought to us by physical paths to our senses and then somehow transferred to our mind etc.
In other words the world we see is not real and we can never know the thing itself. (Kant)
How was the discovery of all these physical processes such as electromagnetic waves, airwaves etc achieved? Through observation and thinking!
That is through observation with the eye, hearing with the ear etc. So this whole philosophy is based on the opinion that the sense-perceptible world shows us part of reality after all! So it proves its theory by a theory (Naïve realism), which it rejected! 
And what do we come to know? Electromagnetic waves, airwaves etc, but this is not colour or sound.  Of course there are relationships between these phenomena, but to say colours are electromagnetic waves etc this is the same as saying that the black forms you are now reading are thoughts.
It is through your activity with the words (in relation to the letters, in relation to black ink) that thoughts come into being and I hope they are the same thoughts I put into letters, words etc, so we can understand each other.
--------------------------------------------
The following article was written just after I was realizing all the different dimensions of 'Landscape' and so it is a bit biographical and when I look back on it then a better title would have been; How I discovered 'Landscape'


Landscape, The Reality in Which We Live.
A step on the road to self-knowledge through landscape.

I was born on a farm in Holland in the early fifties, when there were still no tractors around and many different crops were grown. We had 12 horses, cattle for manuring the arable land, pigs, chickens, geese, meadows with ponds, hedges full of birds, vegetable gardens etc. Many people were working on the farm and I spent most of my time playing or working on the farm with friends from the village.
Ten years later there were two tractors on the farm, loads of machinery and only 3 crops grown and one farm manager ran it all.

At school in physics we were taught that the world consists of red balls and white balls (protons and electrons). Our biology teacher taught us that we are dependent on hereditary and stem from an ape, but luckily for me he also introduced the first ecology lessons. My luck (?) also brought me to anthroposophy and I realised that all the phenomena in the outside world were related and part of a long history. Also what was happening within me (life processes, feelings, thoughts, will impulses etc) was finally acknowledged.
After studying at Biodynamic Agricultural College I worked on biodynamic farms in England until in my late 40s, when we moved to France, where I immediately encountered the healing gifts of our beautiful surroundings. Our landscape gave me so much, but what was it? “Why can the landscape be so beautiful?” and “What could I do in return?”
“What actually is a landscape?” was a question I lived with for a long time.
On studying Owen Barfield I learned that the way we experience things, depends on the kind of consciousness we have. I could relate to his description of the participating consciousness in the past and to the experience of being cut off from the world.
Through Goethean Science I saw a way to dive into nature and become one with it, to understand the life of plants, animals and eco-systems, but still, what is the landscape?
As I am also organising holidays for people with leaning difficulties and one of our main activities is walking through the countryside and having picnics, it soon became apparent that I was not only me  who enjoyed the landscape. Also people here on holiday often say that being in this landscape made them feel whole.
So what is our connection to the landscape?
Perhaps others would also like to explore this question and so the idea was born to start landscape workshops.
Out of the blue (?) I learnt about an academic course in Values and Environment, which included Goethean Science as well as Environmental Ethics and Aesthetics & Environment and thought these studies might be very helpful in preparing for these workshops.
I hadn’t a clue what ethics was about and thought I had responded to nature all my life in a responsible ethical way as a biodynamic farmer or at least as good as is practically possible.
The course helped me to look at the environmental problems from many different points of view and I encountered some of the many people who were really struggling to come up with ideas to tackle the environmental crisis. But also in these studies I came up against certain dogmas, idols that are ingrained in our society; reductionism, Darwinism, materialism, etc.
What I found most astounding was that some people couldn’t understand or experience that plants and animals are actually Beings, a fact I have always taken for granted.
Was it because I had lived in the midst of them?
But shining through all these academic studies was also the demand that we need to change our consciousness.
While supplementing this course with anthroposophical studies, I came across the writings on ethics and farming by Henk Verhoog. In papers that are up to date and academically acceptable he expounds the integrity (the Being) of not only plants and animals, but also our eco-systems.(see Ethic pages)
Would this also extend to landscapes?
At this time I came across papers from my ex-biology teacher from the agricultural college, Jan Diek van Mansvelt, and to my surprise these were related to landscape! But more of that later.
I was doing the Goethean Science Module at the same time as the Ethics Module and as I have a lifelong interest in animals, I came upon the work of Marjorie Grene who made available to the English speaking public the works of continental zoologists and anthropologists such as Adolf Portmann, Helmuth Plessner, Kurt Goldstein, Erwin Strauss and F.J.J Buytendijk.
What fascinated me most were the observations made by Plessner about the differences between the mineral world, plants, animals and man.
We normally think of the skin as an enclosure, but he stresses that because of the presence of semi-permeable skin, the organism has a connection with its environment.
Physical or mineral objects occupy a space that is as large as their boundary, they have no skin, and whatever happens to them is causal.
The plant organism takes space (grows) and has a semi-permeable skin and through that skin it has a give and take relationship with its environment. The form of - and the processes within- the organism are largely determined by the organism itself (it’s characteristic type) but in a reciprocal relationship with outside factors, such as water and light. These processes are immediate.
Now the animal develops through gastrulation, through internalising the first skin, forming the intestinal channel and lungs within the now second outer skin.
Through this it has an extra inner world and at the same time an extra connection with the outer world. It experiences its own inner world and through the senses its environment.
Through this the animal becomes more independent of its surroundings, it can now move around, but on the other hand the relationship with its environment is rather narrow and fixed. The animal only notices certain elements of the environment. For a cat, cabbage doesn’t exist, but for a cow it does. An animal is larger than its enclosing skin, it is as large as its particular environment, we call this it’s territory.
With us, human beings another progression takes place.
We have our inner world of thought and at the same time we have an even broader awareness of our environment, for us everything exists; the cabbage, the cat and the cow. The relationship between thought and outer world is free and not fixed. We have the possibility to determine what we notice and think.
Looking at our skin, it is in a certain sense not very individual, compared to animals, it is more exposed and open (naked) and apart from a slight colour difference we have all the same (second) skin.
So where is the third skin? I pondered this overnight and the next morning: Eureka! Isn’t it in a certain sense our clothes?
Because we are increasingly more individual and independent, this is reflected in our choice of clothing and we no longer wear local costume as my grandmother did. When we wear certain costumes such as fashion, uniform, grey suits, what are we saying?

The third module of the course was Aesthetics and Environment.

Here again I found many papers very academic, making my head spin, on the other hand many of them were valuable because they were able to put into words our daily sense-perceptible experiences and feelings towards natural and cultural features.
Turning from rather academic papers on Aesthetics and Environment, I reread the articles by Georg Mayer in ‘Being on Earth, Practice in Tending the Appearances”.
But before I continue it might be good to become aware of the different aspects of vision and thinking.viii
 It is important to differentiate between:
  1.    Seeing - pure sense–perceptional qualities in relation to sight. In the first instance we talk about images only, which consist of different shades of colour and as we are constantly moving our eyes we become aware of forms. I could imagine painters might be able to look this way and it certainly needs an effort to simply see that way. Just try it! 
  2.   Noticing – seeing plus other sense-perceptional qualities such as touch, smell etc. Because of our in body experiences and the sense of touch, we have become aware of other bodies and so ‘notice’ physical objects occupying space and having weight, even when we see them from a distance. Please note; Here thinking has plays a role!
  3. Think we see - which we often do when we project a quality on to an object or appearance, but when you look carefully, it is not totally like that. Green tree, grey building, brown field.
  4. Thinking abstractly- Lastly we ascribe meaning to many appearances with the help of concepts, which relate mainly to what they meant for us in the past.
I will point you to some examples/experiments in a minute and will try to use the expressions ‘seeing’, noticing’ and ‘think we see’ etc.

Georg Maier starts from the point of view that what we notice depends on our intentionality. We only see what we want to see!
A builder notices houses, a farmer notices crops, a landscape painter notices colours and forms etc.
Maier goes on to show that if we look more aesthetically towards the world and let our thoughts be guided by what we see, then we realise that the way things look depends on the surrounding, other objects around give shade or reflect light etc. The whole image is interrelated; everything is part of a whole, even our point of view. And the main elements that bring this about are light and our thinking. Observing  in this way helps us to start to think holistically.

For example we walk through a field of dandelions.
Now. We can say, they are dandelions and then continue our walk.
But how do we know that they are dandelions? Most likely we select common characteristics e.g. leaf rosette, yellow flower of a particular colour or their stem, or their seed heads. And they correspond with what we have learned in the past in the form of concepts.
But is this what we actually see? From a distance it might be the particular yellow colour or the light luminous seed heads that draws our attention, but if we are nearer we could notice that not each dandelion is the same.
Each one expresses not only that it is a dandelion, but also the particular circumstances in which it grows. In a damp and shady environment the leaves will be more fleshy green, but on a sunny dry place the leaves will be small and more variegated. Not only that but what we see depends on which time of day or year etc. If we look aesthetically we are confronted with the present situation.

Or to take another example, the tree in front of your house looks very different in the morning or the evening, because of the differing light. Some of the leaves might be red, or shining brightly (reflecting the light) etc. even if you think you see them as green! And this also depends on where you are standing!
But you may also notice that the form of the tree is determined according to the light circumstances. Many more factors are interlinked. So this image of the tree can tell you not only about the tree but also its surrounding environment.

It is not easy to describe what is meant by aesthetic experience, but I found it very illuminating to look at the same landscape throughout the course of the year and actually to look at what we see without defining what the objects are.

Then we will notice that we see different patches of colour and although they change throughout the day and year they form a harmonious whole. But they are the same trees, hills etc! Although in one of the photos, the yellow patch is rape and in the other photo, the yellow patch is a field of sunflowers! You might have a go and guess which photo is taken in spring and which in summer.


Another aspect that Georg Maier brings is that our perceptional experiences are related to our biography. The world presents us with an infinite number of vistas, but we notice only that with which we have a connection. Why is it that some image or object makes an impression on us and some others don’t?
In other words we often go forward to meet our destiny in the world through a certain image.
Garibaldi, for example, first saw his future wife through binoculars!

I hope through these examples I have been able at least to give you some hints as to how one can see the world in many different ways.

This kind of knowledge based on aesthetics we can only acquire when we are really there with the phenomenon, that is, we have to be on earth. It needs a presence of mind.
If one looks at the history of art, it is only since the 15th century that people actually painted landscapes, that is saw landscapes! It looks like we have only recently come down to earth.
Is Aesthetics then not a new way to approach the world?
In the Western World we have been used to acquiring knowledge by accentuating common factors, common natural laws, the essential, the things behind the phenomena.
Is it not high time that we come to our senses!
I don’t want to say that the aesthetic approach is the only way to know the world but it is the most accessible as it is the one we mostly use during our practical daily life and also it is an approach that in modern life is becoming increasingly significant.
Until now there has been an almost religious respect for science with the idea that it is objective and morally neutral, but it neglects what we actually see and what we experience, which is the world we really live in.
We judge many things by how they look. If it doesn’t fit or is not appropriate then we call it inharmonious or we could even call it wrong. It is now beyond doubt that aesthetically pleasing surroundings benefit the well being of people even if they don’t notice it.
Just imagine a high rise flat in the middle of the Cotswolds. Or a Cotswold house in the middle of New York.

To summarize the above;
If we learn to think according to what we observe and experience or to think with the phenomena, then we achieve personally acquired knowledge, it’s from our own experience and we can communicate it to others.
If we realise at the same time that we always have certain intentions that guide us to a certain point of view, then we will realise that the truth we communicate to others is from our viewpoint and that they will have another.

Is this not the reason why Steiner described many things from different points of view?
The problem is not that we all have many different viewpoints, but problems arise when we think ours is the only right one!
Or as Rudolf Steiner puts it;
“One can put into things only what one has experienced within oneself.
Thus, each person, in accordance with his individual experiences, will also put something different, in a certain sense, into things…. It is not at all a matter, however, of all men having the same thoughts about things, but rather only of their living within the element of truth when they think about things.”
“When a thing expresses its essential being through the organ of the human spirit, then the full reality comes about only through the flowing together of the outer objective and the inner subjective. …Reality is not present in the objective world as something finished, but rather is only brought forth by the human spirit in connection with the things."

Now let us go back to my discovery of the papers by Jan Diek van Mansvelt and his colleague Bas Pedroli. Both have worked with other people all over Europe in helping to bringing about the European Landscape Convention.
Reading their papers on Landscape I noticed that they had put many of my own experiences into words, but also a whole new world opened for me and couldn’t understand how I could have missed seeing or noticing it before!
When I wanted to start my workshops my website was called ‘regarding nature’ as for me I saw mainly the natural aspects of the landscape as I totally ignored the social, political and economic factors and that different people saw different things and have different values.

I will just mention a few aspects of the main concepts.
People have realised that when we want to understand the Landscape, we need multi- and inter-disciplinary approaches, i.e. geology, biology, history, sociology, ecology etc.  In my opinion the opposite is also true, that when we study in landscapes rather than classrooms we learn what there is to know of the world by experience and realise that everything is interrelated.
Secondly we live in landscapes that have been changed through the centuries by people modifying their environment.
And thirdly “a landscape is an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors. Our landscapes continue to change; people’s perceptions change all the time too”
This last thought has become the first line of the European Landscape Convention.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A conceptual model for landscape by Bendetta Castiglioni

The bottom plane represents the space, the territory, in which many different elements have their place, but which we actually don’t see. In this plane we have two elements, nature and culture involved in a close and complex reciprocal relationship.
The second plane represents the actual landscape that we see. There three sub-systems are related to each other. These are natural features (relief forms, vegetation etc) and the human features (i.e. buildings, villages and town, or land-cover and land-use forms, or infrastructures).Both these feature categories are related with material, tangible components of landscape. However the third subsystem includes all the non-material, non-tangible landscape features: namely the significances and the values assigned to the landscape, either in the aesthetic sphere, or in the affective one(landscape as a part of own identity), or in the symbolic one (when certain landscape elements can provide specific significances to people perceiving them).This third subsystem significantly determines how we see our landscapes! It is as it were the glasses we look through.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past most people worked on the land and together they shaped the landscape. But now it needs to be done in a more conscious way. In the past we were less individual, had a more common view and could develop harmonious landscapes (Dutch, English or German ones etc)

  Now we all have our individual perceptions and values and so we can only create harmonious landscapes when each of us, together with others, is involved in a our local landscape and each is open to the other peoples views.
To understand landscape we need to identify and assess landscape, we need to learn its biography, its genii loci. Nature and culture are intertwined so we have to include the history and character of the inhabitants. This understanding is needed so that the local people, professionals and developers can shape continuing landscape change.

I have experienced the change from a diversified farm embedded in a community, although in an unconscious way, to a mono-cultured farm isolated from the rest. No wonder this all speaks to me.

The realisation has come to me that the “Landscape” is the reality of the world in which we live.
The course in Values and Environment and my landscape experiences has been for me a step on the road to self-knowledge through the landscape.

With my workshops I also hope to achieve that with each individual participating, we come to a common experience of the landscape through our individual experiential perceptional (=aesthetic) contributions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next article is based on an assignement I had to do because of my Master Course in Social & Educational Research at the University of Oslo in January 2012.

Aesthetics as a way of knowing
….or of experiencing?
By Adriaan Luijk

How can one want to think deeply,
when such worlds enters your eyes just like that, with cows and all?



The role of sensing and thinking in knowing.
Lieurac, France, 9th January, 2012
This was originally an assignment for my course in social & environmental educational research at the Rudolf Steiner University in Oslo, but also presented in the form of an presentation at the Goethean Science Conference, Stourbridge in February 2012.

Contents

Foreword
1. The Neglected Programme of Aesthetics
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Aesthetics as the Philosophy of Sensitive Knowledge.
1.3 Beauty (Pulchritido) as the basic concept of Baumgarten's Aesthetica and Perfectio as a central perennial task.
1.4 An Aesthetic Anthropology
1.5 Conclusion
2. Rudolf Steiner's Theory of Knowledge
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Goethe's Epistemology
2.3 Knowing and Human Action in the Light of Goethean Thinking
2.3.1 Methodology
2.3.2 Dogmatic and Immanent Methods
2.3.3 The System of Science
2.3.4 Ethical and Historical Sciences
3. Georg Maier's Approach to Knowledge
3.1 Discovering Aesthetics
3.2 Aesthetics: Appreciating the Appearances
3.2.1 Appreciating as a Mode of Cognition
3.2.2 How Logic Works
3.2.3 Aesthetics; a Mode of Cognition complimentary to Logic
3.2.4 Skilled Expression of the Truth
3.2.5 Aesthetics Cognition happens during Perception
3.2.6 Levels of Intentional Activity
4. Intermezzo
4.1 Conceptional Models and Aesthetic Appearance
4.2 Objective and Subjective Aspects
4.3 Short Introduction to Modern Aesthetic Trends
5. Theories and Experiences in Personal and Professional Life

Foreword

In this essay I will explore the nature of knowledge, how it relates to the sense-perceptible and to the conceptual world, and how we as human beings are positioned within these two worlds.
In order to do so I will explore the origin of Aesthetics as a way of knowing through a study of Baumgarten's original intentions with the help of an article by Steffen Gross, entitled The Neglected Programme of Aesthetics. (Gross 2002) Secondly by exploring the nature of knowledge through two chapters by Rudolf Steiner entitled Goethe's Epistemology and Knowing and Action in Human Knowing. (Steiner 1988) And thirdly by exploring Georg Maier's approach to knowing, mainly through a chapter entitled Aesthetics, appreciating the appearances. (Brady, Edelglass, and Maier 2008) In the first three chapters I will summarise their thoughts in the light of the main theme and all quotes are from the relevant articles. Then as Intermezzo a chapter with some of my reflections, but at the same time it will be a preparation for the last chapter, where I describe how I found my way to Aesthetics and implemented it in my professional work. In order to do justice to Gross, Steiner and Maier, I could not make the first three chapters shorter, and so could not add a chapter about my personal epistemology, but my evolving epistemology becomes fairly evident throughout the essay, especially in the last chapter.

1.The Neglected Programme of Aesthetics

1.1 Introduction

Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (1714 -1762) published the first part of his two-volume Aesthetica in 1750 and founded a new philosophical discipline - modern aesthetics. However, partly because one of his pupils, G. Meier, wrote a very popular and accessible book relating aesthetics to art appreciation and partly because Baumgarten wrote in a very difficult language, not easy accessible, aesthetics was mainly applied to Art and its appreciation. In this paper Gross is trying to show that Baumgarten's original aim was to provide an “alternative approach to the philosophy of knowledge, experience and perception” (Ibid, p. 404) and that Baumgarten's Aesthetica is a profound contribution to the philosophy of the cultural sciences1 and humanities.

1.2 Aesthetics as the Philosophy of Sensitive Knowledge.

Baumgarten studied at the University of Halle, which was the centre of German Pietism, but also of rationalist Enlightenment. So he was brought up within two opposing streams, between the “inner sensibility of man” (Ibid, p. 406) and the more intellectual approach to the world. In that time the act of sense-perception was seen as acquiring information for intellectual deliberation. For Baumgarten it became evident that both pietism and enlightenment were one-sided and that an alternative theory of knowledge, more complex, more appropriate to ordinary experiences, was more and more urgent.” (Ibid, p. 408)
Baumgarten stresses our own creative activity in sense perception and cognition and also points us to the confused and indistinct character of the perceptional world. This last was generally seen as negative, but Baumgarten takes a positive stand, because reality cannot be grasped only by logical thinking, since this aims at generality and abstract concepts, whereas “the goal of cognito sensitiva is the grasp of the special, the particular, in the diversity and complexity of its relations and connections.” (Ibid, p. 409). The way to reach this is “sensitive perception and the cultivation of inner powers of representation” (Ibid, p. 409) and through this “effort to meet the goal of perfect (Perfectio) sensitive cognition, we experience what he calls beauty, Pulchritudo.” (Ibid, p. 410)

1.3 Beauty (Pulchritido) as the basic concept of Baumgarten's Aesthetica and Perfectio as a central perennial task.

For Baumgarten “Beauty is mainly an intellectual category closely related to his theory of cognition and knowledge.” (Ibid,p. 410) However, Perfectio is not a final situation, but rather an ongoing activity, as human beings are always evolving. As every cognitive act of man is “an abstracting activity, depending on and preconditioned by the circumstances of one's own” (Ibid, p. 410) limited position, this “implies the task, or better, the duty, not to take the part for the whole” (Ibid, p. 410) and that there is not only one answer. That there is one truth (rationalism) still has its foothold “in the sciences2 and humanities” (Ibid, p. 411). Acquaintance with aesthetics shows “that orthodox rationalism is a dead end” (Ibid, p. 412).

1.4 An Aesthetic Anthropology

Baumgarten searched for a theory of knowledge more related to our ordinary daily life, for him the image of man (felix aestheticus) was “the whole human being, accommodating within himself a great number of sometimes conflicting and contradictory faculties, forces, and poietic3 powers, a great number of different aims, some of them incommensurable with each other” (Ibid, p. 404) and wished that philosophy were more humanistic. According to Gross Baumgarten's Aesthetics as a theory of knowledge and a philosophical anthropology mirror each other;
To think beautifully, that is, to grasp the object in a way that acknowledges its embeddedness in the various relations that constitute its specific character, unavoidably presupposes a person in a continual process of developing all his powers and senses, and exploring them in all possible directions. (p. 412)

1.5 Conclusion

Why should we occupy ourselves with Baumgarten's intention? Because sensitive perception is “the essential foundation of man's experience of and access to reality” (Ibid, p. 413) and that we learn to see that acquiring knowledge is not a passive reception, “but an active doing and expressing” (Ibid, p. 413) “the special, the particular, the single individual” (Ibid, p. 413) of what we meet in the world, that is applying concepts that are able to bring about that the objects reappear within us.
Generally humanities “are unduly occupied with highly abstract and formalistic thinking of the so called 'hard' sciences and leaves no space for questions of the understanding of expression, sense, and meaning.” (Ibid, p. 413).

2. Rudolf Steiner's Theory of Knowledge


I am a God, in the depths of my thoughts,
And sit within my soul at the throne
over myself and All,....

1894 Willem Kloos4

What right do you declare the world
to be complete without thinking?
1894 Rudolf Steiner

2.1 Introduction

In Goethe's work Steiner found somebody who could reach the reality of ideas through the sense-perceptible world, which is nicely demonstrated when Schiller mentioned to Goethe that his archetypal plant was only an idea, where up Goethe replied, if that is so then I can see ideas! (Goethe, 1988). For Steiner, who experienced the spiritual world as a reality (Steiner, 1985), it must have been a relief to meet the works of a man who could, through keen observation and thinking along with the phenomena, come to a similar world-view as Steiner himself.5 In this essay I would like to draw attention firstly to the main aspects of Steiner's way of knowing (activity of thinking and reality of ideas) and secondly to his description of the 'particular' in connection to what we have discovered above, which, in my experience, is easily overlooked. I added an image in order to illustrate Steiner's thoughts.

2.2 Goethe's Epistemology

Illustration 1

Early on Steiner points out that we have to be aware that we perceive only colours, smells, tastes etc. and when we recognize objects, then we already apply thinking. In the image above we only see shapes of colour varying between black and white, unless we start to recognize what the picture represents, that is when we apply, through our own activity, the concept 'cow' following with 'young cow, 'looking at us', 'hayrack', 'in barn' etc. So first there is a coherence between some of the black and white forms to the unity 'cow' and then the cow in its relation to its surroundings, so “within reality, every single thing presents itself as a particular, quite definite “this”, surrounded by equally definite, actual, and reality-imbued “those”. The concept, as a strict unity, confronts this manifoldness” (Steiner 1988, p. 113) and thus one can say that “true knowing must acknowledge the fact that the direct form of the world given to sense perception is not yet its essential one, but rather that this essential form first reveals itself to us in a process of knowing” (Ibid, p. 107). However the concepts 'cow', 'hayrack', 'young', 'metal', etc. “add their content to that of perception, without eliminating the latter” (Ibid, p. 115). The picture now becomes the representation of the cow etc. The various concepts “are the essential beings of the perception, the actual driving and active principle in it” (Ibid, p. 115) and “require no going out beyond themselves” (Ibid, p. 122). “If they did not express their own being, then it would in fact also appear to us in the same way the rest of reality does: needing explanation” (Ibid, p. 122). And this is not the case as, once we know the picture is a representation of a cow we are satisfied.
However, when we bring forth the concepts 'cow', 'hayrack', 'looking at us' etc. they are general concepts, as “concepts do not know particularity at all” (Ibid, p. 114), so if we want to know 'particularity' then they “cannot be derived from the concepts, but rather must be sought within perception itself” (Ibid, p. 114); Young, black and white, metal, square(s) hay-rack etc. as experienced within observation!
One can see that in Steiner's view the idea is not only a reality, but actually the core, the essential aspect of the world and “if there were no thinking beings, these principles would, indeed, never come into appearance: but they would not therefore be any less the essence of the phenomenal world” (Ibid, p. 117) and this implies that only in regard to knowledge the world is split in the division of idea and percept, as in reality the phenomena is the expression of the inherent concept.6 For us as thinking beings, having access to general universal concepts, we reach between and beyond the sense-perceptible manifestation and re-cognise the correspondence between the inherent ideas and our applied general ideas. (Bunzl, 2008). This is the reason why we re-cognize things, as the sense perceptual world itself, never appears in the same way.7

2.3 Knowing and Human Action in the Light of Goethean Thinking

2.3.1 Methodology

Scientific method consist of a twofold thought activity: through the intellect we come to the idea of a certain phenomenon in clear contours and through reason to its relationship with the rest of the world of ideas. Steiner finds it self-evident that the world of ideas forms a harmonious (aesthetic?) whole and if an idea does not yet fit in, then our need for knowledge is not satisfied.

2.3.2 Dogmatic and Immanent Methods

In this chapter Steiner introduces the dogma of revelation, which was the form of science in the early days at the time when the church presented their theories without empirical evidence and the dogma of experience, which is the form of modern science (materialism), wherein it is considered that we can only describe external processes. Steiner's standpoint is idealism, because it sees in the idea the foundation of the world. It is realism because ideas are real and it is positivism or empiricism because it wants to arrive at the theory without any preconceptions. Steiner rejects metaphysics as he see no reason why we should leave the realm of experience, including thinking, which is an activity we are normally not aware off. (Steiner, 1964). As we can find everything within experience, the methods are not dogmatic, but immanent.8

2.3.3 The System of Science

In inorganic Science, the archetypal phenomenon is identical with the objective natural law, but within organic nature, we cannot explain the phenomenon by anything working in from outside as in the inorganic sciences, but we must derive it from within outward and we come to the Being of the plant or animal as 'Type'.

2.3.4 Ethical and Historical Sciences9

In this chapter Steiner states that man's highest purpose is to fulfil his own ideals and that one should always look from out of the perspective that cultural events are brought about through the realisation of human ideas.

3. Georg Maier's Approach to Knowledge


"Yet again had the feeling that Amsterdam belongs to me
and that I had created it myself.
What is also true as nobody sees it so"

Nescio10 from Nature Diary (10/7/1954)

3.1 Discovering Aesthetics

Also according to Georg Maier Baumgarten originally perceived aesthetics as a new way of knowing consisting of two activities; perceiving and representing and “certainly not just a theory of art11, or worse, a theory of producing pleasing impressions”(Ibid, p. 92). We have seen earlier12, that to grasp anything at all we engage in expressive activity even while we perceive. “Attending, organising through intentionality and then participating in the appearance are the valid realisation of Baumgarten's vision.” (Ibid, p. 92)

3.2 Aesthetics: Appreciating the Appearances

3.2.1 Appreciating as a Mode of Cognition

Aesthetic was developed by Baumgarten as a way of knowing directed “to the individual appearance itself, the aesthetician being an individual who finds the utmost truth in the specific experience and the less significant truth in generally applicable, fundamental concepts and theoretical constructions.” (Ibid, p. 93)

3.2.2 How Logic Works

Rational logical thinking of course is valuable, but another character of logical reasoning is its departure “from the wealth of original sense experience” (Ibid, p. 94) Logic works from a basic general principle to an abstract criterion, which can then be utilised for our own intentions and so “we try to understand individual events by interpreting them in terms of underlying general concepts” (Ibid, p. 96) but “conclusions from general concepts are devoid of the individual, unique and existential character that authentic sense perceptions have.” (Ibid, p. 96)

3.2.3 Aesthetics; a Mode of Cognition complimentary to Logic

In ordinary daily life “we are all aestheticians” (Ibid, p. 97), but in the act of knowing we mostly relate the particular thing to past experience and “then an abstract concept occupies our mind and this concept may obscure special traits of the current experience.” (Ibid, p. 97) However presence of mind gives us an opportunity “to observe and participate- not only to judge and to explain. We tend to forget that those phenomena could “not come to appearance except through our own being there” (Ibid, p. 97). They could play an existential role in our lives.

3.2.4 Skilled Expression of the Truth

As we said before, Aesthetics was for Baumgarten a simultaneous process of perception and representing the perceived through an artistic activity. Only then do we give it meaning, including a meaning for ourselves. This cognitive activity Maier calls “skilled expression” (Ibid, p. 98).

3.2.5 Aesthetics Cognition happens during Perception

Maier reiterates that the main purpose of the book was to demonstrate that we always need to give a certain direction before anything can become conscious. We see as much by applying concepts as by our eyes. “The skill in expression is the ability to direct an appropriate intention to the world so as to bring this world to awareness” (Ibid, p. 99). So in describing we bring forth the particular event. “In the case of the cow, no abstract concept of a species was recognised, but rather a specific image was organised and acknowledged” (Ibid, p. 100). So aesthetic cognition is enacted between impression and expression and this happens on three different levels

3.2.6 Levels of Intentional Activity

First level: Orientation in the physical surroundings. Through observing and becoming aware of the various sensory qualities and our various appropriate thoughts in describing, we gain new knowledge.
Second level: Meeting an expressive whole. We never see anything in isolation: everything is related to “something else which is before it, beside it, under it and over it.” (Ibid, p. 10313) For Goethe everything is part of a whole, so “its scenes are naturally composed to perfection and for this reason we find its appearances beautiful” (Ibid, p. 104) and the conceptual relationships between the details of natural appearances are necessary for understanding, but also “our senses integrate principles and as such, they cannot be verbalized, but being sensed as an atmosphere pervading a whole situation” (Ibid, p. 104).
Third level: Accompanying. Slowly we acquire through the processes above a more intimate relationship with the 'thing' as we start to accompany it over time. We learn to know the evolving Being. If we again look at the cow then the
gesture itself cannot be perceived passively; it is as if we must act out internally what we seem to be meeting outside ourselves. Through this participation, we give the present situation a specific content according to our present capacities. Ours is not the only possible appreciation that could have taken place, but it is what has really occurred. (Ibid, p. 110)

4. Intermezzo

What is the hardest thing of all?
That which seems the easiest:
For your eyes to see
That which lies before your eyes.
Goethe

4.1 Conceptional Models and Aesthetic Appearance

Illustration 2
Illustration 3



Illustration 2 is a drawn 'conceptional' model of a cube and through it we can become aware of conceptual relations; volume, surface and many other laws, but they are unperceived as long as we don't observe our thought process. However this 'conceptual model of cube' is as such not a cube, but two squares drawn on a piece of paper (which one is the front?) and connected with each other from the relevant corners as an illustration for the present exercise! If we want to visualize a cube the way we really see it then we have to make some alterations or even better create a real model or we can try to find “cubeness” in nature.

In illustration 3 and imagine it is real and not just as an image, we don't see a cube either, but glimmering surfaces and dark surfaces and sharp boundaries between them. These last form a line, and by walking around, we realise they form squares and taken altogether we can apply the concept 'cube' but we seldom find a perfect 'ideal' one in nature. We most likely already added the concept “solid” with all its implications. Another aspect is that we start to realise that the shining parts come about through light and not from the metal itself, although the smooth surface lend itself very well for reflection.

4.2 Objective and Subjective Aspects

Thinking is in a way a sense-organ, perceiving thoughts and their relationships to each other or to qualities of the sense-perceptible world. Whereas Steiner in his article gives more accent to the first activity, because he was trying to reveal the way of Goethe's aesthetic thinking, and Baumgarten more to the second, it is the abstraction of rationalism which both are fighting against, that is ideas not corresponding with experience.
Both activities are more or less a conscious activity and produces knowledge in a conceptual form which we can share with other people. However, not only because we all have different points of view regarding perception, but also because we have acquired a limited amount of concepts, our initial conceptional view of the object might be different (subjective). But what is important is not that we have the same ideas, but that our ideas correspond with the facts (Steiner, 1988). However the meaning and the experience of the event has also another 'subjective' character, not because it is not a true or real event, but each event speaks to us (or not at all!) in an individual way and so we meet our destiny. This is what Georg Maier is hinting at and elaborates in later chapters of the book.

4.3 Short Introduction to Modern Aesthetic Trends

Recently in society a general aestheticisation process has taken place, partly on a superficial level, where the image gives a message, which does not correspond with the real contents (advertising, virtual reality, etc.) but also on a deeper level (Welsch 1996). That is: people start to judge things by the way they look (colours and form etc.).
Environmental Aesthetics developed only recently and now plays a leading role, not only in environmentalism, but also in sociology, psychology, etc.. Many landscapes have become fragmented due to our utilitarian rationalism, and the European Landscape Convention has come about not only because people feel a responsibility towards nature, but also because of a growing appreciation of landscape. Further fragmentation and individualisation in society calls for inter- and transdisciplinary approaches14 to create sustainable and enjoyable landscapes.

5. Theories and Experiences in Personal and Professional Life

"A wide view, wide enough for me, my heart swells
and the landscape swells with me,
the sky is so high and it is as if I can live there,
without friend, without baker, without milkman,
without grocery man, without dustbin, without clothes,
without cigars if necessary and
even without smoking a pipe
and that says a lot."

Nescio 1942

Landscape means an area, as perceived by people,
whose character is the result of the action and interaction
of natural and/or human factors.
European Landscape Convention

As I experienced on 'my home' farm the change over from a mixed farm, embedded in the village social life, to a mechanised farm and social fragmentation, I felt there was something wrong. At school science was in one way abstract and on the other hand I questioned the materialistic view. On reading Philosophy of Freedom, I came to a more conscious experience of thinking and through the phenomenological works of Julius in relation to plant development and animal behaviour, discovered there is a way of science which corresponds to what we see and experience. All this led to attending the bio-dynamic agricultural college and a life in farming, wherein I realised, and struggled with, that people in general have no understanding any more of farming and nature, but what I didn't realise until much later was that culture is not just cream on the cake, but a product of human ideas. It was only when we moved to France and I enjoyed the beauty of the landscape and asked myself, what is it that fascinates me in the landscape, that I came to see landscape also as cultural product.
Through various processes (studies and meetings) I started to design and produce Landscape Perception Workshops for adults. I wanted to bring people to the awareness of the many different dimensions of landscape and how we are engaged with landscape in many different ways and on different levels. The workshops last seven days and I will go through the days and then it becomes apparent that is has much to do with what I have written so far.
On the 1st day we go for a walk and watch and draw a landscape, not to make a beautiful drawing, but to help us to attend and observe and it soon becomes apparent that we all focus on different elements, but once we share our 'representations', we can also see what the others have seen. In the evening I introduce what factors play a role in the landscape with the help of illustration 4.

Illustration 4: Conceptual model for Landscape (Castiglioni, B. 2009)

The bottom plane represents the space, the territory, in which many different factors have their place. The top plane represents the actual landscape we see, where three sub-systems are related to each other. These are the natural and human features but the third subsystem contains the significances and the values assigned to the landscape, either in the aesthetic sphere, or in the affective one (landscape as a part of our own identity), or in the symbolic one (when certain landscape elements can provide specific significances to people perceiving them). This third subsystem significantly determines how we see our landscapes!

On the 2nd day we focus on the form and processes of plants and how these depend in one way on the type of plant and in another way on the environment. On the 3rd day we consider other phenomenological approaches, mainly related to the body-subject (Merleau-Ponty) and consider topics such as sense of place, feeling at home, habits etc. On the 4th day we do certain exercises related to the sense-organs: how do we experience sound, colours, tastes etc. and moods and atmosphere and what do they tell us? On the 5th day we look at cultural factors (architecture, social-economic and historical factors) and in the evening have a 'History of Landscape' painting presentation as preparation for the last day, when we focus on the evolution of consciousness, not only in history but also in our own biography.
Illustration 5: Maddona by Cimabue 1250


Illustration 6: by Giotto 1300

In illustration 5 we find spacelessness: no earth, no sky. No three dimensions, Person always looking at us, wherever you are positioned.
In illustration 6 we see a presentation of heaven (blue) and earth (brown). Three-dimensions and people are not looking at us.
Illustration 7: by Campin 1420






Illustration 8: Detail










In illustrations 7 and 8 we see a Holy Scene within an everyday landscape.
Illustation 9: Breugel 1550
In illustration 9 we find human activities on the earth at different stages of the harvest process.
Illustration 10: Delft by Vermeer (1632-1675)



Illustration 11: Nightwathc by Gerrit Lundes (1650?) after Rembrandt.

In illustrations 10 and 11 we see representations of how we see the world more or less the way we see it now. Very realistic all on a 2-dimensional surface (!) and at the same time very aesthetic. Please note how observant the painter had to be!
Illustration 12: Mont Saint Victoire by Cezanne(Around 1900)
With Cezanne ( Illustration 12 ) we come towards something very different. Here the painting becomes a more personal representation, which we can also detect from a saying by Cezanne; “The landscape thinks in me and I am its consciousness” (Merleau Ponty, 1964).
All the above mentioned daily themes are introduced by a short presentation and /or text followed by a conversation, as most of the daytime, we are walking and drawing in the landscape, so these themes work as a kind of focus for the day. For the walks we use as manual the “Legible Landscape” (Hendriks, Kloen, with Eppink, Jansonius, 2006), a program developed in Holland to help people in valuing and developing their landscape and it focuses on four dimensions of landscape;
  • Vertical: Why are certain plants / trees there? (subsoil, climate, other etc.)
  • Horizontal: Rivers, paths, hedges and other patterns.(infrastructure)
  • Seasonal: What time of year or day is it? It focusses us mainly on colour.
  • Historical: What has happened, what is happening and what can happen?
Through these processes we work towards a common understanding of the whole landscape, which one cannot do from one point of view, neither alone, and so together we become more aware of the many divergent ways of our engagement with our immediate environment and at the same time learn to know our inner landscape!
I like to end with a quote from Wolfram Welsch (2003), which is at the same time sums up my evolving epistemology;
I take this picture of the human as originally standing opposed to the world--man against the rest of the world--to be fundamentally misguided. Even cognition is misconstrued when it is omitted that all our cognitive and linguistic reference to objects thrives on a pre-linguistic disclosure and acquaintance with things, one deriving from primordial world-connectedness, that for its part stems from our being evolutionary products of the same processes in which the things we have contact with came into being. Through cognition and language alone we would never get to objects. It's rather our primordial world-connectedness that allows for this. (no page no. given)

References

Main Works:
Gross, S. (2002). The neglected programme of Aesthetics. In British Journal of Aesthetics, 42 (4), 403-414.
Brady, R., Edelglass, S., and Maier, G. (2008). Being on Earth, Tending the Appearances. (pp.91-110). Retrieved November 15, 2011 from http://natureinstitute.org/txt/gm/boe/
Steiner, R. (1988). Goethean Science. (pp 104-162). (W. Lindeman, Trans.). New York: Mercury Press. (Original work published 1883-1897)

Other works:
Bunzl, R. ( 2008). In Search of Thinking. Forest Row: Sophia Books.
Eckerman, J.P., (1930). Conversations with Goethe (J.K. Moorhead ed.) London: J. M. Dent & Sons.
Goethe, W. (1988). Fortunate Encounter. In Goethe Scientific Studies. (D. Miller, Trans. Eds.). New York: Surkamp Publishers.
Hendriks, K., Kloen,H., with Eppink, J., Jansonius, T. (2006). Leesbaar Landschap Deel 1. CLM Dutch publication. Retrieved November 10, 2010 from http://www.clm.nl/publicaties/data/rapport_leesbland.pdf . (A. Luijk, Trans.). English translation available via translator.
Nescio. (1996). Natuurdagboek.(Nature Diary) Amsterdam: Nijgh & van Ditmar, G.A. van Oorschot.
Nescio. (2010). Verzameld proza en nagelaten werk. (Collected works ) Amsterdam: G.A. van Oorschot.
Merleau Ponty, M. (1969). Cezanne's Doubt. In Essential writings of Merleau Ponty. (A. L. Fisher, Ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Schieren, J. (2010). Conclusion, Judgement, Concept: The Quality of Understanding. In Rose. Research in Steiner Education 2002, 1 (2) 5-14. Retrieved November 12, 2011 from http://www.rosejourn.com/index.php/rose/article/view/47/80
Steiner, R. (no date given). Goethe as the founder of the new aesthetics. (G. Metexa, Trans.). London: Rudolf Steiner Publishing Co. (Original work published 1899)
Steiner, R. (1964). Philosophy of Freedom. (M. Wilson, Trans.). London: Rudolf Steiner Press (Original work published 1894)
Steiner, R. (1978). Theory of Knowledge, Implicit in Goethe's World Conception. (O. D. Wannamaker, Trans.). New York: Anthroposophic Press. (Original work published 1886)
Steiner, R. (1985). Self-Education, Autobiographical Reflections 1861-1893. (A. Wulsin, Trans.) New York: Mercury Press. (Original work published 1948)
Tress. B., Tress. G., Fry. G., Opdam. P. (Eds.) (2006). From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning:Aspects of Integration, Education and Application. Dordrecht: Springer. Retrieved December 1, 2012 from http://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/frontis/issue/view/210
Welsch, W. (2003). Reflecting the Pacific. In Contemporary Aesthetics, I (2003), Sec. 5. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=198
Welsch, W. (1996). Aestheticization Processes: Phenomena, Distinctions and Prospects. In Theory, Culture, Society 1996, 13 (1), 1-24. Retrieved November 20, 2010 from www2.unijena.de/welsch/welsch.aestheticization.processes.pdf

Acknowledgements
Illustrations;
Front page; Photograph by present writer.
Illustration 1; From Brady, R., Edelglass, S., and Maier, G. (2008). Being on Earth, Tending the Appearances. (p. 69)
Illustration 2; Self-made, but idea came from Brady, R., Edelglass, S., and Maier, G. (2008). Being on Earth, Tending the Appearances. (p. 69)
Illustration 4; From Castiglioni, B. (2009). Education on Landscape for Children (p. 12 ) presented at the 5th Council of Europe conference on the European Landscape Convention. Retrieved November 10, 2009 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Landscape/ReunionConf/5eConference/CEP-CDPATEP-2009-12-Education_en.pdf
Illustrations 5 - 12 from Web Art Gallery. Retrieved December 1, 2012 from http://www.wga.hu/

Poems and Prose
Frontpage: From Nescio. (1996). ibid, (p. 331). (A. Luijk, Trans.).
Page 5; Kloos.W. From translator's foreword to Steiner. R., (1970). Filosofie der Vrijheid. (p. V). (P. Los-Wierixks, Trans.). Wassenaar: N.V. Servire.
Page 5; From Steiner, R. (1964). ibid, (p. 64).
Page 9 From Nescio. (1996). ibid, (p. 366). (A. Luijk, Trans.)
Page 11 From Goethe (Popular quote, but have not found original source yet)
Page 14 From Nescio. (2010). ibid, (p.195). (A. Luijk, Trans.)
Page 14 From the European Landscape Convention (November 20, 2002). Retrieved November 11, 2009 from http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm



1In my opinion it also applies to the 'hard' sciences, but this is a harder nut to crack.
2 When we hear reports such as “Scientist say that ..” it always implies ultimate truth, reminiscent of the Old Testament saying “And God said...”
3 Poetic means 'creative'
4 Willem Kloos (1859-1938) Dutch poet
5 In these chapters we see the seeds for all Steiner's basic philosophical works: Theory of Knowledge (1886), Truth and Knowledge (1892) and Philosophy of Freedom (1894).
6   “Behind the sensible phenomena, I sought, not for a non-spiritual world of atoms, but for the spiritual, which appears to reveal itself within man himself, but which in reality inheres in the objects and processes of the sense world itself.” (Steiner, R. 1978, Foreword p. XIII )
7  I am aware that in the above we have not paid attention to the different manifestations of thought-forms: conclusion, judgement and concept. (Schieren, 2010)
8 It is from the above which inspired me to link the concepts ‘knowing’ and ‘experience’ in the title of the essay.
9 I left out the paragraph about 'limits of knowledge.. etc. for lack of space and importance here.
10 Nescio (= I don't know), Pseudonym for J. H. F, Gronloh, Dutch writer (1882-1961)
11 “ ....the youngest and most discussed science -The Science of Aesthetics. This science, which is devoted to Art and artistic creation, is barely 160 years old.” (Steiner, R., 1889 (p. 14)) So in a way Steiner did not know about Baumgarten's intentions!
12 This refers to former chapters of the book, not of this essay.
13 Quote from Goethe (Eckerman, J.P., 1930)
14 Interdisciplinary is bridging various academic disciplines and transdisciplinary is bridging general public and academic disciplines (Tress. B., Tress. G., Fry. G., Opdam. P. (Eds.) 2006.)

The next article is based on an assignement I had to do because of my Master Course in Social & Educational Research at the University of Oslo in June 2012.

 

Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Landscape

Evaluation and Qualities

within a group of mainly English speaking people
and their landscape of the Ariege.
 




Content

1.Introduction
2.Theoretical background
Introduction
What is Landscape and what has it to do with motivations?
Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation on landscapes
Other Research
Personal reflections on the above
3.Methods
The Questionnaire
Interviews
Ethical aspects
4.Presentation
Part 1: How and why they came here.
Part 2: How the people evaluated the perceptional qualities within their landscape.
Part 3: Their present engagement with the landscape
5.Discussion
6.Conclusion
References
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Questionnaire Section 1
Questionnaire Section 2
Questionnaire Section 3
Appendix 2: Letter of Consent

1.Introduction

My theme is: Does the landscape have an influence on our motivations to move to a particular area and if so, in which way? What are the characteristic features of the landscape which people value and does this say something about the character of the landscape itself?
The main reason for this assignment is to practice the procedures of making a questionnaire and interviews and at the same time to research how people experience and interact with landscape.
It could be used for an assessment into which factors of the landscape play a role in enhance the well-being of the people and the landscape and their interaction. In practical terms this could be used (and misused!) e.g. by the local authorities, architects etc. for planning purposes.
And it could be a means by which I can understand a particular situation and could give me insight how this group of people understand landscapes. This could substantiate (or not!) my theories and points of view and further support the development of my landscape perception workshops.
Also I am aware that the method I use, first a questionnaire and then interviews, could lead to a change in attitude of the participants, enabling them to reflect on their own experiences thoughts and landscape thus leading to a more conscious awareness and interaction with their landscape. This interaction is what concerns and motivates me to stimulate people to become more aware and engaged as at the moment only a few people are empowered to change landscape without considering that we all have to live with the consequences of their actions.
I have focused on three questions;
  1. Within the English speaking community, what qualities in the landscape played a role in their decision to move here?
  2. What landscape factors/features do they perceive , appreciate and continue to play a role in their daily lives?
  3. And how do these perceptions and valuations relate to the character of this area?
As the community of people concerned generally come here for early retirement or a late change in their life, I expect that through this research it will show firstly the main criteria/values which determine their decision to come here and on the other hand the specific character of the area which these people appreciate.
I am very open to what this process itself can bring about, not only for them, but also for me. In this respect it could be a tentative beginning of action research. In producing this assignment I have this time attached more value in the actual practice of doing the work (questionnaire, interviews etc.) rather then achieving results in the form of a new discovery.

2.Theoretical background

Introduction

I would like to start with a general description of landscape and its connection with motivation and perception of landscape. And then substantiate this description with a fair amount of theory based on research done by others.
How we see landscape depends on what there is (facts), on our intentions (what we need, like or wish to do), on our knowledge and on our past experiences. But these intentions, thoughts and experiences are products of our own activity, and are depending on our cultural background and our biography.
Former landscapes had a strong explicitly individual character, as the people who created them were embedded within a strong unifying social structure and within their environment. Their artefacts (buildings and equipment) depended for their materials on the local area. Due to globalisation and to individualisation (emancipation from local nature and social structure) modern landscape suffers from fragmentation, conflicting or even characterless structures.
To sum up;
“Landscape reflects the human motivations, as merged into social procedures of society's motivations. Human interventions are inevitably based on cultural perceptions, ideas and preferences of the actual actors in charge, made to interact in social structures and implemented as changes in the biophysical conditions of the relevant localities.” (van Mansvelt & van der Lubbe, 1999, p.27)

What is Landscape and what has it to do with motivations?

Here I rely mainly on the work of van Mansvelt & van der Lubbe (1999), not only because it gives an overview of all the features and processes which play a role within the landscape and our perceptions and so places my questions within a wider context, but because their theoretical framework is based on a model by Maslow, which shows that people's motivations for action (including seeing, appreciating and valuing) very much depends from which position they take within the world.
In Maslow’s terms “primary needs are those to keep the body alive (water, food and shelter) followed by those of social survival (a position in society and recognition). Only when these lower needs are covered can come inner or spiritual development.(personal development)
In this sequence these needs primarily connect the human being to the natural ecosystem environment, to the social environment and the cultural environment.(see illustration 1).
Within the natural environment we have to share the limited resources as our survival depends on it, within the social-economic realm we have the duty to work for others, as we expect others to work for us and we expect to have equal rights. And within the cultural realm we expect to have unlimited access to individual development.
This conceptual model shows we live in between two poles, which are of contradictory nature. The world of necessity (our body as part of the natural world) and of freedom (we can think what we like, and in the western world often can do what we like).
According to Jacobs (2004) we have three kinds of landscapes, again depending from which discipline or science we approach it, from a natural, social/economic or a psychological/cultural perspective.
First there is Matterscape which refers to the physical aspects of the landscape. One can also call it the factual or true landscape; It is the landscape, which is the object of geographers and natural scientist and the action ground for civil engineers.
Then we have Powerscapes, which refer to the values and rules a certain group of people hold at a certain time; One can call it the right or just landscape, it is the inter-subjective landscape, which is the domain of action-groups, lawyers and politicians.
And then there is the Mindscape, this is the landscape how people experience it, which is for each individual different. One can call it the real or inner landscape, it is the subjective landscape, it is the landscape how we actually experience it, including the meaning it has for us.( and memories, associations, etc. or ground for action, activities etc.). Jacobs (2008) mention that it is the landscape which is only constructed within our minds. I am not in agreement with this; I hope to show this by pointing out that people do experience qualities within the landscape, which one can measure, although not in the form of mass, weight or length. And by the way, also matterscape and powerscape have to go via our mind before we can know anything about it. But I come back to this later.
In order to show what the natural environment, the social-economic and the cultural realm contains and how they interpenetrate with each other, I present here a conceptional model by Bosshard (2000) in illustration 2.
This conceptual model shows on the left those features we actually can see (=Matterscape) , whereas on the right more the invisible processes which we don’t see but can experience and are involved in (=Powerscape). This model however is very much from the point of view, that we need to have the full participation of all stakeholders, including the inhabitants, when developing sustainable landscapes. I have presented it here in order to show the many features and processes which are taking place within the landscape.
One important element to consider, which is also revealed within the two conceptional models above, is that as individuals we have a double relationship with the world; As a spectator (top of the triangle) and as actually taking part within the 3 different realms. This was not so in the past, where we were either a slave, farmer, merchant, knight, priest or philosopher or king. This has changed through the processes of individualisation or emancipation. (Brull, 2002.)

“So the landscape definitions surpasses the realm of natural sciences, as it refers to the characteristic arrangement of the units (species, bio-topes, infrastructure, buildings), that is, it refers to an artistic, aesthetic notion addressing the vision of the whole. It it that vision of the whole, that perception of the pictorial quality, that makes the landscape into a landscape.” (van Mansvelt & van der Lubbe. 1999, p.116)

And now we come to the perceptional values we ascribe to landscape and what it has to with landscape qualities. Within the frame work of Mansvelt, it belongs to the qualities of the cultural environment approached through psychology (see illustration 3 on page 6). If you look at the realm of Psychology and look at the different criteria mentioned underneath, we come to these perceptional values and qualities, which we will discus now.

Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation on landscapes



These criteria are mainly based on research by Coeterier, who worked within the discipline of environmental psychology and had a great influence in Holland within landscape planning, mainly because of his contribution to what landscape qualities the general public perceive and value in their daily life.
His basic theory (Coeterier, 1987) is that perception is a cognitive activity and that the properties of perception have a structuring capability, meaning attribution and action-foundation, with which I understand that;
  1. We always structure the perceptional world in various ways between two polarities; the whole (Gestalt) and individual parts.
  2. We always attribute meaning towards the perceptional world, either more social-culturally determined or more in an affective personal way.
  3. And thirdly we always have a certain intention, motivation in what we want to do.
Also according to him “perception and appreciation are closely related” (Coeterier ibid p.188) He agrees with others that values can be seen as qualities, attributes by which things are distinguished. To appreciate something is to see its qualities. Here again this contributes to my opinion that the attributes are not only the product of the mind and I will come to this at the end of this chapter.In landscape perception he concluded that landscape was highly valued when it could be experienced as a unity, a whole and that the more there were items which disturbed this unity, the more the landscape depreciated in value. The other high value people ascribe to landscape is its use, its function; this could be an objective factor, related to what activity or product other people are using landscape for (agriculture, mining, recreation. etc.) or subjective, either as a farmer, miner, builder, tourist or just as an inhabitant!

These two factors were the main ones and these could be interchangeable in priority. To my view this depends on how you ask the question. The unity is more experienced as a spectator, the functional aspect is experienced when one is an actor with a certain intention.

The unity and function are determined by other factors/attributes and so Coeterier came to a total of 8 dominant attributes of landscape which people, not only perceived but also valued; unity, use, a-biotic content, biotic content (=naturalness), development in time (=history and seasonality), spaciousness, care and sensory qualities (colour, sounds and smells).
These attributes are influenced by particular features within the landscape and these are called sub-attributes. These sub-attributes are more of a visual, physical and particular nature, which contributes to the dominant attribute, which is more of a conceptual or general abstract nature. So in practice it means that people generally agree on the dominant attribute or quality of their landscape, but they might have seen different elements, which support this dominant attribute or quality.
The questionnaire (see Appendix 1; part 2) gives an overview of all these attributes1.
Another important aspect is that particular features do play a role in the evaluation of diverse attributes: a row of trees (e.g. plantain trees) can be seen as a characteristic feature of the area, either in historical sense, or functional sense (shade), natural sense, sense impression (bark structures etc.) or in a seasonal sense (with and without leaves and or branches).

Other Research

Experts in trying to find out what particular experiential qualities a landscape have, come very near to what we discussed above, except, and perhaps, because of all the research they have done, the first dominant feature is it complexity! (Ode, Tveit, Fry. 2008) This feature we have already seen in the many diverse complex conceptual models or texts which I have included in the above.
However complexity is more an intellectual, academic and theoretical concept. It only comes about because we ask questions such as ; “How can it be?” or “How does it work?”and “What is going on?”. Whereas for lay-people (and academics, if they leave their theories behind) the perception of the qualities referred to are self-evident and common sense. All other attributes mentioned by Ode et al correspond with the ones Coeterier mentions.
Another important view is that one can see landscape in various ways and so one can see landscape (e.g; Meinig. 1979) as a system, as nature, a habitat, as history, a place, aesthetically or as a problem. However for inhabitants it is never a problem and for the other elements it is not either-or but and-and. (Coeterier 1996)

Personal reflections on the above

For me the qualities we perceive within the landscape are not only in the mind, however, it is fairly difficult to differentiate between what is subjective (the feelings and meanings the landscape has for us) and the more objective ones; the qualities and meaning we generally ascribe to landscape. The latter are the subject with which I am of the opinion, that they are not just in our mind.
The other, more subjective ones are more of an existential character and the questions within my research (Why are we here? and What are we doing here?) are more of this character, by which I mean that the answer tells more about the people themselves, then about the landscape. In this respect the meanings and feelings are primarily within their mind or heart, which does not mean it is not real! (In case I need to mention this!) However, also to these questions, they gave descriptions of elements or qualities, which they found within the landscape.
But to continue; I share with some others, the idea that also wholeness, character of the landscape is an objective entity, like my individuality, psyche etc. In the illustration below one can compare the constitution of the human being with that of the landscape. The landscape also has its identity, its history etc. as well as its needs; recognition, respect and management. It was van Mansvelt’s work in collaboration with others, which brought to attention the many areas we need to work upon in order for a sustainable rural development to be a basis on which humanity in co-existence with nature can continue to develop in a positive way.
On the basis of the above we can perhaps anticipate the results of the research questionnaire, if one takes into consideration that the people concerned have come here out of their own decision, mostly in the later part of their lives and not needing to earn a living. They have come here for their own enjoyment or if needing still to work, they prefer it here. Unlike a local who was born here, it was their appreciation of the area, that is the landscape in its wider sense, which brought them here. However this appreciation also depends on who they are etc. that is; it also tells something about them, not only as a group, but also each in their individual way.

3.Methods

First I wanted to do a questionnaire, so that, apart from doing a practice, I could reach more people and this could give me a more general feel of what lives within this group, before embarking on individual interviews. Also I wanted to experiment with an already tried questionnaire in relation to sense-perceptional qualities, wherein people just have to mark boxes and another part which is more of an open character.
Because of the above process, I had something to start from to do the interview and could focus on more individual and particular matters. In relation to landscape perceptional qualities a questionnaire is definitely a plus as you can reach more people and so with a certain amount of quantitative research and statistical analysis, it gives a more general picture, not only of the people concerned, but perhaps also of the landscape itself.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was divided in three parts. The first part concerned their background and first impressions when they came here, the second part their appreciation of their landscape with the method developed by Coeterier and the third part was about their present situation and activities within the landscape. The first part and last part was a more open questionnaire and the middle part the already tried questionnaire by by de Vries, S. & van Kralingen, R.B.A.S.(2002)
I placed the second part in the middle section so that not only they could bring up memories/images, which they can then express in the third part, but also because they could use the expressions and vocabulary from this middle section within this last part.
The disadvantages of a questionnaire is that not all people will respond and that the ones who do respond will ascribe different values etc. Secondly some people will not understand some of the questions or I have not made them clear enough, specifically in the second part of the questionnaire, as this was a translation of the questionnaire produced by de Vries, S. & van Kralingen, R.B.A.S.(2002), based on Coeterier

Interviews

The interviews were intended partly to discover more the individual ways and motives, that is; the how and why people moved here and to discover within a conversation more hidden aspects or features.
Secondly to explore those aspects of the 2nd part of the questionnaire (landscape perceptional qualities), which through the analysis came to the fore, specificity to look at those criteria where an individual gave a value very different from the general trend or mean.
And thirdly I intended to be very open to whatever turned up within the interview meeting. I prepared some queries and questions in relation to the questionnaire and then this gave the ground to start to further explore and more in depth whatever issue might arise.
I chose 4 people to interview, two men and two women; the two men who did not show too much a problem about modern developments within the questionnaire, but both the two ladies had made some negative remarks. Within the interview the main nature of the questions were about what they perceived (specific features) in relation to the questionnaire and I asked many ‘Why’ questions. Why here? Why do you like/dislike this or that? I tried to avoid questions in relation to their opinion, although some came up. The interview was more in the form of a conversation, which I think helped them to express in their own way how they felt and thought about things.

Ethical aspects

Within the questionnaire I made it very clear that all information will be kept confidential, and people had a full choice in how far they entered their personal details, also I asked if they would be willing to be interviewed. I wrote to the four people verifying if they were still willing to be interviewed and showed them the consent letter, which was then given and signed at the interview.

4.Presentation

After some deliberation I decided after all to present the results and figures of the questionnaire in this chapter, as it avoids the reader having continually to look at the figures in an appendix. I have also incorporated the results of the interview in so far as they are relevant, substantiate or clarify the questionnaire and the main aim of the research.

Part 1: How and why they came here.

The first part of the questionnaire revealed that the people who responded (12 people = 25 %) were all above 56 years old and only four of them worked more or less full time and quite a few were already retired for nearly 10 years. The ratio between man/women is 50/50 and 50% came from fairly large cities, the others from rural areas. On average they have been here now for 5,5 years.
The first time they came here was either because they looked for a more permanent holiday home or because of a holiday, which sooner or later led to a move to this area when the time was ripe. Only one came here for the first time because of a friend and one because of wanting to be near their family. When they came here for the first time they highly appreciated the mountains, the mixed and diverse landscape, the open, grandeur, wild irregularity of it, the underpopulation and the general serenity and peacefulness.
All were attracted by the landscape, particularly with the mountains in the background, but also because of the peace and quiet and/or the richness of history. For two people it was mainly because of a particular place (including nice house) and area. Why they all left their former place is either because of where they were the landscape was not particular inviting (inaccessible) or even boring, three because they wanted to get away from the hectic, noisy crowded society, but three had no complaints and so some of these kept their house for a time or still have a house in England. Main reason for coming over were for two people the particular landscape for their activities (walking etc.), three because of a challenge and change of life and a few because just the ‘idea of France’.
Question 6: What were your main criteria (main importance) in buying your house?
Mean
SD2
House
8,6
1
Garden
8,3
1,6
Gite/B&B
9
0
Area
9,2
0,8
View
7,6
1,4
Village
8,2
1,4
Facilities
7,6
2,3
Isolated/privacy
6
2,7
Pool
2,2
1,8
Sun on house/garden
8,6
1,1
Climate
8,4
1,2

From the above we can deduct that the main criteria for finding a place to live was the area itself (M=9,3; SD=0,7), then the house they found (M=8,7), the sun around the house (M=8,4) and then the climate (M=8,3), all with high agreements. For some the garden, village, facilities and view were important, whereas the pool was not important at all (M=2,2!) Only for 2 people the gite was very important or became important.
Within the interviewees, the first person came here for a walking holiday and while they sat on a terrace regarding the Mont d’Olmes area, his wife fell in love with the place. The second interviewee was first attracted by the ‘Tuscanian’ landscape of the Aude3 on a visit, but then discovered the more savage wild nature of the Ariegois landscape, which she preferred. The third interviewee house hunted around and when they were south of Toulouse and her husband saw the mountains, he said “let’s go there” and that’s how they landed up here. The last interviewee; “When we came over from Fanjaux,we saw the wonderful vista of the mountains in front of us, in September, a clear blue sky and I said to my wife; This is it”

Part 2: How the people evaluated the perceptional qualities within their landscape.

Question 7 and 8: How attractive do you find your landscape and which attributes/qualities do you find important for the attractiveness?
The results are within the first two columns. Columns 3 and 4 are the results of the more detailed questions related to the dominant attributes, not sub-attributes, mentioned next.
1
2
3
4
Quality
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Attractiveness
8,6
1,1


Unity/Coherence
7,4
2,6
9,2
1,1
Diversity
8,4
1,8
7,8*
2,6*
Structure/Function
6,3
2,7
8,1
0,9
Own use/Job**
8,5
1,5
8,6
1,3
Own use/ Leisure
8.8
0,8
9,2
0,9
Naturalness
8,8
0,8
8,6
1,2
History
7,5
2
8,6
1,3
Care
7,7
1,7


Spaciousness
8,9
0,9
9,1
1
Sense impressions
8,1
1,7
8,9
1,4
Seasonality
8,5
1,9


*This value drastically changed after I received the last questionnaire!
**Only four people work full time

First it is obvious that these people highly appreciate their landscape (M = 8,6) and that they agree among each other.(SD = 1,1). From the table above one can see that the main attributes this group of people found important in their appreciation are, in descending order ; Spaciousness, Naturalness and Own use (Leisure), Seasonality and Own Use (Work), Diversity, Sense Impressions, Care, History, Unity and Function/Structure. The highest agreement was in the order of; Naturalness and Own Use (=Leisure), Spaciousness, Diversity, Care and Sense-Impressions and Seasonality, whereas from History to Unity to Function/Structure, there appears a rising disagreement. (SD= from 2 to 2,7) We will look at these disagreements further on when we look in more detail at these attributes.
The second set of figures are the figures relating to the individual attributes which people ascribe to their landscape (see the following questions) and as you can see these are all higher then the rate of importance, except for diversity. Does this mean that what they found important and valuable is highly present in the Ariege?

Question 9 and 10; Do you find that your landscape has a specific character and how do you grade the various characteristics?

Quality
Mean
SD
Unity
9,2
1,1
All things fit with each other
6,5
2,8
New fits old
5,5
3
Coherence
7,1
2,5
Diversity
7,8
2,6

Whereas in the question before (8), some found the unity of the landscape not so important, here it seems that people after all agree (SD = 1,1) that their landscape has a strong character (M = 9,2). However people seem to disagree (SD = 2,5 and 2,6) that there is much coherence (M = 7,1) and diversity in the landscape (M = 7,8), which enhance the quality of its character4 Neither are people in agreement (SD = 2,8 and 3 respectively) that things fit with each other (M = 6,5) or that the new fits with the old (M = 5,5).
Within the interviews it became clear that some people had difficulty in understanding what unity and coherence means; Some relate unity to unified, that is monotonous and coherence to understandability. In relation to diversity there was also some misunderstanding; some people mentioned that the landscape is everywhere the same (= not much diversity), but what they meant was that the landscape had a strong character with particular characteristic features and they are missing elements, where they were used to and which don't belong here.
In relation to 'fitting with each other’ and if‘the new fits with the old’ I will come back to these in questions 16 and 17 relating to history.
Question 11 and 12; How would you grade your landscape for how it is used or managed for its various functions and how do you think about the functions/structures/lay-out of the landscape?

Quality
Mean
SD
Function/Use
8,1
0,9
Place for various functions
8,2
1,5
Not much traffic
8,4
1,2
One function
8
1,6
Playful/Own way
7,4
1,4
Rural
8,9
1

Apart from a little bit of disagreement ( SD = 1,6 and 1,8) in relation to 'place for the various functions' and if 'there is a main function', everybody agrees (SD = 0,9 and 1) that the management overall fits with the function (M = 8,1) and appreciate it as a rural landscape (M = 8,9). There is not much traffic (M = 8,4 ; SD = 1,2) and things develop naturally (M = 7,4; SD = 1,4).
Question 13 and 15; How would you rate the landscape for opportunities to walk, cycle etc. to nearby villages or for work etc. and what do you think about your own possibilities for outdoor activities?

Quality
Mean
SD
Own use (Leisure)
9,2
0,9
Own use (Work)
8,6
1,4
Accessible from home
9,6
0,7
Accessibility landscape
8,6
1,6
No disturbance
9,1
1,2
Facilities
7,8
1,6

Here it is clear that people not only highly appreciate the landscape (M = 9,2) for what they want to do (leisure activities) but also agree with each other (SD = 0,9). All of them have easy access to the landscape (M = 9,6) and feel there are not many disturbances present (M = 9). For those who do work full time (33 %) the area provides them with positive possibilities (M = 8,6).
There is some disagreement in relation to facilities and to accessibility within the landscape (SD = 1,6 for both), but still with very high appreciation values. (M = 7,8 and 8,5)
Through the interview it became clear that in relation to facilities the interviewee found that more could be done to attract people to stay around in the area (parking, public spaces etc.) and in relation to accessibility one interviewee found that since the last few years more electric fences and dogs make the landscape less accessible. This explains the slight disagreement. (SD = 1,6)

Question 16 and 17; How would you grade how many features from the past are still around? What do you think in relation to historical features?

Quality
Mean
SD
History
8,6
1,3
With the times
6,1
3
Absorb new easily
5,5
2,6
Style/form fits
4,7
2,1
Keep old
6,3
1,7
Care old
4,2
2,3

On the one hand people are very aware of the many features left from the past (M = 8,6; SD = 1,3), but on the other hand there seems to be many disagreements (SD from 1,7 to 2,6) on how these old features are treated, managed or used and how modern development proceeds and many of these developments are subsequently not appreciated ( M = all below 6,5 and as far down as 4,2)
Here again we have the same problem relating to 'how things fit with each other' and 'how new fits with old' as in the question 10 and it will depend where one is looking at or with what purpose (= intention) and if there have been changes recently and in how far people are aware of these. Features which have been mentioned are the ‘lotissement5’ on the outskirts of many villages and towns, which don't fit with the old structures and that many old structures are left to go to ruin.
Within the interviews it was interesting to notice that some people looked particularly at historical buildings (castles and other monuments), which are kept up, then some at old residential houses are also kept up mainly by foreigners, but some looked at old features within the landscape (orris6). One of the interviewees however did not find much history, because he related the question to historical events and in comparison with Cyprus, where the Greek/Turkish historical events of the past play a important role in the present daily life on Cyprus, the history of Ariege has recently7 not been dramatic, neither has it played a dominant role in the life of the Ariegois.
In relation to modern developments the interviewees all found that they do not fit within the landscape, specially the ‘lotissements, although one remarked that luckily the bungalows are only one storey high, so one can look over them. But one remarked “He could put an axe to it” and another remarked “It is the way they put them there” and the fourth remarked that there are tax breaks for new developments, old village centres are dying and there is no forward planning and “the only difference between the bungalows here and the ones in Calais is the pitch of the roof. (All photos below were spoken of during interview) 

Question 18 and 19; How would you rate the naturalness in your area? And how do you think about the naturalness of your landscape?
Quality
Mean
SD
Naturalness
8,6
1,2
Plenty of nature
9,1
1
Diversity
8,5
1,5
Spontaneity
8,3
1,4
Seasonality
9,1
1,1
Care
7,5
1,1

People are aware of the naturalness of the landscape (M = 8,6) and that there is plenty of nature around (M = 9,1), which can go its own way (M = 8,3) and that there are strong seasonal variations (M = 9,1) but there is some slight disagreements in relation to care and diversity (SD = 1,8 and 1,5), although appreciation is still high (M = 7, 5 and 8,5).
This could be because there is such a large amount of wild nature in the Ariege, that people expect it could and should be kept a little bit more under control. Or again, could the slight disagreement in diversity have something to do with the fact that people are missing some aspects in this landscape with its strong individual character? (See question 9 and10)
Question 20 and 21; What grade would you give your landscape in the experience of spaciousness? And how do think about the experience of spaciousness in your area?
Quality
Mean
SD
Spaciousness
9,1
1
Irregular
8,6
1,3
Polution
9,3
1
Blocks
8,6
1,3
Elevation
9,6
07
Season change
8,9
1,6
Openness
9,2
1

Here again a very high value of the experience of space (M = 9,1) as well as a very high agreement and appreciation in relation to elevation (M = 9,6; SD = 0,7), which of course is not surprising as for most of the people it is one of the main landscape features which played a role in their motivation to come here; the Pyrenees! All other attributes are also highly valued; the irregularity (M = 8,6), low level of pollution (M = 9,3), the smallness of the fields and their changes of content (M = 8,6), openness (M = 9,2) and seasonal change (M = 8,9) although on the last one there is some disagreement.
For those who don't know the area it should be said that the high agreement to openness and the high appreciation of seasonal change has to do with the fact that the people concerned live in the foothills of the Pyrenees with fairly open valleys and that most of the forests are deciduous trees, with only some conifers. And from many points within this landscape one can see the high Pyrenees, dominated by the Mont d'Olmes complex.
Question 22 and 23; The landscape can be rich in sense-impressions, such as colours, smells, sounds which belong there. How would you rate your landscape? And how do you think/feel about the sense-impressions within your landscape?

Quality
Mean
SD
Sense-Impressions
8,9
1,4
Natural sounds
9
1,3
Dark at night
8,3
2
Nice smells
8,4
1,6
Seasonal
9,3
1

Here again people highly appreciated (M of all is above 8,3) and agreed about the richness of sense-impressions which the landscape offers.
Only in relation to darkness, there is some disagreement (SD = 2), but this might have something to do with the fact that all the villages, even small ones, have street-lighting on during the night and in case where you have one outside your window, it could be seen as light pollution. In the interview this was confirmed. However it was interesting that there was one lamppost on the road, which did not annoy the interviewee so much as another one which, so far he could see had no purpose.

Part 3: Their present engagement with the landscape

Question 24; In relation to activities the highest appreciation score (M = 9) with the highest agreement (SD = 1) was the outdoor activities and then other activities (M = 8,7; SD = 1,2), family visits back home (M = 8,9; SD = 1,5), pottering around the house, gardening and visiting local friends was also highly valued (M= 7,8; 8; 8,4 respectively) with the first two less in agreement (SD 2,5 and SD 2,3) What was on average not important was travelling abroad (M=5) however with a high SD (=4) so this means for some it is very important and for others not at all. For these last ones it is highly likely that they are very satisfied with the local area.

Question 25; The favourite activities are walking and/or cycling, then gardening or going out for coffee or just exploring, but for some individuals it was their creative activities (painting/sketching = work) or working with wool.
Question 26; What do you like about living here?
The highest appreciation is for the landscape (M = 9,3 with an SD = 0,4!), particularly the mountains, the variations/diversity within the landscape and it's restful nature, activities such as walking or just ‘Being’ within this landscape.
Regarding social/cultural events there is plenty around and various choices, only one person found there was not much to do and there were too less facilities.(parking and access)
Climate is for some too hot in summer or too cold in winter and for many the winters are longer and colder then expected, but the seasonal changes are highly valued.
What they appreciate within the the French way of life is respect for family life, time for each other and their welcoming nature.

Question 27; What do you not like about living here? The main drawback within the landscape is the new villas (lotissement) and new industries.

Within the social/cultural life some felt there is not much to do or that there are limitations (that is we are not in London or Paris!) and for one it was the complaining English!
Climate; (see question 26) and negative aspects of the French way of life mentioned were the bureaucracy and that the shops are closed at lunchtimes, but this might have been from a complaining Englishman!
But all these negative aspects have not much value (Max value was climate M = 2,3) that is; it did not bother them too much.

Question 28; What aspects do you like of the wider area?
Within the wider area the highest appreciation was the mountains (M = 9,8), then the rural character (M = 9,3), history (M = 8,9), villages (M = 8.2) wilderness (M = 7,6), the last one however with a high disagreement (SD=3.3) and then town-life (M=7). One person however brought to attention the important appreciation of the presence of water and another one the variation/diversity within a small area and/or distance.
Question 30; What are the most characteristic features of the area where you live? In other words; How would you describe to another person the area where you live?

Visual aspects; sloping hills, mountains, pastoral landscape, outstanding scenery, varied, constantly changing, various colours, various views, open valleys, green space, seasonal change, high mountains, skyline Pyrenees, lake views, architecture, out-door activities, rivers, peaceful, woods, plants. Blighted by lotissements, lack of buildings, safety, clarity.
Social aspects; small town bars, diversity, varied culture, welcoming French, many English, cafés, always something to do, rich cultural life, English speaking church, choir, fêtes, markets, vide-grenier8, places to eat out, communal meals in summer, slow pace, laid back. No time pressure, history, friendly welcome.

Again the above words and descriptions give a rich texture of the many positive aspects which people experience within the Ariege, covering also many aspects which the people appreciate in the French way of life, and particularly in rural life, which are missing or hard to find in England.

5.Discussion

During the process of working with this particular group of people and in the light of motivation, I came to the thought that through life there is a certain sequence of the three levels of needs mentioned by Maslow.
First our basic need is to find our place in the physical world and to be able to look after ourselves (provision of food, shelter etc.), then comes a time when we have the need to be part of the social fabric and be recognised as a capable person and make our stamp on the world and then comes a time when we need to do something we want to do, something more for ourselves, more in a creative way.
The group concerned relates more to this last need. They have worked during their life and now feel they can be free to do what they want to do. Life has given them the opportunity and fortune to look for a new situation to spend the rest of their lives, but also to go away from an unsatisfactory situation they were in.
One of the main factors which determined the wish to live here is the landscape of the Ariege, with its diverse, rural and underpopulated landscape with vast tracts of mountains and wild areas.
It was the view of the rural landscape with the background of the rising mountains that prompted most people to decide to come here.
The results show a very high appreciation of the landscape and it is interesting to note that in comparison with the results of various research projects (Coeterier (2000), de Vries & Kralingen (2002) and Berends, Feijter & Hartog (2005)) in Holland, where the average mean value is between 6.5 and 7.5 and SD are on average between 1 and 2, our mean figures are around 8-9 and the average SD between 0,5 and 1,5.
It is the specific character (unity) of the Ariege landscape, which offers a positive appreciation of spaciousness, seasonality, naturalness. It is rich in sense-impressions and history and provides an excellent base for leisure activities and the opportunity to live a peaceful relaxed life.
This supports Coeterier theory regarding the two dominant factors, which people value; unity and function.

However it was southern France with its warmer, dryer and lighter climate, and a culture and country not too foreign, nor too far from England, which were the preliminary factor sought when searching for a new place to live in France.
So in this regard there is a certain limit to the original questionnaire, based on Coeterier, in landscape appreciation, as climate and cultural factors are not mentioned.
However the purpose of the original questionnaire is how people appreciate their landscape, not where they are looking to live
The research and outcome focus very much on the sense perceptional qualities, and not much on the economic, social or cultural processes. For example; in the question related to “What do you understand by the French way of life?” there was not much reaction. One has to remember that many of the interviewees are not actually engaged within the economic life as producers etc., in this respect they are mainly consumers and so to be engaged in social life one needs to make some effort, what many of them then also do.
This has partially to do with the group of people as they were attracted by the scenery, that is; what they mostly appreciated plus the opportunities it offered for their creative use. As one of the interviewee said; “We had no idea what it is to actually live here”, that is; what social and cultural life would bring.
In relation to the questionnaire part two, it could be said that there were some misunderstandings, specially in relation to the terms unity, diversity and coherence.
This is also a difficult subject which is pointed out by Hendriks, K. and Stobbelaar, D.J.(2003) that too much diversity without coherence leads to chaos, and coherence without diversity leads to monotony. So we talk here about a certain paradoxical polarity.
Coeterier himself used the interview method in which case such problems could be avoided, whereas de Vries, S. & an Kralingen used the questionnaire, but then it was in a different language and this could make a difference too.
However this part of the questionnaire with the support of the interview brought to light very clearly the conflicts between modern developments within the present landscape and its history. It is as if the local people are not aware of their landscape perceptional qualities, which is confirmed by other researchers. (Lemaire, 1970) One only becomes aware of things, when one steps outside it. Or in this case, when one enters from outside!

Another important thing this part of the questionnaire brought to light is the confirmation of Coeterier's work that the several qualities and values, which in the first instant might seem to be of an abstract nature, can be seen by people within landscape, however it appears for different people in several and/or different forms (ea. history can be seen in monuments, ordinary houses, orris or social/cultural events etc.)
In this respect it supports my view that qualities/values are not so abstract after all, not only a production of our mind, but a reality within landscape, which permeate several aspects of the landscape.

6.Conclusion


In relation to the three original questions, we have seen that this group of people came here for a change in the later part of their life and were mainly in a situation, where they don't have to work and were looking for a life within a country not too far or too foreign,with a nice climate and where they can appreciate and use the landscape for leisure or creative purposes.
So their valuation of the perceptional properties the landscape is seen very much from the point of view of enjoyment and re-creative use.
Their valuation of landscape does not say much about the social and economic conditions in relation to how one can live in this area (employment etc.), neither does it say much about the values or qualities, which the local people have of find in their the landscape.
The group highly appreciated the landscape and agreed very much with each other that the Ariege is a wonderful, rural and peaceful landscape, whose character gives a rich experience of spaciousness, seasonality, naturalness, rich in sense-impressions and history.
However in relation to modern developments they found that also these have penetrated the Ariege, mainly in the form of lotissements and industrial buildings, whose architecture and the way they are put in the landscape does not fit within the past forms and structures, Also it is thought that neither have the local people and developers found ways or facilities to engage inhabitants to participate in these developments.
This supports the work of van Mansvelt & van der Lubbe, that we need to widening our thinking in relation to landscape and be aware that not only the functional, mainly economic aspects are necessary aspects of our life, but that appreciation of nature, views, leisure activities etc. are an important aspect of peoples lives.


References

Berends, W., de Feijter, K. and de Hartog, Mari (2005) Nederland kan zo mooi zijn. Onderzoek naar de beleving van 52 gebieden door de omwonenenden (trans; Holland can be so beautiful. Research in the experience of 52 areas through their inhabitants) Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Utrecht. Retrieved December 10(2011) from http://www.snm.nl/pdf/0000_nederland_kan_zo_mooi_zijn._deel_1__definitief.pdf
Bosshard, A.(2000). A methodology and terminology of sustainability assessment and its perspectives for rural planning. In Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 (2000) 29–41 Retrieved December 10 (2009) from www.agraroekologie.ch/Bosshard2000.pdf
Brull, D (2002) The mysteries of social encounters. AWSNA Publications, Fair Oaks, CA (USA) (Translated from German T. Forman & Trauger Groh)
Coeterier, F.J. (1987). De waarneming en waardering van landschappen (trans; The perception and evaluation of landscapes). PhD Thesis, Proefschrift Wageningen (Ned) Retrieved October 21 (2011) from http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/296451
Coeterier, F.J. (1995). Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. In Landscape and Urban Planning 34 (1996) Retrieved March 13, 2012 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169204695002049
Coeterier, F.J. (2000). Landschapsbeleving; toepassing van de meetmethode landschapsbeleving in vier gebieden in Nederland (trans; Landscape experience; implementation of the measuring method ‘landscape experience’ in four areas in the Netherlands). Wageningen (Ned); Alterra report 209, Alterra Research Institute voor de Groene Ruimte. Retrieved December 13, 2011 from http://edepot.wur.nl/20768
Hendriks, K. and Stobbelaar, D.J. (2003) Landbouw in een leesbaar landschap (trans; Agriculture in a Legible Landscape) Dissertation Wageningen University. Retrieved July 2009 from http://edepot.wur.nl/121408
Jacobs, M.H. (2002) Landschap 3; het ware, juiste en waarachtige landschap (trans;Landscape 3: the true, genuine and authentic landscape) Wageningen, Alterra / Expertisecentrum Landschapsbeleving, Available via http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/317711
Jacobs, M.H. (2004) Metropolitan matterscape, powerscape and mindscape. In: Planning metropolitan landscapes; concepts, demands, approaches / Tress, G., Tress, B. Harms, B., Smeets, P. and Valk, A. van der (eds) Wageningen: Wageningen University. Retrieved December 15 (2011) http://edepot.wur.nl/49367
Jacobs, M.H. (2006) The production of mindscapes: a comprehensive theory of landscape experience. PhD Thesis published at Wageningen University. Retrieved December 15 ( 2011) http://library.wur.nl/wda/dissertations/dis4061.pdf
Jacobs, M.H. (2011) Psychology of the visual landscape. In: Exploring the Visual Landscape; Advances in Physiognomic Landscape Research in the Netherlands . (Nijhuis, S., Lammeren, R. van, Hoeven, F. van der, .Amsterdam : IOS Press BV, (Research in Urbanism Series (RiUS) Retrieved Januari 20 (2012) from http://repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:fe6698ae-045c-436b-945b-c61c4b0437e4/RIUS_2_Exploring_the_Visual_Landscape.pdf

Lemaire,T. (1970) Filosofie van het Landschap (Philosophy of Landscape) Ambo, Amsterdam

van Mansvelt, J, D & van der Lubbe (1999). Checklist for Sustainable Landscape Management: Final Report of the EU Concerted Action. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Retrieved November 11 (2008) from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780444501592

van Mansvelt, J.D. (1997). An interdisciplinary approach to integrate a range of agro-landscape values as proposed by representatives of various disciplines. In Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63 (1997) Retrieved December 10 (2009) from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880997000170

Meinig, D.W. (1997) The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Scene. In The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, edited by D. W. Meinig and John Brinckerhoff Jackson. New York: Oxford University. Retrieved February 15 (2012) from http://www.larch.umd.edu/CLASSES/LARC/L160/READINGS/Meinig_Beholding_Eye.pdf
Ode, A., Tveit, M.S. and Fry, G.(2008) Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. In Landscape Research 33 vol 1. Retrieved December 10 (2011) from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01426390701773854
Pedroli, B. & van Mansvelt, J.D. (1996) Landscape and awareness-raising, training and education. In Landscape and sustainability; challenges of the European Landscape Convention. Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved December 10 (2010) from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/landscape/Publications/PaysageDeveloppement%20_en.pdf
de Vries, S. & van Kralingen, R.B.A.S.(2002). De beleving van het Nederlandse landschap door haar bewoners.(trans; The experience of the Dutch landscape by its inhabitants) Wageningen (Ned); Alterra report 609, Alterra Research Institute voor de Groene Ruimte. Retrieved December 14 (2011) from http://edepot.wur.nl/16542


Appendix 1: Questionnaire


Why are we here?
What aspects of the Ariege / Aude did influence your decision to move here?
and
What are we doing here?
What aspects of the Ariege / Aude play now a role in your daily life?
and
your own valuation and characterisation of your own landscape.
Questionnaire designed by Adriaan Luijk for his assignment for his Master degree in social and environmental educational research.
Contact details; Adriaan Luijk, Le Fort, 09300 Lieurac, France
tel 0561052760 email; adriaanluijk@gmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Dear People,
I am doing a research project as part of my Master Course and I am interested in how people relate to their 'Place' and what role does it play for them in their daily lives.
Because of my present situation I want to concentrate mainly on people who can understand English and I will be trying to find out, if and in which way the Ariege/Aude played a role in your motivation/decision to move here. And, secondly, how you value/appreciate the area through your everyday activities. (daily routine, work and leisure) and thirdly I will need to ask you a few questions about your present situation. If you think I ask too personal questions, just don't answer them!
I want to achieve this first by a questionnaire and then do a couple of interviews after the questionnaire is done. I would be really grateful if you manage to take some time and so make it possible for me to do my assignment. I try to make it also interesting and I hope I have achieved that, especially in the second part, where in I ask you to value and characterise your immediate surroundings, which gives you an opportunity to think about things you might have never thought about before! All information will be treated as confidential.

How to fill in questionnaire?

By filling in the questionnaire, specially in relation to your experiences in relation to landscape, we ask for your personal experiences, so there are no right or wrong answers. All your answers are good as long as they reflect/describe your personal experiences or thoughts. Also don't think too long about the questions, just fill in what comes up in your mind the first time.

In section 1 we ask some questions about how you experienced your first visit here and what impression it made on you and in section 2 more about your present experiences in relation to how you value/appreciate the area where you live now. This area is confined to your immediate rural surroundings, let's say within max. 5 km radius from your home. In section 3 however we also ask you about some important experiences you had in areas nearby and how you appreciate the wider region as a totality, which could be the whole area within around 50/100 km radius

Technical information;

In most questions we ask you to value the importance of a certain quality and we ask you to grade it between 1 and 10. So if we ask you how do you appreciate your immediate surroundings, then you can tick between 1 and 10. What they represent is mentioned left and right within the diagram. For example;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Not very attractive/appealing







V


Very attractive/ appealing
If you find the area attractive you can fill in 6 to 10. With 10 you appreciate it very much and with 6 you just find it just attractive. If you find the area not attractive, then you use the numbers between 1 and 5. With 5 you find it just unattractive and with 1 you find it very unattractive, but it can also mean that you find one important element really missing or awful, which overshadows everything.

In some questions we don't use the above format (diagram), but all the same we ask you to value it accordingly, that is between 1 and 10, 1 is min (negative) value and 10 is max (positive) value.

Thank you, Adriaan


Questionnaire Section 1

What aspects of the Ariege/Aude did play a role in your decision to move here?
1) Where did you live before you moved here?
Country

Place (if rural; nearest village/town etc.)

Character (cross what is not applicable)
Rural/Village/Town/ City
How long did you live there?

What kind of job/work did you have?
(cross what is not applicable)
Employed / Self-employed / None
How many years have you been now here?

When did you come here for your very first visit?

And why? (cross what is not applicable)
Holiday/ Visit friends/ Work / Passed through / Other


2) When you came here for the first time what did you like about the Ariege/Aude?

General category
Can you give a very short description /characterisation /aspect of what you liked about it?
Grade 1 -109
(if applicable)
Landscape


Social life


Found work


Peace and quiet


Found nice house


Nice climate


Other?



3) Where did you go and what activity?
Where and what activity?
Grade Place 1-10
(if applicable)
Place 1


Place 2


Place 3


Place 4


Place 5



4) Do you think the above experiences (in question 2 and 3) played an important role in your decision to move here?

Did the above experiences play a role?
Yes/no
What was the most important one? In which way?


5) What were your main motives for moving to the Ariege /Aude?
Description
What did you not like about the place where you were?
Main motive for moving here.

Other motives?


6) What were your main criteria in buying/renting your new home?
Description of criteria
Grade importance 1-10
House it-self (e.g. old /new etc.)


Garden


Needed also space for B&B or a Gite to rent out.
Yes/No

Area (what quality were you looking for?)


View


In village


With facilities (baker etc.)


Isolated/privacy


Swimming pool


Sun on garden/house


Climate


Questionnaire Section 2

In this section I would like to ask you to think about your surrounding landscape within around 5 km radius from your home.

7) How attractive or appealing do you find the local area/landscape around you?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Not very attractive










Very attractive

8) There are coming now characteristics, which can determine the attractiveness of your area. Can you mark for each characteristic in how much you find this characteristic important for the attractiveness (or not ) for the area you live in.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Measure of coherence, of unity/character in the landscape
Not important










Very important
Diversity within the landscape
Not important










Very important
The way the area is structured for the various functions
Not important










Very important
For what I can do;(work, job)
Not important










Very important
For what I can do; (for leisure activities)
Not important










Very important
The naturalness of the area.
Not important










Very important
The historic character of the landscape, things left from the past
Not important










Very important
Care and maintenance of the area
Not important










Very important
The experience of space, wide or deep views etc.
Not important










Very important
The sense-perceptible properties (colours,smells etc.)
Not important










Very important
The way you can experience the various seasons
Not important










Very important

Now I would like to ask you about these various characteristics in more detail and how do you experience them in your area.

Coherence / Unity / Character of the landscape

9) Do you find that your landscape has a specific character?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Landscape has no special character










Landscape has clearly its own character.

10) The unity of the landscape is determined by various characteristics. Can you grade how you think about the various characteristics of the unity of your area?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

There are too many things, which don't fit and which disturb its character.










All things in the landscape fit with each other
The size or shape of new things don't fit with the existing structures










The size and shape of new things fit with the existing structures.
The landscape is fragmented and divided in several distinct areas, which don't connect.










All parts of the landscape connect with each other nicely
The landscape is monotonous and everywhere the same.










There is much diversity within the landscape.

Structure/ Function/ Use of the Landscape

11) In every landscape happens something, each landscape has been partly or heavily modified for a certain function, such as farming/forestry, housing, industry and leisure. How would you grade your landscape for how it is used or managed for its various functions?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

I find the management of landscape not fitting to the functions it has










I find the management of the landscape very fitting to the functions it has

12) How do you think about the functions/structures/lay-out of the landscape?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

The various functions are in each others way










There is enough place for the various functions
The activities in the landscape bring a lot of traffic










It is very quiet out there and the functions don't bring a lot of traffic
There are many different functions and activities within the landscape










The landscape is managed mainly for one function (e.g. agricultural)
The structure is very tight and not very inviting, with everywhere gates and fences










The structure is very loose and playful, and things can develop there own way.
The area is build up










The area is very rural.


Possibilities for your own use

13) Apart from what happens in the landscape, there can be few or many possibilities for your own use. How would you rate the landscape for opportunities to walk, cycle etc. to nearby villages or for work etc.?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

The landscape does offer me no possibilities to do what I want to do.










The landscape offers many possibilities to do what I want to do.
The landscape does offer me no possibilities for my work










The landscape does offer me perfect possibilities for my work*
* 14)
In which way?


15) What do you think about your own possibilities for outdoor activities?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

The landscape is difficult to reach from my house










The landscape is easy accessible from my house
Landscape is not easily accessible, everywhere gates and fences










Landscape very accessible, I can go everywhere.
Lots of disturbances of other people; busy, disturbing behaviour.










No disturbance of other people, you can find peace and quiet and walk undisturbed
Too few facilities or too many










Enough facilities

Historical character

16) Mostly there are within the landscape historical features next to new developments. How would you grade how many features from the past are there still around?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Its a modern landscape and nearly nothing is left over from the past










There are many features left from the past and the landscape has a strong historical character.

17) What do you think in relation to historical features?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

New developments go much too fast or much to slow.










The landscape develops accordingly with the times.
New developments overpower the past, no good balance between old and new, between preservation and new development.










The landscape can absorb new developments without losing its character.
Old and new don't fit with each other in relation to form & style, material and colour










New things have a style etc. which fits with old/past structures.
The old is taken away too easily and replaced by new things










There is taken much care for old structures and features
Old things are neglected










Old things are cared for and maintained

Naturalness

18) Landscapes can give the impression that they develop naturally or organically, that developments are taken place spontaneously/gradually and that there is still space for human beings, plants and animals. This is called naturalness.

How would you rate the naturalness in your area?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

The landscape seems to me very artificial










The landscape seems to me very natural

19) How do you think about the naturalness of your landscape?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

There is not much nature in the area










There is plenty of nature in the area
Nature is everywhere the same, with not much variety in plants and animals.










Nature is very varied, many different species of wildlife are around
Most greenery is planted in rows or blocks










Nature can go here its own way and there are many wild, spontaneous growths.
The landscape is the same throughout the year










There is much variation during the course of the year.
The maintenance of plantations is not good (too little, too rough or not at the right time)










The plantations are maintained properly

Spaciousness

20) Each landscape gives an experience of a particular space. It can be very open, with wide or far views, or just closed with plenty of vegetation. But it can also be too open or too closed.

What grade would you give your landscape in the experience of spaciousness?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Not a very nice experience of space










A very nice experience of space.

21) How do think about the experience of spaciousness in your area?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

The partitions of landscape are very straight and regular










The partitions are irregular and varied
There is much horizon pollution (blocked/not nice views)










There is nowhere horizon pollution
(far/pleasant views)
The space is divided in large blocks and on each piece is the same content










The space is divided in small blocks, which content constantly change.
Landscape is flat and smooth










Many elevations.
The experience of space is the whole year around the same










In each season there is a change of the experience of space
The landscape is very closed










The landscape is very open

Sense-impressions
22) The landscape can be rich in sense-impressions, such as colours, smells, sounds which belong there. How would you rate your landscape?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Landscape is poor in stimulating sense-impressions, or with many unpleasant ones










Many varied and pleasant sense-impressions are available

23) How do you think/feel about the sense-impressions within your landscape?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

There is much noise in the landscape










You can hear a lot of natural sounds
There is lot of light pollution (street lights, factories)










It's dark at night.
There are awful smells around










There are many nice smells around in the countryside
The sense-impression are the same all the year around










Each season has its own colours, sounds and smells

Questionnaire Section 3

24) What do you do in your free time?
How often and/or how much time in the week/year? (Rough figure is fine!)
Grade importance for you;1-10 (dislike/like)
Pottering at home


Gardening


Visiting local friends


Visiting family /friends back home


Social events in the area


Travel abroad (holiday)


Local outdoor activities


Other?



25)) What are your favourite outdoor activities in order of preference?

Activities
How much time a week or month?
Where? If many, mention your favourite place?
What do you like about the activity?

























26) What do you like about living here?
Description/Aspects
Grade value 1-10
Landscape


Social /Cultural life


Climate


French/local way of life (What ever that might be)


Be at home


Have a satisfying job/business


Leisure activities


Other?



27) What do you NOT like about living here?
Description /Aspects
Grade value 1-10* in how far it bothers you
Landscape


Social /cultural life


Climate


French/local way of life


Don't feel at home


Don't like my job/work


Leisure activities


Other?


* So only here a high value means it bother you very much.

28) What aspects of the landscape do you like within the wider area (Ariege/Aude)?
Grade level of importance for you. (1-10)
Mountains

Villages

Historical significant places

Rural landscapes

Towns

Wilderness

Other?


29) What are your favourite places you have visited since you are here and how often?
(Could include a 100 km away from your home)

Favourite places
How many times over how many years?
What did you like about it?
1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9


10



30) What are according to you the most characteristic features of the area where you live.
In other words how would you describe to another person the area where you live. (Could include 20 km away from your home) I suggest you mention 4 visible, 3 social-life and 3 typical local French characteristics.

Main characteristics
Visual 1
2
3
4
Social 5
6
7
Local 8
9
10

31) How is your day-time divided in relation to your work/occupation /duties and leisure etc.?

Do you work full-time
Yes/No
If not, how much of your time?
hrs. /week roughly
Do you like your work?
Grade 1-10
Did you keep your job / business abroad?
Yes/No
How often do you have to back for that?
weeks/year days/month
How much time do you need spend on other necessary occupations /duties (work at home, voluntary work etc.
hrs./week roughly
How much free time do you have left?
hrs./week roughly
weeks/year

Thank you very much for your time and I hope you might actually have enjoyed it to look back and reflect on your experiences, your likes and dislikes etc. and your local area and at the same time how the Ariege/Aude has contributed to your rich experiences.

Would you be interested in the results of this research?
Grade 1-10

One last question; Are you willing to be available for an interview over a cup of coffee (yours) or a glass of wine (mine) for about 20 minutes to reflect how the questionnaire was and the questions/experiences it brought up for you and I would like to hear more about some significant experiences you had regarding the landscape. All information will be treated confidential and will give more detailed information before the interview. 

Available/willing to be interviewed
Yes/No

Personal details (These will be kept confidential)

Name

Nationality

Address

Male /Female



Year of Birth

Character
Rural /village/ town


Postcode



Tel



Email



Appendix 2: Letter of Consent

This letter was first send by email, wherein I asked the person concerned if he/she was still willing to take part with the help of an interview and then the letter was taken and signed during the interview.
Dear ........

Thank you for responding so positively on my request to answer the questions in the questionnaire I send you by email in relation to my research project.
In regard to the research I would like to interview some of you.
I will need about 20 min. for each person.
The main idea is to discus the questionnaire with you, specially in relation to
  1. Some of your replies on your valuation of the landscape and specifically the balance between new developments and their effect on the present landscape and its history.
  2. And then I would like to explore with you together the various factors which played a role in your decision/ motivation to come here.

All information will be confidential and I would need the consent for each of you.


I …..........................consent to Adriaan Luijk of the RSUC master programme, to participate in the research project; Why are we here? and What are we doing here? and the evaluation of your landscape.

I have been informed about my right to withdraw from the project without any reason and at any time if I do not approve of the content.
I am also aware that my personal information and recorded data will be kept anonymous.

Footnotes

1 Some of the attributes I have incorporated into others (e.g.;care) while others have been split into two (e.g. history and seasonality) as was also done by Coeterier and others.
2 SD means Standard Deviation, which is the average amount or distance from the mean. So a low value (i.e. 1) means that people on average only deviate 1 point below or above from the mean. That is they fairly agree with each other. Whereas a high value (above 2 or so) is a sign of conflicting opinions or values.
3 A county adjoining the Ariege
4 As I commented before (see question 7&8) I had to drastically change this from agreement to disagreement after receiving the last questionnaire! Before that there was a much higher agreement and a higher value.
5 Allotment; mostly a field, which has been divided into building-plots
6 Old stone huts/shelters in the form of beehives, which one can find within the forests a mountains
7 The only well known dramatic part was the war against the Cathars, which does play a dominant role in tourism and in many people's minds, but that would be a subject in itself.
8 = Carboot sales
9 Please note; below 6 is negative!
 

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)