Assessment of the landscape identity through participation in the framework of a landscape character research 147Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.73.2.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 2024 (2) 147–163. Introduction The unique particularity of the landscapes, as perceived by people, contributes to the at- tachment of man to the place or the area they live in and correlates with the given man- nature relationship. What we perceive is not just an independent spot-like feature but the entire area with its multiple natural and cul- tural elements and characteristics. People are bound to their landscape through perception. The cultural and human geographical land- 1 Department of Landscape Protection and Environmental Geography, University of Debrecen. Egyetem tér 1. H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary. 2 Department of Landscape Planning and Regional Development, Institute of Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning and Garden Art, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Villányi út 29–43. H-1118 Budapest, Hungary. 3 Department of Landscape Protection and Reclamation, Institute of Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning and Garden Art, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Villányi út 29–43. H-1118 Budapest, Hungary. 4 Department of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics. University of Debrecen. Egyetem tér 1. H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary. Corresponding author’s e-mail: turi.zoltan@science.unideb.hu 5 Doctoral School of Geosciences, University of Debrecen. Egyetem tér 1. H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary. 6 Institute of Social and Communication Sciences, Benedek Elek Faculty of Pedagogy, University of Sopron. Ferenczy János u. 5. H-9400 Sopron, Hungary. Assessment of the landscape identity through participation in the framework of a landscape character research Péter CSORBA1, Sándor JOMBACH2, Zsombor BOROMISZA3, Zoltán TÚRI4, Krisztina BÁNÓCZKI5 and Éva KONKOLY-GYURÓ6 Abstract The physical and emotional character of the landscape is an increasingly important ecosystem service factor in Hungary, too, and the strong identity of residents with the landscape is part of their well-being. Between 2016 and 2022, we prepared the landscape character map of the entire country. One of the essential elements of the project was that in four study areas – Sopron–Lake Fertő region (containing Sopron Mountains and Basin together with Lake Fertő), Gerecse Mountains, Tápió-vidék region and Tiszazug region – as landscape units, we tried to reveal the feelings of the residents related to the landscape using different methods. One of the most effective tools was surveys organised in workshops (personal or online) when we inquired about how the residents see landscape patterns, land use, and the changes in the surroundings of their settlements. One of the most important lessons learned from the study areas was that the local citizens usually have an indisposition for large-scale alterations of the accustomed environment, which leads to less familiar feelings and weakens the near natural character of the landscape. The results were compared with international experience. Keywords: landscape identity, landscape character, community research, participatory planning, European Landscape Convention Received January 2024, accepted April 2024. Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163.148 scape approach, emphasising the aesthetical, perceptual qualities, has been strengthening since the turn of the millennium (Cosgrove, D.E. 1984, 2003; Wylie, J.W. 2007). The land- scape is full of meaningful symbolic content, which has been crucial since the early history of humans (Schama, S. 1995; Ingold, T. 2002). Perception of the landscape is, therefore, a widespread and valued research topic (Kim, J. and Kaplan, R. 2004; Antrop, M. 2005; Olwig, K.R. 2006; Gobster, P.H. et al. 2019; Opdam, P. 2020; De Vries, S. et al. 2021). Landscape character is defined as a ”dis- tinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another” and ”it is what makes each part of the landscape dis- tinct and gives each its particular sense of place” (Swanwick, C. 2002; Wascher, D.M. 2005). Beyond the term landscape character, landscape identity also became a commonly used expression. The two concepts are rel- atively close. However, they are not syno- nyms. ”Landscape identity is the unique psy- cho-social perception of a place defined in a spatial, cultural space” (Stobbelaar, D.J. and Pedroli, B. 2011; Minca, C. 2013; Konkoly- Gyuró, É. 2018). The word ”identity” is derived from the Latin identitas, meaning ”sameness”. In other words, the landscape identity is ”the perceived uniqueness of the place” (Ramos, I.L. et al. 2016). Both character and identity can be captured at several scales and an individual/personal or collective perception (Lowenthal, D. 2007; Lewicka, M. 2008; Knez, I. and Eliasson, I. 2017; Belanche, D. et al. 2021). Scales extend from local to national, or we might speak of continental identity or character (Dixon, J. and Durrheim, K. 2000; Dossche, R. et al. 2016; Butler, A. et al. 2017; Jankó, F. et al. 2018; Butler, A. and Sarlöv-Herlin, I. 2019). According to the most accepted environmen- tal psychology ideas, the human perception of the landscape is largely influenced by evolutionary heritage (Lowenthal, D. 2007), which can be traced back to the satisfaction of basic physical needs and a sense of se- curity (Maslow, A.H. 1943; Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. 1982; De la Fuente de Val, G. et al. 2006). Due to the former component, people are attracted to landscapes that are fertile and easy to control in terms of topog- raphy and plant coverage, as well as clear and legible. The security for Homo sapiens was originally provided by the landscape structure of the wooded savannah, where there is a sufficient view of the area, but there is also the possibility of hiding in the patch- es of trees and bushes (Appleton, J. 1975; Hunziker, M. et al. 2007). This so-called pros- pect and refuge theory also explains why the open, semi-open or closed appearance of the field of view has a particular weight in the assessment of landscape or as a waterfront, water surface that expands the spatial expe- rience (Coeterier, J.F. 1996; Butler, A. et al. 2017; Häfner, K. et al. 2018). Several researchers are convinced that for humans, environments with an intermedi- ate level of complexity should be preferred, which would have provided survival ben- efits to our “ancestors” (Orians, G.H. 1986; De la Fuente de Val, G. et al. 2006). In comparison, an overly homogeneous or an extremely mosaic-like landscape both offered worse chances of survival. Some believe that even in the background of the attractiveness and popularity of the landscape, an atti- tude seeking safety can be discovered, but according to others, it is much more strongly shaped by learned behaviour and cultural background than aesthetic judgment (Tveit, M. et al. 2006; Häfner, K. et al. 2018). According to the European Landscape Convention 2000 (ELC 2000) (Council of Europe, 2000), the identification and valua- tion of the landscapes requires the participa- tion of the local stakeholders and inhabitants. The future strategies concerning the human environment and landscapes have to be based on collective decision and participation. Consequently, the research of landscape char- acter and identity with participatory methods contributes to landscape management, protec- tion and planning, as well as to several secto- ral strategies, e.g., tourism, agriculture, and urbanism (Konkoly-Gyuró, É. 2013; Csorba, 149Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163. P. and Csatári, B. 2017). Moreover, participa- tion in landscape identification and valuation can strengthen the reliability and acceptance of local initiatives and interventions (Imecs, Z. et al. 2022; Lengerer, F. et al. 2022). The focus on public participation in the ELC is in line with the general principles of democracy, as the transparency of the decision-making is a prior requirement. (Jones, M. 2007; Bándi, Gy. 2011; Semian, M. and Nováček, A. 2017; Kahila-Tani, M. et al. 2019; Santé, I. et al. 2020; Zachrisson, A. et al. 2021). Genuine cooperation with the stakeholders is needed in regional devel- opment, environmental conservation and landscape planning (Konkoly-Gyuró, É. 2013; Fodor, L. and Pump, J. 2016; Berki, Zs. 2018). The legal framework of participation in Hungary was constructed right after the political changes in 1989–1990 concerning environmental impact assessments, as well as local and regional development strate- gies and planning (Hungary’s Government Decree No. 86/1993, 20/2001, 314/2005 and 314/2012.). The practice of actual participa- tion in decision-making, however, often re- mains at a basic level, or the bottom-up ini- tiatives still need to be improved. According to the National Landscape Strategy (NLS) of Hungary (2017–2026), ”Only a quarter of the NGO members are active members, that is one of the lowest proportion in the EU.” The higher the level of participation stands, the stronger the landscape identity is. As the NLS states, a survey concerning the inhab- itants’ relationship towards their landscape needs to be included in Hungary. Our study is an attempt – at least partly – to respond to this need in the case studies of a nationwide landscape character assessment. The five-year Hungarian research project was launched in 2016 by the Ministry of Agriculture (KEHOP- 4.3.0-VEKOP-15-2016-00001), and aimed at a national characterisation along with case studies at the micro-regional and local level. Online questionnaires and a series of work- shops served the inclusion of local percep- tions (Konkoly-Gyuró, É. and Csőszi, M. 2021). In the case studies, we used similar methods (Sain, M. and Rab, J. 2018), how- ever, unique, innovative approaches have also been tried (Boromisza, Zs. et al. 2022). The aim of the scientific project was to prepare Hungary’s first landscape charac- ter map and its explanation, with the help of which even non-professional decision-mak- ers can determine the landscape character of a given planning area. The scientific goal, therefore, served a practical purpose at the same time in the form of useful information for the landscape planning process. Materials and methods The classification of landscape character de- pends more on the subjective perception of the person than, for example, the classification of landscape types. It is difficult to reconcile scientific research with the emotional aspect, with the fact that the “acceptance” of the land- scape depends on the emotional state and personality of the observer and the grade of the emotional and identity relationship of the observer with the given landscape. This can only be enhanced if a sufficiently large num- ber of subjective opinions are considered, i.e., subjective opinions are statistically balanced. The four micro-regional and local case studies represent the landscape diversity of Hungary and cover the majority of landscape types identified in the previous countrywide GIS assessment (Konkoly-Gyuró, É. et al. 2021) (Figure 1). The study area designation did not follow the physical geographical landscapes (Csorba, P. et al. 2018). During the research, our goal was to create a per- ceptual landscape character map interpreted more broadly than the physical geographical landscapes, in which the attitude and sense of identity of the local people also appear. In addition, land use, nature protection, demo- graphics, and infrastructure data used for the survey are available from the municipality. The Tiszazug region is situated between the rivers Tisza and Körös in the central part of the Great Hungarian Plain. The Tiszazug well represents the different landscape types of the Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163.150 Great Hungarian Plain: low alluvial plains, higher loess plateaus, and sandy hills. There are arable lands on the plateaus with cher- nozem soils, orchards and vineyards on the sandy soils, and minor meadows and arable lands on the low alluvial plains (Figure 2). The society of the study area is in a severe demo- graphic crisis: the population of the region decreased by 25 percent since the 1970s. Due to the decreasing and ageing population, eco- nomic activity is also declining in the region. Most industrial facilities are abandoned. The area of Sopron–Lake Fertő region at the north-western border of Hungary con- sists of various landscape types between 150–650 m a.s.l. (see Figure 2). On the foothills of the Alps, we find forested low mountains and hills covered by vineyards and recrea- tional areas. Between them lies an urbanised basin with the town of Sopron. The higher and lower lowlands, wetlands and shal- low alkaline lake extend toward the Little Hungarian Plain. There are densely popu- lated urban and intensively used, rural, agri- cultural areas with growing populations and natural and semi-natural national park (NP) zones, partly overlapping with cultural land- scapes inscribed on the world heritage (WH) list. Both NP and WH areas are transbound- ary, extending toward Austria and more and more demand for touristic and recreational use can be detected. The Gerecse Mountains study area has for- ested hills ranging between 300–600 m a.s.l. on the east, but plains with significant wet- lands and arable lands also occur in the west- Fig. 1. Location of the four study areas in Hungary. Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on European Digital Elevation Model (EU-DEM), version 1.1 from EEA, 2016. 151Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163. ern part (see Figure 2). Culturally important small town, Tata and villages are located in the south-central part, while the northern edge of the study area along the Danube river and the Slovakian border is represented by mining and industrial use and partly by wine produc- tion and recreation functions. This study area involves several different landscape character types and can be subdivided into many sec- tions. The most authentic parts are the en- closed basins of the Gerecse Mountains con- taining small villages of rural land use mixture with forested and steep hills and ridges. The Tápió-vidék region study area in the Central Hungary region, in Pest county, covers nine settlements. According to the CORINE Land Cover (2018) database, arable land covers more than half (57%) of the study area. Deciduous forests and transitional for- est-shrub areas account for almost 20 percent. The western part represents a hilly landscape with higher forest coverage, whereas in the eastern part, lowland landscapes are domi- nant, with planted woodlets, spacious agricul- tural lands and wetlands (see Figure 2). There are few nature reserves, mainly wetlands along little brooks. The settlement density is significantly higher than the national average. Data expressing landscape mosaics, land use diversity, and ecological fragmentation Fig. 2. Main ecosystems of the four study areas. Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on Ecosystem Map of Hungary (project KEHOP-430-VEKOP-15-2016-00001, Ministry of Agriculture, 2019). Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163.152 of the study areas (mean patch size, Shannon diversity, fragmentation) play a significant role in the character of the landscape and point out the significant differences be- tween the individual plots (Table 1). In the case of the Tiszazug, landscape mosaics are in strong correlation with large arable plots and protected grasslands around Lake Fertő. Land use diversity is highest in the Tápió- vidék region, while in the case of Gerecse Mountains the landscape is the most uniform due to extensive forests (61%). The hemeroby level shows the strongest anthropogenic in- fluence (α – euhemerobic) in the Tápió region and the Tiszazug, where the proportion of protected areas is negligible. The methods used, with the help of which we got to know the opinions of local resi- dents, the methods used were significantly influenced by social and demographic con- ditions in the study area. For example, there are very active NGOs in Sopron (Sopron– Lake Fertő region), and there was no prob- lem organising the discussions. However, the majority of non-governmental organisations employ intellectual workers. The character of the landscape is significantly influenced by vine production, but grape growers are hard- ly represented in civic forums. In contrast, the Tiszazug study area is a traditional agri- cultural region, but with a very passive, age- ing society. It was possible mainly to reach pensioners there. All study areas have nature conservation areas, but professionals were not always active partners in the research. During the preparative phase, we identi- fied the local stakeholders from the differ- ent organisations and social groups. Invitees arrived from diverse branches, e.g., nature conservation, cultural heritage protection, water management, architecture, research and higher education, and various social groups. Beyond governmental and manage- ment organisations, NGOs and non-official inhabitants participated in the workshops. The first introductory workshop gave an overview of the purpose of the entire land- scape character project and the actual work- shop. In the first meeting, the researcher aimed to collect basic information on the personal landscape perception of the attend- ees. It included the mental maps of the land- scape, main characteristics, unique places, values and conflicts. The second workshop confronted the experts’ views and the locals’ perceptions after fulfilling the expert field surveys and the precision of the landscape character types and areas in the study areas. The third workshop focused on the landscape changes and their evaluation, as well as for- mulating the quality objectives for the future. The last workshop presented the results and asked for feedback from the locals about the conclusions drawn by the experts. It also had the purpose of defining the future tasks. Various tools have been applied during the workshops: – mental maps and short questionnaires; – small-group round table discussions and consultations; Table 1. Characteristics of the study areas influencing landscape character Indicators Tiszazug region Sopron Mountains and Basin Lake Fertő Gerecse Mountains Tápió-vidék region Proportion of arable land, % Proportion of forest, % Proportion of built-up area, % Mean patch size, km2 Shannon diversity Landscape ecological fragmentation Proportion of protected area, % 60.00 6.00 4.00 2.10 1.50 2.40 5.00 15.00 46.00 10.00 1.00 1.48 4.00 42.00 32.00 20.00 2.00 2.60 1.44 1.05 35.00 10.00 61.00 2.00 1.20 1.35 1.60 41.00 57.00 16.00 11.00 1.40 1.81 4.00 5.00 Intensity of human intervention (hemeroby level) α – euheme- robic Mesoheme- robic Oligoheme- robic Mesoheme- robic α – euheme- robic 153Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163. – photo series facilitating the expression of opinion, e.g., written voting on the char- acteristics and preferences of photo series; – open questions and answers: voting, e.g., about main conflicts based on a predefined list of problems; – interactive landscaping board game; – free association drawing; – public participatory GIS (ppGIS) mapping of distinct characteristic elements of the landscape. Results and discussion Willingness of participation Significant differences were shown in the number of workshop participants and their activity in the study areas (Table 2). The low willingness and general pessimism of the Tiszazug area (5–10 participants) is an extremity. However, the number of online respondents was far higher here: 70 people filled in the online questionnaire. Another problem was that usually different people participated in the four workshops, i.e., those who joined later needed to be more familiar with what was discussed earlier. In the Sopron–Lake Fertő region (in addi- tion to online respondents), we had 89 par- ticipants at the workshops, 46 on-site and 43 online attendees. The majority of them arrived mainly from the town of Sopron. Only a few participants from the villages took part. For the profession, we had a more balanced picture. Representatives of nature conservation, forestry, water management, architecture, heritage protection, and inter- ested citizens were present, but no official decision-maker attended the workshops. In the Gerecse study area, workshops and interactive events were visited by 64 people. The most popular event was outdoors at the start point of a memorial hiking trip of locals in Pusztamarót (part of Nyergesújfalu town). The participants focused on landscapes and could easily express their impressions as part of their hiking schedule with an atti- tude open to landscape-related questions. The events organised indoors had only 8–10 participants on average, reaching only the most active members of landscape manage- ment. These active persons usually came from the fields of nature conservation, wild- life management, decision-making, forestry, tourism, monument protection, architecture and landscape architecture. In the Tápió-vidék area, the personal work- shops were visited by 161 people altogether. The first workshop was organised in 4 local primary schools, with the participation of 102 pupils. Organising a workshop as a school lesson means a higher attendance evidently, whereas those workshops proved attractive to local people, where they were already in their comfort zone (e.g., the workshop took place at an outdoor public swimming pool). It must be noted that most of the work- shop organisation phase coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic, partly during lockdown periods. Therefore, many events have been held in a hybrid form (on-site and online) or only online. However, due to the manifold online activities, participation was undoubt- edly lower than usual. Perception of the landscape character in the study areas The most beautiful landscape segment for the inhabitants of the Tiszazug is the scenery with the water body in the frame of flood- plain forests visible at the ferry on the Tisza river (Photo 1). In their view, the most characteristic land- scape of the Tiszazug shows up from the top of the flood control dams with the mosaic- like land use structure of the protected flood- plain, the dark line of the floodplain forests along the river and the steeples of the tiny villages built on the islands exempt from inundations (Table 3). However, most have mentioned an oxbow lake belted with trees and reeds as a “favourite place”. They con- sider tranquility, the nearness of nature and the tiny villages that fit into the landscape as Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163.154 Ta bl e 2 . L oc at io ns , d at es a nd p ar tic ip an ts o f t he w or ks ho ps Lo ca tio n an d tim e of th e w or ks ho ps , m on th /y ea r M et ho d of d at a co lle ct io n N um be r o f pa rt ic ip an ts A ge o f pa rt ic ip an ts , ye ar s Ty pi ca l o cc up at io n of p ar tic ip an ts Ti sz az ug re gi on Ti sz af öl dv ár to w n, G eo gr ap hi ca l M us eu m , 02 /2 02 0 O pe ni ng m ee tin g pe rs on al att en da nc e 18 16 –5 0 M un ic ip al e m pl oy ee s, n at ur e co ns er va tio n sp ec ia lis ts , s tu de nt s Ti sz ak ür t v ill ag e, A rb or et um , 07 /2 02 0 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce 12 30 –6 0 Sc ie nt ifi c ex pe rt s, n at ur e co ns er va tio ni st s Ti sz af öl dv ár –D eb re ce n, 10 /2 02 0 O nl in e 14 40 –6 0 A gr ic ul tu ra l w or ke rs Ti sz af öl dv ár –D eb re ce n, 10 /2 02 0 O nl in e 10 30 –5 0 Te ac he rs , m un ic ip al e m pl oy ee s Ti sz af öl dv ár –D eb re ce n, 04 /2 02 1 C lo si ng m ee tin g on lin e 15 30 –5 0 Em pl oy ee s in m us eu m s, li br ar ie s, n at ur e co ns er va tio n sp ec ia lis ts Ti sz af öl dv ár –D eb re ce n, 06 /2 02 1 O nl in e qu es tio nn ai re 70 16 –3 5 St ud en ts , i nt el le ct ua ls Ti sz af öl dv ár to w n an d C se rk es ző lő v ill ag e, 09 /2 02 1 Pe rs on al q ue st io nn ai re 18 50 –7 0 Pe ns io ne rs So pr on –L ak e Fe rt ő re gi on Fe rt őd to w n, 05 /2 01 9 Pr ep ar at iv e m ee tin g pe rs on al att en da nc e 22 30 –6 0 Ex pe rt s, la nd sc ap e pl an ne rs , d ec is io n m ak er s Fe rt őd to w n, 10 /2 01 9 O nl in e qu es tio nn ai re 70 20 –7 0 C iv il ac tiv is ts , e xp er ts Fe rt őd to w n, 10 /2 02 0 O nl in e qu es tio nn ai re 68 14 –1 8 St ud en ts s pe ci al is in g in to ur is m So pr on to w n, 09 /2 02 0 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce a nd o nl in e 14 20 –6 0 C iv il ex pe rt s So pr on to w n, 10 /2 02 0 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce a nd o nl in e 22 40 –7 0 C iv il ex pe rt s So pr on to w n, 11 /2 02 0 C lo si ng d is cu ss io n on lin e 31 30 –6 0 Ex pe rt s, p la nn er s, d ec is io n m ak er s G er ec se M ou nt ai ns N ye rg es új fa lu to w n, 0 6/ 20 19 O pe ni ng d is cu ss io n, p er so na l att en da nc e 26 35 –7 0 Ex pe rt s, p la nn er s, te ac he rs 155Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163. Ta bl e 2 . C on tin ue d Lo ca tio n an d tim e of th e w or ks ho ps , m on th /y ea r M et ho d of d at a co lle ct io n N um be r o f pa rt ic ip an ts A ge o f pa rt ic ip an ts , ye ar s Ty pi ca l o cc up at io n of p ar tic ip an ts Pu sz ta m ar ót , m em or ia l p la ce , 09 /2 01 9 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce 41 15 –7 5 H ik in g to ur is ts G er ec se v ar io us v ill ag es , 05 a nd 0 6/ 20 20 O nl in e qu es tio nn ai re 17 1 15 –8 0 D ec is io n m ak er s, te ac he rs , s tu de nt s, lo ca l pe op le Ta ta to w n, 09 /2 02 0 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce 18 35 –7 0 A gr ic ul tu ra l w or ke rs , e ng in ee rs , l an ds ca pe pl an ne r N ye rg es új fa lu to w n, H ou se o f C ul tu re , 09 /2 02 0 C lo si ng d is cu ss io n pe rs on al att en da nc e an d on lin e 10 30 –4 5 La nd sc ap e pl an ne rs , n at ur e co ns er va tio n sp ec ia lis ts , s tu de nt s Ba jn a vi lla ge , C om m un ity H ou se , 09 /2 02 0 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce a nd o nl in e 13 30 –6 5 La nd sc ap e pl an ne r, hu nt er , e m pl oy ee s in m us eu m s, li br ar ie s Ta rjá n vi lla ge , r es ta ur an t, 09 /2 02 0 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce a nd o nl in e 16 35 –6 5 D ec is io n m ak er s, la nd sc ap e pl an ne r, fo re st er Tá pi ó- vi dé k re gi on Tá pi ós ág v ill ag e, 09 /2 01 9 O pe ni ng m ee tin g pe rs on al att en da nc e 25 6– 14 St ud en ts , c iv il ex pe rt s, s pe ci al is ts Tá pi ós ze nt m ár to n vi lla ge , 09 /2 01 9 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce 27 6– 14 St ud en ts G om ba v ill ag e, 09 /2 01 9 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce 24 6– 14 St ud en ts Fa rm os v ill ag e, 09 /2 01 9 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce 26 6– 14 St ud en ts Tá pi ób ic sk e vi lla ge , 09 /2 01 9 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce 18 40 –7 0 C iv il Fa rm os v ill ag e, 07 /2 02 0 Pe rs on al a tte nd an ce 10 14 –4 0 Pl an ne rs , c iv il ex pe rt s of N G O s Tá pi ós ze nt m ár to n vi lla ge , 04 /2 02 1 C lo si ng m ee tin g pe rs on al att en da nc e 20 20 –5 0 C iv il ex pe rt s, to ur is ts Bu da pe st –T áp ió sz en tm ár to n, 03 /2 02 1 C lo si ng d is cu ss io n on lin e 6 30 –5 0 Pl an ne rs , s pe ci al is ts Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163.156 particular values of the Tiszazug. They deem the abandonment of the former floodplain and sandy orchards, along with the raunchi- ness of the emptying villages, unfavourable tendencies. They do not consider the exten- sive planted poplar forests and arable lands attractive landscape elements. They judge the decreasing landscape diversity as an adverse land use change caused mainly by the aban- donment of grazing and small-scale farming in the floodplains. Citizens of the Tiszazug have ap- preciated floodplain meadows and wet hollows in former river beds as prominent landscape aesthetic values. They emphasised that tree plantations and close-to-natural forests with high species diversity belong to different types from the aspect of landscape character. The first one has been clearly judged destructive to the landscape. From artificial plantations, tree rows (typically Lombardy poplar and Photo 1. Ferry boat on the Tisza river (upper left); Varied hilly landscape along Lake Fertő (upper right); Wetland in Farmos village (bottom left); Local tourist groups expressing their opinion about landscape elements with public participatory GIS (bottom right). Source: Photos taken by the authors. Table 3. Elements and factors determining the character of the Tiszazug region landscape based on answers to the questionnaires* Elements and factors Very important, % Important, % Less important, % Tisza river Silence Oxbow lakes Traditional buildings Vineyards, orchards Great arable parcels Dam Thermal water and spa Floodplain vegetation Forest Tiny villages Great pastures Livestock farm Highway 92 80 71 60 55 50 50 50 45 40 40 35 15 5 5 15 19 30 40 42 35 35 40 45 50 50 40 15 3 5 10 10 5 8 15 15 15 15 10 15 45 80 *N = 88. 157Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163. Pseudoacacia) planted along dirt roads, vine- yards and orchards have been considered beneficial landscape elements. Citizens were disappointed that plum, apple, and sour cherry orchards had almost completely disappeared from the region that had been famous for its orchards. They have acknowl- edged that the environment of the untended building groups with a recreation (mainly angling) function built on water banks dur- ing the 1980s has an individual character. The most significant development perspec- tive for the Tiszazug might be the rural water bank tourism. However, citizens can see the threats of mass tourism. They have stated that the substantial values of the Tiszazug water banks are tranquillity and nearness to nature. Therefore, the loss of these values would have a strong negative effect on their emotional association with the landscape. An excellent example of this is the local centre of thermal tourism, Cserkeszőlő, which has become an “extraneous patch” in the region and is not an actual Tiszazug location any- more, according to them. Our interviewees are not responsible for the emptying, ageing, spoiling of infrastructure and alarming public safety in some places in the Tiszazug. However, local entrepreneurs feel that there is a minimal willingness to coop- erate and to think innovatively in Tiszaföldvár and its vicinity. According to the workshop participants, there have not been – or at least not known – any coherent regional and set- tlement development concepts. Local govern- ments make a bid for any financial support available without any concept. Specifically, young people have missed online content on spatial and settlement development on the homepages of settlements in Tiszazug. There is a relatively weak NGO activity in the region, which is also reflected in the fact that most of the interviewed persons could not mention any NGOs in the nature conservation or envi- ronmental protection field. The most preferred sceneries of the Lake Fertő landscape are those which open from a high point, e.g., from a well-known lookout tower toward the lake basin or the hill range encircling the basin. This opinion highlights the significance of the extensive overview and the readability of the landscape. The most characteristic land cover types have been the grasslands and wetlands, giving the unique habitat structure of the Fertő-Hanság National Park. Built elements like streets and settlement views, showing traditional buildings, were mainly preferred. Nature, along with the traces of human hands and the baroque garden of the famous Esterházy castle, was frequently mentioned, signalling the complex approach considering humans and cultural objects as integral parts of the landscape. This view underlines the valid- ity of the world heritage cultural landscape. The round table discussion and the online questionnaire brought the concerns of the citizens, e.g., the functional and manage- ment questions and the threats toward the traditional character. Workshops organised in the town of Sopron highlighted the diversity of the land- scapes within this small area (a fertile basin with a historic town between the forested mountains and the gentle hills with various land cover and the proximity of the lake ba- sin and the Alps). They expressed their pref- erence for the forested mountains, which are considered particularly valuable for the town from an ecological/climatic and recreational point of view. Vineyards, gardens and or- chards (see Photo 1) of the surrounding hills have also been appreciated. The expanding modern residential areas, the new motor- way construction, and the agglomeration of neighbouring villages endanger the lat- ter. Respondents were proud of the history of their city and the tangible and intangible cultural heritage. They criticised the rapid expansion of the city, the change of the for- merly quiet settlement due to the growing number of incomers and the new construc- tions without sufficient participation of the local citizens. In the Tápió-vidék region, information was gained on favourite and characteristic sites. The buildings that currently dominate them, such as their home and school, have appeared Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163.158 in large numbers on their drawings, but the natural values of the given settlement have generally been illustrated more often. This suggests that outdoor green spaces play an essential role in the lives of young people in the Tápió-vidék region. The second work- shop was organised for the representatives of local NGOs (10 participants). Information was collected on the values, problems, land- scape changes and locations, primarily using the community mapping method. The third workshop took place in a bird-ringing nature conservation camp with 20 local participants. The focal topics were landscape values, prob- lems, changes and visions/expectations for the future. The results showed that the delimita- tion of landscape units, their interpretation, and the formulation of territorial differences appear in the minds of the population from a completely different perspective, thus, pro- viding less input during the creation of study area/local types from national landscape char- acter types. Locals also perceive the difference between the previously identified landscape character units, but the differences are primar- ily seen in the services and technical infra- structure of some settlements (built-up areas), changes in natural features along landscape boundaries, and landscape contrasts are less recognised based on the results of the present research. The popularity and awareness of natural values are very positive results and differ significantly from the findings of previ- ous research in other study area, partly with a similar age group. The involvement of locals is beneficial in formulating the objectives of future visions for the landscape. During the workshops, the locals highlight- ed some built landscape elements (e.g., castles, mansions, wine cellars), in addition to fishing lakes, wetlands (see Photo 1) and nature trails as characteristic features of most settlements in the Tápió-vidék region. The results of the ex- pert studies support these observations, lakes also appear as a landscape character-defining element in many cases. However, some built features, although they may locally define the landscape and townscape, do not fundamen- tally influence landscape character. In the Gerecse study area, the most char- acteristic landscape sceneries with marked identity for the locals are related to the Gerecse Mountains. Still, the historical town centre of Tata, with the lake and castle and the forested Danube riverbank, are sites that also create identity. Many consider them as their favourite place. Most of them rec- ognised and considered as a problem the change of local climate, the disappearing tree alleys along the roads. Abandonment of land, demolishment of old buildings and in- crease in new built-up areas were mentioned among the changes and problems as well. The positive changes were the construction of bicycle paths, picnic and rest areas along the rivers, creeks and hiking routes. Most participants liked to express their opinions about the landscape in front of an extensive analogue (not digital) map of the study area. Still, only professionals and local experts felt comfortable to localise their pref- erences on the map. The average locals and laypeople usually need a bit of orientation and guidance to geo-locate the changes in landscape characteristics, problems, favour- ite places, etc., on a map (see Photo 1). Perception of the landscape character in the study areas During the final workshop, we informed the citizens of the Tiszazug study area that the project’s recommendations – according to our expectations – would be part of the new EU agricultural subvention system. It would be one of the main results of the pro- ject, carried out in the research area and the realisation of co-creation in practice. It means the support of the traditional combined land use practice of planting fruit trees between the vine rows, the maintenance and re-es- tablishment of floodplain orchards, and an accentuated support for floodplain grazing in particular. The fourth, closing online workshop in the Sopron–Lake Fertő region summarised the result of the previous communications 159Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163. and had the purpose of discussing the co- operation and the co-dependence of the two main landscape character areas from three points of view: ecological, functional and visual. The answers reflect again predomi- nantly an activity-related, functional, opera- tional approach, highlighting the vineyards, the road network, transport facilities and the exchange of products. Ecologically, the connecting role of the waters, the possibly far-reaching transport of pollution, and the previously mentioned difference in the sub- alpine and continental areas arose. The visual aspects had a minor part to play. The closing workshop at the Tápió-vidék study area was organised at a public swim- ming pool, with the participation of 20 visi- tors, primarily applying an interactive board game. The main goal was to involve the pre- viously underrepresented middle-aged lo- cals, focusing on the visions/expectations of the region’s future and on the identification of the landscape units with similar charac- teristics. The last workshop of Gerecse Mountains study site was organized in a restaurant with a spectacular view of the hilly landscape. The scenery contributed to the success of the discussion. Still, it could have been more motivating for the participants than an event organized on an active hiking day in nice weather outside the landscape. Evaluating the opinions of the local in- habitants, we can confirm some conclusions from the international literature concerned with our topic: – The opinions of the respondents about the landscape differ significantly according to their age and profession (Howley, P. 2011; López-Martínez, F. 2017; Šerý, M. and Daňková, M. 2021); – The favourite places of the local environ- ment are typically near-natural, refuge- like, hidden segments of the landscape (Lowenthal, D. 2007; Hedblom, M. et al. 2020; Belanche, D. et al. 2021); – The attitude of the public toward the land- scape character prefers the traditionally cultivated, mosaic-like pattern, the open scenery, often with long tree rows (De la Fuente de Val, G. et al. 2006; Junge, X. et al. 2015; Häfner, K. et al. 2018); – The land use of outdoor recreation modi- fies the landscape structure increasingly (Butler, A. and Berglund, U. 2012; Silva, L. and Leal, J. 2015); – The aesthetic value and the quietness of the rural landscape are more and more criti- cal components of an ecosystem service (Angelstam, P. et al. 2019; Kaltenborn, B.P. et al. 2019). Conclusions In addition to the conclusions mentioned above from the Hungarian survey, we have some general remarks. Clichés – though characteristic – originating from the touristic advertisements and national park brochures – water, reed, birds, gentle hills – often ap- pear among the preferences. Local citizens usually have an indisposition for large-scale alterations of the accustomed environment, which leads to less familiar feelings. The various methods used (e.g., free associ- ation drawing, small group guided conversa- tion, community mapping, interactive board game, grouping of study area photographs, ppGIS) are not only suitable for assessing people’s thoughts, knowledge and emotions about the landscape but also for providing an experiential, interactive, perceptual program, can also be seen as an educational program. The reverse is also true: in addition to scien- tific communication, interactive games, play- ful tasks, and programs can also be suitable for portraying the landscape image of soci- ety/local communities. Demographic, eco- nomic and social conditions in a given study area significantly influence the selection of possible methods. For this reason, the results obtained in different study areas cannot be perfectly compared. It should be emphasized that landscape re- searchers and local residents, as well as local experts, represent three different points of view. Landscape researchers strive for a ho- Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163.160 listic vision, i.e., they combine measurable and mapable data with information that can be detected based on field visits and expe- rience and use this knowledge to guide the exploration of local people’s opinions. Unlike this, the local, layman’s view is not spatial, they mostly think in terms of functions and activities: where, what is produced, how does transportation, commuting, trade, and tourism work. They try to link these activities to the spaces. At the same time, in the case of the landscape, vantage points are often men- tioned, which means the importance of the view. In addition, point-like objects and val- ues are emphasized. Finally, the experts have a strong sectoral approach and remain within the boundaries of their own field of expertise. They can also ‘fit into the landscape’ of their own subject area through functional interac- tions and the landscape. The most important lesson learned from the study areas was that the workshop “has to be” an event where the locals are actively present. In this case, they behave comfort- ably, are open for discussion, can form indi- vidual or group opinions, and feel more free to speak up from the heart. The organizer should observe the event calendar of the re- gion and join regular ongoing events where people are a priori present and active. An outdoor event is even better since the par- ticipants can feel the “landscape perspective” (in a picnic area, near a lookout point, or a rest area of a popular hiking route, etc.). It is not easy to invite laypeople to the office and make them speak than to go to their “desk” and discuss with them. This “desk” may be found at the market, at a fair, at a competi- tion, at a concert, during a community day, at a campsite, in a forest school, on a picnic or any gastronomic event or during a guided landscape tour. Landscape protection, which means con- servation, reshaping or rehabilitation of the visual approach of the landscape, has seen increasing social support recently REFERENCES Angelstam, P., Munoz-Rojas, J. and Pinto-Correira, T. 2019. Landscape concepts and approaches foster learning about ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 34. 1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019- 00866-z Antrop, M. 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future? Landscape and Urban Planning 70. (1–2): 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2003.10.002 Appleton, J. 1975. The Experience of Landscape. London, John Wiley and Sons. Bándi, Gy. 2011. Környezetjog (Environmental law). Budapest, Szent István Társulat. Belanche, D., Casaló, L.V. and Rubio, M.Á 2021. Local place identity: A comparison between residents of ru- ral and urban communities. Journal of Rural Studies 82. 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.003 Berki, Zs. 2018. Közösségi részvétel környezetvédelmi engedélyezési eljárásokban (Community participation in the process of obtaining environmental permits). Budapest, EMLA Egyesület. Available at https:// sustainable.hu/a009_KoRNy3z37j06/BME_20181010_ közrészv.pdf Boromisza, Zs., Erdei, T. and Valánszki, I. 2022. Integration of outdoor learning activities through public participation in landscape character assess- ment. Proceedings of the Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning 7. (1): 1–8. Butler, A. and Berglund, U. 2012. Landscape character assessment as an approach to understanding public interests within the European Landscape Convention. Landscape Research 39. (3): 219–236. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01426397.2012.716404 Butler, A., Sarlöv-Herlin, I., Knez, I., Ångman, E., Ode Sang, Å. and Åkerskog, A. 2017. Landscape identity, before and after a forest fire. Landscape Research 43. (6): 878–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 1426397.2017.1344205 Butler, A. and Sarlöv-Herlin, I. 2019. Changing landscape identity – practice, plurality, and power. Landscape Research 44. (3): 271–277. https://doi.org/10 .1080/01426397.2019.1589774 Coeterier, J.F. 1996. Dominant attributes in the per- ception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 34. (1): 27–44. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(95)00204-9 Cosgrove, D.E. 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Beckenham, Croom Helm. Cosgrove, D.E. 2003. Landscape and the European sense of sight – Eyeing nature. In Handbook of Cultural Geography. Eds.: Anderson, K., Domosh, M., Pile, S. and Thrift, N., London, SAGE Publications, 249–268. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608252.n17 Council of Europe 2000. European Landscape Convention 2000. European Treaty Series, No. 176. Available at https://rm.coe.int/1680080621 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00866-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00866-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.003 https://sustainable.hu/a009_KoRNy3z37j06/BME_20181010_közrészv.pdf https://sustainable.hu/a009_KoRNy3z37j06/BME_20181010_közrészv.pdf https://sustainable.hu/a009_KoRNy3z37j06/BME_20181010_közrészv.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.716404 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.716404 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1344205 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1344205 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1589774 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1589774 https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(95)00204-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(95)00204-9 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608252.n17 https://rm.coe.int/1680080621 161Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163. Csorba, P. and Csatári, B. 2017. Tájföldrajz és táji önazonosság (Landscape geography and landscape identity). Magyar Tudomány 178. (3): 284–292. Csorba, P., Ádám, S., Bartos-Elekes, Zs., Bata, T., Bede-Fazekas, Á., Czúcz, B., Csima, P., Csüllög, G., Fodor, N., Frisnyák, S., Horváth, G., Illés, G., Kiss, G., Kocsis, K., Kollányi, L., Konkoly-Gyuró, É., Lepesi, N., Lóczy, D., Malatinszky, Á., Mezősi, G., Molnár, Z., Pásztor, L., Somodi, I., Szegedi, S., Szilassi, P., Tamás, L., Tirászi, Á. and Vasvári, M. 2018. Landscapes. In National Atlas of Hungary – 2. Natural Environment. Ed.-in-chief: Kocsis, K., Budapest, Geographical Institute, Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences, 279–286. De la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J.A. and de Lucio, J.V. 2006. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 77. (4): 393–407. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.003 De Vries, S., Nieuwenhuizen, W., Farjon, H., van Hinsberg, A. and Dirkx, J. 2021. In which natural environments are people happiest? Large-scale experience sampling in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 205. 103972. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103972 Dixon, J. and Durrheim, K. 2000. Displacing place- identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other. British Journal of Social Psychology 39. (1): 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164318 Dossche, R., Rogge, E. and van Eetvelde, V. 2016. Detecting people’s and landscape’s identity in a changing mountain landscape. An example from the Northern Apennines. Landscape Research 41. (8): 934–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.20 16.1187266 Fodor, L. and Pump, J. (eds.) 2016. Társadalmi rész- vétel a környezetvédelmi ügyekben. A részvételi jogok uniós és hazai jogi védelme (Public participation in environmental issues. Legal protection of participa- tion rights in the EU and in Hungary.) Budapest, Alapvető Jogok Biztosának Hivatala. Gobster, P.H., Ribe, R.G. and Palmer, J.F. 2019. Themes and trends in visual assessment research: Introduction to the Landscape and Urban Planning special collection on the visual assessment of land- scapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 191. 103635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103635 Häfner, K., Zasada, I., van Zanten, B.T., Ungaro, F., Koetse, M. and Piorr, A. 2018. Assessing landscape preferences: A visual choice experiment in the ag- ricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany. Landscape Research 43. (6): 846–861. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01426397.2017.1386289 Hedblom, M., Hedenås, H., Blicharska, M., Adler, S., Knez, I., Mikusiński, G., Svensson, J., Sandström, S., Sandström, P. and Wardle, D.A. 2020. Landscape perception: Linking physical moni- toring data to perceived landscape properties. Landscape Research 45. (2): 179–192. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01426397.2019.1611751 Howley, P. 2011. Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics 72. 161–169. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026 Hungary’s Government Decree No. 86/1993 (VI.4) on the Provisional Regulation of the Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Certain Activities. Hungary’s Government Decree No. 20/2001 (II. 14.) on the Environmental Impact Assessment. Hungary’s Government Decree No. 314/2005 (XII. 25) on Environmental Impact Assessment and the Uniform Environmental Use Permits. Hungary’s Government Decree No. 314/2012. (XI. 8.) on City Development Concepts, Integrated City Development Strategies and Urban Planning Means, and Individual Specific Legal Institutions Associated with Urban Planning. Hunziker, M., Buchecker, M. and Hartig, T. 2007. Space and place – Two aspects of the human–land- scape relationship. In A Changing World. Landscape Series, Vol. 8. Eds.: Kienast, F., Wildi, O. and Ghosh, S., Dordrecht, Springer, 47–62. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4436-6_5 Imecs, Z., Máthé, A. and Kohán, B. 2022. Attitudes of local people towards Apuseni Nature Park, Romania. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71. (2): 133–148. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.71.2.3 Ingold, T. 2002. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London, Routledge. Jankó, F., Bertalan, L., Hoschek, M., Komornoki, K., Németh, N. and Papp-Vancsó, J. 2018. Perception, understanding, and action: Attitudes of climate change in the Hungarian population. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 67. (2): 159–171. https://doi. org/10.15201/hungeobull.67.2.4 Jones, M. 2007. The European landscape conven- tion and the question of public participation. Landscape Research 32. (5): 613–633. https://doi. org/10.1080/01426390701552753 Junge, X., Schüpbach, B., Walter, T., Schmid, B. and Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2015. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning 133. 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2014.09.010 Kahila-Tani, M., Kytta, M. and Geertman, S. 2019. Does mapping improve public participa- tion? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 186. 45–55. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019 Kaltenborn, B.P., Kaltenborn, E.F. and Linnell, J.D.C. 2019. “It’s all about the Scenery”: Tourists’ perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in the https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103972 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103972 https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164318 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1187266 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1187266 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103635 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1386289 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1386289 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1611751 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1611751 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4436-6_5 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4436-6_5 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.71.2.3 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.67.2.4 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.67.2.4 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552753 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552753 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019 Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163.162 Lofoten Islands, Norway. Arctic 72. (1): 1–12. https:// doi.org/10.14430/arctic67944 Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. 1982. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. New York, Praeger. Kim, J. and Kaplan, R. 2004. Physical and psy- chological factors in sense of community: New urbanist kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environment and Behaviour 36. (3): 313–340. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236 Knez, I. and Eliasson, I. 2017. Relationships between personal and collective place iden- tity and well-being in mountain communities. Frontiers in Psychology 8. 79. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.00079 Konkoly-Gyuró, É. 2013. Környezettervezés (Environ- mental planning). Budapest, Mezőgazda Kiadó. Konkoly-Gyuró, É. 2018. Conceptualisation and perception of the landscape and its changes in a transboundary area. A case study of the southern German-French borderland. Land Use Policy 79. 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2018.08.019 Konkoly-Gyuró, É. and Csőszi, M. 2021. Tájkarakter Tudástár. A közösségi jelentőségű természeti értékek hosszú távú megőrzését és fejlesztését, valamint az EU Biológiai Sokféleség Stratégia 2020 célkitűzéseinek hazai szintű megvalósítását megalapozó straté- giai vizsgálatok (Landscape Character Knowledge Repository. Landscape character development element of the strategic assessments supporting the long term conservation of natural values of community interest as well as the national imple- mentation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020). KEHOP-4.3.0._VEKOP-15-2016-00001. Budapest, Agrárminisztérium. Konkoly-Gyuró, É., Vaszócsik, V., Sain, M., Csorba, P. and Csőszi, M. 2021. Tájkarakter-elemzés Magyarországon. Szakmai összefoglaló és módszertani útmutató (Landscape character analysis in Hungary. Scientific summary and methodological guide- lines). Budapest, Agrárminisztérium. Lengerer, F., Steinführer, A. and Haarsten, T. 2022. To participate, or not to participate – That is the question. (Non-)participation of older residents in rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies 91. 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.02.008 Lewicka, M. 2008. Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28. (3): 209-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001 Lowenthal, D. 2007. Living with and looking at land- scape. Landscape Research 32. (5): 635–656. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552761 López-Martínez, F. 2017. Visual landscape prefer- ences in Mediterranean areas and their socio-demo- graphic influences. Ecologial Engineering 104. 205– 215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.036 Maslow, A.H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50. (4): 370–396. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0054346 National Landscape Strategy (2017–2026). Written under the coordination of the Department of National Parks and Landscape Protection. Budapest, Ministry of Agriculture. Available at https://2015-2019. kormany.hu/download/f/8f/11000/Hungarian%20 National%20Landscape%20Strategy_2017-2026_ webre.pdf Minca, C. 2013. The cultural geographies of land- scape. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 62. (1): 47–62. Olwig, K.R. 2006. Place contra space in a morally just landscape. Norwegian Journal of Geography 60. (1): 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950500537216 Opdam, P. 2020. Implementing human health as a landscape service in collaborative landscape ap- proaches. Landscape and Urban Planning 199. 103819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103819 Orians, G.H. 1986. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In Landscape Meanings and Values. Eds.: Penning-Rowsell, E.C. and Lowenthal, D., London, Allen & Unwin, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003270270-2 Ramos, I.L., Bernardo, F., Ribeiro, S.C. and van Eetvelde, V. 2016. Landscape identity: Implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 53. 36–43. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.030 Sain, M. and Rab, J. 2018. Részvételi tervezés a település- fejlesztésben és településrendezésben (Planning of participation in urban development and master planning). Budapest, Lechner Tudásközpont. Santé, I., Tubío, J.M. and Miranda, D. 2020. Public participation in defining landscape planning sce- narios and landscape quality objectives (LQO): Landscape Guidelines for Galicia (NW Spain) case study. Land Use Policy 94. 104559. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104559 Schama, S. 1995. Landscape and Memory. London, HarperCollins Publishers. Semian, M. and Nováček, A. 2017. The reinterpreta- tion of histories in identities of newly established re- gions: The case of Local Action Groups in Czechia. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 66. (4): 307–319. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.66.4.3 Šerý, M. and Daňková, M. 2021. When regional identi- ties differ over generation: Deinstitutionalisation of regions and regional identities in a regional amal- gam. Journal of Rural Studies 82. 430–441. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.033 Silva, L. and Leal, J. 2015. Rural tourism and national identity building in contemporary Europe: Evidence from Portugal. Journal of Rural Studies 38. 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.02.005 Stobbelaar, D.J. and Pedroli, B. 2011. Perspectives on landscape identity: A conceptual challenge. Landscape Research 36. (3): 321–339. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01426397.2011.564860 https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic67944 https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic67944 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00079 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00079 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.02.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552761 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552761 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.036 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/download/f/8f/11000/Hungarian National Landscape Strategy_2017-2026_webre.pdf https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/download/f/8f/11000/Hungarian National Landscape Strategy_2017-2026_webre.pdf https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/download/f/8f/11000/Hungarian National Landscape Strategy_2017-2026_webre.pdf https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/download/f/8f/11000/Hungarian National Landscape Strategy_2017-2026_webre.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950500537216 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103819 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003270270-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.030 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.030 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104559 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104559 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.66.4.3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.02.005 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.564860 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.564860 163Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163. Swanwick, C. 2002. Landscape Character Assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland. Cheltenham– Edinburgh, Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage. Available at https://digital.nls. uk/pubs/e-monographs/2020/216649977.23.pdf Tveit, M., Ode, Å. and Fry, G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape charac- ter. Landscape Research 31. (3): 229–255. https://doi. org/10.1080/01426390600783269 Wascher, D.M. (ed.) 2005. European Landscape Character Areas – Typologies, Cartography and Indicators for the Assessment of Sustainable Landscapes No. 1254. Wageningen, Landscape Europe. Available at https://edepot.wur.nl/1778 Wylie, J.W. 2007. Landscape. London, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203480168 Zachrisson, A., Bjärstig, T., Thellbro, C., Neumann, W. and Svensson, J. 2021. Participatory comprehen- sive planning to handle competing land-use priori- ties in the sparsely populated rural context. Journal of Rural Studies 88. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jrurstud.2021.09.031 https://digital.nls.uk/pubs/e-monographs/2020/216649977.23.pdf https://digital.nls.uk/pubs/e-monographs/2020/216649977.23.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269 https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269 https://edepot.wur.nl/1778 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203480168 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.031 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.031 Csorba, P. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 147–163.164