4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Evaluation of the process of integration in a transdisciplinary landscape study in the Pajottenland (Flanders, Belgium)

Journal

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
Volume 77, Issue 4, Pages 382-392

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.04.008

Keywords

cultural landscape; integrated research; interdisciplinarity; transdisciplinarity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to preserve the overall landscape values in the Pajottenland, the province of Vlaams-Brabant initiated a campaign to raise awareness of local authorities and stakeholders and to stimulate co-coordinated actions. As very few scientific studies exist for the region, an interdisciplinary study was commissioned from the University of Ghent, involving archaeologists, historians, geographers and planners. This article evaluates the process of integration between the scientific disciplines and between the researchers (interdisciplinary) and program team and stakeholders (transdisciptinary) involved in this project. Potentials and difficulties encountered in the successive phases are evaluated and discussed. The interdisciplinary trajectory worked relatively smoothly as it was focused upon the realization of the first integrated landscape biography for the region. This biography includes scientific results as well as an integration of the complex legal and administrative instruments, which are necessary for the implementation of the study. Also, a methodology was developed for assessing landscape values at the municipal level, to be carried out by local stakeholders. This methodology was demonstrated with the case study of Gooik. The transdisciplinary integration encountered a series of difficulties, which mainly related to the unclear and shifting objectives of the program team and to aspects of communication between the partners and the lack of a common language. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available