D3.1 List and Documentation of Case Study Landscapes Selected for HERCULES
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HERCULES Sustainable futures for Europe’s HERitage in CULtural landscapES: Tools for understanding, managing, and protecting landscape functions and values GA no. 603447 D3.1 List and documentation of case study landscapes selected for HERCULES Main authors: Claudia Bieling, Matthias Bürgi With contributions from Laurence Le Du-Blayo, María García Martín, Geneviève Girod, Kim von Hackwitz, Pip Howard, Krista Karro, Thanasis Kizos, Maurice de Kleijn, Jan Kolen, Juraj Lieskovski, Niels van Manen, Matthias Müller, Anu Printsmann, Martti Veldi Reviewer: Nora Fagerholm, Anu Printsmann Work package WP3 Landscape-scale case studies (short-term history) Deliverable nature Report Dissemination level Public (Confidentiality) Estimated indicated Person-months as estimated in the DoW : 6 person-months Actual person-months: 4 (due to efficient work from the beginning) Date of delivery Contractual 31.08.2014 Actual 28.08.2014 Version 1.0 Total number of pages 93 Keywords Investigation area, case study, study landscape, study municipality Deliverable D3.1 Executive summary HERCULES develops insights, tools, technologies and strategies and applies and tests these at regional case studies that span major environmental and land use history gradients throughout Europe. As a project that specifically refers to landscapes, the case studies form a cornerstone for HERCULES. This report describes the selection of the HERCULES case studies (in the following termed study landscapes, SLs) regarding the criteria considered and the process carried out. As a second part, it contains an overview of all SLs and provides a detailed profile for each area, including cartographic information. Attending to the criteria defined in the HERCULES Description of Work, a five step-process was carried out to identify the SLs. This encompassed 1) an open call for proposals of SL candidates among the HERCULES projects partners, 2) the evaluation of the suitability of proposed SLs by the leaders of those WPs that are active at the SL scale, 3) a decision on the SLs taken by the responsible WP 3 team and the project coordinator, 4) an adjustment process in order to achieve a maximum overlap of the activities of different WPs in the SLs, and 5) the selection of specific focus areas/study municipalities (SMs) within the larger SLs, to be referred to e.g. for more detailed map analyses or closer stakeholder interaction. This process resulted in the identification of nine SLs: 1) Vooremaa and Kodavere (Estonia), 2) Lesvos (Greece), 3) Obersimmental (Switzerland), 4) Grand Parc de Miribel Jonage, Rhône-Alpes area (France), 5) Sierra de Guadarrama foothills (Spain), 6) Parque Naturel Regional d’Armorique (France), 7) South West Devon (United Kingdom), 8) Dutch river delta Rhine-Meuse (Netherlands), and 9) Uppland (Sweden). These SLs span a variety of different characteristics (e.g. the major biogeographical zones of Europe), include both outstanding heritage features and everyday landscapes with more hidden historical layers, cover rural and urban areas and are all firmly embedded in the project via a local contact person who is member of the HERCULES consortium. The case study selection was a joint enterprise to which all HERCULES partners actively contributed. It involved several typical challenges for Pan-European multi-partner projects, ranging from the homogenisation of material from different languages and administrative systems to the development of an integrative and well-balanced agreement on the potential of proposed sites beyond specific personal interests. As such, the successful selection of the SLs proves the capacity of the consortium to work as joint and target-oriented team. 1 Deliverable D3.1 Table of contents Executive summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 Table of contents ........................................................................................................................... 2 List of figures and list of tables ..................................................................................................... 3 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 5 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6 2 Selection of study landscapes ................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Selection criteria 6 2.2 Selection process 7 3 Overview of study landscapes ............................................................................................. 10 4 Study landscape descriptions ............................................................................................... 12 4.1 Vooremaa and Kodavere (Estonia) 13 4.2 Lesvos (Greece) 23 4.3 Obersimmental (Switzerland) 33 4.4 Grand Parc de Miribel Jonage, Rhône-Alpes area (France) 42 4.5 Sierra de Guadarrama foothills (Spain) 48 4.6 Parc Naturel Regional d’Armorique (France) 58 4.7 South West Devon (United Kingdom) 67 4.8 Dutch river delta Rhine-Meuse (Netherlands) 76 4.9 Uppland (Sweden) 83 5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 92 2 Deliverable D3.1 List of figures Figure 1: Overview map of HERCULES study landscapes Figure 2: Orthophoto of the study landscape Vooremaa and Kodavere (Estonia) Figure 3: Topographic map of the study landscape Vooremaa and Kodavere (Estonia) Figure 4: Land cover map of the study landscape Vooremaa and Kodavere (Estonia) Figure 5: Orthophoto of the study municipalities Alatskivi and Peipsiääre (Estonia) Figure 6: Topographic map of the study municipalities Alatskivi and Peipsiääre (Estonia) Figure 7: Land cover map of the study municipalities Alatskivi and Peipsiääre (Estonia) Figure 8: Orthophoto of the study landscape Lesvos (Greece) Figure 9: Topographic map of the study landscape Lesvos (Greece) Figure 10: Land cover map of the study landscape Lesvos (Greece) Figure 11: Orthophoto of the study municipalities Plomari and Gera (Greece) Figure 12: Topographic map of the study municipalities Plomari and Gera (Greece) Figure 13: Land cover map of the study municipalities Plomari and Gera (Greece) Figure 14: Orthophoto of the study landscape Obersimmental (Switzerland) Figure 15: Topographic map of the study landscape Obersimmental (Switzerland) Figure 16: Land cover map of the study landscape Obersimmental (Switzerland) Figure 17: Orthophoto of the study municipality Lenk (Switzerland) Figure 18: Topographic map of the study municipality Lenk (Switzerland) Figure 19: Land cover map of the study municipality Lenk (Switzerland) Figure 20: Orthophoto of the study landscape Grand Parc de Miribel Jonage, Rhône- Alpes area (France) Figure 21: Topographic map of the study landscape Grand Parc de Miribel Jonage, Rhône-Alpes area (France) Figure 22: Land cover map of the study landscape Grand Parc de Miribel Jonage, Rhône- Alpes area (France) Figure 23: Orthophoto of the study landscape Sierra de Guadarrama foothills (Spain) Figure 24: Topographic map of the study landscape Sierra de Guadarrama foothills (Spain) Figure 25: Land cover map of the study landscape Sierra de Guadarrama foothills (Spain) Figure 26: Orthophoto of the study municipality Colmenar Viejo (Spain) Figure 27: Topographic map of the study municipality Colmenar Viejo (Spain) Figure 28: Land cover map of the study municipality Colmenar Viejo (Spain) 3 Deliverable D3.1 Figure 29: Orthophoto of the study landscape Parc Naturel Régional d'Armorique (France) Figure 30: Topographic map of the study landscape Parc Naturel Régional d'Armorique (France) Figure 31: Land cover map of the study landscape Parc Naturel Régional d'Armorique (France) Figure 32: Orthophoto of the study municipality Dinéault (France) Figure 33: Topographic map of the study municipality Dinéault (France) Figure 34: Land cover map of the study municipality Dinéault (France) Figure 35: Orthophoto of the study landscape South West Devon (UK) Figure 36: Topographic map of the study landscape South West Devon (UK) Figure 37: Land cover map of the study landscape South West Devon (UK) Figure 38: Orthophoto of the study municipality Modbury (UK) Figure 39: Topographic map of the study municipality Modbury (UK) Figure 40: Land cover map of the study municipality Modbury (UK) Figure 41: Orthophoto of the study landscape Dutch river delta Rhine-Meuse (Netherlands) Figure 42: Topographic map of the study landscape Dutch river delta Rhine-Meuse (Netherlands) Figure 43: Land cover map of the study landscape Dutch river delta Rhine-Meuse (Netherlands) Figure 44: Orthophoto of the study landscape Uppland (Sweden) Figure 45: Topographic map of the study landscape Uppland (Sweden) Figure 46: Land cover map of the study landscape Uppland (Sweden) Figure 47: Orthophoto of the study municipalities Uppsala and Börje parish (Sweden) Figure 48: Topographic map of the study municipalities Uppsala and Börje parish (Sweden) Figure 49: Land cover map of the study municipalities Uppsala and Börje parish (Sweden) List of tables Table 1: Overview of candidates for HERCULES study landscapes Table 2: Results of intermediate steps within study landscapes selection procedure Table 3: Allocation of study landscapes to work packages Table 4: Focus areas (study municipalities) within study landscapes Table 5: Overview of HERCULES study