*3.5. Lack of Awareness, Knowledge, Resources and Other Priorities*

Respondents argued that there is a lack of awareness and knowledge among politicians, developers and the public about the role of historic and cultural landscape dimensions in environmental planning. This is primarily related to individual politicians rather than political parties. The political term of office of only four years makes the change of individual politicians an educational challenge for the public officials. In Sweden, the public's influence on the planning process is ensured through the National Planning and Building Act. Respondents describe that sometimes when they talk with, for example, house-owners about historic and cultural landscape dimensions it creates tensions. Landowners often consider the Historic Environment Act as a threat to them as they think that increasing awareness of historic and cultural values will increase costs and mean limitations on their land. Developers fear increased costs and delays. Some respondents describe difficulties in making politicians, developers and the public listen to facts. Or, in the words of one respondent:

"Ignorance is an incredible resistance, especially when it is paired with fact resistance and denial of knowledge".

Education is a solution to the lack of awareness and knowledge according to some of the respondents who were engaged in education of politicians and the public. However, the respondents did not use public participation methods on a regular basis. Most respondents argue that the organization's finances and priorities are one important constraint leading to a limited budget for heritage planning.

### *3.6. Historic and Cultural Landscape Dimensions Considered*

The historic and cultural landscape dimensions most often considered by the public officials on a regular basis (Table 1, closed-ended questions) are shown in Figure 2. More than sixty percent of the public officials claim they regularly (daily) work with buildings and industrial heritage. More than fifty percent of the respondents worked regularly with place identity, agricultural environments and green areas, and 45% worked with aspects of landscape views and local history on a daily basis (Figure 2). Thus, it is evident that the public officials regularly worked with both tangible and intangible heritage. The openended questions revealed (Table 1) a close connection between the tangible and intangible heritage as the respondents worked with aspects such as local identity, history and shared stories in relation to the industrial, agricultural and built-up heritage.

**Figure 2.** The *x*-axis shows the seven most important historic and cultural landscape dimensions that are regularly considered in the planning process (measured as percentage, *y*-axis). See also Table 1, closed-ended questions.

Respondents were also asked which historic and cultural landscape dimensions that need more focus (Table 1, closed-ended questions). As shown in Figure 3, more than fifty percent of the public officials wanted to focus more on local history. Other dimensions that need more focus in the planning process, according to a third of the respondents, are meeting places, the dark heritage [59], experience, agricultural environments, local knowledge and stories.

**Figure 3.** The *x*-axis shows the seven most important historic and cultural landscape dimensions that need more focus in the planning process (measured as percentage, *y*-axis). See also Table 1, closed-ended questions.

One of the public officials expressed a desire to "fill the historic environments with this intangible cultural heritage". At the same time, a majority of the respondents claim that they have limited opportunities to do so because of budget priorities, lack of methods and sometimes lack of skills.

#### *3.7. Awareness, Knowledge, and Implementation of the ES and CES*

All of the public officials knew about ecosystem services at the time of the interviews but only half of them worked with the ES approach. Of those who did not, several referred to the municipal ecologist and the nature conservation unit for information about ES implementation. It was clear that implementation of the ES approach had just begun. The respondents who had started to implement the ES approach responded that, at this early stage, the work was tentative and that they needed methods that can be used in the planning process. Most respondents considered the ES approach to be a benefit in the planning process but expressed a great deal of uncertainty about how to work with it and how to convince others in the organization.

The concept of cultural ecosystem services was less known. Half of the respondents had heard about CES but only a quarter had worked with it. One of the respondents who worked with CES argued that the landscape history becomes a tool for reaching out to people. The respondent used storytelling as a way to communicate the relation of the importance of the cultural-historical landscape to, for example, old wells and people's traditional use of water and herbs, including the historical monks' knowledge of the curative effect of plants. Another respondent worked with CES in a GIS-based green structure project of biotope mapping in municipal comprehensive plans. In this respect, CES was considered indirectly through sensual experiences, such as the rustling of leaves, birdsong and green leafy environments that have a direct bearing on the nature and park types that were identified. Yet, another respondent worked with CES on a GIS-based

project aimed at identifying easily accessible attractive recreational environments. Here, information was used about nature and cultural reserves, areas of national interest for cultural heritage and for outdoor life, national parks, etc. The purpose was to make people understand their context, their background and their identity and the need to preserve the structures in the landscape. Even though these three examples touch upon aspects of, or are based on, historic and cultural landscape dimensions neither of them involved established knowledge of heritage planning.

Respondents argued that increased cooperation between sectors and with the civil society is the key in the implementation of Agenda 2030 and ES. An example of a public participation initiative at municipality level to communicate ES and CES via the national environmental quality objectives was through outdoor events for the public. The basic idea is that people should experience ecosystem services directly in the landscape. One example of an environmental station event was based on the environmental quality objective, "Flourishing lakes and streams". The event was located at Lake Vänern and the municipality invited the public and offered four different dishes (450 portions) of fish (Zander also named pikeperch). A professional angler made a presentation about Zander fishing, what it looks like and what actions are implemented to make the fishing industry sustainable in Lake Vänern. Additionally, representatives from the County Administrative Board and the biosphere reserve office took part in the event. Cooperation between different actors in the biosphere reserve is the key solution, as expressed by one respondent:

"The events are under the auspices of the municipality although the biosphere office and County Administrative Board are involved players. We invite them and they become part owners of these project ideas and arrangements. Thus, we get a greater efficiency and gain more expertise when we create the events. It is important to find a form of co-creative processes so that everyone feels that they own the products. If you have confidence in each other, it will give results."

A new initiative for cooperation between different actors within the biosphere reserve is a ES network established a few years ago by a public official at municipality level in order to increase ES cooperation between the three municipalities in the biosphere reserve. The motive was to find a structure for the ecosystem services in the historic landscape and to find a horizontal platform where you trust each other and find common targets. The ES network consists of representatives from the three municipalities, the County Administrative Board, the biosphere reserve office and two nature conservation associations. The ES network meets regularly and has applied and received funds for training projects in ecosystem services for politicians, public officials and developers working within the biosphere reserve. The ES network sometimes invites researchers and actors working with historic and cultural landscape dimensions to their meetings, but they are not regular members of the ES network.

#### **4. Discussion**

#### *4.1. Opportunities and Challenges to Ensure Consideration of the Historic and Cultural Dimensions of Landscapes*

The results show that the historic and cultural landscape dimensions are important aspects in the early stages of the planning process at local and regional levels. This is partly due to current legislation, as consideration of the cultural environment is primarily governed by the Planning and Building Act, but also by the Roads Act and the Act on Railway Construction. The Swedish environmental quality objectives also contain requirements for consideration of the cultural environment. In combination with the respondents' long tradition of considering man's use of nature with an integrated landscape perspective this gives a good potential to ensure consideration of historic and cultural landscape dimensions in environmental planning. These results are in line with a parallel study in the Swedish mountains showing that practitioners strive for an integrated management of historic and cultural landscape dimensions and that these values are considered throughout the planning process [21]. One could argue that these results are in contrast to many

previous studies showing a limited consideration of historical and cultural perspectives in environmental planning [1–9]. However, there is a clear conceptual ambiguity among respondents who define historic and cultural dimensions of landscapes quite differently, ranging from predominantly material aspects protected by law to intangible aspects, which are not as effectively managed in planning contexts. The respondents do not understand, nor talk about, landscape complexities in a consensual manner.

Furthermore, lack of methodologies to include local communities other than through formal consultation in the planning process makes the intangible and socio-culturally perspectives on landscape less dominant, which is the norm in the Swedish context [20,60]. This is in line with previous research highlighting the need for local participation in order to manage cultural landscapes [7,61–63]. Other challenges identified in the present study are unclear assignments and lack of political policy as well as unawareness and disinterest among politicians, developers and the public. The public officials expressed a wish to promote political decisions that connect historic and cultural landscape dimensions to environmental planning and especially the implementation of ES in combination with training efforts. These results are in line with other studies [55,64] that argue for increased political support and capacity building initiatives in order to facilitate ES implementation in municipal planning practice. Results showing that the CES concept is far from practically implemented in policies were also reported by [39] from a survey with experts on agricultural landscapes. The ELC, with its landscape policy focusing on sustainable development and the cultural dimensions of the landscape [65] is important in this respect. However, the results show that only a third of the public officials interviewed used ELC for guidance. This result is in line with previous studies showing a limited impact of ELC in practice [21,66,67]. Another challenge identified is that the idea that historic and cultural landscape dimensions belong to a certain department, such as the planning department, is deeply rooted among public officials. Professional roles and responsibilities are established mainly because of sectoral funding and the organization. These results confirm previous studies showing that, despite its integrative ambition, implementation of the ES concept often lack horizontal integration between sectors and is highly influenced by established endorsed professional roles and responsibilities in land-use planning [16,21,38,56,68].

#### *4.2. Heritage Planning and the ES Approach*

Heritage values, place identity, landscape views, local history, local knowledge, stories, and sensory experiences are examples of historic and cultural landscape dimensions that were regularly addressed in local and regional planning in the present study. These intangible landscape dimensions fit into the six categories of CES, defined by [26], but the respondents did not label them as CES. The public officials regularly worked with, and highlighted, the importance of intangible landscape dimensions and expressed a desire to work more with these values. Moreover, most public officials have a long tradition of considering man's use of nature with an integrated landscape perspective. These results are in line with [21] who show that local history, identity, stories and collective memory are aspects regularly considered by officials, in the County of Jämtland Sweden, and practitioners also strive, despite difficulties, to use a coherent landscape approach in planning. An integrated landscape approach to planning is in line with the ES approach and would facilitate a closer collaboration between actors involved in heritage planning and the ES implementation. Nevertheless, at the time of our interviews, established knowledge and expertise of heritage planning was not activated in the implementation of the ES approach. Respondents expressed that CES, are generally difficult to concretize, and thus are given less consideration than other ecosystems services. These results are in line with previous findings showing a limited consideration of cultural heritage within ES research and practice [21,25,32,41,42].

There is certainly an opportunity to connect heritage planning with the ES approach. This, however, requires a clarification and mapping of actors working with historic and cultural landscape dimensions within the regional and local agencies, NGOs and civil

society. It is especially important to identify actors who do not consider themselves as working with the "right" aspects of heritage or the "right" department/organization. The definition and role of CES in the ES approach must be developed in order to be able to connect skills and create new forms of collaboration integrating historic and cultural landscape dimensions in environmental planning. A neutral platform could support the connection of historic and cultural landscape dimensions and ES in sustainable environmental planning. Several of the respondents interviewed argue that the Lake Vänern Archipelago Biosphere Reserve could be an arena for a new understanding of the landscape, beyond the established permanent division between nature and culture in formal environmental planning. However, as shown by [69], it is only a few of the public officials at local and regional planning levels that regularly cooperate with the biosphere reserve organization. The need to "create communities of practice", with shared goals in the implementation of ES and sustainable development was suggested by [38]. The new ES network, established by public officials at municipality level in the Lake Vänern Biosphere Reserve, has successfully created new forms of collaboration and an extended dialogue about ES between various actors at different levels, including training programs for politicians and developers. Even though the ES network sometimes invites researchers and professionals working with historic and cultural landscape dimensions these actors are not regular members of the ES network. Ideally, a network for ES implementation needs to include actors with different knowledge and perspectives to meet the basic requirements of the ES approach, i.e., all four categories of ecosystem services must be considered to reach sustainable development.

Municipal heritage planning would also most probably benefit from a closer connection to the ES framework. The critique against the artificial separation between natural and cultural heritage is well established in research and practice, and in the wake of "embracing this dissolution" [70], new methods and tools for more inclusive landscape interpretations are being developed. In such system-based approaches, the connections and benefits of heritage tied to natural resources are explored [71] (as well as the role of "living heritage" in socio-ecological systems [72]. These value-driven approaches are grounded in an understanding of the cultural landscape to include both man-made and non-human-made structures, and they often require a combination of qualitative methods to enable evaluation of CES, such as stated preference methods, workshops, etc. Although public participation has been on the heritage planning agenda since the 1990s, it is still an "unfixed, uncertain and contested concept" [60], and not practiced in everyday planning situations. This is in line with [7] who argue that management strategies and conservation policies based exclusively on decision-makers criteria are counterproductive for the conservation of cultural landscapes. Participatory ES assessment methods currently being developed for local resource users to identify and evaluate the key services of a particular ecosystem, including heritage, could be a way forward.

#### *4.3. Concluding Remarks*

Are historic and cultural landscape dimensions ignored in environmental planning? The price of ignoring these values is an unsustainable environmental planning and according to literature historic and cultural perspectives often have little significance in environmental planning. However, only a few studies take a deep dive into practice and study the work and perceptions of practitioners. The present study contributes to increased knowledge about the role of historic and cultural landscape dimensions in sustainable environmental planning and the compatibility and commonality of the fields of heritage planning and the implementation of the ES approach. In contrast to many other studies, we can conclude that historic and cultural landscape dimensions were considered important by practitioners who in general had a holistic view of the environment where nature and cultural values of the landscape are interdependent. However, in line with previous studies, several challenges exist throughout the planning process as shown above. Our conclusion is that historic and cultural landscape dimensions are not ignored in practice, but there is a need to articulate these aspects more clearly in order to achieve sustainable environmental

planning. Established knowledge and expertise of heritage planning was not activated in the implementation of the ES approach. Interesting is, however, that the practitioners worked with intangible landscape dimensions, which can be defined as CES. Thus, there is an unexplored opportunity to connect skills and create new forms of cross-sectorial collaboration between heritage planning and the ES approach. Results and conclusions presented in this paper are in line with results from a parallel study in the Swedish mountains [21]. The agreement between these two studies strengthens the validity of the results but a validation through future interdisciplinary studies of the work and perceptions of practitioners in other parts of the world is welcomed.

**Author Contributions:** I.E.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Supervision, Project Administration, Funding acquisition. S.F.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing—Review and Editing. I.K.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—Review and Editing. E.G.: Conceptualization, Writing—Review and Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the Swedish National Heritage Board (Dnr 3.2.2-5202-2016) and is part of the project "Cultural heritage and the historic environment in sustainable landscape management". Co-funding was also received from University of Gothenburg, Sweden and University of Gävle, Sweden.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Semi-structured interviews with public officials were conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the University of Gothenburg Sweden. The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity—ALLEA.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all individual respondents interviewed. The material from the interviews has been de-identified in the results presented in the paper.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

#### **References**

