Heritage is a highly malleable concept that is constantly in flux and whose substance and meaning are continuously being redefined by society. From such a dynamic perspective, it is inevitable that new approaches and practices have developed for dealing with heritage in the context of planned development. While most scholars acknowledge the existence of various heritage approaches, one of the major defining features is often neglected: their distinctive outlook on spatial dynamics. In this article, the shifting role and purpose of heritage conservation in Dutch spatial planning is analysed. A conceptual framework is introduced that frames three approaches to the planning treatment of heritage; the sector, factor and vector approach, respectively. Although these approaches have developed in a historical sequence, the new did not replace the old but rather gained ground amongst different actors. Thus, three quite different ways of treating the past in the present now coexist in Dutch planning practice. Although this coexistence can raise conflict, we argue that contemporary heritage planning does not call for a one-size-fits-all approach, but rather for a mixed-mode model.

In recent years, the separation of heritage conservation concerns and spatial planning concerns – a spectre of post-war modernism – is being criticised. Numerous commentators argue that heritage conservation needs to rethink its purpose and role if it is to maintain its place in the planning system specifically and urban and rural development more generally. This paper analyses the Belvedere Memorandum and its incentive programme (1999–2009) by which the Dutch government actively encouraged the integration of heritage conservation with spatial planning. It is a first attempt to identify the impact of Belvedere on Dutch heritage planning practises. We argue that Belvedere has contributed to a reorientation of heritage conservation. At the same time, however, heritage conservation now faces new challenges as a result of the fact that the government is reducing its involvement in spatial planning, of a turn-around in socio-economic and demographic development (from growth to shrinkage) and of a crisis in property development. We believe Belvedere can be called a success only if the heritage sector manages, under these changed circumstances, to actively respond to spatial challenges and forge links with social actors.

Landscape history is still mainly studied in local or regional projects and within national research traditions. However, an international perspective becomes ever more necessary, not just for scientific reasons, but also in the light of the increasing internationalisation of landscape politics; see for example the European Landscape Convention. The present article willfocus on one particular type of landscape: the open fields, the grain-growing landscapes that were the backbone of medieval European agriculture. The landscape of open fields can (or at least could) be found over large parts of Europe in regions with very different legal and organisational structures, soil conditions and agricultural systems. Some of the lengthiest and most thorough discussions in landscape history were on the origin of the open fields. The present article stresses the necessity to treat the different components of open fields (land use, landownership, agrarian techniques) separately. Many of the explanations offered are based on research in limited areas. An international perspective is helpful by putting local developments into a broader perspective. Since the Late Middle Ages, the open field landscapes have moved north-eastwards, following the moving geography of grain cultivation. Whereas open fields gradually disappeared through enclosure in Britain, Scandinavia and other regions, elsewhere, especially in the Eastern Baltic, new open fields were being developed during the sixteenth century. This changing geography of open fields is probably related to changes in the European economy, in which the regional markets for grain gave way to a pan- European market during the sixteenth century and to a world market in the last decades of the nineteenth century. Each phase offered new opportunities, as well as threats, to the open field regions.

At the 2018 meeting of the Permanent European Conference for the Study of the Rural Landscape (PECSRL), that took place in Clermont-Ferrand and Mende in France, the Institute for Research on European Agricultural Landscapes e.V. (EUCALAND) Network organized a session on traditional landscapes. Presentations included in the session discussed the concept of traditional, mostly agricultural, landscapes, their ambiguous nature and connections to contemporary landscape research and practice. Particular attention was given to the connection between traditional landscapes and regional identity, landscape transformation, landscape management, and heritage. A prominent position in the discussions was occupied by the question about the future of traditional or historical landscapes and their potential to trigger regional development. Traditional landscapes are often believed to be rather stable and slowly developing, of premodern origin, and showing unique examples of historical continuity of local landscape forms as well as practices. Although every country has its own traditional landscapes, globally seen, they are considered as being rare; at least in Europe, also as a consequence of uniforming CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) policies over the last five decades. Although such a notion of traditional landscapes may be criticized from different perspectives, the growing number of bottom-up led awareness-raising campaigns and the renaissance of traditional festivities and activities underline that the idea of traditional landscapes still contributes to the formation of present identities. The strongest argument of the growing sector of self-marketing and the increasing demand for high value, regional food is the connection to the land itself: while particular regions and communities are promoting their products and heritages. In this sense, traditional landscapes may be viewed as constructed or invented, their present recognition being a result of particular perceptions and interpretations of local environments and their pasts. Nevertheless, traditional landscapes thus also serve as a facilitator of particular social, cultural, economic, and political intentions and debates. Reflecting on the session content, four aspects should be emphasized. The need for: dynamic landscape histories; participatory approach to landscape management; socioeconomically and ecologically self-sustaining landscapes; planners as intermediaries between development and preservation.

Landscape biography is an approach that is often used both in practice and in research for the purpose of analysing and exploring the history of a landscape. In this chapter we present the background, conceptual principles and sources of landscape biography as a means aimed at informing landscape design and planning which researchers have developed for understanding landscapes (Roymans et al. 2009; Bosma and Kolen 2010; Kolen et al. 2015a). Landscape biography is particularly useful in cases where, for the purpose of considering future landscape transformations, knowledge is needed about long-term landscape changes, about regional and local heritage, and about historical narratives of space and place. This chapter starts by explaining the rationale for using landscape biography in landscape research. It then provides a conceptual framework, followed by a description of principles and of methods, including sources of information, data collection techniques and so on. Examples of landscape biography application are discussed in more detail, and its potential for the study of urban landscapes is explored.