Heritage contestation in matterscape, mindscape, and powerscape

Abstract Landscape heritage is frequently contested as perspectives on heritage and landscape may vary across stakeholders. The present article makes a novel contribution by examining pathways to landscape heritage contestation. We propose a distinction between (a) heritage as object in matterscape, being the physical landscape out-there, (b) heritage as meaning in mindscape, being the landscape as experienced by a subject, and (c) heritage as political act in powerscape, being the landscape as rules that organise behaviour. Contestation, then, might originate in matterscape, mindscape, or powerscape. We illustrate these pathways to contestation upon analyses of semi-structured interviews among stakeholders of Schokland, The Netherlands, a World Heritage site. Findings reveal contestation about matterscape pertaining to the issue whether a water system leads to wet spots on adjacent agricultural land, about mindscape pertaining to the beauty of new nature developed around Schokland, and powerscape pertaining to the rules associated with the World Heritage status.

In response, scholars argue for inclusive landscape heritage management, allowing active participation of all relevant stakeholders, rather than specialist professionals and policy makers taking decisions (Janssen, Luiten, Renes, & Rouwendal, 2014;Smith, 2012;Waterton & Watson, 2013).Literature on diversity and inclusive heritage management has generated important insights.Research has identified relationships between ways of perceiving and interacting with landscape heritage and sense of place and identity (Graham & Howard, 2016;Liu et al., 2021).Also, studies have explained the diversity in landscape heritage perception, revealing how stakeholder differences, in various contexts, might be rooted in identity politics, interests, framing anticipated landscape interventions (Jacobs & Buijs, 2011), or different ways of producing meaning, focusing on discourse (Waterton, 2010) or practices (Braaksma et al., 2016).In addition, literature addresses how different stakeholders may collaborate through public participation in, for example, heritage planning policies (Bloemers, 2010;Janssen et al., 2017;Van Der Valk, 2014).
Perception differences do not inevitably result in contestation.One person might like a historical artefact for its aesthetic value and another might like the same artefact for its contribution to a sense of identity.These differences might unproblematically coexist, as long as they do not translate into incongruent desires about landscape planning or design (Braaksma et al., 2016).Contestation, in our view, exists only when different heritage claims are mutually conflicting.Therefore, examining commonalities and differences in identity construction and heritage perception is useful yet insufficient to understand sources of contestation.A review of heritage contestation literature reveals that the majority of articles lack 'discerning theoretical development' (Liu et al., 2021).This is problematic as theory is crucial to transcend cases and build a joint scientific perspective.The present article makes a novel theoretical contribution to the literature by examining pathways to landscape heritage contestation (i.e.different ways heritage contestation can come into being).Central to distinguishing pathways to contestation is an analysis of fundamentally different types of heritage claims.First, we present a theoretical framework intended to distinguish and conceptualise potential pathways to heritage contestation.Then, we illustrate the theory by applying it to a case study pertaining to World Heritage site Schokland, The Netherlands (methods and results section).Finally, we discuss the findings in the broader context of heritage contestation and consequences for landscape research, heritage studies and heritage management.

Pathways to landscape heritage contestation: things, meanings, acts
The word 'heritage' is implicitly or explicitly used to denote different concepts: heritage as a collection of objects (Antrop, 2005;Harrison, 2018;Lixinski, 2019), heritage as a collection of meanings (Apaydin, 2018;Salazar, 2012), and heritage as a collection of political acts (Harrison, 2013;Kryder-Reid, Foutz, Wood, & Zimmerman, 2018).As a definition establishes a relationship between a word (a sign) and a concept (a unit of thought) there is room for arbitrariness, and endless debates about the 'right' definition are not likely to be fruitful.Rather, the variety of definitions, in our view, points to three different aspects together constituting heritage: things that exist in the material realm, meanings that exist in the mental realm and acts that exist in the social realm.Taking this distinction as a premise, we relate the concept of heritage to an existing landscape ontology (Jacobs, 2006), to constitute our theoretical framework.The framework, explained below, suggests that landscape exists in the material, the mental, and or the social realm, to be labelled as matterscape, mindscape, and powerscape, respectively.
Matterscape is constituted by material objects, processes, and elements only.It is the landscape out-there, consisting of sand, vegetation, water, rocks, as well as the purely material features of human artefacts that are part of the landscape, such as the material appearance of houses or roads.Matterscape exists objectively, in the sense that its existence and properties do not depend on a subject's desires, moods, intentions or awareness.For example, when a tree has a particular height, nobody's thoughts about that tree have a direct effect on its height.However, thoughts can influence matterscape indirectly, mediated by physical action.If an individual appreciates a tree and therefore waters the tree on a regular basis, the thought might indirectly influence the tree's height.The objectivity of matterscape does not imply that our knowledge about matterscape is necessarily objective (in philosophical terms, epistemological objectivity does not follow from ontological objectivity), yet knowledge as such is not part of matterscape.
Mindscape is the landscape as it exists in the mental realm, made of states of mind pertaining to landscape.It is the landscape as an individual subject experiences it.For example, somebody's experience of a specific wood, including all associations, feelings, thoughts, and memories that the experience involves.Mindscapes are subjective, as they consist of individual intentions, meanings, feelings, impressions, and thoughts.The number of mindscapes, then, equals the number of conscious minds.Consequently, there are many different mindscapes pertaining to the same geographical location.Naturally, cultures shape individuals in continuous processes of communication and consequent socialisation influencing mental dispositions upon interpretation by individuals.Thus, while being ontologically individual, mindscapes are causally connected with the social (and also material) realms.
Powerscape is the landscape as it exists in the social realm, and it consists of explicit and implicit social rules that regulate the behaviour of the members of a social group with respect to the landscape.For example, in many societies it is forbidden to cut down a tree that is growing in a public place, unless one has official permission to do so.Without power, rules are not effective: one can just cut down the tree without any consequences.Power in this sense refers to a specific form of power as the ability of humans to influence the behaviour of other humans in goal-directed ways.The rules that regulate how members of a social group are required to behave with respect to the landscape, making up powerscape, express collective norms (what to do) and objectives (what is pursued).These norms and objectives are sometimes clearly formulated in the form of laws, rules, regulations and government plans.Often, the norms and objectives are implicit, embodied in customs and traditions.On some Greek islands in the Aegean Sea, house-owners are expected to paint their houses white, even if there is no explicit rule stating so.Powerscapes are intersubjectiveproperties of societies or social groups, and created between subjects who form a social group.Because there are many different groups, there are many different powerscapes, even at the same geographical location.
The ontological distinction between heritage as object in matterscape, as meaning in mindscape, and as political act in powerscape has consequences pertaining to the validity of heritage claims (Table 1).Habermas (1985) makes a distinction between three fundamentally different validity claims: truth, justness, and truthfulness.Claims are true if they correspond with an objective state of affairs (e.g. it is true that water flows downhill).Thus, claims about heritage as object are valid if true.Statements are truthful if they correspond with the contents of consciousness of the subject (e.g. it is truthful that I find water fascinating).Consequently, claims about heritage as meaning are valid if truthful (i.e. if the claim is sincere).Claims are just if they correspond with norms that groups of people follow (e.g. it is just not to pollute water in our community).Hence, claims about heritage as political act are valid if just.True heritage, truthful heritage, and just heritage are therefore the epistemological correlates of heritage in matterscape, mindscape, and powerscape.
On the basis of this theoretical framework, we distinguish three fundamentally different pathways to heritage contestation depending on content of different and incompatible heritage claims: contestation may originate in competing claims about heritage in matterscape, mindscape, or powerscape.In the context of heritage management, often challenging exactly because of contestation, this distinction is crucial since the conditions for validity of claims are different across types of contestation and hence strategies for effective communication and action should be different.Joint fact finding, for instance, could be effective when heritage as object in matterscape is contested, but is not effective when heritage as political act in powerscape is contested.The theoretical distinction is philosophical (ontological in first instance and epistemological in second instance).Consequently, empirical research cannot provide ultimate evidence in the same way as, for example, empirical research can provide evidence for the scientific claim that habitat fragmentation leads to decline of biodiversity.Therefore, we use our empirical study to illustrate that the theoretical categorisation is useful to understand types of heritage contestation.Two research questions guided our case study among stakeholders of Schokland, a World Heritage site in The Netherlands: (1) Which contestations exist among stakeholders?; and (2) How can these contestations be understood in terms of heritage contestation pertaining to matterscape, mindscape and powerscape?

Methods
A qualitative approach is useful to gain insight into the variety of stakeholder views (Miles & Huberman, 1994).We conducted semi-structured interviews were conducted with a selection of relevant stakeholders around Schokland to examine how they perceive and value Schokland's landscape and heritage, and their stance to current and future management.

Study site
Schokland, a former island in the Dutch Zuiderzee, has a rich cultural history, starting with its first occupation around 12,000 years ago (van Lanen, van Beek, & Kosian, 2022).After the reclamation in 1942, Schokland became an island on dry land, located in the south of the Noordoostpolder (van Lanen et al., 2022).Due to its former marine location, the former island has faced rising and lowering water levels, erosion and destructive storms for decades, which perpetually changed the landscape and the shape of the island (van Lanen et al., 2022).The inhabitation of Schokland led to further developments such as the construction of dwelling mounds, dikes and embankments (van Lanen et al., 2022).The former island is rich in important archaeological sites, many of which are still buried (van Lanen et al., 2022).This has led to Schokland becoming the first UNESCO World Heritage site in the Netherlands in 1995.To preserve the island and protect the archaeological remains, trees and shrubs were planted around the former coastline and a 'hydrozone' with wet meadows was established around the island's edge.On the island there are various walking and cycling paths, as well as a small museum and a caf e.The polder around the former island is farmed and there are various Bed and Breakfasts in the area around the island.
Schokland is managed by a site holder (the municipality of Noordoostpolder) in collaboration with various stakeholders, who have organised themselves in a site holder group and the area committee.The site holder group consists of delegates from the managing organisations with the strongest involvement, whereas the area committee also includes local residents and farmers (van Lanen et al., 2022).Many different stakeholders, with different and sometimes opposing views and values, are therefore involved in the management.We selected Schokland as a suitable case study for two reasons.First, the UNESCO designation implies the making of a heritage management plan, for which responsible authorities have organised conversations and public meetings.Consequently, thought about heritage is likely to be salient among interviewees (and therefore not constructed or invented during the interview).Hence, many stakeholders have explicitly thought about heritage in the area.Second, past public meetings and conversations suggest contestation over heritage, as reported by news media and the site holder.

Sampling
A purposive sampling method allows to maximise the variety of interviewees and target the most important stakeholders (Jacobs & Buijs, 2011).A total of 18 stakeholders were interviewed.The selected stakeholders can be divided into representatives of organisations who are mostly involved with Schokland in a professional manner, and people from the local community, who live in the area or have a personal interest in Schokland.The professional group includes representatives from local, regional and national heritage organisations, regional landscape, regional water management and nature conservation organisations, a regional farmers' association, local and regional politicians and the regional tourism sector.Local people include inhabitants, many of whom also own a business (mostly in hospitality or agriculture), but also members of local heritage societies.Many, though not all, interviewees are or were members of Schokland's Area Committee or the Site holder Group.

Interview design
Throughout July and August 2020, semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted.The interview script was based on three themes that were identified in literature to gain insights into stakeholders' views: perception of landscape, perception of cultural heritage and perception of current and future management (Table 2).All interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were sent to interviewees for correction.The identity of the interviewees remains anonymous as promised.How do you think Schokland and its cultural heritage should be managed in the future?14.
How do you (currently) collaborate with other stakeholders in the management of Schokland and its cultural heritage?15.
How could you (in the future) collaborate with other stakeholders in the management of Schokland and its cultural heritage?16.
What is, or could be, your role in this future management?17.
What are the most important challenges and opportunities for stakeholder collaboration and the future management of Schokland and its cultural heritage?18.
To what extent do you feel involved in the management of Schokland and/or its cultural heritage?Finalising questions 19.Do you experience any (other) issues in relation to Schokland, its landscape, cultural heritage and/or its management?20.
Is there anything you would like to add that that we have not discussed yet?

Analysis
Interview transcripts were coded using Atlas.ti.The creation, application and organisation of codes to analyse the transcripts was an iterative process, resulting in a codebook consisting of concepts that reflect themes and claims on an abstract level.Across coded transcripts we identified contested issues, which are reported in the next section.

Results
Findings are deliberately presented on an aggregate level to foreground contestation rather than focusing on individual perspectives.As our purpose was illustrating different types of heritage contestation rather than presenting a comprehensive account of the perspectives of stakeholders, we have focused on presenting three domains of contestation (hydrozone, new nature, world heritage status), which reflect the three theoretical pathways.For each domain, we first present the variety of claims, and then our interpretation in theoretical terms, to allow evaluation of the merits of the latter analysis.

Hydrozone
The majority of interviewees talked about the so-called 'hydrozone' around parts of the island.
The name reflects a water management plan to increase the water level in this zone, intended to prevent subsidence of the former island and to protect archaeological remnants in the soil from (further) degradation due to oxidation.At the same time, the water management system should not negatively affect crop farming on adjacent parcels.All interviewees supported or at least accepted these basic aims.In addition, no interviewee indicated that the heritage protection aims are not met by the water system.Yet, whether groundwater from the hydrozone leaks into adjacent arable fields is a highly contested issue.Some people firmly believed leakage occurs, others firmly believed this is not the case, and yet others believed nobody can know for sure.Some farmers claimed that after the establishment of the hydrozone, wet spots appeared on their land.Some professionals thought these wet spots, if existing at all, resulted from soil subsidence of the whole polder.Yet not all farmers believed in leakage and not all professionals believed in the absence of leakage.Overall, however, many interviewees expressed that this contested issue has contributed to distrust between farmers and professionals.Despite this, there seems consensus that the absence of a baseline measurement before the implementation of the hydrozone is unfortunate.Also, people agree that the hydrozone is a technically highly complex system of ditches, water-locks and a regime to determine when the locks are opened and closed, a system that needs careful finetuning and perhaps amendment.And finally, there is agreement that a monitoring system should be (and indeed was) installed in an attempt to collect data about potential leakage.
The issue is primarily a matterscape contestation, i.e. constituted by incompatible claims about the working of the material landscape.And those core claims do not pertain to heritage in first instance.Yet, the issue emerged after a heritage driven powerscape claim, as the plan leading to matterscape interventions was part of the heritage management plan in response to the UNESCO designation of Schokland and the demands pertaining to the designation.Here, heritage as such was not contested (neither in matterscape, nor in mindscape or powerscape), yet the consequences of implementation to non-heritage matterscape features were.To conclude: the issue reflects matterscape contestation as a consequence of heritage powerscape norms and subsequent interventions.

New nature
Many interviewees mentioned 'new nature'a zone of recently and still being developed nature, associated with and partly overlapping with the hydrozone.To create the hydrozone, farmers were bought out, and new nature was the new destination of these new wet parcels.The majority of those who talked about this new nature explicitly mentioned the intervention as a measure to preserve archaeological heritage and at the same time believed the intervention was motivated by developing nature values, also to contribute to mitigation of the biodiversity decline world-wide.Everybody agreed the intervention is successful to both of these ends, mentioning the positive contribution to heritage preservation (yet only if the reed is regularly removed as this brings oxygen into the soil) and nature conservation, for instance by indicating the appearance of rare meadow birds breeding in the area.Nevertheless, new nature is contested, hinging on two issues.First, some interviewees deemed new nature beautiful.Others, however, found that new nature, with the relatively wild and unmanaged look, is less beautiful than the original polder landscape and does not belong in the historical polder which is all designed and maintained by man.Second, specifically farmers saw new nature as a threat to farming.Not so much the current new nature zone, but rather as an instance of a broader shift in Dutch landscape policy with less prevalence to farming and more to nature development.
Contestation about new nature originates primarily as diversity in mindscapes, as different evaluations of beauty or belongingness lead to differences in adhering to new nature or not.This subsequently leads to different powerscape claims pertaining to the question whether new nature should be there, should be expanded, or how it should be managed.Mindscape claims are partly heritage related, as opponents of new nature do not evaluate it as fitting within the historical appearance of the polder landscape.Partly it is related to aesthetics.Yet, those who found new nature not beautiful were typically those who were born and raised in the polder, and so it seems that the historical dimension is also lurking behind the aesthetics claim.

World heritage status
The majority of interviewees appreciated the status as recognition for what people have done in the area, the status made them proud.The status was also deemed conducive for marketing, publicity, attracting people and hence stimulating recreation and tourism.Furthermore, the status was considered beneficial to raising support for heritage management, and stimulating both the government and society to co-ordinate actions.For some interviewees, although accepting the world heritage designation, the status felt a bit exaggerated as the most important heritage is hardly visible and the site does not compare to famous world heritage sites such as the canals of Amsterdam or the Gizeh pyramids.However, also those who did not appreciate the status did accept it as a given and thus the world heritage designation of Schokland is hardly contested.Yet, the rules that come with the designation raised several concerns.Interviewees opined that the rules were many and not always clear, making it hard to determine, as a stakeholder, what is allowed and what is not allowed in the area.Those interviewees who found the rules clear were typically heritage professionals.The biggest concern among many interviewees pertained to deemed restrictive consequences of the rules (indeed, the word 'restrictions' was frequently used).These stakeholders complained that the rules are rigorous and burdensome, and forbid some forms of land use and landscape interventions.Mentioned examples include implementation of wind turbines and solar panels that would negatively affect the protected landscape appearance.Some felt that the rules make a lot of activities affecting landscape impossible and therefore limit modes of earning an income in the area.They were wondering whether the current set of rules constituted an outdated (i.e.not future oriented) mode of heritage preservation.Those who were concerned about the restrictive consequences usually still believed rules are needed.Other stakeholders, albeit a minority, explicitly supported the heritage rules, deeming them important, good as they are and, as a positive consequence, bringing various stakeholders together to make a heritage management plan.Some interviewees judged some rules as a bit arbitrary.For example, ploughing deeper than 30 centimetres is prohibited on the former island in order to protect the archaeological remains while it is allowed in other places in the polder, even though historical remains might exist there too.As this ploughing rule has been important for heritage preservation, it has been discussed in the past.As a result, the rule was applied in a finer grained manner to protect specifically those sites with expected high densities of historical artefacts in the soil, thus allowing deep ploughing at other sites.
According to many interviewees the powerscape, constituted by the set of rules that define permittable behaviour with respect to landscape has a history of contestation since the designation of Schokland as world heritage site.The status, or existence of rules as such, seem not to be seriously contested.Yet, stakeholders felt that the experienced complexity and restrictive nature of the rules result in tension with other interests such as farming activities and building (e.g., renewable energy facilities).When reasoning about powerscape, interviewees make mindscape claims, for instance when explaining that rules are also implemented to protect the landscape view, as well as matterscape claims, for instance when arguing that deep ploughing may destroy archaeological artefacts.

Discussion
Landscape heritage contestation is a brute fact about the world given the public relevance of heritage and the multitude of stakeholders with diverse activities and perspectives (Ingerpuu, 2018;Liu et al., 2021;Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996).This article makes a new contribution to the landscape and heritage literature by offering a theoretical understanding of pathways to heritage contestation.The key message is that three (not less and not more) fundamentally different pathways to contestation exist from the perspective of aboutness: contestation pertaining to heritage as object in matterscape, heritage as meaning in mindscape, and heritage as political act in powerscape.To illustrate the utility for understanding heritage contestation, we have used analyses of interviews with a diversity of stakeholders involved in the World Heritage site of Schokland.We conclude that the framework is useful in this case and acknowledge that future applications to other cases are needed in order to make informed inferences about generalisability.
Our analysis also demonstrates cross-reference of heritage claims, meaning that reasoning often involves multiple claims across matterscape, mindscape and powerscape.Cross-referencing is inherently logical.For instance, making a claim about heritage meaning (mindscape) needs an implicit or explicit reference to a material object, event or structure (matterscape).Similarly, reasoning about powerscape is hard to imagine without contemplating consequences of political acts for activities that involve interventions in matterscape.Still, as our analysis illustrates, composite claims can be broken down into individuated claims pertaining to either one realm of landscape, plus a specification of relationships across individuated claims.Such analysis is important, as our theoretical framework implies that contestation can only exist if competing claims have the same aboutness, that is, pertain to the same landscape/heritage realm (i.e.matterscape, mindscape, powerscape).Even if it seems or is felt that claims pertaining to different realms compete, it would be pseudo-contestation.As a simple example, the claim that water in a particular landscape is undesirable (a powerscape claim) as people can drown cannot logically compete with the claim that water in that landscape is beautiful (a mindscape claim).Further analyses on composite claims to map individuated claims (and perhaps implicit and yet hidden claims) could be a tool to expose whether and where contestation exists.
The case of Schokland reveals that heritage contestation does not necessarily mean that all relevant competing claims are about heritage.For example, the claim of some stakeholders that they do not find new nature beautiful is not a claim about heritage, but it does co-constitute heritage contestation.We propose a theoretical distinction between internal and external heritage contestation.Internal heritage contestation is brought about by competing claims about heritage (whether in matterscape, mindscape or powerscape).External heritage contestation consists of competition by two or more claims of which at least one is not about heritage.Perhaps, many existing heritage contestations are external.For instance, research demonstrates frequently occurring powerscape contestation pertaining to the desire to preserve heritage versus the desire for economic development (al-Houdalieh & Sauders, 2009;Ashworth, 2014;Pacifico & Vogel, 2012).
Scholars have previously proposed types of heritage contestation.Olsen and Timothy (2002) make a distinction between contestation between groups and contestation within groups (of course this distinction depends on how one categorises groups).Smith (2006) coined the concept of 'authorised heritage discourse' (AHD) to indicate how professionals gain or aim to gain hegemony over heritage management by using discursive power to establish what is seen as normal.The concept logically anticipates Smith's analysis of contestation in terms of professional and official discourse versus other heritage discourses.These types are orthogonal to our typology.In other words, AHD contestation, and within-group and between-group contestation can reflect heritage as object, meaning, or act, and thus present additional and independent perspectives rather than anti-theses to our framework.
A review by Liu et al. (2021) suggests that heritage contestations studies report a lack of effective strategies for heritage management to address conflict.Our framework does not prescribe specific effective strategies, yet allows to consider which strategies might apply in the context of inclusive heritage management.Key is the premise that conditions for validity of claims vary across matterscape, mindscape, and powerscape.Claims pertaining to matterscape are valid if true.If two or more matterscape claims are mutually exclusive, either one or none of the claims is true.In the Schokland case, either water leaks from the hydrozone to adjacent parcels or it does not.Joint fact finding or collectively defining a strategy for fact finding could be solutions.Claims pertaining to powerscape are valid if just.Yet, what is experienced as just can vary across communities, and hence different powerscape claims can coexist (and at the same time compete with respect to ramifications) and both be valid, depending on the set of explicit or implicit system of norms people adhere to.Joint fact finding will, therefore, not present a useful strategy.As powerscape contestation is inherently the domain of politics, joint decision making, including seeking compromises, could present a fruitful mode of conduct.In the Schokland case, continued dialogue (and indeed contestation) has resulted in amendment of the rules to allow deep ploughing at more places than the original rules contended.Claims pertaining to mindscape are valid if truthful (i.e. if the claim-maker is honest).Dealing with mindscape contestation could include strategies that respect the autonomy of the individual, allowing each individual stakeholder to participate in dialogues, and perhaps looking for opportunities to pay service to individual meanings or desired meanings.In the Schokland case, specific design and management decisions could perhaps result in zones where the new nature area is more maintained without compromising biodiversity, to meet concerns of people who find the new nature area ugly.Yet, coping strategies can never remove contestation forever: as powerscape and mindscape claims can compete and at the same time logically coexist in terms of validity, contestation can always occur.Also, a one fits all strategy for inclusive heritage management does not exist as the effectiveness of a strategy depends on the aboutness of the contestation.

Conclusion
The theoretical framework transcends the context of heritage contestation and is relevant for the examination and understanding of landscape heritage and landscape in general.We explore the relevance and ramifications by proposing principles that logically follow from the framework: (a) the principle of non-reducibility, (b) the principle of non-transferability, and (c) the principle of asymmetric relationships.
The principle of non-reducibility means that matterscape, mindscape and powerscape cannot be reduced to each othera principle following directly from the ontological premise.For instance, while matterscape often plays a causal role in the mindscape of a conscious perceiver, mindscapes are not determined by matterscape.The mental states (e.g.being in a particular mood) and traits (e.g.tendency to like forests) of the individual subject co-constitute her/his mindscape.Moreover, properties of matterscapes and mindscapes are entirely different.Matterscape phenomena are to be found 'out-there' and have properties like mass and extension.Mindscape phenomena are not 'out-there' but exist in the mind and have different properties such as subjectivity.It makes sense to talk about the height of a tree, but individual's perception does not have a height.
The principle of non-transferability is the epistemological consequence of the first principle, and means that claims about either one of the three landscape realms cannot be deduced in a strict and logical way from knowledge about the other realms.Laws and facts that apply to one realm do not apply to the other realms.Newton's law of gravity, for instance, is relevant to matterscape but not to mindscape or powerscape.Even when it seems we may predict properties of a realm on the basis about knowledge about another realm, previous knowledge about association is a necessity to make those predictions more than random.While we can predict that on average people will like a particular natural landscape with visible water bodies, this prediction includes mindscape knowledge to start with and that refers to matterscape.
The principle of asymmetric relationships means that relationships between realms are different in nature depending on the direction of the relationships.Matterscape phenomena can play a causal (yet not exclusive and deterministic) role in mindscapes, through emitting stimuli that affect senses, being turned into information that enters the brain constituting conscious experiences.The direction of this causal sequence of events cannot be reversed.Mindscapes cannot affect matterscapes in the same way.If mindscape phenomena have a causal effect on matterscapes, the chain of events is very different, for instance mediated through physical action.Within mindscapes, meanings can be assigned to matterscape features.This type of relationship (a projective relationship) also has a fixed direction.Powerscape rules frequently (if not always) refer to matterscape properties (e.g. the rule to drive on the right side of the road does refer to physical roads).Matterscape features, on the hand, cannot constitute a referential relationship.This analysis illustrates that the causal, projective and referential relationships mentioned here are not bidirectional between matterscape, mindscape and powerscape.Yet, the present analysis of relationships is not systematic.It would require further theorising to create a comprehensive formal analysis of possible relationship types.The analysis of relationships is relevant since matterscape, mindscape and powerscape are always connected in multiple ways.
Landscape scholars advocate interdisciplinary approaches in landscape research yet indicate problems of conceptual barriers and epistemological differences (Fry, 2001;Tress, Tress, & Fry, 2007).Our framework offers a fundamental explanation of why different disciplines are needed in landscape research: landscapes include ontologically different realms.Any landscape humans are related to in one way or another consists of phenomena in those different realms (principle of non-reducibility).Epistemological differences are not just consequences of different disciplinary practices, yet consequences of differences in validity claims pertaining to the ontological categories as well.Our theoretical framework could assist in relating different disciplines and offers concepts to start developing a common language.
While the framework is relevant to landscape in general, we illustrated its use in the context of heritage.The emphasis in heritage conceptualisation, theory development and empirical research has shifted from a predominant focus on material objects and preservation, to include heritage discourse, functions of heritage, meanings of heritage, politics of heritage and development (Ashworth, 2013;Harrison, 2010;Harvey, 2015;Liu et al., 2021;Smith, 2006).Our theoretical perspective as well as our case study findings underscore the importance of this shift towards more comprehensive heritage studies.Heritage claims are driven by present concerns, are future oriented, and are backward looking.In that order.