Towards a new rural landscape: consequences of non-agricultural re-use of redundant farm buildings in Friesland

Transcription

1 Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) Towards a new rural landscape: consequences of non-agricultural re-use of redundant farm buildings in Friesland Jacob H.P. van der Vaart Fryske Akademy, P.O. Box 54, 8900 AB Ljouwert/Leeuwarden, The Netherlands Abstract The man-made rural landscape is to a very high degree basically a landscape of farms and farming. Farm buildings play an important role in the image of the rural landscape. Over the last years, the number of farmers and farms has decreased all over Europe. At present more than half of all the farm buildings in The Netherlands have no longer a function for agriculture. These buildings are used now for either residential purposes or a combination of residence and some kind of non-agricultural economic activity. A change of function usually leads to a change of the interior and exterior of the building. Data and insights from an extensive study of that phenomenon in the province of Friesland in the north of The Netherlands show what happen to the farm buildings after conversion. How do public authorities in The Netherlands look at this phenomenon that changes rural areas? However, the most important actor in this process of change is the owner/resident of such a place. What are their motives for keeping up or dramatically changing the traditional farm buildings? After the functional change, many of these buildings are more or less fossilised in their original form, some are turned into villas which hardly remind us of their agricultural past. Is the re-use a form of urbanisation or is it part of a process of rural revitalisation? Does the reshaping of these structures lead to a loss of the rural heritage? This article looks into the architectural, economical, social and landscape effects of changes due to re-use. The general outcomes of that are used to discuss the future of rural areas Published by Elsevier B.V. Keywords: Farm buildings; Urbanisation; Rural landscape; Rural heritage; The Netherlands 1. Introduction This paper aims to discuss the change of the countryside and the landscape by means of the re-use of redundant farm buildings. A particular focus is on farm buildings because these play various important roles in the countryside through their functions, forms and role in the image of ruralness. In the debate on policies for rural areas, they play an important role as well. Basic research on the many facets of the typical rural buildings is scarce, however. This is to be regretted, because the lessons that can be learnt from the changes in these buildings in the recent past can pro- address: jvdvaart@fa.knaw.nl (J.H.P. van der Vaart). vide valuable insights for future strategies on sustainable development of rural areas. The few publications available usually deal with the architectural characteristics and conversion (Birkkjaer and Pedersen, 1996; Piacenza Conference, 1996; Zappavigna, 1996; Grube, 1978) and to a lesser extent with re-use policy and spatial-environmental issues (Wauters and Goedseels, 1996; Neale et al., 1992; Darley, 1988; Moir, 1982). The man-made rural landscape is to a very high degree basically a landscape of farms and farming. Farm buildings play an important role in the image of the rural landscape. There is an enormous variation in form of these buildings, as a single building or as a complex of functionally related buildings. The type of agriculture and the techniques of farming, in /$ Published by Elsevier B.V. doi: /j.landurbplan

2 144 J.H.P. van der Vaart / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) combination with regionally different habits and ideas about aesthetics in periods past, formed the base for the traditional farm buildings as we see them today. The architecture is regionally often very similar and typical, and contributes to landscape identity of a region. The contemporary modern farm buildings are quite different from the older, traditional types. However, these modern farm buildings are also the result of present day economy and farming techniques. Besides that, the architecture is also strongly influenced by today s habits and ideas of building. Over the last 40 years, various economic, technological and political developments have caused a structural change in European agriculture. One of the consequences has been an enormous decline in the number of farms. As a result many farm buildings have become redundant. Because of the potential of the buildings to suit a different purpose, combined with an increasing demand for real estate in the countryside, a substantial number of redundant farm buildings have survived in more or less their original shape. Although features of the exterior remind us of their past as a farm, the function, however, has changed to residence or a non-agrarian economic activity Kivinen (1996), Wilkinson (1987). Why is it important to study the change in farm buildings? First of all, the farm buildings are very good indicators of the change in rural areas. Economical, technical, social and aesthetical changes are expressed in these structures. A farm building is an object in which the decrease of traditional rural economic activities and the introduction of new activities in rural areas become visible. Examples from an investigation in a part of The Netherlands showed that farm buildings were suitable for indicating the economical, social and physical changes. That is why the dynamics of the farm buildings might serve as the pre-eminent indicator for monitoring rural change. Data and insights from an investigation of the re-use of the redundant farm buildings in the province of Friesland, situated in the north of The Netherlands, will shed light on the consequences of conversion of these typical rural buildings (van der Vaart, 1999). The case of Friesland where the present landscape is still relatively rural, can serve as an example for the process of change in a region that transformed over the past half century from a rural society to an urbanised society. Many other regions in Europe have gone through a similar process and many more will become part of the urban field. So, from Friesland, that comprises wide open landscape dotted with traditional and modern farm buildings, as well as more enclosed small scale landscapes, we can derive insights about the future of the similar parts of the European landscape. After a brief description of the object studied and the methods used, some results from the study on re-use in Friesland are presented. Aspects of economical, social, architectural and landscape effects of re-use will be shown. Finally, I will reflect on the question what the farm building as typical rural cultural heritage may contribute to the future landscape. 2. Study object and region 2.1. Farm buildings A short introduction of the traditional farm types in The Netherlands as background information about the kind of buildings considered in this paper is necessary to understand the analysis. A major characteristic of the traditional farm building in The Netherlands is that it is a multi-functional building, combining dwelling and working spaces in one structure, more or less under one roof. The working space can be divided into an accommodation for farm animals, space for storing crops and hay, and a working space for processing dairy products and cereal crops. The traditional farm buildings in The Netherlands are timber-framed. Four main types or house groups can be distinguished: (1) the Frisian house group of the northern coastal area; (2) the hall-farm group of the central and eastern inland region; (3) the Zeeland farm in the south-western coastal area; and (4) the southern house group in the province Limburg (van Olst and Pubben, 2000; Hekker, 1991). The dimensions of the notable buildings of the traditional Frisian house group are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. The modern farm building, as it has been built since 1970, is quite different from the traditional ones. Usually, it is a combination of a large, low barn that contains the cow stalls, separate sheds for farm machinery and other equipment. The farmhouse is separated from these buildings and is usually a modern semi-bungalow.

3 J.H.P. van der Vaart / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) Fig. 1. Two characteristic examples of the Frisian farm house group, the head neck trunk and the stjelp, both with long pyramidal roof, the most common in the province of Friesland The region and some general statistics Friesland is situated on the coast in the north of The Netherlands. It is still one of the most rural of the provinces in the strongly urbanised Dutch society. Until about 1950, agriculture used to play an important role in the economy and societal structure of this part of The Netherlands. Over the last half century the number of farms in The Netherlands as a whole and in its province of Friesland has decreased by 77%. Most of the farms which quit during the first half of that period of 50 years were small and very small farms. After 1975, the number of large farms leaving business increased. An indication of the speed of the decline can be derived from the statistics (Table 1). The decline is an ongoing process: at present it is about 3% a year. The socio-economic and -cultural position of rural areas in The Netherlands and other Western European countries has changed from the agriculture-dominated one to a position in which the role of agriculture has diminished. The non-agricultural interests of society have got a sturdy foothold in the countryside. Ever less people are directly involved in agricultural production. Table 1 Numbers of agricultural enterprises in The Netherlands and the province Friesland, period Netherlands Friesland Fig. 2. The different dimensions of the traditional farm building and its modern cubicle-stalls barn: the changing Frisian landscape Source: Agricultural Census, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), The Netherlands.

4 146 J.H.P. van der Vaart / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) For the whole of The Netherlands, 3.5% of the labour force was employed in agriculture in For one of the most rural provinces of the country, the province of Friesland, the figure was 6.7% for the same year. 3. Methods The change in the use of farm buildings was viewed as related to the interaction between man and environment. In this cultural geographical investigation, a structural approach and an actor-oriented approach were implemented simultaneously. Data for the structural approach, which aimed for the description and explanation of re-use patterns, had been gathered during a field inventory in Exterior features and characteristics of all re-used farm buildings in seven municipalities in Friesland were recorded, covering a total of one third of the province. The actor-oriented approach was a quest for the motives of individual and collective actors for their doings and the way in which they ascribe significance to the farm buildings and its surroundings. A postal survey in 1995 of all 2290 cases recorded in the field inventory, resulted in 862 completed questionnaires. Statistics have been analysed by SPSS. By combining the insights supplied by the two different approaches, this study attempts to delineate the phenomenon of the change of use of farm buildings in the process of change in rural areas. A selection of the results of the investigation is presented in this paper. An extensive report can be found in van der Vaart (1999). 4. Results and analysis 4.1. The number of redundant farm buildings At present there are about 15,000 farm buildings in the province of Friesland, both older traditional and modern ones. Based on my inventory in 7 of the 31 municipalities in this province, which resulted in a total of 2290 re- and not-used farm buildings, it could be estimated that in 2002 over half of the farm buildings were farms without farmers. A couple of reports from other Dutch provinces also gave figures, which indicate that at least half of the farm buildings have been converted. In some regions, the figure is even higher, ranging from 60 to 70%, particularly in regions that used to have a large number of small farms Types of re-use Two main categories of re-use of redundant farm buildings could be distinguished. In most cases, the place is turned into residence, which accounts for about 85% of the re-use (Fig. 3). The second category is non-agrarian business, which we found in the remaining 15% of the buildings. It is important to know that this utilitarian use was combined with residence in 93% of cases. Unoccupied farm buildings hardly exist. For a long time already there had been much demand for a place in the countryside by people who wanted to move away from the city. An often forgotten group has to be added: people who deliberately are looking for a place in a rural setting because they want to avoid living in a city. A redundant farm building is a very desirable type of real estate. Since the last years, the official public policy in The Netherlands had opposed the use of farm buildings with no relation to the main functions of the countryside, it was quite astonishing to find such a large number of re-used farm buildings. How could this situation become possible? 4.3. Policy on conversion Public policy has strived and still strives to regulate the development of rural areas. Since 1960, the policy on rural areas in The Netherlands had designated the countryside to the main functions of agriculture, nature and recreation. This policy implied that conversion of redundant farm buildings to pure residential purposes or non-agrarian business was not permitted. Over the last 10 years, the policy on the re-use has become less restrictive. This policy line started at the municipal level, trickled up to the provincial level and finally reached the national level. The Fifth Policy Document on Town and Country Planning (2000), stated that buildings in rural areas which have lost their original function, e.g. farm buildings, army barracks, health care institutions etc., might be used for purposes of residence, sport, businesses or recreation. It has been argued that such a transformation could broaden the economic base of rural areas and prevent the loss of characteristic buildings at the same time.

5 J.H.P. van der Vaart / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) Fig. 3. Example of redundant Frisian farm building converted into permanent residence. Thus the argument of cultural-historic value and the contribution of the notable buildings to the Dutch landscape have become more important. Nowadays re-use is considered beneficial to the vitality of rural regions. Moreover, the prime position of farming activities as user of the countryside is debated and under attack. Reasons for that must be sought in the pressure of the Dutch urban society for room for activities. The countryside becomes increasingly the backyard of urban conurbations. But still the question remains: how is it possible that there are so many re-used farm buildings when the policy has been so restrictive for such a long time till 1990? The implementation of public policy at the municipal level showed that the owner/occupant of a redundant farm building played a very important role in the process. From our survey among the residents on their experience with restrictions set by public authorities, it could be concluded that the individual owner of the building was the most important actor in the process of change. Even when the re-use of a farm building for either residence or some kind of economic activity was formally not allowed, hardly any farm house remained empty after the farmer had stopped farming and moved out. At the municipal level it turned out to be difficult to control the change of redundant farm buildings. The legal rules of the land use or zoning plan were seldom strictly applied and municipal authorities generally adopted a stance of flexibility and acquiescence. Action against developments would be taken only when complaints from neighbours would reach the municipal authorities, especially complaints from the remaining farmers or when in certain cases of severe annoyance it became necessary to stop the infringement of the law. Information gathered from interviews with civil servants made clear that they only looked critically into conversion plans when the building was a listed monument. If a farm building was not on the list, they usually did not want to interfere too much in the aspects of aesthetics and effects on the surrounding landscape. Conversion plans were mainly judged on the constructional soundness of the suggested rebuilding. Therefore, the ideas and motives of the owner/occupant

6 148 J.H.P. van der Vaart / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) were the most decisive ones in the development of redundant farm buildings and buildings in general Motives to settle in a redundant farm building The most important motive for living at a former farm was the space it provided for personal interests or hobbies. The next most frequently mentioned motives were the characteristic features of the building and the large space for residence. For people who had acquired a farm building for the use of combining business and residence, the relative low price, compared to units of an industrial estate, was mentioned as the main motive. For this group, the motives for the use as pure residence was also important. For these entrepreneurs, it was very important to be able to combine working space and living in the countryside under one roof. This indicated that in addition to the aspects which point to the utility value of farm buildings, the personal perception of this kind of building played an important role: 76% of the residents mentioned that the farm building had some kind of special meaning to them. For the new settler, a farm building had a symbolic value and that was considered important as well. When asked to rate their farm building on a list of values (Marchand, 1982), comprising utility value, symbolic value, exchange value and sign value, 73% mentioned the utility value as the most important. The 16% mentioned the symbolic value as the most important, 7% claimed the sign value as the most important and only 4% put the exchange value on the first place. From the relative weight of these four motives, the conclusion that people moved to a redundant farm building for reasons that mainly had to do with the physical characteristics of the building and its surroundings, was justified. A former farm building was attractive because it allowed a lifestyle to be realised, characterised by freedom of action and the leading of an active life. 5. The effects of re-use A new function for the farm building means new activities and new people in the rural setting, so local economical and social effects will be obvious. Because a new function in many cases also leads to adaptation of these buildings through re-modelling or re-building of the house, of the former barn and of the yard, this will lead to architectural and landscape effects as well. These four effects of the re-use in Friesland are discussed in the next four paragraphs Effects for the local rural economy The fact that almost none of the farm buildings have remained uninhabited after farming activities stopped, is in itself positive for the local economy. Re-modelling of the buildings leads to expenses to the benefit of local and regional contractors and other enterprises. The fact that the farmhouse keeps its residential function and the village population does not decline is another positive effect. As stated before, about 15% of the re-used farm buildings have retained some kind of economic activity. Among these a distinction should be made between economic activities, which provide a main income for the entrepreneur, and activities, which provide an additional income for the household at the farm. Two-thirds of the enterprises provide a main income for the owner/resident. The other third could be classified as providing an additional income for the resident. The vast majority of the new enterprises could be classified as belonging to the service sector of the economy. They account for 75% of the main income and 90% of the additional income businesses. Almost half of all enterprises have started their business at the farm buildings, so these spaces have an important incubator function. Most frequent among the main income businesses are the following six types: (1) building industry in a broad sense (contractors, house painters); (2) health care (e.g. physiotherapists, doctors, clinics; (3) restaurants and lodging (guesthouses); (4) wholesale trade (incl. cattle merchants, import and export businesses); (5) business to business services (e.g. photographers, accountancy, organisation advisers; (6) services to the agricultural sector. Less frequent are small crafts like joinery shops or blacksmiths, retail businesses (antiques, furniture, books), general storage, culture (community hall, artist gallery) and personal services (e.g. beauty salons, hairdressers). The two main sectors of the additional income businesses are lodging, which usually is the bed&breakfast

7 J.H.P. van der Vaart / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) formula and storage (holiday caravans, boats, general storage of goods, sometimes storage for local farmers). Besides these trades, there is a variety of activities like chiropodists, art galleries, joinery and furniture shops, vintage car restoration, sale of second hand books or dog hair trimming. The new enterprises are important for the local rural economy for two reasons. First, new employment is important for rural areas. On the average, businesses with main income from non-agrarian activities provide full-time employment for 2.4 full-time and 0.9 part-time workers. Additional income businesses provide an average employment for 0.6 full-time and 0.9 part-time persons. The second reason to consider is that the new businesses can bring more diversity into the local economy, which is necessary because the traditional strong agricultural sector shows an ongoing decline. For the economic vitality of rural areas the broader economic base is very important Social effects The Netherlands is predominantly an urban society and people in the countryside could be regarded as strongly urbanised. We could ask to which degree the re-use of the farm buildings is a matter of urban people and activities that spread to the countryside. In the survey, we were curious about the previous residential address and the childhood living experience (up to 18 years), in order to find out the importance of urban-rural migration. In Friesland, 74% of the residents/owners of redundant farm buildings had moved in from the same province and 72% came from a village. From a perspective of social effects, that percentage is very important. The common stereotype-image, according to which an enormous overflow of people moved from the urban centres of the Dutch Randstad to these redundant farms in outlying provinces, is not true. The majority of the residents in Frisian farm buildings had come from the same province. It also turned out that 34% of the people, who came from urban areas, originated from a rural background. The statistics indicated that 60 80% of the residents in redundant farm buildings participated in local village life (Table 2). When it came to active participation, new settlers from outside of the province behaved slightly different from the new inhabitants from within Friesland. An urban background of the Table 2 Share of participating residents in village life in relation to origin Supporting member Active member Village in Friesland Town in Friesland Village in other province Town in other province Source: van der Vaart, None or hardly any in-migrants lead to less participation in local village life and consequently to a small decrease in local coherence. Because their numbers were still relatively small, the effect was not dramatic, but it was a sign of decreasing local social coherence Architectural effects Almost inevitably a change in the use of a building leads to changes of its interior. In three-quarters of the buildings, the part designated to former agricultural functions has been completely or partially converted and rebuilt. Changes to the interior lead to a loss of the information value of the building for the history of agriculture. Assigning new functions to internal spaces and rebuilding the interior usually leads to a change of the exterior of the building as well. For instance, a big window replaces the large barn door, small windows were enlarged or new windows and entrances were added. The degree of change as reported by the owners varied with the type of re-use (Table 3). In general, we notice that the use for non-agrarian economic activities leads to more major changes to the farm buildings than solely residential use or use for additional income. The field inventory showed that 37% of all re-used farm buildings had undergone a major or complete change of the original exterior due to the new use. Only 14% of the owners/occupiers reported major changes. That was a hint to the fact that Table 3 Degree of change to the exterior of the farm building after re-use Full business Additional income business Residence No change Minor change Major change Source: van der Vaart, Total

8 150 J.H.P. van der Vaart / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) the owner/occupier experienced the changes that he or she had made as less destructive to the building than an outsider would see. This was probably because of the fact that the owner considered the changes as an overall improvement of the residential quality of the building, while the external observer would not take such factors into account. The way the occupants projected themselves on their environment their farm building revealed interesting differences. Their dreams and wishes varied, but many similarities became obvious. The experience of the residents was an important factor in that aspect. A remarkable difference appeared between the ideas of farmers who used to work at the place and the new owner/occupant. In the survey, the respondents were asked what kind of building they would rebuild after a hypothetical disaster would have destroyed their present farm building. It is a striking outcome that ex-farmers still living on the residential farm were considerably less attached to their old farm building than the new residents. Half of them preferred a modern house on the same spot. For those residents, who had not experienced to live and work on the farm while it was still in business, the farm building as such had a very high symbolic value contributing to their sense of living in the country. It was the rural idyll in the mind of the new residents, which made them express their strong attachment to the present farm building. The results suggested that preservation of the traditional building was more of concern for the new occupants than for the former farmers (Table 4) Landscape effects When the new function has led to some kind of adjustment in almost every farm, it is important to Table 4 Preferred type of replacement of present farm building after hypothetical destruction Ex-farmer (%) Exact copy of own farm building Model of a farm building Modern house Modern business building + house 10 3 Source: van der Vaart, New resident (%) Fig. 4. With residential use the former farmyard has been restyled into a kind of suburban garden. The impact of such changes on the rural landscape should not be overlooked. Is it a sign of the new rural landscape? assess the effects on the landscape. In that case we also have to include the former farmyard. In a little over 60% of the re-used farms in Friesland, the complex of building(s) and site still evoked a traditional agricultural impression. In fact, re-use has gone more or less hand in hand with the fossilisation of the look of a pre-1970s farm. For the future, this situation might not be necessarily stable. A new owner might want to make adjustments to the building and create a suburban garden in the yard. A constant threat of beautification keeps luring (Fig. 4). At almost 25% of the Frisian farm buildings, conversion had concealed the agrarian past so profoundly, that they were better characterised as country houses or villas. The other 15% of the buildings had taken the appearance of either general business buildings or plain houses with a more or less disguised barn. From these figures we learned that by now 40% of the former farm buildings had lost their farm history almost completely. Neither did they contribute to the agricultural image of the countryside. Since my fieldwork in 1994 and 1995, I have noticed that especially in the years of economic prosperity intensive rebuilding and beautification to the detriment of the farm buildings has been going on. It seems that more people with plenty of capital have moved to a seat in the country. That has two opposing effects. Some farm buildings have been beautifully restored and contribute positively to the rural landscape, but a good number have been torn down and replaced by a

9 J.H.P. van der Vaart / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) farm-like new country house or a villa with no trace of the former farm building. 6. Conclusions and discussion The rural landscape in an urbanising society like The Netherlands is currently under enormous pressure. Although ever less people in the countryside rely on agriculture, the agricultural activities of present and past still play an important role in shaping the landscape. Farms and farm buildings may be considered as the most distinctive elements of the cultural heritage in rural areas (Fig. 5). The older traditional farm buildings deserve special attention because they are under pressure of various developments. Not only do the traditional farm buildings lose important features through redundancy and change of use: the changes to the buildings on functioning farms should not be underestimated either. For modern agriculture most of the traditional buildings are no longer functional, so even when they are part of a working farm, many traditional farm buildings and related structures may be either torn down or rebuild. According to the study, the impact of the change of use of the traditional farm buildings had two aspects. On the one hand, new inhabitants and new economic activities contributed to the vitality of rural areas. That could be considered as positive after a long time of general decline in many rural regions. Besides that the change of use of the redundant farm buildings contributed to the survival of these rural buildings. But we are facing a dilemma. In general, the re-use of farm Fig. 5. Fossilised in shape but not in function: redundant traditional farm buildings play a crucial role in the perception of ruralness. buildings had a positive effect on their upkeep. The exterior of the traditional farm building was kept more or less intact, so their looks could be considered as the rural heritage. On the other hand, this study showed that due to the change of use the agricultural history of the interior was lost. Only small parts of formerly functional elements remained and were integrated in the new lay out or in architectural details. So it seems that preserving the rural heritage, apart from the listed monuments, is mainly a matter of preserving the exterior of farm buildings. A case like Friesland provides a glimpse of the future of other parts of the European countryside. During half a century, Friesland has gone through a transition from an economy, society and landscape dominated by agriculture to an economically and mentally urbanised society. Even when agricultural use dominates the open space of the countryside (at present 86% in the province of Friesland), its share in the regional economy is relatively small. Rural space has become multifunctional and increasingly a place for residence, recreation and footloose economic activities. The attempt to use former farm buildings for those activities should be welcomed. The direct impact of this new functionality is that the traditional farm buildings survive as cultural heritage for the medium and long term. The indirect impact of this is to be found in the regional and local economy, in sustaining social structures in rural areas. New inhabitants take the place of the former farmer s household, but is that a demographically urbanisation, an overflow of urban people and activities? The investigation of the Frisian situation has indicated that about three quarters of the migrants to a redundant farm originate from the same region. This points to a strong endogenous development. Such a high percentage is not abnormal because the old first law of migration, developed by Ravenstein in 1885, told us that the great body of migrants only proceeded a short distance. The resettling of part of the regional population in redundant farm buildings and the introduction of new economic activities helps to revitalise the local economy and society. The positive aspect of that development is that it leads to a rural area with a more varied local economy, which is not exclusively dependent on agriculture. New branches and employment which once belonged to urban areas will be found. The new owners and

10 152 J.H.P. van der Vaart / Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (2005) their activities provide means to use and keep up the rural built heritage, so the traditional farm buildings will contribute to the rural landscape of the future. Because they are more or less fossilised in their external form and are very recognisable for many people, they form the link between the new agriculture and that of the past. Because the built heritage of farms serves as an element of high symbolic value in rural regions, keeping them up is very important. Re-use provides a good opportunity for that. Because many of the new owners wanted to keep the special form of the buildings intact and conserve the atmosphere of a traditional farm building, we would not have to fear that these farms would disappear in the near future. The presence of these most rural buildings is essential for the landscape of the European countryside. The government rules solely will not be enough to keep the traditional farm buildings. The owner/resident is the most important actor, as revealed by the investigation. Instead of an overdose of restrictive rules, it would be better to give incentives to the owner of a traditional farm building. Incentives can be those in a material sense, but also stories and good examples of how to keep these buildings intact, keeping in mind that the owner is the most important actor. As long as he cherishes the idea of keeping up his old farm, these buildings will remain part of the future of the European landscape and contribute to its regional cultural identity. References Birkkjaer, K.O., Pedersen, S., Re-use of old rural buildings in Denmark. In: Proceedings of the International Seminar of the International Commission of Agricultural Engineering, Piacenza, pp Darley, G., A Future for Farm Buildings. Alpha Books/A&C Black, London. Grube, J., Das Ostfriesische Bauernhaus. Verlag Ostfriesische Landschaft, Aurich. Hekker, R.C., Historical Types of Farm. SHBO, Arnhem. Kivinen, T., Finnish agriculture in change challenge or threat for old rural buildings. In: Proceedings of the International Seminar of the International Commission of Agricultural Engineering, Piacenza, pp Moir, J., Agricultural change and redundant farm buildings: examples of the role of planning in Scotland. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 35 (2), Neale, J., Lowe, P., Marsden, T., The conversion of agricultural buildings: an analysis of varable pressures and regulations towards the post-productive countryside. Countryside Change Working Paper Series 29, Center for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle, Newcastle. Piacenza Conference International Commision of Agricultural Engineering, New uses for old rural buildings in the context of landscape planning. In: Proceedings of an International Seminar, Universita Cattolica del Sacre Cuore, Piacenza. Marchand, B., Dialectical analysis of value: the example of Los Angelos. In: Gould, P., Olsson, G. (Eds.), A Search for Common Ground. Pion, London, pp Ministry of VROM, Vijfde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening. The Fifth Policy Document on Town and Country Planning. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordering en Milieu. The Hague. van Olst, E., Pubben, Th., Historic Farms in The Netherlands. SHBO, Arnhem. van der Vaart, J.H.P., Boerderijen en platteland in verandering: een onderzoek naar herbestemming van boerderijen in Friesland. (Farm buildings and countryside in change: a study of changing use of farm buildings in Friesland, in Dutch with English abstract), Dissertation, University Nijmegen, Fryske Akademy, Leeuwarden. Wauters, E., Goedseels, V., Conservation of historical farm buildings in a densely populated area: Flanders. In: Proceedings of the International Seminar of the International Commission of Agricultural Engineering, Piacenza, pp Wilkinson, P., Redundant Farms Buildings: Alternative Uses in the Remoter Rural Areas of England and Wales. College of Estate Management, Reading. Zappavigna, P., Building culture: a methodological approach to recovering historical rural buildings in Emilia Romagna. In: Proceedings of the International Seminar of the International Commission of Agricultural Engineering, Piacenza, pp Jacob van der Vaart (1949) has a Master s degree in Human Geography from the University of Groningen and a Ph.D. in Management Science from the University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. He has worked for a Town and Country Planning company in The Netherlands, working on rural housing and services and landscape studies. Since 1981, he is a researcher at the Frisian Academy, a research institute connected to the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences. His research focuses on social-cultural change in rural communities and the changing cultural landscape of the northern part of The Netherlands, including historical geography.

11 本文献由 学霸图书馆 - 文献云下载 收集自网络, 仅供学习交流使用 学霸图书馆 ( 是一个 整合众多图书馆数据库资源, 提供一站式文献检索和下载服务 的 24 小时在线不限 IP 图书馆 图书馆致力于便利 促进学习与科研, 提供最强文献下载服务 图书馆导航 : 图书馆首页文献云下载图书馆入口外文数据库大全疑难文献辅助工具