Selectivity is commonly built-in in information, hence as well in information on cultural landscape and heritage. Information selectivity is not trivial, as many information forms – for instance ´official´ and research-based GISs - are intended to serve as the informational basis for landscape and spatial policies, plans, designs and management. As these GISs foremost are made by landscape and heritage specialists, the information selectivity by specialists – resulting from personal, disciplinary, societal and technological backgrounds - is a main factor. So far, this hardly have been researched or discussed. To study this among (mostly) historical geographers the rather unknown cultural landscape of the Dutch Piksen area (in the province of Overijssel) was chosen, thereby minimizing personal knowledge, values and perceptions. For the same reason an anonymous (no toponyms or other names) description, existing of text and some accompanying old maps, served as base document. The annual Dutch cultural landscape conference of 2009 – held in Overijssel - provided the research population. The respondents were asked to indicate which elements (words, sentences, and interrelationships) they find relevant or interesting to record either as knowledge or as values. The resulting data, description, and/or map would serve as base for local plans, landscape management, education, etcetera. The assignment was complemented by a small number of questions about the respondents backgrounds. Despite the standardized conditions the variation was big, varying from just a few concepts or objects to all of the text, both in knowledge and in values. Generally speaking, what was seen as relevant for knowledge included more of the text than for values. The poster will present and discuss the results, both as such as well as in comparison with other, mostly official, information on the same area.

1. Selective Information from Historical Geographers:
The case of the Dutch area of Piksen
What this study is about
Knowledge and values on cultural landscapes and heritage - hence information –
typically underlie landscape and spatial policies, plans, designs and management.
Selective inclusion of objects and aspects in that information is common, yet not
trivial. As it turns out, selections may vary considerably, both in types and amounts.
Purpose, context, scale and administrative level, supposed needs, perceptions, and
who are making and selecting the information are all at play.
As historical geographers are among the main people to select this type of information,
the question arose what they personally (would) do.
This study concentrates on ‘what’, although ‘how’ and ‘why’ are crucial as well. To
minimize the influence of pre-existing personal knowledge, values, and perceptions,
the little-known cultural landscape of the Dutch Piksen area (in the province of
Overijssel)[-] was chosen. For the same reason the assignment took information
without toponyms as the starting point. The annual Dutch cultural landscape
(NCH) conference of 2009 – held in Overijssel - provided the ideal opportunity to
approach landscape history professionals (108 registered, 99 people present + 1 more
afterwards => a total of 100 people as the research sample).
Relation to PhD Research
This study is part of a PhD research project on information and communication
regarding landscape and cultural history from a local perspective. In this field
several ‘worlds’ coincide and interact: those of information and communication
on one hand, those of landscape, cultural history and heritage on the other. The
local perspective is the reference frame for the project. The central issue is what,
how, and why actors do in indirect information/communication forms like GISses,
documents, websites, etc. Actors may use free language (e.g. text), structured
language (data, like in GIS) and visualization (e.g. maps, pictures), or combinations
of all these (‘multimodal’). All those means and forms act and perform differently
themselves, hence they differ in both affordances and performances. Every aspect –
e.g. content, presentation, and interactions – contributes to that. Hence, insight in
what and how is done in information and communication, is essential.
This study of Piksen concentrates on ‘what’ professionals (‘who’) personally do
towards content, in a predefined context, leaving other aspects out.
Area of ‘Piksen’
“The soil consists mainly of sand - which used to be (mainly wet)
heath land or peat - and of peat, with gravel or moraines
beneath the surface. In the centre area there are two small ice-
pushed moraine ridges surrounded by parabolic cover-sand
ridges (map 1). The edges of the area consist of slightly higher
ice-pushed moraine ridges in the east and a rain-fed stream in
the west. This complex is well preserved (map 4).
On the southern cover-sand ridge are prehistoric burial mounds
and urn fields. At or near the ice-pushed moraines and the
stream valley are traces of Stone Age and Iron Age settlements
and megalithic tombs, as well as of early medieval houses. In
peat areas there are also some archaeological finds (e.g.
Roman fibulae).
In the centre area habitation began quite late. But at least from
the 13th century on the moraines and cover-sand ridges
provided for a main east-west road through the (big) marshlands
in this part of Overijssel. The road came in from the west at a
ford in the river, near two castles. At least one castle had much
to endure. In the 14th century the bishop of Utrecht took on a
punitive expedition against this ‘greedy’ castle because of its
high toll tariffs. In 1672 the bishop of Münster (Germany) took
this road in his attack on Holland and destroyed the area. A third
castle stood a little further south along the river. Near this
location a Stone Age settlement has been found. In the north-
south direction there was a main road following the river banks.
All three castles have disappeared in the 18th or 19th century,
but ruins or traces are still present.
The land in the centre area consisted of common lands of five
municipalities (called ‘marke’: cf. Gemeinde, parish) before
1800 and two after 1850, located in two different main
administrative regions. Habitation started again around 1750
on the northern cover-sand ridge. After the splitting up of the
common lands in 1841-1852 into private ownerships at first just
the northeast marshlands were divided into narrow but long
parcels (Map 2). The remaining land got reclaimed after 1900 -
in many cases after being sold, expropriated and/or dug out for
turf - and got different parcellations (Map 3). Originally
farmhouses stood mainly on or near river banks and ice-pushed
moraine ridges, while later-on expanding to the cover-sand
ridges and spreading out after the reclamation. Field names like
‘Curved fields’, ‘The Colony’ (also a hamlet) and ‘New Ground’
are witnesses of the development since 1750. The old east-west
road lost its significance after a new road was built further to the
south around 1830. A part got lost in the reclamation (with many
new roads), but another part is still functional. There are no
farmhouses left from before 1850, but there are some
characteristic houses dating from the reclamation period, like
farmhouses and an estate’s steward/game keeper’s house.”
The historic landscape professionals at the conference were asked to indicate in a
quick assessment – about 15 minutes - which elements (words, sentences, and
interrelationships) they found relevant or interesting to record, either as knowledge
or as values. The aim was to get a more or less ‘automatic’ response.
The resulting data, description, and/or map – there was a hint towards the possible use
of GIS – would serve as a basis for local plans, landscape management,
education, etc. The assignment was complemented by a small number of
questions about the respondents’ backgrounds.
The number of respondents was 24 in total. After the conference the non-respondents
were asked by e-mail why they had not responded. Response came from 49 people:
2 had already done the assignment, 9 were not present, 38 indicated why they did not
respond, leaving 33 unknown.
Organization and response The Piksen area
Map 1 - Soil map 1976 Map 2 – Topographic Map 1850
Map 3 – Topographic map 1942 Map 4 – Topographic Map 2004
Indicating knowledge and values:
Overall results:
(all text)
(all text)
Archaeologists  Historical Geographers
J. Sophie Visser, M.Sc., M.A.
Consultant LandZij / PhD Student Utrecht University
j.s.visser[at]planet.nlLandZij
Statistics on indicated
terms (non-unique)
For Knowledge For Values
Mean Standard
deviation
Mean Standard
deviation
By Archaeologists 35* 16 10 7
By Hist. Geogr. 49* 22 22 15
All respondents 51 25 18 12
* Archaeologists: 5 between 24 and 37, 1 had 56 terms; Hist. Geogr.: 14, 20, 21, 38, 42, 53, 74, 88, 88 terms
Themes
and terms
(unique)
Knowledge Values Knowledge* Values*
Both
disciplines
Both
disciplines
Espec.
Archaeol.
Espec.
Hist. Geogr.
Espec.
Archaeol .
Espec.
Hist. Geogr.
Soil Sand, peat Other soils Sand
Land-
forms
All ridges Cover-sand
ridges
Stream
valley
Stream/ river Moraine
ridges
Archaeol.
finds/
traces
Burial mounds,
urn fields,
ME houses
Burial mounds,
urn fields,
Other finds
(not all)
Prehistoric
settlements
Castles Castle 1, 2
Ruins & traces
Ruins & traces Castle 3 Castle 3
Roads,
ford
Old E-W / N-S
roads + ford
Old E-W road New roads Ford New roads
Parcels Generally
Habitation Farm-
steads
generally
Characteristic
houses > 1900
Characteristic
houses > 1900
History,
Geography
Generally >1900
* Knowledge: indicated by > 4 archeologists and > 6 hist. geographers; Values: > 4 resp. 5 respondents
Selected ‘official’ information
Availability of information on ‘cultural history’ depends on:
- Information level: State, Provincial, Municipal (2x), otherwise
- Information makers: Disciplinary, authorities, local experts, ………..
- View on object/area: Cultural or physical landscape, or heritage, or
nature, or land use, or ……………
- Information form: (GIS) map, and/or report, book, website, ….
- Information goal: Policy/values, informative/knowledge,
persuasive/expressive, ………..
Analysis of results
Results:
-Overall difference between knowledge and values statistically significant (Wilcoxon
matched-pairs signed-ranks test), other results indicative (small groups)
-Results partly surprising, partly not:
-Surprising (1) : variation in the indicated number of terms, especially for
knowledge,
-Surprising (2) : variation in comprised terms/themes
-Less surprising : - differences in the number of terms for knowledge resp. values
- differences in comprised terms/themes by Archaeologists and
Historical Geographers
Area description, assigment, (non-)response:
- Area description: adequate
- Respondents: -some: making the distinction knowledge/values is difficult
-most: ‘good’ or ‘satisfying’ on area description and/or method of
indicating terms
-Time-dependent answers => older respondents indicated that answers
would have been different 10,20, or 30 years ago
- Non-respondents: - most: ‘no time’, ‘not right person’
- some: ‘distinction knowledge/values’ difficult or incorrect, or
difficult assignment, or inadequate description
-almost all: ‘interesting study’