The Right To Landscape Contesting Landscape And Human Rights 1st Edition Shelley Egoz Editor

The Right To Landscape Contesting Landscape And
Human Rights 1st Edition Shelley Egoz Editor
download
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-right-to-landscape-contesting-
landscape-and-human-rights-1st-edition-shelley-egoz-
editor-33611646
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
The Right To Be Counted The Urban Poorand The Politics Of Resettlement
In Delhi Sanjeev Routray
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-right-to-be-counted-the-urban-
poorand-the-politics-of-resettlement-in-delhi-sanjeev-routray-46462672
The Right To Dignity Housing Struggles City Making And Citizenship In
Urban Chile 1st Edition Miguel Prez
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-right-to-dignity-housing-struggles-
city-making-and-citizenship-in-urban-chile-1st-edition-miguel-
prez-46814642
The Right To Be Counted The Urban Poor And The Politics Of
Resettlement In Delhi Sanjeev Routray
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-right-to-be-counted-the-urban-poor-
and-the-politics-of-resettlement-in-delhi-sanjeev-routray-46857324
The Right To Repair Reclaiming The Things We Own Aaron Perzanowski
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-right-to-repair-reclaiming-the-
things-we-own-aaron-perzanowski-48047314

The Right To Sex First Amia Srinivasan
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-right-to-sex-first-amia-
srinivasan-49042350
The Right To Development In Africa Carol Chi Ngang
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-right-to-development-in-africa-
carol-chi-ngang-49062000
The Right To Be Forgotten 2nd Edition Paul Lambert
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-right-to-be-forgotten-2nd-edition-
paul-lambert-49440160
The Right To Speak Working With The Voice Patsy Rodenburg
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-right-to-speak-working-with-the-
voice-patsy-rodenburg-50216200
The Right To Privacy In Employment A Comparative Analysis Marta Otto
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-right-to-privacy-in-employment-a-
comparative-analysis-marta-otto-50218586

the right to landscape
Associating social justice with landscape is not new, yet the twenty-first
century’s heightened threats to landscape and their impact on both human
and, more generally, nature’s habitats necessitate novel intellectual tools to
address such challenges. This book offers that innovative critical thinking
framework.
The establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in
1948, in the aftermath of Second World War atrocities, was an aspiration to
guarantee both concrete necessities for survival and the spiritual/emotional/
psychological needs that are quintessential to the human experience. While
landscape is place, nature and culture specific, the idea transcends nation-
state boundaries and as such can be understood as a universal theoretical
concept similar to the way in which human rights are perceived. The first
step towards the intellectual interface between landscape and human rights is
a dynamic and layered understanding of landscape. Accordingly, the ‘Right
to Landscape’ is conceived as the place where the expansive definition of
landscape, with its tangible and intangible dimensions, overlaps with the
rights that support both life and human dignity, as defined by the UDHR.
By expanding on the concept of human rights in the context of landscape
this book presents a new model for addressing human rights – alternative
scenarios for constructing conflict-reduced approaches to landscape-use and
human welfare are generated.
This book introduces a rich new discourse on landscape and human
rights, serving as a platform to inspire a diversity of ideas and conceptual
interpretations. The case studies discussed are wide in their geographical
distribution and interdisciplinary in the theoretical situation of their authors,
breaking fresh ground for an emerging critical dialogue on the convergence
of landscape and human rights.
Shelley Egoz is Senior Lecturer in Design at Lincoln University, New
Zealand
Jala Makhzoumi is Professor of Landscape Architecture at the American
University of Beirut, Lebanon
Gloria Pungetti is Research Director at the Cambridge Centre for
Landscape and People, UK

The Right to Landscape
Contesting Landscape and Human Rights
Edited by
Shelley Egoz
Lincoln University, New Zealand
Jala Makhzoumi
American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Gloria Pungetti
University of Cambridge, UK

Shelley Egoz, Jala Makhzoumi and Gloria Pungetti have asserted their right
under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the editors
of this work.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
The right to landscape : contesting landscape and human
rights.
1. Landscapes--Social aspects. 2. Landscapes--Political
aspects. 3. Landscape protection--Law and legislation.
4. Land use--Social aspects. 5. Land use--Political
aspects. 6. Human ecology. 7. Human rights.
I. Egoz, Shelley. II. Makhzoumi, Jala, 1949- III. Pungetti,
Gloria.
304.2’3-dc22
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The right to landscape : contesting landscape and human rights / by Shelley
Egoz, Jala Makhzoumi and Gloria Pungetti.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4094-0444-6 (hbk) 1. Human rights--Case
studies. 2. Landscapes--Political aspects--Case studies. 3.
Landscapes--Environmental aspects--Case studies. 4. Land tenure--Case
studies. 5. Climatic changes--Case studies. I. Makhzoumi, Jala, 1949- II.
Pungetti, Gloria. III. Egoz, Shelley.
JC571.R526 2011
323--dc23
2011021125
ISBN 9781409404446 (hbk)
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Egoz, Jala Makhzoumi and Gloria Pungetti
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system,without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice.
.
First published 2011 by Ashgate Publishing
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Published 2016 by Routledge
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

List of Figures ix
List of Contributors xv
Foreword xxi
Preface xxv
Acknowledgements xxvii
1 The Right to Landscape: An Introduction 1
Shelley Egoz, Jala Makhzoumi and Gloria Pungetti
part i the right to Landscape:
definitions and concepts
2 Re-conceptualising Human Rights in the Context of Climate
Change: Utilising the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
as a Platform for Future Rights 23
Stefanie Rixecker
3 The Right Rights to the Right Landscape? 39
Kenneth R. Olwig
4 The European Landscape Convention:
From Concepts to Rights 51
Maguelonne Déjeant-Pons
5 The ‘Right to Landscape’ in International Law 57
Amy Strecker
part ii state, community and individuaL rights
6 Contested Rights, Contested Histories:
Landscape and Legal Rights in Orkney and Shetland 71
Michael Jones
Contents

vi
7 Land and Space in the Golan Heights:
A Human Rights Perspective 85
Gearóid Ó Cuinn
8 Hunting and the Right to Landscape:
Comparing the Portuguese and Danish Traditions and Current
Challenges 99
Júlia Carolino, Jørgen Primdahl, Teresa Pinto-Correia,
and Mikkel Bojesen
9 Rights of Passage – Rites to Play:
Landscapes for Children at the Turn of the Centuries 113
Susan Herrington
part iii Land, Landscape, identity
10 Living with Country:
Stories for Re-making Contested Landscapes 127
Gini Lee
11 Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Landscape in Aotearoa
New Zealand 141
Diane Menzies and Jacinta Ruru
12 The Right to Land Versus the Right to Landscape:
Lessons from Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Australia 153
Jillian Walliss
13 Claiming a Right to Landscape:
Rooting, the Uprooted and Re-rooting 165
Shelley Egoz
part iv competing Landscape narratives
14 Bahrain’s Polyvocality and Landscape as a Medium 185
Gareth Doherty
15 Big and Small Cityscapes:
Two Mnemonic Landscapes in Haifa, Israel 197
Ziva Kolodney and Rachel Kallus
16 The Right to Remember:
The Memorials to Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda 211
Shannon Davis and Jacky Bowring

contents vii
17 Colonizing Mountain, Paving Sea:
Neoliberal Politics and the Right to Landscape in Lebanon 227
Jala Makhzoumi
part v reconfigurations, recoveries
and visions
18 Relief Organism:
Re-thinking Refugee Encampment at Dadaab, Kenya 245
Denise Hoffman Brandt
19 Tobacco, Olives and Bombs:
Reconfiguration and Recovery of Landscapes in Post-war
Southern Lebanon 263
Munira Khayyat and Rabih Shibli
20 From the Ground Up:
New Ecologies of Peace in Landscapes of Conflict in the Green
Line of Cyprus 277
Anna Grichting
21 Landscape Crime:
The ‘Right to Landscape’ from Hell to Heaven 291
Gloria Pungetti and Thomas Oles
Index 301

1 the right to Landscape:
an introduction
1.1 Conceptual diagram: The overlap
between landscape and human rights.
1.2 Conceptual diagram: The
comprehensive nature of the right to
landscape. Adapted from Makhzoumi,
2012.
3 the right rights to the right
Landscape?
3.1 This mural called “America’s
Progress” shows how Emerson’s vision
of landscape is closely linked to a vision
of American manifest destiny. The
mural (ca. 1934), by Josep Maria Sert, is
in the Reception of the G.E. Building,
Rockefeller Center, New York City.
Photo: Kenneth Olwig.
3.1a Ralph Waldo Emerson bending
over (below Abraham Lincoln – wearing
a stove pipe hat) handing a large beam
to a workman who is working to literally
build America. Photo: Kenneth Olwig.
3.2 Emanuel Leutze’ 1861 painting,
“Westward the Course of Empire Makes
Its Way,” is found in the Capitol Building
in Washington, DC. It shows the “manifest
destiny” of America as white settlers
carve a nation out of an apparently
empty wilderness. This photo is of item
#1931.6.1 at the Smithsonian American
Art Museum. Photo: Ad Meskens. Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/
commons/7/76/WLA_amart_Westward_
the_Course_if_Empire_1861_Emanuel_
Gottlieb_Leutze.jpg.
3.3 Yosemite Valley, with its steep
walls, is an ideal place to achieve
dramatic, picturesque, scenic views
of nature. This photo was taken from
a spot where the visitor to Yosemite
National Park is able to park and take
a snap-shot (like this one taken by the
author) of a wilderness scene like the
famous pictures of Yosemite captured by
the photographer Ansel Adams. Photo:
Kenneth Olwig.
6 contested rights, contested
histories: Landscape and Legal
rights in orkney and shetland
6.1 The location of Orkney and
Shetland between mainland Scotland
and Norway. Map produced by Radmil
Popovic Department of Geography,
Norwegian University of Science and
Technology in Trondheim.
List of figures

x
7 Land and space in the golan
heights: a human rights
perspective
7.1 Map of Golan under Israeli
occupation illustrating the five remaining
Arab villages and 33 Israeli settlements.
Produced by Jan de Jong and printed
with permission of the Foundation for
Middle East Peace.
7.2 Replanting of apple trees following
attempted land confiscation in 2006.
Photo: Gearóid Ó Cuinn.
7.3 Water tanks set amongst Arab
orchards used to collect rain water and
bypass discriminatory water quotas.
Photo: Atef Safadi.
7.4 Apple trees surrounded by
minefields outside village of Majdal
Shams in Occupied Syrian Golan. Photo:
Gearóid Ó Cuinn.
8 hunting and the right to
Landscape: comparing the
portuguese and danish traditions
and current challenges
8.1 The Hvorslev area is dominated
by intensively farmed fields intermixed
with hedgerows, patches of woodland
and other uncultivated elements. Photo:
Jørgen Primdahl.
8.2 A hunting spot in the district of
Mértola, in an area now entirely devoted
to recreational hunting. Photo: Júlia
Carolino.
9 rights of passage – rites to play:
Landscapes for children at
the Turn of the Centuries
9.1 Rings and poles, Bronx Park
between ca. 1910 and ca. 1915. George
Grantham Bain Collection, Library
of Congress, Prints and Photographs
Division, Washington, D.C. LC-DIG-
ggbain-09468.
9.2 Maypole, N.Y. Playground between
ca. 1910 and ca. 1915. George Grantham
Bain Collection, Library of Congress,
Prints and Photographs Division,
Washington, D.C. LC-DIG-ggbain-14004.
9.3 See Saws, N.Y. Playground between
ca. 1910 and ca. 1915. George Grantham
Bain Collection, Library of Congress,
Prints and Photographs Division,
Washington, D.C. LC-DIG-ggbain-14007.
10 Living with country: stories
for re-making contested
Landscapes
10.1 Country/Rangelands landscapes
marked and traversed, marked and
worked. Photos: Gini Lee, 2008.
10.2 Mimili from above where the
tawara site is to the east of the football
oval adjacent the northern hills. Source:
Google Earth, 2008.
10.3 The place for the tawara watiku,
lizard dreaming hills and once-used
ground. Photo: Gini Lee, 2008.
10.4 Flinders Ranges, Wilpena Pound
and Oratunga with cloud. Source:Google
Earth, 2009.
10.5 Co-existence at Glass Gorge
Oratunga: Mr Glass’ hut and
Adnyamathanha spring meeting place.
Photo: Gini Lee.
11 indigenous peoples’ right
to Landscape in aotearoa new
Zealand
11.1 Te Waka landscape, New Zealand.
Photo: Tim Whittaker.
12 the right to Land versus the
right to Landscape: Lessons from
uluru-Kata tjuta national park,
Australia
12.1 The iconic monolith of Uluru

list of figures xi
(formerly known as Ayers Rock). Photo:
Jillian Walliss, published with permission
from Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park.
12.2 The Uluru-Kata Tjuta Cultural
Centre designed by architect Greg
Burgess. Photo: Jillian Walliss, published
with permission from Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Park.
12.3 Post hand back entrance sign.
Photo: Jillian Walliss, published with
permission from Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Park.
13 claiming a right to Landscape:
rooting, the uprooted and
Re-rooting
13.1 Itzhak Danziger, Sheep of the
Negev, 1951–64 Bronze, Collection of the
Tel Aviv Museum of Art. Photo: © The
Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Israel.
13.2 Itzhak Danziger, Nimrod, 1939
Nubian sandstone. Collection of The
Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Gift of Dr
David H. Orgler, Zurich and Jerusalem.
Photo: © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
13.3 Landscrape. Etching by Hannah
Farah-Kufr Bir’im. Image: Courtesy of
the artist.
13.4 Anemones at home, from Sharnaqa
(cocoon) project, 2005. An instillation
that evokes hope and regeneration of life.
Hannah Farah-Kufr Bir’im and Hila Lulu
Lin (photography). Image: Courtesy of
the artist.
13.5 Stone I, 2006. Hannah Farah-Kufr
Bir’im. Image: Courtesy of the artist.
13.6 Stone II, 2006. Hannah Farah-Kufr
Bir’im. Image: Courtesy of the artist.
13.7 Re:Form a model. Reconstruction
of the new Kufr Bir’im, 2002. Image:
Courtesy of the artist.
14 Bahrain’s polyvocality and
Landscape as a medium
14.1 The wall between people and the
sea is clearly visible at Zalaq village, one
of the few publically accessible sea fronts
in Bahrain. Photo: Gareth Doherty.
14.2 Desire lines created by walkers
adjacent to a VIP road. Photo: Gareth
Doherty.
14.3 Graffiti such as this indicates who
owns the space, and who has access to it.
Photo: Gareth Doherty.
14.4 Graffiti is used to protect properties.
The example in this photograph states the
first words of all but one “Sura” or chapter
in the Qur’an: “In the name of God, the
Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.”
Here it is used to protect the property
built on disputed land since any attempt
to interfere with the structure would mean
destroying the sacred text and would be
an affront to Allah. Photo: Gareth Doherty.
15 Big and small cityscapes:
two mnemonic Landscapes in
haifa, israel
15.1a Mahmud’s Garden. Photo: Ziva
Kolodney.
15.1b The Treasury Garden. Photo:
Ziva Kolodney.
15.2a Survey of Haifa’s Old City area
– The Treasury Garden and Mahmud’s
Garden sites today (outlined). Haifa
Municipal Archive, 1939.
15.2b Old City map. Haifa City
Archive, 1939.
15.3 Winning proposal for
‘Development of the City Center
Competition’ – outlined the proposed
public open space area – The Treasury
Garden site today. Haifa Municipal
Archive, 1953.

xii
15.4 The Treasury Garden. Photo: Ziva
Kolodney.
15.5 Mahmud’s Garden. Photo: Ziva
Kolodney.
16 the right to remember: the
memorials to genocide in
cambodia and rwanda
16.1 The Tuol Sleng Genocide
Museum, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
This memoryscape incorporates the
original school building and grounds,
the remnants of the genocide including
torture equipment and graves, as well
as the contemporary overlay of visitor
infrastructure including signage and
exhibitions. Photo: Shannon Davis.
16.2 A moto driver waits outside the
walls of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum;
motos are a popular form of transport for
visitors to the museum, connecting the
site into the wider framework of tourist
destinations in the city. Photo: Shannon
Davis.
16.3 The remains of victims on display
within the memorial stupa at the Choeung
Ek Genocidal Centre, Cambodia; in the
background the view connects the visitor
to the site of the Killing Fields, creating
a memoryscape which flows between
interior and exterior. Photo: Shannon
Davis.
16.4 The welcome mat that greets
visitors at the base of the Memorial Stupa
at the Choeung Ek Genocidal Centre that
houses the remains of 8,000 genocide
victims; the skulls are visible within the
stupa, situating them within the broader
memoryscape to form a contiguous space
of tragedy. Photo: Shannon Davis.
16.5 Victim’s clothing protrudes from
the trampled soil at the Choeung Ek
Genocidal Centre as a Cambodian woman
who lost both her husband and children at
Choeung Ek, tends to the grassy pits with
a pair of scissors. Photo: Shannon Davis.
16.6 The Kigali Memorial Centre,
Kigali, Rwanda; the building provides a
clear marker in the landscape which is
clearly visible from the opposite side of
the valley in the city of Kigali, creating a
memoryscape which extends far beyond
the site to encompass the broader city
framework. Photo: Shannon Davis.
16.7 Map terrace at the Kigali Memorial
Centre looking back towards the city
of Kigali, effectively engaging visitors
with the surrounding landscape and
connecting international visitors with
the local context of the city expanding
the memoryscape even further. Photo:
Shannon Davis.
16.8 Peter Eisenman’s Memorial to the
Murdered Jews of Europe, illustrating
one possible landscape-based approach
to memorialisation, utilising an abstract
form open to interpretation. Photo:
Shannon Davis.
17 colonizing mountain, paving
sea: neoliberal politics and the
right to Landscape in Lebanon
17.1 Map of Lebanon showing location
of Sannine Zenith and Cedar Island
projects. Drawing: Jala Makhzoumi.
17.2 The snow capped twin peaks of
Sannine viewed from the Mediterranean
coastline of Beirut (top) and from
inland, typical Mediterranean rural
surroundings (bottom). Photos: Wassim
Turk.
17.3 View of the pristine Damour
coastland set against the highly
urbanized silhouette of Beirut in the
distance (top) and view from the village
to the Mediterranean overseeing the
verdant landscapes that characterize the
Damour coastal plain (bottom). Photos:
Jala Makhzoumi.

list of figures xiii
17.4 Schematic plan and aerial views of
Cedar Island based on images advertised
by the project website (www.noorih.
net/). Expanses of land reclaimed from
sea will serve as prime real estate with
the following facilities. Drawing: Jala
Makhzoumi.
17.5 Conceptual diagram of the
discourse of landscape and public rights
in Lebanon. Drawing: Jala Makhzoumi
18 relief organism: re-thinking
refugee encampment at dadaab,
Kenya
18.1 Social and environmental camp
context.
18.2 Dadaab regional plan.
18.3 Soft Net Matrix.
18.4 Soft Net.
19 tobacco, olives and Bombs:
reconfiguration and recovery of
Landscapes in post-war southern
Lebanon
19.1 Olives rub shoulders with mines
along the dusty road that defines the
militarized borderline between the
warring states of Lebanon and Israel.
Despite proximity to the mines, the
olives continue to be lovingly tended by
the inhabitants of this war-scarred strip
of earth.
19.2 An old shepherd accompanying
his flock through a cluster-bomb infested
river-valley takes time to explain to us
how he identifies bombs he encounters:
he surrounds them with rocks and
covers them with a flat stone to protect
his flock of goats and cows. The blue-
painted stones surrounding the bomb
at his feet were subsequently identified
by UN-managed de-mining crews. He
will not be deterred by bombs in the
landscape: “my step is sure”.
20 from the ground up: new
ecologies of peace in Landscapes
of conflict in the green Line of
cyprus
20.1 Mauerpark, a current landscape
on the site of former Berlin Wall 20 years
after the fall. This park sprang from the
ground up by neighborhood initiatives
from both sides. Photo: Anna Grichting.
20.2 The abandoned Skouriotissa
Copper mines alongside the Green Line
of Cyprus viewed from the South. Photo:
Anna Grichting.
20.3 Aerial view of the Buffer Zone
near the village of Katotopia/Zumrutkoy,
Cyprus. Source: Google Earth, 2008.
20.4 Map of the abandoned village of
Vareseia in the Buffer Zone of Cyprus
where a population of Moufflon has been
observed by scientists. Illustration: Anna
Grichting.
20.5 The Cyprus Green Line with
territorial adjustments and proposed
ecological landscapes. Illustration: Anna
Grichting.

mikkel Bojesen is a PhD fellow at the Institute of Food and Resource
Economics at the University of Copenhagen. His research focuses on spatial
decision support systems and economic planning concerning bioenergy
production. Mikkel has a Masters in natural resource economics and forest
management; throughout his studies he has gained a deep understanding of
hunting and wildlife management and has been a keen hunter for several
years.
Jacky Bowring is Associate Professor in the School of Landscape Architecture,
Lincoln University, New Zealand. She has particular research interests in
landscape and memory, and explores the topic through a range of critiques,
designs and related research. In 2009 her book, A Field Guide to Melancholy,
was published in the UK by Oldcastle.
Júlia Carolino is trained in social anthropology (PhD, MA) and sociology (BA)
and a research fellow in the Research Centre in Economic and Organizational
Sociology, Technical University of Lisbon. Her research interests include
the co-production of social identities and spatial forms. She has conducted
fieldwork in Algarve and Alentejo, Southern Portugal. Júlia is currently
involved in further research on post-productive landscapes, namely the social
implications of transforming a post-mining landscape into a landscape of
touristic consumption in the district of Mértola, Southern Portugal.
maguelonne déjeant-pons is Head of the Cultural Heritage, Landscape and
Spatial Planning Division: Executive Secretary of the European Landscape
Convention, of the Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible
for Spatial/Regional Planning (CEMAT/CoE) and Editor of the Futuropa
Magazine. Maguelonne has published several articles and books dealing with
the protection of coastal and marine zones, biological and landscape diversity
and the human right to the environment.
List of Contributors

xvi
shannon davis is a lecturer in the School of Landscape Architecture, Lincoln
University, New Zealand. Shannon’s PhD examined the role of site design
in shaping Euro-Western experience of the post-genocidal memoryscapes of
Cambodia and Rwanda. Her current research interests include investigating
the process of masterplanning city growth in our rapidly urbanizing world,
with particular interest in designing for growth within cities in the developing
context; the role Euro-western design and planning professionals play in this
process is pivotal to her research.
gareth doherty is a lecturer in Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning
and Design at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. He has a Doctor of
Design from Harvard, and a MLA and Certificate in Urban Design from the
University of Pennsylvania. Gareth is founding editor of New Geographies
journal and editor in chief of volume 3, “Urbanisms of Color” Ecological
Urbanism edited by Mohsen Mostafavi with Gareth Doherty published by
Lars Müller in 2010.
shelley egoz is a landscape architect and Senior Lecturer in Design in the
School of Landscape Architecture, Lincoln University, New Zealand. Shelley’s
research interests and recent publications are in symbolic landscapes and
the ideological power of landscape, particularly in relation to social justice,
conflict resolution, and ethics associated with landscape, space and design.
This interest propelled her to initiate the Right to Landscape collaborative
venture at the Cambridge Centre for Landscape and People (CCLP).
anna grichting is a Swiss architect and urbanist. She is the founder and
director of Bordermeetings and a fellow at the Institute of Environmental
Diplomacy and Security of the University of Vermont. Her work and
research focus on boundary landscapes in areas of conflict, specifically on
the projecting and transforming of these linear territories as biological and
cultural landscapes of memory. In particular, she is working on a Digital
and Dynamic Atlas of Ecological Cooperation with Dr Saleem Ali, as well as
directing a Laboratory for the Green Line Landscapes of the Buffer Zone of
Cyprus. She has lectured worldwide, taught at the Universities of Geneva
and Harvard, and was a fellow at the MIT Urban Planning and International
Studies departments.
susan herrington teaches in the School of Architecture and Landscape
Architecture at the University of British Columbia, Canada. She is author of
On Landscapes (2009), published by Routledge as part of their Thinking-in-
Action Philosophy Series. Susan is currently writing a book, Cornelia Hahn
Oberlander: Making the Modern Landscape, to be published by the University of
Virginia Press in 2012.
denise hoffman Brandt is an associate professor and director of the
Landscape Architecture program at the City College of New York, and

list of contributors xvii
principal of Hoffman Brandt Landscape Design in New York City. Her work
focuses on landscape as urban ecological infrastructure – the social, cultural
and environmental systems that sustain urban life and generate urban form.
Denise has received numerous prizes and fellowships for developing such
projects, the latest being the 2009 New York Prize Fellowship from the Van
Alen Institute to develop City Sink, an analysis and design proposal for urban
carbon storage in soil and plant systems.
michael Jones is Professor in Geography at the Norwegian University
of Science and Technology in Trondheim. His research interests embrace
historical geography, landscape studies and cartographical history. In
autumn 2002 and spring 2003 he was leader of an international research
group on the theme “Landscape, Law and Justice” at the Centre for Advanced
Studies at the Norwegian Academy of Letters and Science in Oslo. He has
co-edited Nordic Landscapes (with Kenneth R. Olwig, 2008) and The European
Landscape Convention: Challenges of Participation (with Marie Stenseke, 2010).
Geographically his research interests cover the Nordic countries and the
Northern Isle of Scotland.
rachel Kallus is an architect and town planner holding an MArch from MIT
and a PhD from the Technion, Israel where she is an associate professor of
architecture and town planning teaching architecture, urban design, and
town planning. Her current professional work in housing and urban design
is mostly with grassroots organizations and NGOs. Her research is on the
socio-political production of the built environment and the formation of
urban culture, focusing on ethno-nationally contested spaces and considering
the interplay between policy measures (planning) and physical-spatial
interventions (architecture). Rachel is the author of numerous publications on
socio-cultural aspects of the built environment and its production in academic
journals and books.
munira Khayyat is a PhD candidate in anthropology at Columbia University.
She conducted two years of ethnographic fieldwork in South Lebanon in the
aftermath of the 2006 “July War” and is currently writing her dissertation
“Seasons of War” which is about the entanglement of life and war in villages
along the southern border of Lebanon.
Ziva Kolodney is a landscape architect and an adjunct lecturer at the
Technion, Israel where she teaches urban landscape theory and design. She
holds a PhD and BLA. from the Technion and a BA in Geography from Tel
Aviv University. Her professional work focuses on cultural and historical
aspects of urban landscape planning and development. Ziva’s ongoing
research and academic publications deal with the “politics of the landscape”,
especially those of ethno nationally contested cityscapes and urban landscape
production.

xviii
gini Lee is a landscape architect, interior designer and is Elizabeth Murdoch
Chair of Landscape Architecture at the University of Melbourne. Focusing
on the arid environments of Australia, her multidisciplinary research into
the water landscapes of remote territories contributes to the scientific and
cultural and indigenous understanding and management strategies for fragile
landscapes.
Jala makhzoumi is Professor of Landscape Architecture, American
University of Beirut. In her researcher she explores the relationship between
landscape design and community development, biodiversity conservation
and landscape heritage. Jala’s professional practice focuses on ecological
landscape planning, and urban revitalization in Iraq, Syria and the UAE. Her
latest published artwork, Horizon 101 (2010, Dar Qonboz), explores identity
and alienation. Current work, a book manuscript provisionally titled Beirut
Gardens, conceptualizes traditional green spaces in Mediterranean cities to
inspire community inclusive greening strategies.
diane menzies is Immediate Past President of the International Federation
of Landscape Architects. She is a registered landscape architect, and past
president and life member of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape
Architects. Diane has academic qualifications in horticulture, landscape
architecture, mediation, resource management and business management.
In 2001 she was appointed to the New Zealand Environment Court as an
Environment Commissioner and in 2009 she received the Insignia of an
Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to the environment.
gearóid Ó cuinn is a Wellcome Trust PhD candidate at the University of
Nottingham. His research examines the role of human rights in public health
emergencies such as pandemics. He has worked with the Human Rights Law
Centre (Nottingham) and is involved in the production a number of human
rights themed documentaries.
thomas oles is a lecturer of landscape architecture and coordinator of the
Living Landscape program at the Academy of Architecture, Amsterdam. His
research focuses on the history and meanings of the concept landscape; the
history of vernacular and cultural landscapes of North America and Europe;
aesthetics and representation; and the relationship between landscape,
politics, and ethics. Thomas’s book, Recovering the Wall: Enclosure and Ethics in
the Modern Landscape (University of Chicago Press, 2012) argues that physical
boundaries are the chief constituents of many human environments, and
examines the production and meanings of walls, fences, and other markers of
territory across time and space.
Kenneth olwig is Professor in Landscape Planning with specialty in
landscape theory and history in the department of landscape architecture at

list of contributors xix
the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Anarlp. Kenneth writes
prolifically producing seminal work on landscape, ranging from the effect
of cultural perceptions of nature and landscape in regional development, to
the role of ideas of law and justice in shaping the political landscape and its
physical manifestations.
Teresa Pinto-Correia is Associate Professor at the Department of Landscape
Environment and Planning and chair of the Research Group Mediterranean
Ecosystems and Landscapes at the Institute of Mediterranean Agrarian and
Environmental Sciences, University of Evora. Teresa’s qualifications range
from Geography (Lisbon), Environmental Sciences (Europe) and Landscape
Ecology (PhD, Copenhagen). Her research is in the field of rural landscape
changes and management, with particular focus on the Mediterranean, and
recently on issues of multifunctionality and transition processes of farms and
rural landscapes.
Jørgen primdahl is Professor in Countryside Planning at Centre for Forest,
Landscape and Planning, University of Copenhagen. His background is in
landscape planning (MLA, PhD) and his research includes rural landscapes,
landscape ecology, agri-environmental policy, and collaborative landscape
planning. Jørgen is co-editor of Globalisation and Agricultural Landscapes
published by Cambridge University Press in 2010.
gloria pungetti is Research Director at the Cambridge Centre for Landscape
and People (CCLP) and Chair of the Darwin College Society at the University
of Cambridge, UK. She is also Chair of 3S, RtL and Co@st Global Initiatives
within CCLP, and activities to implement the European Landscape
Convention. Gloria has coordinated the pioneering ECOnet and Eucaland
Projects under EC Programmes, sits on the Board of Research Trusts and
IUCN Task Forces, and is member of IALE and of other research groups.
She has promoted a holistic approach to landscape research linking nature
with culture and academia with government in Europe and world-wide,
and has an extensive record of publications including 10 books, articles and
governmental reports in several languages.
stefanie rixecker is the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Research and
Development) at Lincoln University, New Zealand and was the Leader of the
‘Global Justice and Environmental Policy’ theme in the Land, Environment
and People (LEaP) Research Centre until 2010. From 2007–2010 she was an
elected member of the Governance Team of Amnesty International Aotearoa
New Zealand, serving the last two years as its Chair. Her research focuses
upon environmental policy and justice issues, especially in relation to the
geopolitics of hydrocarbons and the human dimensions of climate change.
She has published across disciplines in journals such as Policy Sciences, Society
and Natural Resources, the Journal of Genocide Research, and World Archaeology.

xx
Jacinta Ruru is Senior Law Lecturer at the University of Otago, New Zealand,
where she teaches and researches Indigenous peoples’ rights to land and
water. She co-leads the University of Otago Centre of Research for National
Identity’s Landscapes Project. Jacinta has recently co-edited Beyond the Scene.
Landscape and Identity in Aotearoa New Zealand (Otago University Press, 2010)
and co-written Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the
English Colonies (Oxford University Press, 2010).
rabih shibli is an architect and urban designer and the founder-director
of Beit Bil Jnoub (House in the South), a local NGO that is active in the
reconstruction processes in the aftermath of the July 2006 war in Lebanon.
Rabih is also a lecturer of Landscape-Architecture at the American University
of Beirut (AUB) and Projects’ Leader, Community Projects and Development
Unit (CPDU)/ Center for Civic Engagement and Community Service (CCECS),
AUB.
amy strecker is a PhD researcher in the Law Department of the European
University Institute, Florence. She is writing her PhD on the topic of
landscape and international law, mainly as expressed in cultural heritage
law, environmental law and Human Rights. She is actively involved with
Landscape Alliance Ireland and the European Network of Local and Regional
Authorities for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention.
Jillian Walliss is Senior Lecturer in Landscape Architecture at the Melbourne
School of Design, University of Melbourne. Jillian’s teaching interests are
design studio and theory encompassing landscape architecture and urban
design. Her research explores landscape as a theoretical and political construct
and a design practice, with a focus on post-colonial Australia and Aotearoa
New Zealand. Jillian’s PhD examined the influences of the discourses of
landscape, nature and design on the formation and subsequent development
of national parks and museums in Australia and New Zealand through a
comparative analysis of the national museums of Australia and New Zealand
and their respective national parks of Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Tongariro.

I have in my collection a photograph of a Chinese Village. Imagine its
landscape. This one is likely not what you envision: it is more than twenty
stories high, all polished granite at street level, gray and blond brick cladding
above. Comprised of three large conjoined towers, each unit in the village
has a spacious deck with a view over the smoggy expanses of Guangzhou. At
ground level is the village hall and community center. There’s a fair amount
of parking below ground and nearby. Apparently many of the people who
belong to the village live in Vancouver or Hong Kong and rent out their units.
Given the size and location of the homes, they are not likely rented to the
hundreds of thousands of unsanctioned migrants who have flooded the city,
but rather some of the newly wealthy, from near and far, who have made
Guangzhou one of the “shock cities” of the modern world. This village, and
the villagers, cashed out, and why not? Was it not precisely their right to the
landscape that put them in the position of being able to profit, both collectively
and individually? In the process hasn’t a new landscape, open to vastly more
people, been constructed (whatever the inequalities it entombs)? And on top
of that, doesn’t a pretty cool new building now grace the skyline, helping to
create precisely that landscape that now so clearly represents modern urban
China?
Such questions seem apposite for a collection of chapters that seek “to
collectively define the concept of the right to landscape and to generate
a body of knowledge that will support human rights.” “Landscape” is as
vexed a concept – and reality – as are “rights.” Neither is easily self-evident.
If “landscape” retains affiliations with the pastoral there is no reason why
it must, any more than must a Chinese village. And if a basic human right
is a right to property, as is often assumed, then surely the right to sell out
the landscape and move to Vancouver is as much a human right worthy of
support as is, say, the right to access to the countryside, to heritage, to fresh
water, or simply to be present in the landscape. Or is it? Case studies in this
foreword

xxii
book raise the question of what kind of rights are at stake in the right to the
landscape – and what kind of landscape.
The European Landscape Convention, discussed here by some authors,
proposes answers to these questions of what kinds of rights and what kinds of
landscape. The landscape at stake is “an area, as perceived by people whose
character is the result of action and interaction of natural and/or human
factors,” which is to say it is everywhere, every space. The right at stake is
primarily a right to participate. Indeed the Convention obliges “contracting
parties” (states) to incorporate participatory planning into every landscape
decision. Yet as defined in the implementing documents for the Convention,
the right to participate is deeply contradictory since they declare that
participatory planning must be an adjunct to expert analysis. As important
an advance as the European Landscape Convention may be, and I think it
is an exceptionally important advance, it also simultaneously serves to shut
down struggle and debate by institutionalizing a particular, if still nebulous,
definition of both landscape and rights and to open up new struggle – struggle
on a plane defined precisely by this institutionalization – seeking to redefine
“landscape” as a vital public good to which all have rights. All of a sudden
that “human right” to property – to simply sell out if it is in one’s best interest
– feels a little more precarious, as it should.
In this sense the right to landscape begins to emerge as a collective right,
something akin to what the legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron has termed
“third generation” rights similar to the right to cultural integrity. And if we
understand, along with Ronald Dworkin, that one of the key functions of a
right is to serve as a “trump,” which can invalidate majoritarian bullying (as
with the right to practice a minority religion), state-police power (as with the
right against torture or the right of habeas corpus), or individual destruction of
the public good (as with the right to clean air or water trumping the ability of a
corporation to dump whatever they want into the environment), it is a vitally
important third generation, collective right. But at this point it is only a right-
in-the-making, and developments like the European Landscape Convention
are most valuable for the new questions they pose, and especially for the way
they re-established struggle for the production of the future landscape on a
new footing.
As is obvious from the chapters that follow, the nature of this right-in-the-
making, like the nature of the landscape of the future (the landscape-in-the-
making) is highly variable, with the specific histories – of Palestinian or Māori
struggles, of refugee or capital flows, of “western” or indigenous law-making
– mattering deeply both to the content of landscape and the content of rights.
If this book does nothing else (though in fact it does much, much more) it
especially and insistently raises the question of what kinds of rights the rights
to landscape must be, and how these rights, universalizing as they may be,
must be constructed through specific struggles in specific landscapes, seeking
to shape and reshape not only the rights themselves but especially what
“landscape” can possibly be – and why it is so vital in our lives. As this book

foreword xxiii
makes clear these are exceedingly important struggles – struggles engaged
at the level of national and international law as well as in the orchards, city
streets, crofters’ farms, playgrounds, hunters’ fields, killing fields, and even
towering Chinese villages that are the landscape of now and will become the
landscape of the future.
And the word “struggle” is the right one: making the right to landscape not
only implies, but necessitates that rights themselves will come into conflict:
does the individual right to property trump the collective right to access to
the countryside or seaside? Does the Palestinian right to a historical land – a
landscape – and livelihood trump an Israeli right to bodily security or the right
to feel safe? These are political questions with political answers, answers that
are not always palatable, for as we all know, when equal rights collide, force
decides. The question of the right to landscape asks us to tackle the question
of who should have that force, in what ways it should be organized, and
on whose behalf it should be exercised. Those of us struggling for the right
to landscape will learn a lot, in the pages that follow, about how answers –
which are starting points – are being worked out, right now, in an impressive
range of settings and situations around the globe.
Not far – maybe two kilometers – from the Chinese village I visited in
Guangzhou is an older district. Built up over the course of the twentieth
century, it is neither gleaming nor spacious. Balconies are for drying clothes,
not gazing over the cityscape. The streets and alleys are narrow and filled
with hawkers; the benches of the few open spaces serve as sleeping pads
for recently arrived migrants from elsewhere in the country. Everything is
overseen by an impressive network of CCTV cameras, peering down through
the jerry-rigged electrical wiring. In landscape form, it looks strikingly like the
Palestinian refugee “camps” of Beirut. Though some of the apartment blocks
were built in a “collectivist” era in Chinese history, there is little evidence on
the street of the sort of collective rights that allowed the villagers to sell out.
Especially for the migrants, there seems to be little sense of an active right to
this landscape, to this city. Each of the chapters in this book asks us to think
seriously and hard about what a right to the landscape might look like, and
even more importantly might become, if it was dedicated first and foremost
to assuring “equity and social justice,” as the editors describe the struggle
in their introduction, for people like the Guangzhou – or Beirut – migrants,
whether they live in the Golan or within the Green Line, Orkney or Aotearoa,
and whether, in fact, they are migrants or not. In doing so we might begin to
find answers to the questions posed about and by landscape, about and by
rights, when one stumbles upon – or lives in – 20-story villages filled with
renters squatting at the heart of a city like Guangzhou.
Don Mitchell
Syracuse
New York
USA

In December 2008 Shelley Egoz arrived at Heathrow Airport for the Right to
Landscape workshop at Cambridge. Coming all the way from New Zealand
for a five-day visit raised the suspicion of the British immigration officer. He
asked for details of what the topic of the conference was about. When told
that the conference dealt with landscape and human rights the officer shook
his head and stated that: “human rights have nothing to do with landscape.”
He went on to explain: “I have been personally involved with human rights
campaigns for many years and know what it is all about.” The discussion
about the different issues related to human rights continued but it was only
when the term “Indigenous people” was suggested that he conceded. The
recognition that people have rights to their habitat is usually understood
in a specific context of material threats to livelihood of indigenous people;
the association between landscape and human rights is not immediate. The
Right to Landscape is thus a challenging proposition. To introduce this new
framework it is necessary to highlight the explicit relevancy of landscape to
human rights. This book presents a variety of case studies in order to illustrate
the applicability of the concept.
Despite the perceived vagueness of the right to landscape idea, when
the call for papers went out from the Cambridge Centre for Landscape and
People (CCLP) to the academic community in February 2008, the response
was overwhelming. The underlying rationale for the workshop’s theme
that: “Landscape, [is] an umbrella concept of an integrated entity of physical
environments, is imbued with meaning and comprises an underpinning
component for ensuring wellbeing and dignity of communities and
individuals” resonated with many scholars who could see their work
expressing that proposition; it thus turned out to be a generally agreed upon
axiom for workshop participants.
Most of the authors in this book participated at the CCLP workshop
where discussions about the concept of the right to landscape took place.
Preface

xxvi
The contributors were also asked to blindly review two other chapters in the
volume. However, while we had asked each of the authors to include their
own reflections on the right to landscape as it relates to their specific work, we
deliberately did not offer a definition of what the right to landscape should
be. We believe that with the introduction of a new intellectual concept it is
best to stay as open minded as possible. We see the strength of this volume
in the diversity of angles it offers the readers, in terms of the multiplicity
of disciplines, the variety of writing styles and the international range
of examples. We hope that these case studies are the beginning for a fresh
conceptualization that will instigate discourse towards landscape and human
rights becoming a commonly understood concept that contributes to the
wellbeing of humans.

acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following institutions for their support: Lincoln
University New Zealand, American University of Beirut Lebanon, University
of Cambridge UK, the International Federation of Landscape Architects
(IFLA) and Amnesty International, UK.
The generous funding through Lincoln University’s LURF & FEST SEED
grants, which enabled the Right to Landscape (RtL) initiative to spring, is
particularly appreciated.
The RtL initiative was launched at the Cambridge Centre for Landscape
and People (CCLP) workshop that took place at Jesus College, Cambridge,
UK in December 2008 on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR). Stefanie Rixecker, Maguelonne Déjeant-Pons,
Michael Jones and Kenneth Olwig very kindly contributed inspiring keynote
speeches that fuelled stimulating discussions during the workshop. While
some of the chapters in this volume were authored by participants at the RtL
workshop, we would also like to thank all those who attended but who are
not represented in this volume, their contributions to developing the concepts
and discourse of the Right to Landscape through discussions during the
workshop were invaluable; we thank Jana Cephas, Doris Damyanovic, Sophia
Davis, Larry Harder, Helge Hiram Jensen, Irene Iliopoulou, Mili Kryopoulou,
Margot Lystra and David Watts.
This book is a result of a collaborative effort, with each of the chapters
blindly refereed by two other authors; we are very grateful to everyone
who gave their time and insights to achieve academic rigour and enriched
discourse. We are indebted to Don Mitchell for his support and appreciative
for him taking time among his busy schedule to write the foreword.
We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of our book proposal
for their support and insightful comments.
And last but not least, we thank the team at Ashgate for making the process
so smooth. It has been a real pleasure to work with them and Valerie Rose,

xxviii
the commissioning editor. Valerie was very supportive and positive since our
first approach to Ashgate Publishing and all the way through the process,
her encouragement and enthusiasm for the topic have been instrumental in
making the production of this book a most enjoyable and gratifying experience.
The Editors

Background
In the course of its development, the idea of landscape has been embraced
by many disciplines and used to frame scientific, political and professional
discourses. The Right to Landscape is yet another framing, offering a particular
discourse on landscape and human rights. The concept of the right to
landscape explores in detail the role of landscape in working towards justice
and human wellbeing. This is especially pertinent, we believe, for those who
are engaged in research and actions that influence the form and function of
the landscape. For us the editors, landscape architects Shelley Egoz and Jala
Makhzoumi, and scholar of holistic landscape Gloria Pungetti, the prolific
multidisciplinary body of literature on landscape forms the theoretical
foundation and inspiration for the necessary visionary thinking needed to
address planning, design and management of landscapes. As landscape
architects whose passion, research interests and practice revolve around
ethics and social justice related to the designed space, Shelley Egoz and
Jala Makhzoumi sought the Cambridge Centre for Landscape and People
(CCLP) that was founded by Gloria Pungetti as the ideal platform for this
initiative that explores the interface of landscape and human rights.1
CCLP’s
mission statement is to: “integrate the spiritual and cultural values of land
and local communities into landscape and nature conservation and socio-
economic needs into sustainable development; and to support biological and
cultural diversity, as well as awareness and understanding of, and respect
for, landscape and nature” (CCLP, 2010a). Within this mission the initiative
of the Right to Landscape (RtL) “seeks to expand on the concept of human
rights and to explore the right to landscape”. RtL proposes the premise
that “Landscape, as an umbrella concept of an integrated entity of physical
environments, is imbued with meaning and comprises an underpinning
component for ensuring wellbeing and dignity of communities and
the right to Landscape: an introduction
1

2
individuals”. The aim of the initiative is “to collectively define the concept of
the right to landscape and to generate a body of knowledge that will support
human rights” (CCLP, 2010b).
The RtL initiative was launched in December 2008, on the 60th anniversary
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with an international workshop
collaboratively organised with CCLP and held in Jesus College, Cambridge,
UK. The multidisciplinary workshop began the discourse and ideas that are
explored in this book. The volume begins with discussions on the idea of the
right to landscape. The following chapters include a range of international
case studies that explore the interface of landscape and human rights from
their respective academic and/or professional position. By presenting case
studies that illustrate how landscape and human rights depend on and affect
each other we aim to yield discourse that includes different perspectives,
needs and realities, and disseminate ideas on the right to landscape. While
these essays are not by all means an exhaustive collection on this topic or
a representative international model, they form the first step within our
vision for ongoing dialogue on the right to landscape. We hope to see this
framework supporting and facilitating interdisciplinary research by adding to
and contributing towards the development of policies that will sustain human
rights and secure the wellbeing of people and the landscapes they inhabit.
Landscape and new challenges to human rights
Twenty-first century threats to landscape have been acknowledged in
particular relation to climate change (Erhard, 2010). Environmental conditions
linked to the phenomenon and their impact on species and human habitats
through desertification, extreme weather events causing flooding, as well as
rising sea levels inflicting disasters, are a topic of concern in scientific and
political international discourse. An alarm about the degradation of the
physical environment and the need to take measure for its protection began
before this contemporary widespread occupation with climate change.
During the past few decades several international organisations adopted
variousinterpretationsoflandscapetodescribetheirmissionandphilosophies.
The International Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE) represents a
scientific approach to landscape aiming “to develop landscape ecology as
a scientific basis for analysis, planning and management of the landscapes
of the world” (IALE, 1998). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee’s definition, on
the other hand, endeavours to overcome the perceived dichotomy between
“cultural” and “natural” landscapes by “represent[ing] the combined work
of nature and of man” (UNESCO, 2005: 83). Both the above examples address
landscape as the physical result of process, whether natural or human driven.
Underpinned by a quest for the wellbeing of all humans, one can argue that
the above missions assert a universal right to a healthy environment and

the right to landscape: an introduction 3
legacies of heritage. Heritage indeed includes intangible attributes but the
foci of such bodies have been on protection of the actual tangible dimension
of particular landscapes deemed culturally or historically significant. Within
official international organisations, the value of the ordinary landscape as an
everyday human habitat was not recognised until the turn of this century
when the Council of Europe introduced the European Landscape Convention
(ELC).2
The ELC represents a significant development perhaps best captured
in its definition of “landscape” as “an area, as perceived by people, whose
character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human
factors” (ELC Article 1a). Positioning the role of human perception is the
critical dimension here, as Kenneth Olwig argues in this volume. Moving the
realm of landscape from a scientific objective arena to one that is in flux is an
acknowledgement of the complicated nature of the concept and inevitably
raises questions of potential ideological tensions and the imperative of an
association between landscape protection and matters of social justice. This
is no coincidence keeping in mind the time when the Council of Europe was
established – post World War II and the organisation’s primary concerns with
maintaining democracy and human rights. Human rights discourse has since
widely diffused in particular within the last few decades of globalisation
where these matters have reached the developing world (Cowan et al., 2001).
Cowan et al. have also argued that the model for human rights has become
hegemonic and saw a need to explore tensions between local and global
conceptualisations of rights. They recognised the emergence of new fields of
political struggle “such as reproductive rights animal rights and ecological
rights” (Ibid.: 1). Today, a decade later, the accelerated pressure on limited
resources and competition that is bound to inflict further conflict necessitates
a new way of framing human rights. Underpinned by a moral imperative for
aspiring to social justice in a challenging physical and political environment
we explore how landscape as an overarching concept can form a new context
to address such contemporary challenges.
Landscape as a framework for addressing human rights
Launching the right to landscape discussion on human rights repositions an
already extended interpretation of the term landscape in a new political arena.
The word landscape has proven difficult to define (Williams, 1973; Meinig,
1976) and the variety of readings and uses of landscape attest to the elusive
nature of this idiom (Makhzoumi and Pungetti, 1999). It has been generally
agreed that the word bears different meanings to different people in different
contexts. Nevertheless, in the past few decades the use of landscape as a
theoretical instrument has become common in a multitude of disciplines and
“has created the basis for a ‘reflexive’ conceptualization of landscape” (Olwig,
2000: 133). Landscape as the foci or as the envelope for theory and application

4
can thus be found from cultural geography to ecology and in a diversity of
humanistic fields such as anthropology, environmental, cultural and visual
studies, history, tourism, archaeology, heritage and the design professions,
especially landscape architecture. Paradoxically, the vagueness and difficulty
on an agreed definition has not become a limitation but offers opportunities
for innovative thinking by adopting the expansive, holistic framework of
landscape. It is precisely this elasticity that makes landscape a potent term
to explore new theories that relate to the value of landscape. By extending
the spatial social arena to embrace political ethical ones, we explore ways in
which landscape could become a positive tool to promote social justice.
Social justice and landscape is not a new topic. Several scholars have
examined landscape in that context. Denis Cosgrove (1984) introduced the
social class perspective into the landscape discourse.3
James Duncan (1990)
interpreted landscape as a cultural production correlated with political power.
W.J.T. Mitchell (1994) too made the link between power and landscape. Don
Mitchell (2000) advocated for critical geography through which he endeavours
to stimulate action for cultural justice. At the same time Michael Jones’ work
was concerned with landscape, law and justice (Peil and Jones, 2005) and he
continues to explore their significance in terms of the European Landscape
Convention (Jones and Stenseke, 2011). Kenneth Olwig (2002 and 2009)
writes prolifically on landscape ideology, law and nationalism – topics that
are directly related to the subject of landscape and human rights. The work of
anthropologist Barbara Bender has been pivotal in instigating the discussion
on landscape and social justice in non-Western cultures (Bender, 1995; Bender
and Winer, 2001). Addressing the political dimension of landscape, her work
has inspired anthropologists and archaeologists to expand beyond tangible,
spatial dimensions and explore landscape as a repository of culture in a
specific place and time (Tilley, 2006).
Humans have shaped their surroundings, creating cultural landscapes,
since the Neolithic revolution. Land has been cultivated to yield produce,
woodlands cleared and managed whether for pastoral uses or fuel,
environments formed for habitation and settings created for pleasure.
Landscape therefore is simultaneously a product such as arable field, pasture
land, settlement and garden, and, the act of production embedding intent,
design and action. More so, it is a conceptualisation of both product and
production. As the product of people – environment co-evolution, landscape
is at once “a tangible product” of the act of humans’ shaping their surroundings
and “intangible process”, making sense of the world through shared meanings
and values (Makhzoumi, 2009b: 319). Part nature part culture, landscape
straddles both realms. Landscapes, as such, have implied tangible resources,
which constitute the foundation of the world we inhabit, be they air, water, a
mountain or a river, and equally intangible human attachment and cultural
valuation of these resources.
Landscape is also, as W.J.T. Mitchell (1994) has argued, a “medium”. While
it is a tangible context, a physical place and environment, it can at the same

time be a representation of other entities, an intangible arena within which
ideas are exchanged and powers enacted. Yet, we predominantly address
landscape as polity (Olwig, 2002) rather than a pictorial representation.4
The
underpinning of the idea of a right to landscape is our framing of landscape as
more than a material object or objective environment. Landscape can be seen
as a relationship between humans and their surroundings (Egoz, 2010). This
relationship is shared by all human beings and as such can be understood as
a universal existential bond that is part of the human experience (Tuan, 1974).
The relationship is at once conceptual – a mental picture of the world that
is culture and place specific, and physical – the action of shaping land and
natural resources to fulfil human needs (Makhzoumi, 2010).
Perceptions are rooted in culture as much as they are in natural setting,
changing from one place to another, evolving over time. Implying the ongoing
complex and evolving relationship between humans and their surroundings,
landscape becomes a medium for action and a political arena. Landscape is
thus the locus where multiple physical elements such as water, food or shelter
unite with their meanings (Pungetti, 1999).
Human rights, by definition are the rights stemming from a universal
moral standard that transcends any national laws. Human rights discourse
itself is not free of political tensions, in particular the problematic notion of
universalism versus cultural relativism, which has drawn intellectual debate
(see Bell et al., 2001; Cowan et al., 2001). Nevertheless, the establishment of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 in the aftermath
of World War II atrocities was an aspiration to guarantee both concrete
needs for survival and the spiritual/emotional/psychological needs that are
quintessential to the human experience. While landscape is place, nature and
culture specific, the idea transcends nation-state boundaries and as such can
be understood as a universal theoretical concept similar to the way in which
human rights are perceived. By expanding on the concept of human rights
in this context of landscape as the confluence of physical subsistence and
psychological necessities we offer a new framework for addressing human
rights. This original framework can hence generate alternative scenarios
for constructing conflict-reduced approaches to landscape use and human
wellbeing (see Makhzoumi, 2010). Linking both universalised concepts such as
landscape and human rights is a point of departure for intellectual discussion,
analysis and interpretation of situations where human rights are under threat.
This dynamic and layered understanding of landscape is the first step
towards the intellectual interface between landscape and human rights.
Accordingly, we conceive of the right to landscape as the place where the
expansive definition of landscape, with its tangible and intangible dimensions,
overlaps with the tangible needs for survival and the intangible, spiritual,
emotional and psychological needs that are quintessential to the human
experience as defined by the UDHR. The overlap between landscape and
human rights, with the tangibles and intangibles related to both is represented
in the diagram in Figure 1.1.

6
Book structure
A variety of interdisciplinary perspectives of looking at the idea are
presented in this volume. Each chapter may stand alone as it represents
a particular account and its authors’ reflections on the right to landscape.
Although chapters are grouped into parts, there is no hierarchy in terms of
the significance of the right to landscape in one context or the other. Indeed,
the complexity of the concept means that themes addressed in most chapters
would overlap. The grouping of the chapters into five parts is an attempt to
provide structure for clarifying our argument for contesting landscape and
human rights.
Part I includes the general concepts that establish the new discourse.
Part II aims to convey the diverse nature of the subject hence the four
case studies in this section cover and address various seemingly disparate
examples. In Part III the case studies revolve around indigenous people. One
of the particularities of an indigenous population’s bond with its lived-in
environment is that it exemplifies some of the core issues of our discussion.
Part III therefore highlights the conceptual differences between a right to land
as a tangible artefact that can be divided and traded gaining legal status, as
opposed to landscape that embodies qualities that are difficult to quantify. Part
IV presents examples that illustrate some of the dilemmas and contestation
entrenched in landscape and claiming a right to landscape. The last section,
Part V, covers the visionary aspects of the right to landscape concept revolving
around the theme of recovery. A more detailed account and discussion of the
ideas is offered below.
1.1 Conceptual diagram: The overlap between landscape and human rights
L A N D S C A P E
TANGIBLES INTANGIBLES
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS SOCIAL, ECONOMIC
/ &RESOURCES & CULTURAL VALUES
RIGHTSTHAT RIGHTSTHAT
SUPPORTEXISTENCE DIGNITY
H U M A N R I G H T S

part i: the right to Landscape: definitions and concepts
Discussing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the face of resource
scarcity is the way in which Stefanie Rixecker, political scientist and former
Chair of the Governance Team of Amnesty International Aotearoa, New
Zealand, engages with the question of the right to landscape. Rixecker
provides a review of past structures that had recognised a relationship
between the state of the environment and human rights. She notes that
effects of climate change will afflict on wellbeing both in terms of threats to
the basic physical components that underpin livelihood and the prospects
of increased armed conflicts over scarce resources. Rixecker ascribes
the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen summit to address an urgent moral
obligation as well as the lack of resolutions to assume responsibility for the
consequences of developed nations’ actions, to an economic world view
within what she terms as “old-style power politics”. There is an inherit
asymmetry of power that exists between the economic interests of large
organisations and those individuals and communities who depend on
natural resources for subsistence. The moral imperative that underpinned
the UDHR has been to a certain extent lost within contemporary frameworks
driven by economics. The redefining of specific rights in terms of a right
to landscape has potential for reintroducing the global justice ethical
dimension as well as a visionary, “out of the box” thinking that is necessary
to tackle the complexity of such challenges. The right to landscape goes
further than a right to the environment. This is illustrated through the
example of the Pacific Islands of Tuvalo that are threatened by rising
sea levels; she explains: “A ‘human right to the environment’ might only
provide protection of Tuvaluans’ right to a healthy physical environment,
whereas a ‘right to landscape’ would entitle them to secure a home that
is more meaningful and resonates with their cultural references and
meanings, thereby ruling out or seriously minimising their relocation to an
arid, completely foreign environment”.
The potential that lies in the richness of the concept of landscape is
highlighted by Maguelonne Déjeant-Pons from the Council of Europe,
the body responsible for the European Landscape Convention (ELC).
She reflects on the conceptual framework of the convention and its
development into rights, emphasising that a legal recognition of landscape
implies responsibilities as well as rights. Rights specific to environmental
protection are recognised human rights related to threats to human health
and the basic right of existence. The right to landscape is however a “right
in development” that combines articulations of existing environmental and
cultural rights but also adds new features to be considered, such as the right
of active public involvement in decisions that influence landscape. One
of the points that Déjeant-Pons makes is that landscape is a multisensory
entity and that the right to landscape ought to address “visual, auditory,

8
olfactory, tactile, taste – and emotional perception which a population
has of its environment”. Such suggestions demonstrate the possibilities
embedded in the adoption of the right to landscape as an umbrella concept
to contribute a more nuanced approach to human rights, one that can
anchor intangible values in law.
Kenneth Olwig is, however, cautious about an indiscriminate use of
the term landscape. He warns against the pitfalls entrenched in the word
itself and argues that it is imperative to define “the right rights to the right
landscape”. Landscape in Western culture has traditionally been dominated
by a visual interpretation of its qualities and that in turn influenced a reading
of entitlement to ownership of space in an unequal manner. This version leads
to contemporary tensions stemming from ideological convictions on private
property rights and the supremacy of the economic market value of land.
An interpretation of the land in landscape as shaped by people, on the other
hand, implies customary use rights and opens the discussion on the right to
landscape.
It is this latter “right landscape” of polity and dwelling that Kenneth
Olwig describes which Amy Strecker, a law researcher, relates to when
she argues that the ELC suggests a conceptual link between landscape
and human rights by its inclusion of all types of landscapes. Exploring the
association of human rights with landscape Strecker’s axiom is that a right
to landscape would have to be regarded a collective right. Like Stefanie
Rixecker and Maguelonne Déjeant-Pons, Strecker reminds us that existing
articles of, and related to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have
already addressed some of the components that we could envision will be
included in legislation on a right to landscape. Environmental rights and
entitlements to economic, cultural and social freedoms are all implied in the
idea of a right to landscape. The legal reality is, however, more complex and
draws attention to the tensions between individuals’ rights and collective
ones. The issues are further complicated when in line with Western liberal
thought we think of human rights as a mechanism to protect the individual
against unrestrained powers of the sovereign, i.e. the State, as represented
by governments in contemporary realities. Public good however is in many
instances represented by governments. Cases where landscape change or
environmental protection measures have been brought to court arguing
infringement on individuals’ property rights have highlighted this conflict.
At the other end of the spectrum Strecker presents the example of the case
of a motorway route in Ireland that runs through the landscape containing
the Hill of Tara, Ireland’s most significant ancient cultural icon. Irish-born
lawyer Vincent Salafia’s claim in court for protection of this landscape of
cultural significance was not deemed worthy on the grounds that he has not
been personally affected.
Strecker suggests that The European Landscape Convention, however, is
a promising legal framework to reintroduce ideas of justice and democracy
in this context. Strecker embraces the German sociologist and philosopher

Jürgen Habermas’s critic of legal liberalism and “its underlying need
to support the dynamic of modern political economy”. Habermas calls
for this to be replaced by, in Strecker’s words, “reinvestment in a kind
of communitarianism of Aristotelian ‘public spaces’”. The European
Landscape Convention, says Amy Strecker, offers the literal meaning to
such abstract ideas. Nevertheless, for a right to landscape to be asserted
and heard in court, human rights’ law would need to be expanded beyond
the current underpinnings of the positioning of individual versus the State;
the law would have to consider societal welfare and wellbeing that extend
individuals’ cases of infringement on property rights.
These four authors encapsulate the spirit of the discourse in this book. There
is an underlying consensus that a right to landscape implies a need to depart
from the prevailing economic paradigm and focus on human wellbeing related
to equity and social justice. As Rixecker stresses, “The inherent dependence
upon economics, premised upon the paradigm of perpetual growth, and set
alongside a dependence upon old-style power politics of nation-state haggling
amidst ‘super-power,’ ‘colonial’ and ‘imperial’ attitudes have fast become old
tools for an old-world order”.
Similarly, rather than seeing landscape production driven by economic
forces as a given, Déjeant-Pons’ account of the ELC represents the humanistic
approach that underpins this document. This is encapsulated in the emphasis
on people’s perceptions and the importance of democratic processes for
decision making regarding the lived-in landscapes. And finally, Kenneth
Olwig spells it out clearly in his chapter by making the distinction between
the definition of landscape as a detached visual entity or landscape as a place
of living. The right to landscape will depend on the chosen definition, he says.
The first shaping a discourse on individual property rights underpinned by
Lockian philosophies and the latter – customary rights understood, writes
Olwig “as use rights [that] are largely protected through social control in
what has been termed the ‘moral economy’ (Thompson, 1993) – the word
moral deriving from the Latin for custom, moralis”.
Several of the case studies in the subsequent chapters reflect tensions
between custom or landscape practices and legal interpretations. Part II
portrays four different case studies which raise more questions and highlight
the complexity and further nuances of the right to landscape concept. This
section aims to establish the sense that there is room for discussion of the right
to landscape in many contexts.
part ii: state, community and individual rights
Michael Jones presents the case of Orkney and Shetland in the light of tensions
between the property rights laws in those places and ideas of landscape as a
collective asset. Jones, a historical geographer, describes the way in which
historic traditions of Scandinavian udal law affect contemporary identities

10
of these Scottish islands’ residents. Contested interpretations of history
portray how adopted narratives can manipulate political and ideological
control. Challenges to the monopoly of the state raise issues of human rights
in terms of power relations. Jones comments that identity, at the end of the
day, depends on “shared feelings of having a distinctive way of life and
living in a distinctive landscape” rather than which land laws are embraced.
This demonstrates that the right to self-determination in landscape is much
broader than territorial issues.
A more acute situation is described by Gearóid Ó Cuinn in his account of
the Golan Heights territories that have been annexed by the State of Israel.
While many residents were displaced when the territory was taken over from
Syria by the Israeli military in 1967, the Arab residents who remained there
are subject to injustices and blatant discrimination. Ó Cuinn uses the Golan
as a way to explore existing human rights mechanisms that ought to protect
the vulnerable population against expropriations of land that inflict on
livelihood. He presents the story of the apple orchard landscape as a symbol
of local resistance and an attempt to defend against land confiscations. In
terms of human rights’ legislation, Ó Cuinn maintains that the idea of a right
to landscape is yet to be developed in order to become an effective instrument
that will guarantee a sustained relationship between people and their
claimed spaces. At the same time, the example of the Golan, argues Ó Cuinn,
demonstrates that “socio-economic rights are central to bringing landscape
into the penumbra of international law”.
Violation of human rights of a population that is under military occupation
is a manifested expression of power imbalances. Our discussion on landscape
and human rights nonetheless, extends the realms of the obvious political
context where abuses are correlated with blatant oppression of weaker
parties. The example comparing hunting landscapes in Portugal and
Denmark offers another perspective to the discourse on landscape and human
rights. It presents matters regarding inclusions and exclusions in one type
of an evident landscape-related custom: hunting. The chapter is the result
of interdisciplinary collaboration between anthropologist Júlia Carolino,
countryside planner Jørgen Primdahl, landscape ecologist Teresa Pinto-
Correia, and landscape manager Mikkel Bojesen. This cooperation in itself is
exemplary of the diversity of perspectives converging in the topic of landscape
and rights. Hunting landscapes embody a rich narrative – they are places of
ecological diversity and wildlife habitats, economic value and settings for
social interactions and cultural expression. Legal rights to hunt suggest power
relations that in turn shape the hunting landscape. The comparative analysis
of Denmark and Portugal offers an understanding of the unquestionable
impact of legislation on landscape in each of those settings.
In a different context, landscape architect Susan Herrington writes about
the impact of liability legislation on the designed play landscape infringing on
children’s right to healthy development. Herrington looks at the progression
of the idea of children’s rights, in particular a moral right to grow up healthy.

Public playgrounds are environments that foster opportunities for healthy
psychological and physical development of a child. Herrington reviews
the record of children’s playgrounds in North America during a century,
and expresses her concern for today’s children’s basic right to develop. A
century after landscape architects introduced play equipment to public
spaces, authorities are removing play equipment “deemed dangerous or
too litigious” at an alarming scale. Prevailing cultures of parental anxiety in
wealthy societies coupled with public agencies’ fear of litigation limit these
opportunities in the landscape. Herrington’s challenging of the existing
situation is a pertinent example of the type of contribution to children’s
wellbeing that can be achieved via the framing of this phenomenon within a
right to landscape discourse.
The four chapters in this section highlight the diverse nature of the topic
and the almost open-ended discussions that can take place. At the same time
it also illustrates how the ethical question of the right to landscape, whether
latent or blatant, is at the core of any attempt to understand landscape. In
presenting this discussion, we argue that to consider landscape otherwise – as
if it were an objective artefact – overlooks the proactive possibilities for social
change that are embodied in this approach.
One arena where landscape is more commonly accepted to possess
intangible qualities is that of indigenous people. Part III focuses mainly on
indigenous people’s intricate relationship with their environment.
part iii: Land, Landscape, identity
In his discussion of the “right” right to landscape, Kenneth Olwig emphasised
the significance of the word “land” in landscape according to the way it is
interpreted – whether it is land as in “property” or as in a place shaped by
people. The case studies in this part address the profound meaning that
engagement with landscape embodies. This is apparent in particular in
indigenous people’s relationship with their physical environment. The stories
exemplify how landscape is read not only as a place moulded by the people
but also as a concept that is quintessential to these people’s identity.
Designer and landscape architect Gini Lee’s account of re-making Australian
landscapes through working closely with the aboriginal community illustrates
how the prevailing Western model of design is irrelevant in such a context. Lee
maintains that to do justice to communities and effect change it is necessary
for the designer to negotiate with the people themselves and become familiar
with concepts foreign to outsiders. One key concept that is challenging to
non-indigenous professionals is that of country. Country is an incredibly
evocative and powerful term that can explain the Aborigine culture’s specific
cosmology; it can perhaps be best described as the personification of landscape
making it into a “real” relationship as we in the West would understand a
bond between humans. To that extent appropriateness of landscape becomes

12
a measure for wellbeing. Lee proposes that for the discourse of rights to
induce change it “needs to simultaneously embrace both symbolic meaning
and enduring action upon the mediating ground”; she then asserts that “it’s a
lot to ask of the landscape”. We, however, have suggested that the elasticity of
the term landscape contains exactly these possibilities. An acknowledgment
of the centrality of landscape to wellbeing stresses the merit of exploring the
right to landscape in the context of human rights.
The need to think of landscape in a different light is reinforced in Jillian
Walliss’ account of another Australian landscape, the iconic Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Park. The park, formerly known as Ayers Rock National Park, was
handed back to the traditional owners, the Anangu people, in 1985. Walliss
highlights the problematic nature of the result of the hand-back mirrored in
a significant decline in the health and wellbeing of the people. She suggests
that it is the conflation of the concepts of land and landscape by the policy
makers that is the core of this predicament. The attempt to reconstruct the
park into an Aboriginal cultural landscape for tourists reflects a simplistic and
superficial understanding of landscape meaning. An interpretation centre
that was believed would offer “meaningful cultural exchange” was based on
Western models. Policy makers’ assumptions, however, ignored the notion
that landscape meaning is too “thick” and multilayered to control; how
people actually perceive landscape cannot be dictated from above. Walliss’
critique adds force to the idea that a right to landscape is not synonymous
with land rights and it is necessary to think about landscape in deeper terms.
Landscape architect Diane Menzies and law academic Jacinta Ruru equally
argue that a right to land is not the same as a right to landscape. For Māori, the
indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand, “landscape is who they are and
what shapes their identity”. The values of the Tanga Te Whenua – the people
of the land – are profoundly laced with landscape. The Treaty of Waitangi,
a treaty signed between the British Crown and Māori chiefs in 1840, is the
founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand as a nation. Disputes over
interpretations of the colonised people’s rights as expressed in this document
are ongoing, but the Treaty and a current Resource Management Act provide
a platform for Māori to litigate concerns over landscape. Recognition of
this special relationship Māori have with landscape exemplifies a degree of
enlightenment; nonetheless there are still limitations. While acknowledgment
of the foundational role that landscape plays in Māori culture has in some
cases yielded favourable court rulings, domestic legislation does not define
protection of Māori special relationships to landscape as absolute rights and
Māori needs are not always prioritised. Ruru and Menzies therefore see a need
for the development of an international framework for a right to landscape in
order to provide more avenues for Māori to claim their rights.
The major role that landscape plays for identity and “nativeness” is also the
theme underpinning Shelley Egoz’s account of rootedness in the landscape.
Through a comparison of the work of two artists, Israeli Yithak Danziger and
Palestinian Hannah Farah-Kufr Bir’im, the essence of landscape as a personal

andnationalidentity-builderisportrayed.Landscape,inbothcases,isthemajor
motif that mutually represents collective ideologies and personal yearnings.
While Danziger used landscape to root himself in an abstract ideal, for Farah,
whose father was uprooted from Kufr Bi’rim during the 1948 war, re-rooting
occurs through landscape as the foundation and solid base that allows him to
grow in a new direction. The point to be made is that landscape is fundamental
to human existence, identity, dignity and wellbeing at various levels, thus it is
argued that a human right to landscape is not a peripheral proposition.
The pervasiveness of landscape in the being of indigenous people in
particular is what makes the indigenous perspective pivotal to the discussion
on the right to landscape. While Kenneth Olwig argues in this volume that
“the issue of the right rights to the right landscape is, however, much broader
than the issue of native peoples, for in a certain sense we are all to some
degree native peoples” the discourse on indigenous people and landscape
forms nonetheless an introduction to the variety of contexts in which a right
to landscape is relevant as well. It thus facilitates bringing this idea forward.
Part IV offers further aspects of contestation embodied in how landscape is
perceived and acted upon. These case studies remind us that a concept of the
right to landscape is challenging and open to more debate.
part iv: competing Landscape narratives
Landscape architect and urbanist Gareth Doherty tackles issues of exclusion
in Bahrain where the Shiite majority is suppressed. Bahrain is a pronounced
case that represents a similar prevailing situation throughout the Gulf States.
Doherty offers his own experience through vignettes of three landscape types:
coastal, road and parks which are implicitly “exclusive”. He then describes
some of the counter practices by the suppressed Shiite majority to vent their
frustrations and express their identity, albeit through the exercise of traditional
practices: Graffiti and Ashura, the former a universal means for expression
for the marginalised – whether economically because of ethnicity or religion
and the latter a religious ritual. For Gareth Doherty the polyvocality of the
Baharainian landscape exemplifies that landscape should not be seen as one
monolithic entity; he thus challenges the proposition that one can apply a
universal principle to any landscape.
Nonetheless, we argue here that a universal principle, similar to the notion
of human rights, should not be confused with a “one size fits all” approach.
The polyvocality of landscape is no excuse for revoking the proposition of a
universal principle. As Kenneth Olwig suggests in this volume:
The right right to landscape is … the right to a diversity of landscapes, not just
to the landscape of property’s uniform space, but also the use right to a common
landscape shared by a variety of individuals and communities, human and
natural.

14
Landscape is a powerful medium that can evoke and retain memory.
Landscape can also become a mode of resistance, a form of “a defiant garden”
as Kenneth Helphand (2006) has articulated the idea of garden as the epitome
of human resilience. Landscape architect Ziva Kolodney and architect Rachel
Kallus view landscape production as a channel through which rights can
be claimed. They portray the dialectic tension between the narratives of the
“small” and the “big” landscape by telling the story of two gardens in the
downtown of the city of Haifa, Israel. The “big” one is an official design
of a public space and the “small” – a spontaneous design and individual
construction of one person’s garden. Both landscapes embody in different
ways the memory of place: the Haifa homes from which Palestinians were
displaced as the consequence of war and the establishment of the State of
Israel in 1948. In a design critique of the contemporary cityscape Kolodney
and Kallus claim that it is the “small” landscape of the personal garden that
possesses the “ability to challenge hegemonic power and stand against official
efforts to shape memory [which] implies a fundamental right to it”.
Whereas Kolodney and Kallus look at “the interplay between hegemonic
and personal landscape production as a narrative of memory and amnesia”,
dilemmasofarighttorememberorforgetarediscussedbylandscapearchitects
Shannon Davis and Jacky Bowring in their account of memoryscapes.
They focus on memorials to genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda. Such
memoryscapes are crucial in representing one of humanity’s most repugnant
atrocities and violation of human rights and the memorials’ mission is to act
as warnings for “never again”. In both cases the sites of memorial contain
shocking evidence that service political agendas and cater to the economics
of Western tourism. At the same time, argue Davis and Bowring, “the rights
of survivors may be best represented by very different landscape expression,
one which does not see them constantly have to confront the tragic events of
genocide, and perhaps one which even allows them to forget”.
The omnipresence of such difficult dilemmas on the right to landscape
put across the urgency of the discussion in particular within the context of
contemporary paradigms of neoliberalism that tend to push away the weaker
parties in favour of economic interests. Jala Makhzoumi of Lebanon describes
the struggle to uphold public right under neoliberalism and a State that fails
to protect the right of the Lebanese public, reduce inequalities and sustain
collective rights to resources and landscape. Conceived by international real
estate holdings to benefit investors with little regard to the human, cultural
and natural context, neoliberal driven large-scale development threatens
Lebanon’s scenic countryside. In her chapter Makhzoumi explores the
potential role of landscape in discoursing public rights considering that the
Arabic translation lacks the complexity and layered meaning of the English
“landscape”. Accepting the validity of visual meaning of landscape as scenery
is, she argues, nonetheless a potent medium for contesting public rights
because scenery of mountains and sea are admired and valued by all and
because they are integral to Lebanese national identity. While the author had

herself in the past advocated that the prevailing meaning of landscape as
scenery limits the professional and academic potential of “landscape”, here
she discovers that in fact landscape scenery is politically empowering and
more likely to spearhead the discourse of public rights in Lebanon.
The potential of landscape to empower is further elaborated on in the final
section of the book, where aspects of resilience, recovery and reconciliation
set within the concept of landscape are presented.
part v: reconfigurations, recoveries and visions
We conclude this volume with four examples that illustrate the centrality of
landscape to human vitality and its potential to facilitate recovery.
Anthropologist Munira Khayyat and architect Rabih Shibli describe the
resilience of landscape and villagers in the war zone of Southern Lebanon.
The nature of the 2006 war between the Israeli army and the Hizbulla guerrilla
organisation can be described as “a war on the landscape”. In addition to
over two decades of ongoing hostilities that had led to extreme abuses of the
landscape such as soil erosion and desertification, to this war there was an
extra dimension: the 3 million cluster bombs scattered over the landscape in
the 24 hours before ceasefire, many of which remained unexploded. These
concealed weapons are everywhere, turning the landscape into a place of
death but at the same time, the landscape is also the locus of endurance: “a
refuge and resource and a place of recurrent danger and death”. Despite the
immense suffering and risk to their life the villagers demonstrate steadfastness
by continuing to work the land. This tenacity is a statement of claiming their
right to landscape. Khayyat and Shibli’s account has ramifications beyond
offering descriptive information. Conceptualising the hardships of people
in a war torn zone within the landscape context is significant as it holds
opportunities to address reconstruction and recovery from a landscape
perspective as has been shown by landscape architect Jala Makhzoumi in her
design work (2010).
The potential of this mindset to offer the fresh thinking that is required
to instigate change and contribute to wellbeing in extreme situations is also
illustrated through landscape architect’s Denise Hoffman-Brandt’s visionary
project “Relief Organism: A Proposal for Sustaining Human Rights through
Spatial Practices in Refugee Settlement”. Her reconfiguration of refugee
encampment in Kenya is a pertinent model of the type of innovative thinking
needed to address human rights within a landscape context. Hoffman-Brant
analyses the current state of refugee camps in north-eastern Kenya that were
“initiated as an emergency response yet often inhabited for indefinite time
spans – [but] replace the violence of the home territory with dystopia”. She
brings forward the concept of “Relief Organism” as an ecological planning
alternative. Using the landscape and its ecology as infrastructure, Hoffman-
Brandt highlights the opportunity for capacity building among the residents.

16
Her thinking is underpinned by a paradigm shift in the way in which relief
and humanitarian aid are distributed: moving from a managerial perspective
to context-specific design principles that generate an integrated system that
supports subsistence, society and culture as a whole.
More visionary thinking about what landscape has to offer to human
wellbeing is presented by Swiss architect and urbanist Anna Grichting.
Grichting highlights the role that grassroots action through landscape can
play towards reconciliation. She discusses the right to landscape as embodied
in peace parks, or more specifically the potential of Boundaryscapes in
conflict areas to become the loci for sustainable reconciliation through
ecological planning and grassroots’ environmental activism. Her case study
is the Greenline Buffer Zone of Cyprus where she suggests that: “the Right
to Landscape can be invoked to legally recognise this landscape as unique
collective territory, as a symbolic landscape to commemorate the victims and
reconcile past division”.
Grassroots activism is also the tool envisioned in the concluding chapter of
this volume. Gloria Pungetti and landscape architect Thomas Oles illustrate
the potential of the “Right to Landscape” concept to support people’s
wellbeing in another arena where human rights are threatened today:
illegal actions against the environment. The chapter introduces the notion of
“landscape crime”, as distinct from the more general “environmental crime”,
to denote actions that not only damage natural systems, but also undermine
more elusive, yet equally important, relationships between people and the
places they inhabit. They offer examples of contemporary landscape crimes in
a number of countries, and argue that the traditional knowledge embedded
in cultural and sacred landscapes is one powerful way to mobilise local
communities to combat such crimes through grassroots and political action.
Conclusion
The contributors to this volume explore a wide range of topics that include
urban, spiritual, legal, environmental, political, and art related themes. The
authors draw on their respective disciplines, be it landscape architecture,
landscape ecology, architecture, anthropology, history, geography, law and
political science. They employ their academic and professional experience
to offer alternative intellectual premises for their arguments. The range
and diversity of contributions therefore reflect the versatility of the right
to landscape concept as a medium for discoursing human rights. This is
partly the result of the complementarity that exists between landscape
and human rights. The discourses of both concepts entail similar issues of
competing demands over land and natural resources and equally tensions
and contestation over identities and polities. More so it is landscape’s
“discursive elasticity that allows it to expand temporally, to include past,
present and extend into the future; spatially, to embrace the continuity

from local to region; and programmatically to include people and place”
(Makhzoumi, 2010: 129).
The potential of landscape in progressing human rights lies in its
conceptualisation as the integration of tangible spatio-physical elements
and resources and intangible socio-economic and cultural values.
Landscape therefore contextualises the universal by anchoring the concept
of human rights in spatial and socio-cultural specificities, thus serving as
an inclusive framework for negotiating the rights of local communities and
the marginalised, just as it serves as a medium for securing physical and
spiritual wellbeing. The diagram in Figure 1.2 illustrates this relationship.
All in all, this volume represents the seeds, some ideas, and just as many
challenges. One such challenge is to identify assessment tools, guidelines
and methodologies, which often lag behind as landscape researchers and
professionals advance new concepts and unfold innovative interdisciplinary
frontiers. Another challenge lies in avoiding professional territoriality by
providing a platform for interdisciplinary collaboration. The universality
of the right to landscape concept, however, is likely to serve as an umbrella
equally for intellectual dialogue and practical resolutions to secure health,
wellbeing and human dignity. The right to landscape, contesting landscape
and human rights, we suggest, offers the new theoretical lens to confront
the twenty-first-century challenges that impede on social justice.
1.2 Conceptual diagram: The comprehensive nature of the right to landscape
LANDSCAPE as CULTURAL REALM
HEALTH& PHYSICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL& SOCIAL, ECONOMIC&
SPIRITUALWELLBEING POLITICALWELLBEING
f
THE RIGHT TO LANDSCAPE
clean air and water,
food security, nature in
cities, natural heritage
individuals,communities, nations,the
economicaIlydisadvantaged, the politically
powerless,indigenouspeople, the marginalized
sacred sites, scenery, aesthetic
fulfillment, sense of belonging
and identity, cultural heritage
J ' /
LANDSCAPE as NATURAL SETTING
socialjustice, equal
livelihoodopportunities,
freedom of expression
f
I
c
SAFEGAURDINGNATURAL PROCESSES
SECURINGECOSYSTEMHEALTH
terrestrial, marine, riparian, eco-diversity
SUSTAINABLEMANAGEMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
soil, water, air, biodiversity

18
notes
1 For more on the editors’ key work upon which the right to landscape initiative
has built, see: Egoz, 2008; Egoz and Merhav, 2009; Egoz and Williams, 2010;
Chmeitilly et al., 2009; Jongman and Pungetti, 2004; Makhzoumi and Pungetti,
1999; Makhzoumi, 2009a, 2009b, 2010 and 2012; Pungetti et al., 2012.
2 An understanding of the significance of the ordinary landscape began with the
humanistic school of cultural geography post World War II (thinkers such as J.B.
Jackson, Yi-Fu Tuan and Donald Meinig). One can ascribe this scholarly body of
work as the theoretical precursor for the ELC’s new approach to landscape.
3 Cosgrove viewed the landscape idea as a form of consciousness and presented
this within a Marxist perspective that humans’ social being determines their
consciousness.
4 Although, the perception of landscape as scenery, should not be overlooked
as it may too have a role in the claim for communities’ rights to landscape as
shown by Jala Makhzoumi in her chapter on neoliberal values in Lebanon in this
volume.
References
Bell, L.S., Nathan, A.J. and Peleg, I. (eds) (2001), Negotiating Culture and Human Rights
(New York: Columbia University Press).
Bender, B. (ed.) (1995), Landscape Politics and Perspectives (Oxford: Berg).
Bender, B. and Winer, M. (eds) (2001), Contested Landscapes, Movement, Exile and Place
(Oxford: Berg).
CCLP, (2010a), <http://www.cclp.group.cam.ac.uk/cclp_goals.html> Accessed
22 November 2010.
CCLP, (2010b), <http://www.cclp.group.cam.ac.uk/RtL.html> Accessed 22 November
2010.
Chmeitilly, H., Talhouk, S. and Makhzoumi, J. (2009), “Landscape Approach to the
Conservation of Floral Diversity in Mediterranean Urban Coastal Landscapes:
Beirut Seafront”. International Journal of Environmental Studies 66:2, 167–77.
Cosgrove, D. (1984), Social Formation and Symbolic landscape (London: Croom Helm).
Cowan J.K., Dembour M.B. and Wilson R.A. (eds) (2001), Culture and Rights;
Anthropological Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Duncan, J. (1990), The City as Text: The Politics of Landscape Interpretation in the Kandyan
Kingdom (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Egoz, S. (2008), “Deconstructing the Hegemony of Nationalist Narratives Through
Landscape Architecture”, Landscape Research, 33:10, 29–50.
Egoz, S. (2010), “The European Landscape Convention: A Close View from a
Distance” Key Address in Proceedings of The Council of Europe (CoE) 8th
International Workshop for the Implementation of the European Landscape
Convention. European Spatial Planning and Landscape, No. 93, 25–31 (Strasbourg:
Council of Europe Publishing).

Egoz, S. and Merhav, R. (2009), “Ruins, Archaeology and the Other in the Landscape,
the case of Zippori National Park”, Israel, JoLA 8, 56–69.
Egoz, S. and Williams, T. (2010), “Co-existent Landscapes: Military Integration and
Civilian Fragmentation” in Pearson, C., Coates, P. and Cole, P. (eds) Militarized
Landscapes, from Gettysburg to Salisbury Plain (London: Continuum Books), 59–79.
Erhard, M. (2010), Climate Change and Landscape in proceedings of The Council of
Europe (CoE) 8th International Workshop for the implementation of the European
Landscape Convention. European Spatial Planning and Landscape, No. 93, 35–7
(Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing).
Helphand, K.I. (2006), Defiant Gardens, Making Gardens in Wartime (San Antonio:
Trinity University Press).
IALE, (1998), Bulletin 16, 1 <ftp://ftp.wsl.ch/pub/kienast/iale/bulletin16_1.pdf>
Accessed 31 July 2010.
Jones, M. and Stenseke, M. (eds) (2011), The European Landscape Convention: Challenges
of Participation (Dordrecht: Springer).
Jongman, R.H.G. and Pungetti, G. (eds) (2004), Ecological Networks and Greenways:
Concept, Design, Implementation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Makhzoumi, J. (2009a), “Landscape Architecture, Globalization and Post-War
Recovery”, Landscape Review 13:1, 3–17.
Makhzoumi, J. (2009b), “Unfolding Landscape in a Lebanese Village: Rural Heritage
in a Globalizing World”, International Journal of Heritage Studies 15:4, 317–37.
Makhzoumi, J. (2010), “Marginal Landscapes, Marginalized Rural Communities:
Sustainable Postwar Recovery in Southern Lebanon” in H.A.l. Harithy (ed.)
Lessons in Postwar Reconstruction: Case Studies from Lebanon in the Aftermath of the
2006 War (London: Routledge), 127–57.
Makhzoumi, J. (2011), “Is Rural Heritage Relevant in an Urbanizing Mashreq?
Exploring the Discourse of Landscape Heritage” in Lebanon in I. Maffi and R.
Daher (eds) Practices of Patrimonialization in the Arab World: Positioning the Material
Past in Contemporary Societies (London: I.B. Tauris) (in progress).
Makhzoumi, J. and Pungetti, G. (1999), Ecological Landscape Design and Planning: The
Mediterranean Context (London: E&FN Spon).
Meinig, D. (ed.) (1976), The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays,
(New York: Oxford University Press).
Mitchell, D. (2000), Cultural Geography: A Critical Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell).
Mitchell, W.J.T. (ed.) (1994), Landscape and Power (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press).
Olwig, K.R. (2000), “Historical Aspects Multifunctionality in Landscapes: Opposing
Views of Landscape” in Brant, J., Tress, B. and Tress, G. (eds) Multifunctional
Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Research and Management
(Roskilde: Centre for Landscape Research), 133–46.
Olwig, K.R. (2002), Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic: From Britain’s Renaissance to
America’s New World (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press).
Olwig, K.R. (2007), “The Practice of Landscape ‘Conventions’ and the Just Landscape:
The Case of the European Landscape Convention”, Landscape Research 32:5,
579–94.

20
Olwig, K.R. and Mitchell, D. (eds) (2009), Justice, Power and the Political Landscape
(Oxon: Routledge).
Peil, T. and Jones, M. (eds) (2005), Landscape, Law and Justice (Oslo: Novus forlag/
Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture).
Pungetti, G., Oviedo, G. and Hooke, D. (eds) (2012), Sacred Species and Sites
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) (in press).
Pungetti, G. (1999), “A Holistic Approach to Landscape Research in the
Mediterranean” in J. Makhzoumi and G. Pungetti Ecological Landscape Design and
Planning: The Mediterranean Context (London: E&FN Spon), 34–43.
Tilley, C. (2006), “Introduction: Identity, Place, Landscape and Heritage”, Journal of
Material Culture 11, No. 1/2, 7–32.
Tuan, Yi-Fu (1974), Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values
(New Jersey: Prentice Hall).
UNESCO, (2005), Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Paris, 83.
Williams, R. (1973), The Country and the City (London: The Hogarth Press).

PART i
the right to Landscape:
definitions and concepts

Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Niitä näitä
runouden alalta

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Niitä näitä runouden alalta
Author: E. J. Blom
Release date: August 20, 2013 [eBook #43521]
Language: Finnish
Credits: E-text prepared by Tapio Riikonen
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NIITÄ NÄITÄ
RUNOUDEN ALALTA ***

E-text prepared by Tapio Riikonen
NIITÄ NÄITÄ RUNOUDEN
ALALTA
Arveli ajan huviksi
E. J. BLOM, Sysmän kappalainen
Kuopiossa, Erik Johan Blom, 1873.
Painettu Paino-yhtiön kirjapainossa.
Näytetty: Carl Savander.

SISÄLLYS:
Suomen Impi.
Savonmaalle.
Ihmis-kasvot.
Talollis'-poika.
Väntrikin markkina-muisto.
Saarijärven Paavo.
Sota-vanhus.
Iloinen juhla.
Ojan-Paavo.
Kuormuri.
Pojat.
Kompa-runoja.
Hauta Perhossa.
Suomen Impi.
Armas juoksi aamu-rusko,
Kulta-siivillä kohosi,
Ilon tuoja itse päivä,
Lensi leimuten perässä.
Valo nousi, varjot haihtui,
Syttyi kasvot kaiken luonnon,
Posket metsien punastui;
Vedet välkkyi, maa mehusi,

Kaikui kantele Jumalan
Syntyessä Suomen immen,
Ilmi-tullessa ihanan.
Tuuli lasta tuuditteli
Kedon nurmi-kätkyessä,
Liekussa lavean luonnon.
Käki kukkui kätkyellä
Humisevan hongan päässä,
Laulu-rastas raikueli,
Viihdytteli vii'akosta.
Lähde lempensä lirisi,
Pisaroitsi taivas-pinta
Armahan asettumaksi,
Suosinnaksi Suomen neidon. —
Siitäpä sydämen lempi,
Itku-pohjainen ilonsa.
Kului kuuta, vieri vuotta.
Heitti herttainen ikänsä,
Jaksoipa jaloillehensa
Neito neuvoille omille.
Silmäeli seutujansa,
Ilmojansa ihmetteli:
Astui alhot, kulki kummut,
Maita, teitä matkusteli
Vesinensä, vuorinensa,
Väärinensä, suorinensa
Luonnon notkelmat lopeti.
Näki näitä, kuuli noita,
Keksi käydessä kutakin
Äänetöntä, ääntävätä,

Jalan, siivin joutuvata:
Kaikki tiehensä tilautui
Mitä Suomen merkillistä,
Suuren niememme suloista.
Sieltä neito neuvoksensa
Oivalsi opin aloja,
Sydämellensä satoja,
Tuhansia tunnollensa;
Sieltä eljet ehkehimmät
Povellensa puhkesivat,
Sieltä kirkkahin kipene
Sätenöitsi sieluhunsa.
Avarat on luonnon annit
Luetella suuren lahjat:
Kevät ehti, ääret hohti,
Metsä soitti, maa vihersi;
Sydämeen jo Harto syttyi,
Laukesipa laulamahan,
Saaden leivolta sanansa,
Mieli-johdon joutsenelta. —
Kohta kerkesi kesäkin:
Illat hehkui, ilma kiehui,
Vipasi vesien kalvot
Luonnon suonet läikkyeli;
Jopa heltyi hennon mieli,
Harrastui halu sulohon,
Kehensihe korkehille. —
Syksy joutui synkiöiksi
Kalvasti olennon kasvot
Tuoden viljalta veroa,

Hedelmiä helmassansa;
Tuosta tointui mielellensä
Surun tyytyvä suvanto,
Tuostaki totisen arvon
Elämänsä ehdotteli. —
Tuli talvi; maa ja taivo
Kirkas säihkyen kimelsi
Väkäisessä valkiassa:
Siitä Raittius sikisi
Povehensa puhdas toimi,
Epä-turha tuntohonsa. —
Näin ne neuvoi neitoselle
Luonnon kerrat kilpaellen
Mointa muutakin enemmän.
Kaikki aikansa odotti.
Joutui, joski verkkaisehen:
Siitä maltti mielellensä
Arvelu heti asettui.
Kosket kuohui, virrat vuoti,
Sul'ut särki, salvat sorti
Juosten juovassa samassa;
Tulipa urhoksi tuosta,
Pysyväksi pyrkehissä
Kerran keksityn uralla. —
Mehiläinen mettä lensi,
Keräeli kennoihinsa
Tarvetta soman talonsa:
Siitä siivoksi opastui,
Uta'utui uutteraksi.
Vuoret lahjoi lause-säilyn

Sekä pinnan sielullensa.
Kaikki kalttansa opetti:
Kuusen kalve kaitsevuuden
Hoitavuuden hongan varjo,
Mettinen ujon menonsa,
Käytöksensä kyhkyläinen. —
Saipa sieltä, toipa täältä,
Mikä miksiki osoitti;
Kaikki katsoi, tuiki tutki,
Tajunsa yhä teroitti
Perustellen pienimmänki
Mutkan muodoissa olennon. —
Ehevin toki eränsä
Yksi näiden yhdistymä
Rikkaus on rinnassansa,
Povessansa parhas aarre:
Vaka henkensä vapaus. —
Siten Impi nyt sivistyi,
Sukeutui suloinen neito.
Näin hän astuvi eteemme,
Siirtähikse silmihimme,
Puhdas-sieluinen sorea,
Kaunis-vartinen korea,
Emon suuren elkehinen,
Luojan lemmitty ihana. —
Suosi, suosi, Suomen poika,
Tätä raitista rakasta,
Kultoasi kunnioita!
Ei ole mointa morsianta,
Neitoa tämän-neroista

Suotuna suloisempata,
Paitse, pulskea, Sinulle!
Siin' on onnea ololta,
Rikkautta, rakkautta
Oman kultasi ohella,
Vierellä viattomasi;
Suojele vaan suotuasi,
Varjele valittuasi
Muiden kärkkyjäin käsistä,
Reudonnasta riettaisien.
Siit' on nouseva Sinulle
Taloutes' itse taivas
Ilon, toivon tähtinensä,
Siitä ihme ilmoittava,
Kaiken maailman kateus
Riemuksi oman povesi,
Jalon Suomemme suloksi.
Savonmaalle.
Helsingistä v. 1845.
Kun ma muistan muinoisia
Hetkiäni herttaisia,
Iltoja iki-suloja,
Siellä sievässä kylässä
Kallaveden kainalossa;
Kohta sielu siipiänsä

Pyhä lintu laajentavi,
Kotkana kohottahikse
Tullaksensa tuttavainsa
Luokse Luonnon ja Perehen.
Ei ne eksy mielestäni
Eikä muistista murene
Savoni sulot näkymät,
Koti-maani mainittavat
Seudut ihmehen ihanat.
Vieläpä vihertelevät
Edessäni entisesti
Kaikki syntymä-sijani
Maat matalat, mä'et ylävät,
Leh'ot, laaksot lempehimmät:
Puijon ukko, pilvi-harja,
Vesa-rinta Vannunvuori
Sekä Uuhimä'en sileät,
Kallaveden katselijat:
Vielä sieltä silmäelen
Ääret allani avarat:
Kuinka järvet kuumoittavat
Sadan saarosen välistä,
Lah'et, salmet, lammit kaikki
Illan paisteessa palavat
Kuvastaen kukkuloita,
Kautta taivahan kajaten.
Vielä kuulen kuikan äänen,
Valitukset valko-rinnan,
Vielä virret venhemiesten
Airon kolkkaissa kohovan

Moisen armon antajalle,
Suojalle sulon asunnon.
Kaikki saavat sieluhuni
Tuolta nuo ihat tuhannet
Alat tenhon armahimmat.
Koko luonto korvihini
Kutsun kuiskavi lumovan,
Sinne toivoni sitovi,
Väkevästi viehättävi,
Sinne hartahan haluni,
Halun muita hartahamman.
Mut jos kuulen kulta-äänen,
Savoni sorean kielen
Miesten huulilta mehuvan
Taikka vielä viettävämmin
Sulon naisen suusta soivan;
Silloinpa sydän sulavi,
Leviävi, lämpiävi
Harvoin saaduista sanoista
Etelähän eksyneistä;
Kieli mielen' kihloavi
Maamme kanssa, morsiamen
Köyhän kyllä, vaan ihanan.
Ihmis-kasvot.
(F. M. Frantsénin mukaan).

Levittää jo purppur'-hunnun
Kerkes' yli setri-kummun.
Helmi välkähteli ve'essä,
Joutsen ui jo suvanteessa
Salmen varjoisan;
Viina hehkui rypälössä,
Kyhky harras metsikössä
Kukers' onneaan.
Mutta ihaninpa puuttui
Maailmassa: — Ruunu puuttui
Vielä luomisen;
Kunnes nousi tomustansa
Ihminen ja kasvoillansa
Hämmästytti sen.
Lumi vuorten synkiäksi
Käv' ja aamu-rusko läksi
Alas tummennut;
Tähti, joka päivän päässä
Istui, eipä olla tässä
Enää julennut.
Eläimetki nousnehellen
Kumartuivat ihmetellen
Tulta silmien,
Joista sulo lempi kiilsi,
Joiden kyyneleissä piilsi
Toivo i'äinen.

Enkel'-parvi, nähtyänsä,
Hänen ihat hempeänsä,
Katsoi Tekijään.
Luoja painoi laatimaansa
Leiman; ja jo kuvastansa
Iloits' hymyen.
Sä, ku väität: "mikä luotu,
Sielua ei sille suotu,
Kaikki tomu se;"
Tyhmä! astu lähtehellen,
Kasvos' näe, ja hävystellen
Kohta vaikene.
Nä'eppäs otsa tiede-niekan
Tuon, ku luonnon joka seikan
Tuopi selkeään;
Näe, kuin silmä leimahtaapi
Sankarin, kun taivuttaapi
Kansat älyllään.
Entäs ydin ihannelman?
Nosta linnikko mun Selman'
Ruso-poskilta;
Katso, sulo silmänteensä,
Katso, tummat hiuksensa
Tuulen vallassa!
Taikka hiivi jälestänsä,
Majahan kun lievitteensä
Viepi surullen;
Katso, kuinka kyyneleitse

Sielun lempi ilmaiseiksi
Lohdutukselleen!
Taivon vilaus näkyvissä,
Enkel'-haamo elävissä,
Muoto ihmisen!
Näenkö sun vaan maailmassa?
Etkös vielä Tuonelassa
Hymy itkien?
Vielä Selma viehättääpi
Kerran Enkelit, kun jääpi
Niiden seurahan;
Selma! vielä Taivahassa,
Tuolla iki-Onnelassa,
Sun ma nähdä saan.
Talollis'-poika.
(J. L. Runebergin mukaan).
Jo väsyksiin mä hakkasin
Ja te'en sen uudestaan,
Ja, kirves ehk' on terävin,
On honka seisallaan.
Tää käs' ol' ennen navakka;
Nyt on se hervonnut,

Kun talven olen pettuja
Ja vettä nauttinut.
Jos muunne pois ma muuttaisin,
Vaan nähden etuan',
Niin herroiss' ehkä löytäisin
Ruis-leivän puhtahan.
Lik'-kaupungissa ehkä saan
Jo palkan melkeän;
Näin mietin useasti; vaan
Ei liene siitäkään.
Näet, kuvastaako lammikko
Siell' lehto-kumpua?
Siell' loistaneeko aurinko
Niin armas ihana?
Siell' onko laakso tuoksuva
Ja kangas mäntyneen?
Ja, nyt jon torvi kajahtaa,
Oi, onko siellä hän?
Kas, pilvi kuinka turvaton
On tuulten leikkinä —
Ja koditonna mikä on
Tää ihmis-elämä?
Kentiesi, Herra helpon suo
Jo hä'älle rahvahan,
Kentiesi, syksy meille tuo
Jo leivän paremman.

Väntrikin markkina-muisto.
(J. L. Runebergin mukaan).
"Miehet, naiset, onko täällä kuulevata ketäkään,
Kuinka vanha sota-uros veteleepi virsiään?"
Näin se alkoi, sen mä muistan, laulu aivan tarkoilleen;
Kaupungissa käydessäni torilla ma kuulin sen.
Markkinoita pidettiin nyt, tulvi miestä, tavaraa,
Kansa näytti karmiaalta, kauppa oli hankalaa;
Haja-mielin astuttua kadun kulmahan ma sain,
Kuhun vaunut takertuivat ah'ingossa kulkevain.
En mä tiedä väkistekö, vaiko mielin seissut lie;
Ohjillinen ärjyi huimin saadaksensa auki tie.
Mutta vaunuiss' istui herra ynsiästi kenoten,
Puuhka rinnaltansa välkkyi helo kirkas tähtien.
Minä katson katsomista, muistoihini heräjän.
Nämä kasvot nähnyt o'on, vaan milloinka ja missähän?
Lapuan ja Salmin luona riviss' ol' hän urosten,
Silloin Katteinina vasta, nyt jo Kenraal' yläinen.
Muuttunut hän oli sangen, ehk' ei yksin vuosistaan,
Asu ynnä korskeamp' ol' ylävällä kohdallaan.
Ylpeilikö? Kenpä tiesi; katsanto ja ryhtinsä
Oli tyyni, ehkä kylmä, isoinen ja töykeä.
Ilo-mielin tapasin ma aina sota-kumppanin,
Tätä vaan ma katsastelin; sydän kävi jäädyksiin.

Pöyhistele, arvelin ma, ennen sama-rivikäs.
Alaisempi olit, ehkä koreampi veressäs'.
Nyt se kaikui äkkiänsä sama laulu jällehen,
Markkinoiden hälinässä vapiseva vanhan ään':
"Miehet, naiset, onko täällä kuulevata ketäkään.
Kuinka vanha sota-uros veteleepi virsiään?"
Urho-luonto mäkin jouduin kuulijaksi mieluisan';
Ylpeästi kääntyneenä selin jalo-herrahan
Väistihime syrjemmälle kihinästä hiljakseen,
Siten tullen kuuluville tutisevan vanhuksen.
Avopäin, mut korkeana, porras-laudall' istui hän,
Polvellansa nukka-vieru hattu vasen-kä'essähän.
Tämä käs' vaan oli jäänyt otannaksi almujen;
Oikeansa oli poissa, sota oli saanut sen.
Ja hän lauloi ympärinsä, kelle sanat sattuivat,
Huono laulu, huono palkka, huonot oli kuulijat:
Likimpänä häntä seisoi pakinoiden yh'essä
Poika-retkaleita joukko, roima oppilas ja mä.
Mut hän lauloi korkehita muinais-ajan muistoja,
Uro-töitä mennehiden, nyt jo muka halpoja.
Suomen sota oli aine, isänmaamme viimeinen,
Aika voiton, ahdingon ja kunniamme kultainen.
"Seisonut jo," lauloi vanhus, "kolmekymmenesti
Luoti-satehessa, nähnyt näljän, vilun, valvonnon;
Mieskin olen riviss' ollut, ehkä nyt jo hylkynä,
Paremp' käten Uumajall' on, toinen saamatonna tää."

Onko täällä nuorempata, joka kuuli sanan tuon:
Aseihinne miehet; maasta rauha poissa jo nyt on?
Silloin tulta mieless' oli, toinen into miehissä,
Silloin paloi tääki sydän, kylmä kohta, niinkuin jää.
Hämeenlinna, vielä muistan, kun sun kuutamassa nä'in
Ensi kerran Hattelmalan harjanteelta alla päin;
Ilta myöhä ol' ja kolkko, vaan ma, vaikka uupunut,
Lepoa en etsinynnä, kodosta en huolinut.
Ei; sun järvihis' ja maihis' tähti nyt mun mieleni.
Siell' ol' enemmän, kuin koto, enemmän, kuin lepoki.
Siell' ol' Suomen joukko ko'ossa, nuori, uljas, riipeä;
Meihin katsoi isänmaa ja meepä isänmaahamme.
Vanha Klerker kunnian on saava iankaikkisen,
Seitsenkymmeniäs, ehkä vielä urhomielinen.
Vielä muistan valkopäänsä, rivitse kun ratsasti
Sekä silmin, niinkuin isän, poikiansa katseli.
Kuusituhannella miestä vihollisen vertainen,
Kerran elämässä vielä suorin seista tahtoi hän.
Ensinkään ei epäelty, so'assa kaikki mielineen,
Toinen luotti toisehensa, meihin hän, me hänehen.
Nyt tul' Klingspor, sota-päällys, ylpeä, kuin kuningas,
Kaksin leuvoin, yksin silmin, sydämeltä puolikas,
Nyt tul' Klingspor, otti ohjat nimen suuren vallalla,
Antoi käskyjä, kuin Klerker, mutta alti pa'eta.
Kirkas yö sä Hämeenlinnan, valvottuna hangella,
Et sä vuotten kuluttua murene mun muistista,

Vaikka pettyi harras into, toivon tähti alas lask',
Kaikki voiton uneks' muutti sydämetön vennokas.
Milloinkas hän kerran onpi tilin vielä tekevä
Noista taka-askeleista, kun ol' meno eellensä,
Häpeästä nimellemme, kyyneleistä miehien
Vuotavista, kun ois' ollut verta vuodattaminen?
Siikajoella, Revolahdell' lähettiinkö pakoisaan?
Käs' vai jalka nopeampi ol'ko silloin liikkumaan?
Adlerkreuts ja Kronstedt sekä muutki voisi vastata,
Mutta urhot, kuulen ma, on miss' ei enää lausuta.
Jalot mainitsinpa kahdet; kiitos heille ainiaan!
Moni heidän vertaisensa mennyt on jo manalaan.
Döheln lepää, Dunker lepää, ja jos kysyt niistä nyt,
Saa, kuin tässä, kertojana olla uros nääntynyt.
Miks'en kaatua ma saanut, missä muutki vierelläni',
Missä Suomen urho joukko vietti juhla-hetkiään,
Kussa kunniamme loisti kirkkahimmin: aikahan
Alavuuden, Siikajoen ja Salmin sekä Lapuan?
Ei ois' pakko paetaksen' ollut Pohjan hankihin
Taas ja nähdä voitto-riemun tukehtuvan tuskihin,
Eikä surra tuhansien kohtalota hirveää:
Kohmettua Tornon jäillä; Kaalisissa kenkättää.
Kova loppu vaivojemme, raskas ero maastamme!
Muutamien kanssa tulin tok' mä Ruotsin rannalle.
Uskollisna punattua tuonkin hiekan verellän'
Torill' itselleni tässä laulan hengen pidätteen.

Jumal', auta isänmaata! vähät muusta; soturi
Heitteä voi hengen, onnen, kädet, jalat, kodonki.
Jumal', auta isänmaata! se on päätös lauluan',
Muut jos sanat muuttuvatkin, näillä aina lopetan".
Ja hän nousi sota-vanhus, läksi ulos hälinään,
Saipa lantin muutamilta', enimmilt' ei niitäkään;
Siirtyi sitte herran luo ja kumartaen harmajaa
Päätä ojensi jo hälle kulunnaisen hattunsa.
Kenraali nyt, korehine kiiltimine, nauhoineen,
Synkistyi ja tempas' hatun kä'estä sota-vanhuksen,
Katsoi häneen, katsoi väkeen, katsoi ja nyt tuokioon
Lensi ukon lantti-aarre torillen jo kumohon.
Vanhus hämmästyi, vaan herra virkkoi sanan hartahan:
"Laulus' kuullut o'on, ja eestä tapellutkin saman maan,
Ett' on mulla muisto moinen elämäni syksynä,
Katso, siitä ylpe'elen paljon enemmän, kuin sä.
Tosin onni meidät petti kahakoissa väliste,
Tosin turmioksi muuttui kohta kyllä voittomme,
Vaan ei tarves nöyrtyämme ole eessä ihmisten,
Minä kannan hatun päässä, kanna vanhus samoten".
Virkkoi noin; ja kirkkahampi valo nousi kasvoillen,
Ja hän painoi miehevästi hatun päähän vanhuksen.
Sitte lausui — ilo vielä sylkyttääpi sydäntä,
Kun ma muistan hänen muodon, sanansa ja äänensä: —
"Epätasan heitetähän onnen arpa; katsoppas!
Loisto, rikkaus on mulla, olo kurja sulla taas.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

The Right To Landscape Contesting Landscape And Human Rights 1st Edition Shelley Egoz Editor

More Related Content

Similar to The Right To Landscape Contesting Landscape And Human Rights 1st Edition Shelley Egoz Editor

Recently uploaded

The Right To Landscape Contesting Landscape And Human Rights 1st Edition Shelley Egoz Editor