Cultural landscape research: between geography and urbanism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2026.28.04Keywords:
cultural landscape, genesis of cultural landscape, classification of cultural landscape, geography, urbanismAbstract
This article examines the concept of cultural landscape and its application at the intersection of two spatial sciences: geography and urbanism. Firstly, it reviews the evolution of the concept from the works of 19th-century German geographers to contemporary international documents, revealing the semantic multilayeredness of cultural landscape and its theoretical transformation from opposition to natural landscape to a holistic phenomenon encompassing material and symbolic aspects. The paper then systematises the classifications of cultural landscapes proposed by different disciplines, combining international (UNESCO) and national (Lithuanian landscape geography and urban planning) examples and proposing an extensive classification scheme based on the degree of urbanization and the typology of settlements. The study is based on a theoretical analysis of the literature, a comparative analysis of international and national legal documents, and a comparison of the scales and methods of geography and urbanism. Two summarising tables were compiled, comparing the objects and methods of cultural landscape research in both disciplines according to the scale of the study (from global to micro-level public spaces). The results show that geography and urbanism "meet" at the national-mesoregional and urban scale, but differ in their analytical approach: geography is stronger in the field of spatial patterns, typologies, and landscape quality assessment, while urbanism is stronger in the analysis of urban fabric morphology, composition, public spaces, and human scale. The combination of these perspectives allows the cultural landscape to be treated as a common field of research, in which geographical studies provide a macro-level spatial "background," while urbanism provide detailed solutions and interpretations of spatial experience. The conclusions of the article underline the need to strengthen interdisciplinary dialogue, which can be an important prerequisite for a coherent policy of cultural landscape protection, planning, and activation at different levels of spatial planning and design.
References
1. Aiškinamasis geografijos terminų žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų akademija, 2021.
2. Baker, A. R. H. Geography and history: Bridging the divide. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
3. Batty, M. The new science of cities. MIT Press, 2013.
4. BauNetz. Kulturlandschaften [online 20.02.2010.]. https://www.baunetzwissen.de/stadt--und-dachbegruenung/fachwissen/grundlagen/kulturlandschaften-9966439
5. Bender, B. Landscape: Politics and perspectives. Berg Publishers, 1993.
6. Bosl, K. Joseph Wimmer und die historische Landschaftskunde. München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 1983.
7. Brumann, C., Gfeller, A. É. Cultural landscapes and the UNESCO World Heritage List: Perpetuating European dominance. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2021, Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 147–162
8. Bučas, J. Kraštotvarkos pagrindai: Vadovėlis aukštųjų mokyklų studentams. Kaunas: Technologija, 2001.
9. Caballero, G. Recent discussions on cultural landscapes in the Philippines. ICOMOS Philippines / International Federation of Landscape Architects, 2015.
10. Campbell, H. Cultural Landscapes in the Nordic Countries. Oslo: Nordic Cultural Geography Institute, 1936.
11. Carmona, M. Principles for public space design, planning to do better. Urban Design International, 2019, Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-018-0070-3
12. Conzen, M. R. G. Alnwick, Northumberland: A study in town-plan analysis. Institute of British Geographers Publication No. 27, 1960.
13. Cosgrove, D. Social formation and symbolic landscape. Croom Helm, 1984.
14. Cowan, R. The Dictionary of Urbanism. Streetwise Press, 2005.
15. Daniels, S., Cosgrove, D. The iconography of landscape: Essays on the symbolic representation, design and use of past environments. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
16. Dijokienė, D. Urbanistinis istorinių priemiesčių paveldas. Urban heritage of historical suburbs. Monografija. Vilnius: Technika, 2009.
17. Fowler, P. J. World Heritage cultural landscapes 1992–2002. World Heritage Papers, 6, 2003.
18. Gregory, I. N., Healey, R. G. Historical GIS: Structuring, mapping and analysing geographies of the past. Progress in Human Geography, 2007, Vol. 31, No. 5, p. 638–653
19. Hall, P. Urban and regional planning. Routledge, 2002.
20. Huyssen, A. Present pasts: Urban palimpsests and the politics of memory. Stanford University Press, 2003.
21. Jakovlevas-Mateckis, K. Miesto kraštovaizdžio architektūra. 1 tomas: Miesto kraštovaizdžio architektūros raida ir teorijos pagrindai. Vilnius: Technika, 2008.
22. Jakovlevas-Mateckis, K. Miesto kraštovaizdžio architektūra. 2 tomas: Želdiniai ir jų komponavimo principai. Vilnius: Technika, 2011.
23. Jakovlevas-Mateckis, K. Miesto kraštovaizdžio architektūra. 3 tomas: Miesto kraštovaizdžio objektų formavimo principai. Vilnius: Technika, 2014.
24. James, P. E. All possible worlds: A history of geographical ideas. Wiley, 2006.
25. Jones, M. The Concept of Cultural Landscape in the Nordic Countries. In: M. Jones, O. Stokowski (eds.), Cultural Landscapes of Europe. Nordic Council of Ministers, Oslo, 2003, p. 45–67.
26. Jurevičienė, J. Kraštovaizdžio kultūrinė vertė: išsaugojimo principai. Monografija. Vilnius: Technika, 2013.
27. Jurevičienė, J. Kultūrinis kraštovaizdis [online]. https://www.kpd.lt/uploads/EN/Heritage%20in%20Lithuania/Heritage%20in%20Lithuania/6_CULTURAL_LANDSCAPE.pdf
28. Kavaliauskas, P. Kraštovaizdžio samprata ir planavimas. Vilnius: Technika, 2011.
29. Kostof, S. The city shaped: Urban patterns and meanings through history. Thames and Hudson, 1991.
30. Laukaitytė-Malžinskienė, G. I. Kraštovaizdžio vizualinės raiškos savitumo apsauga didmiesčio priemiestinėse teritorijose. Urbanistika ir architektūra, 2008, Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 103–112
31. Lexikon der Geographie. Kulturlandschaft [online]. https://www.spektrum.de/lexikon/geographie/kulturlandschaft/4382
32. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė. Dėl Lietuvos Respublikos teritorijos bendrojo plano patvirtinimo: nutarimas Nr. 789, 2021 m. rugsėjo 29 d. Teisės aktų registras [online]. https://e-seimasx.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/ab6b8b21266f11ec99bbc1b08701c7f8
33. Liu, Y., Qiu, F. Urban morphology analysis using GIS and remote sensing: A review. Remote Sensing, 2020, Vol. 12, No. 5, p. 827. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12050827
34. Lynch, K. The image of the city. MIT Press, 1960.
35. Mathewson, K. Carl Ritter and the origins of the cultural landscape concept. Geographical Review, 2011, Vol. 101, No. 4, p. 560–575.
36. Matijošaitienė, I. Automobilių keliai istoriniame kraštovaizdyje. Kultūros paminklai, 2008, No. 113, p. 181–191.
37. Mitchell, D. Cultural geography: A critical introduction. Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
38. Müller, E. Friedrich Ratzel: His Life and Work. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2003.
39. Nassauer, J. I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 1995, Vol. 14, No. 2, p. 161–170.
40. Oliveira, V. Urban morphology: An introduction to the study of the physical form of cities. Springer, 2016.
41. Potthoff, M. Zur Begriffs- und Ideengeschichte der Kulturlandschaft in der deutschsprachigen Geographie. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, 2013.
42. Rapoport, A. The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Sage, 1982.
43. Ratzel, F. Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika: Eine Länderkunde. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 1878.
44. Ratzel, F. Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Kulturverhältnisse. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 1893.
45. Relph, E. Place and placelessness. Pion, 1976.
46. Rossi, A. The architecture of the city. MIT Press, 1982.
47. Rössler, M. World Heritage cultural landscapes: A UNESCO flagship programme 1992–2006. Landscape Research, 2006, Vol. 31, No. 4, p. 333–353
48. Smeds, H. Studien zur nordischen Kulturlandschaft. Helsinki: Finnische Geographische Gesellschaft, 1935.
49. Taylor, K. The Historic Urban Landscape paradigm and cities as cultural landscapes: Challenging orthodoxy in urban conservation. Landscape Research, 2016, Vol. 41, No. 4, p. 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1156066
50. Tilley, C. A phenomenology of landscape: Places, paths and monuments. Berg Publishers, 1994.
51. Tschudi, H. Landschaft und Kultur in Norwegen. Oslo: Geografisk institutt, 1935.
52. Tuan, Y. F. Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press, 1977.
53. UNESCO. Cultural landscapes: The challenges of conservation. World Heritage Papers, 7, 2003.
54. UNESCO. Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. WHC.12/01, 2012.
55. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape [online 2025-11-01]. https://whc.unesco.org/en/hul/, 2011
56. UNESCO. Cultural Landscapes [online 2025-11-10]. https://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscapes, 2025.
57. Whitehand, J. W. R. British urban morphology: The Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphology, 2001, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 103–109.
58. Wimmer, J. Historische Landschaftskunde. Wien: Gerold, 1885.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Landscape Architecture and Art
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
