Audyt krajobrazowy – nowy pretekst do badań krajobrazowych czy krok wstecz? Pierwsze wnioski z procedury opracowania audytu
Landscape audit – new pretext for landscape research or a step backwards? First findings from the audit procedure

Summary/Abstract: As late as in 2015, the Polish legal system accommodated provisions of the European Landscape Convention of the Council of Europe adopted in 2000, which introduced, inter alia, the implementation of landscape audits at the provincial level. These changes were introduced by the Act of 24 April 2015 amending certain legislations through enforced landscape protection tools – commonly referred to as the ‘Landscape Act’. For that purpose, a genuine research methodology and implementation procedure was developed, taking into account Poland’s accumulated practice of landscape and cultural heritage analyses, and passed in a novel form of an act of law – i.e. a Regulation of the Council of Ministers. The landscape audit procedure encompasses the identification of natural and cultural landscape features; designation of typologically homogenous landscape units at the granularity below micro- -regions; examination of their structure and characteristics; and the assessment of their assets and hazards. This results in the selection of the so-called priority landscapes, which demonstrate the highest natural, cultural and physiognomic parameters. For such landscapes, conclusions and recommendations are drawn up to protect their values and cater for a sustainable use of their space. However, even though the said Regulation was enacted only in 2019, the long preparatory process failed to curb essential flaws which manifested in incomplete definition of typological patterns of Poland’s landscapes, imprecise indication of their delimitation methods, and an erroneous procedure for designating priority landscapes. The methodological complexity had its toll on the implementation progress, with merely two voivodeships being able to accomplish the landscape audit by the end of 2023. Despite the good research provisions in place, the practice of carrying out landscape audits pinpointed methodological shortcomings in denominating and typologising landscape units as well as in designating priority landscapes. In effect, overall outcomes were varied, heterogeneous at national level, and unsatisfactory. As the implementation of landscape audits is multi- -faceted, this paper focuses on the assessment of the already completed first procedural step, namely – the division of space into landscape units according to the adopted division and typology criteria, as well as the appraisal of challenges and deficiencies in executing the audit analyses. The paper does not recall experience of other countries and, as such, has a discursive character, yet it postulates the verification and correction of methodological assumptions at each stage of the audit procedure on account of the deficiencies spotted by the author.

• Details
• Contents