<p>Rural development in Southeast Sweden</p><p>- three different views and their consequences for the agrarian landscape</p><p>This paper deals with the future for the rural areas of the southeast province of Östergötland, Sweden. The aim is to unveil, analyse and compare different views on rural development and their consequences for the agrarian landscape. Three views are considered, namely that of the different levels of Governments and their departments, that of the farmers and landowners and, finaly, that of the inhabitants of the rural areas.</p><p>Differences in the views upon rural development is reflected in differences in the ways of thinking of landscapes. Is the open, and actively cultivated, landscape the ideal for all? Who is to decide what needs or ought to be done to achieve certain desired values and/or goals – and who pays for it? The one thing that is, and should be, clear from the beginning is that all development, whether positive or negative in an area, bears consequences for the landscape. What shapes the development of the rural areas is to have – or should have – remains to be seen, but regardless form or shape it will effect the agrarian landscape.</p>

Rural development in Southeast Sweden - three different views and their consequences for the agrarian landscape This paper deals with the future for the rural areas of the southeast province of Östergötland, Sweden. The aim is to unveil, analyse and compare different views on rural development and their consequences for the agrarian landscape. Three views are considered, namely that of the different levels of Governments and their departments, that of the farmers and landowners and, finaly, that of the inhabitants of the rural areas. Differences in the views upon rural development is reflected in differences in the ways of thinking of landscapes. Is the open, and actively cultivated, landscape the ideal for all? Who is to decide what needs or ought to be done to achieve certain desired values and/or goals – and who pays for it? The one thing that is, and should be, clear from the beginning is that all development, whether positive or negative in an area, bears consequences for the landscape. What shapes the development of the rural areas is to have – or should have – remains to be seen, but regardless form or shape it will effect the agrarian landscape.