The role of isolated farmsteads in the open landscape protection on the example of Kashubia

Anna Górka

doi:10.37190/arc230305

Abstract

As a result of the social and economic transformation of rural areas, open landscapes are disappearing. Former farmsteads are being devastated or beginning to lose their landscape context due to the spread of residential building development. At the same time, in many places, the farmstead form is clearly legible and remains an element with which the view is structured and enriched. The article was aimed at drawing attention to the multidimensional importance of isolated farmsteads and the need to recognise their surviving resources. Being distinguishing features with which the attractiveness of an open landscape can be determined, they inspire the development of a multifunctional rural economy led by the local community. Isolated farmsteads can respond to the city’s problems and function in many non-agricultural areas, including education, tourism and recreation, nature protection and health protection. Protection of the building development of former farmsteads may provide a tool to effectively support the shaping of spatial order in large areas. The article presents a method for describing the preservation condition of single-manor buildings developed at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is proposed that the study analyses the architectural features of farmsteads that play an important part in the recognition of such building development in the open landscape. Observation areas were selected based on the results of remote identification of the location of historic farmsteads and buildings. The field study was conducted in the central part of Kashubia, along selected scenic routes. These routes comprised 26 solitary homesteads. In half of the cases studied, the exposure of the farmstead buildings deteriorated due to the proximity of modern residential building development. The spatial layout of the majority of farmsteads has changed, which most commonly resulted from expansion beyond the former outline of the farmyard. Numerous historic buildings have been rebuilt. Despite the above-mentioned modifications, in the study area, the farmstead has remained a distinctive feature of the landscape and retained the potential for transformation to be used in the sustainable development economy. The results encourage the study to be continued. The identified resources and architectural values of the traditional farmstead could support the management and protection of the heritage of agricultural landscapes.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2023

3(75)

Anna Górka*

The role of isolated farmsteads in the open landscape protection

on the example of Kashubia

Introduction

A farmstead comprises a house, farm buildings and

a garden; it provides a place of residence and work for

a peasant or a farmer. In Poland, the traditional farmstead

constituted a form of architectural and territorial unity that

had a paramount importance for folk architecture [1]. Ad-

ditionally, the form and location of the farmstead created

the spatial structure of the village and its production-relat-

ed surroundings. This fact sets the agricultural farmstead

complex as a link with which various scales and issues re-

garding the shaping of rural area landscapes are connect-

ed. By the middle of the 20

century, a visually attractive

open landscape structure with single-manor building com-

plexes and accompanying greenery developed in many

regions of Poland. Nowadays, together with the relics of

folk architecture, this structure is an endangered feature

of the cultural landscape of the village. The economic

and environmental consequences of disorderly manage-

ment of rural space in Poland have already provided the

research subject for such elds of research as geography,

economics, agricultural sciences or geodesy and cartogra-

phy [2], [3]. Representatives of the scientic disciplines

of architecture and urban planning focused their research

mainly on changes to the layout of compact villages [4]

and sought traditional construction elements [5] or distin-

guishing characteristics of the rural landscape [6]. How-

ever, knowledge of the farmstead being a rural settlement

mesostructure is insucient and requires supplementation

for the sake of its future protection. In the following arti-

cle, attempts are made to assess the transformation of old

farm buildings and their landscape role.

The study was conducted on the border of three com-

munes in the Pomeranian Voivodeship, i.e., the communes

of Somonino, Nowa Karczma and Przywidz. The research

area centres around Pojezierze Kaszubskie [the Kashubian

Lake District], whose landscape is characterised by young

glacial relief with numerous hills, ravines, lakes and post-

glacier depressions. The region is very attractive in terms

of the views it oers, which stems from the diverse terrain

and picturesque, small settlements against a background

of forests or meadows and greenery-covered elds. Often,

scattered farmsteads or hamlets are characterised by an

outstanding landscape exposure. Due to the attractiveness

of the landscape, the proximity of a large urban centre and

the availability of construction land, this area has become

a site of expansion of single-family residential and tourist

construction. The study is focused on the development of

old isolated farmsteads (Fig. 1). In the conditions of energy

DOI: 10.37190/arc230305

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

* ORCID: 0000-0002-0552-4423. Faculty of Architecture, Gdańsk

University of Technology, Poland, e-mail: anna.gorka@pg.edu.pl

Fig. 1. An isolated farmstead in Kashubia (photo by A. Górka)

Il. 1. Zagroda samotnicza na Kaszubach (fot. A. Górka)

50 Anna Górka

saving, the circularity of resources and the protection of

biodiversity, it is required to ensure sustainable manage-

ment of farm buildings that are losing their production

functions. Therefore, an attempt was made to structure

a preliminary assessment of the architectural features of

farmstead buildings and their exposure preserved within

the landscape. The pilot study was aimed at verifying the

adopted method and at making preliminary conclusions

and recommendations as for the protection and shaping

of the open landscape. The results lead to determining the

participation of farmstead complexes in a community-led

multifunctional economy in which rural cultural goods are

willingly included in the process of developing tourism

and education, housing properties, as well as in the protec-

tion of nature, culture and health.

Historical outline and state of research

The isolated farmsteads studied in this research are lo-

cated in the area of early modern colony settlement [7].

The nature of this settlement resulted from the division of

landed estates that occurred from the 2

half of the 18

century until World War II. The division of landed estates

was based on earlier changes and provided the background

for the manifestations of contemporary urbanisation. In

the Middle Ages, the entire Pomerania region was covered

with an extensive forest, from which wood for burning

charcoal was obtained. Forest clearance resulted in clear-

ings where post-smelter settlements of agricultural people

were established since the 17

century [8]. The metallur-

gical past of the area is legibly inscribed in the names of

numerous Kashubian villages, as in the case of Grabow-

ska Huta (Eng. smelter). Otherwise, it can be manifested

in a less legible form. According to Tadeusz Wilczew ski,

such is the case of Połęczyn, whose former names as Po-

łę cin, Pollentschin, Polyszyno, Polesino sounded more

forest-like [9]. Since the rst partition of Poland in 1772,

the Kashubian area belonged to Prussia. As early as the

century, regulations were in place in Prussia regard-

ing the layout and construction of buildings

, whose aim

was to reduce the risk of re and to protect forests. In

the 19

century, a great administrative reform was con-

ducted in the Kingdom of Prussia

. It strengthened state

institutions and the supervision of the state in all areas

of social life, including spatial planning and construction.

From the beginning of the 18

century, the freedom to build in

the countryside was systematically reduced in Prussia based on special

edicts. These documents prohibited such practices as covering roofs with

straw, reeds and shingles or ordering the construction of half-timbered

buildings. During the reign of Frederick II the Great, houses were built

according to ocial patterns. In Kashubia, the general national law for

the Royal Prussian states (Landrecht) was in force from 1794. It regulat-

ed such aspects as the principle of locating houses or bricking chimney

channels.

The reconstruction of the Prussian state, known as the Stein and

Hardenberg reforms (1807–1815), included such issues as the moderni-

sation of government administration, the city system and the abolition

of serfdom of peasants. The Stein-Hardenberg reforms transformed the

economic system of Prussia from feudal to a capitalist one and formed

the foundations of a strong rural economy.

The reform contributed to the development of the econo-

my and resulted in the regulation of village planning and

development, as well as led to the standardisation of con-

struction solutions. Many old square and street villages

were rebuilt. Church and royal estates were divided into

smaller parcels. In addition to granges and short linear

villages, single-manor settlements were also erected, as

it was assumed that locating the farm management and

service centre among the land elds is the most eective

farming method. The agricultural land of the granges was

divided into smaller parcels in an organised manner also

later when the economic or political situation was unfa-

vourable for them [10]–[12]. During World War II and

the so-called liberation crisis caused by the Soviet army,

1/3 of farms were destroyed, including numerous isolated

farmsteads [13].

Restrictions on forest clearance and strict re protec-

tion regulations

, together with the development of the

building materials industry, led to changes in the charac-

teristics of farmsteads and rural buildings. From the 18

century, four-sided farmsteads began to be replaced by ad-

ministratively prescribed three-building layouts that con-

sisted of a house, one pigsty and a barn. Brick and stone

walls began to replace wooden structures, while roof tiles

and roong tar paper were used instead of straw, reed or

heather thatch or roong with wooden rails or shingles.

Two types of houses from the turn of the 19

and 20

cen-

turies exist in Kashubia, i.e., a single-story house having

a steep roof with an inclination of about 45 degrees and

a two-story house with the so-called semi-at, gable roof

with a slope of approximately 22 degrees

(Fig. 2). The

wide plan of both types of houses can be seen as a con-

tinuation of features developed by the end of the 18

cen-

tury with the participation of native traditions, Prussian

building standards and urban inuences. The houses were

built with a wooden frame construction and were erected

of brick. Over time, the rst type of house, having plan

dimensions of 6–9 m × 10–13 m, was given an extension

in the roof above the main entrance in the front wall. The

two-story brick house with a semi-at roof, having a plan

with dimensions of at least 9 m × 13 m, whose shape is

foreign to the native tradition, was most likely popular-

ised by Prussian ocials who used building templates.

This type of house had two characteristic elements, name-

ly the so-called erkel being a type of dormer window in

the roof, and a decorative cornice between the oors [14].

Multi-story houses of this type were only built until the

1930s [15]. The size of the house and the entire farmstead

depended on the farmer’s wealth. There existed small

farmsteads of cottagers, the landless or poor peasants, as

The organisation of re protection in the Prussian partition was

regulated by the Police Administration Act of 1850 and the General Ad-

ministration Act of 1883.

Knyba (1987) calls this type of roof “at”. The term “semi-at”,

which better reects the form of a gable roof with a slight slope, was

used in a study conducted in the 1980s by the Rural Planning and Archi-

tecture team led by Andrzej Baranowski at The Faculty of Architecture,

Gdańsk University of Technology [14]. It was popularised in scientic

and popular science publications by the authors of the study.

The role of isolated farmsteads in the open landscape protection on the example of Kashubia 51

well as large farmer farmsteads. Even though the Prussian

administration standardised the number and functions of

buildings on the farm, as well as their construction, a lot

of freedom was enjoyed in Kashubia in this matter. Some-

times, farmsteads had multiple buildings, while farm

buildings were still built of wood at the turn of the 19

and 20

centuries. Barns were built in a half-timbered

structure, but only the most recent ones have survived to

this day. These barns have a pole structure boarded with

wooden material.

Description of the study

The study is aimed at assessing the preservation of the

architectural features of isolated farmstead buildings dat-

ing back to the turn of the 19

and 20

centuries, as these

buildings were determined to constitute an important

structural element of the traditional agricultural landscape

from the point of view of the sustainable development

of the countryside. Thus, eld studies were conducted in

which the results of a comparative analysis of archival

maps from 1937 and contemporary maps from 2020 were

used. The cartographic study made it possible to recog-

nise the location of old farmsteads, compare the historical

and contemporary building layout in them and distinguish

buildings that likely date back to before 1937 and later.

Based on the model features of farmstead structures

known from the available literature and described above,

an expert verication of the cartographic analysis results

was conducted as a eld study. Owing to the adopted re-

view-like nature of the present study, a decision was made

to conduct a non-systematic observation along the select-

ed scenic routes. The preservation condition of the tradi-

tional farmstead buildings is described in the study with

the use of the following features of the building layout

and forms:

– farmstead exposure,

– spatial layout of the farmstead,

– bodies of buildings,

– building façades.

The change in the exposure of the farmstead in the

landscape was determined by analysing the modications

of the neighbourhood that resulted from the appearance of

new single-family buildings. The lack of such transforma-

tions came to be known as maintaining the integrity of the

homestead layout and its context. An assessment of the

preservation condition of the farmstead layout was made

by comparing the current and historical (dating from

1937) internal outline of the farmyard and the external

outline of the entire complex. The unchanged outline of

the farmyard came to be known as maintaining coherence,

while the outline of the farm being the same as the one of

1937, came to be known as maintaining compactness of

the farmstead layout. Due to the specicity of the pilot

study, a more detailed analysis of the type of transforma-

tions to the body and/or wall material was excluded from

the discussion. Additionally, the condition of the buildings

was recorded. They were assigned the characteristics as

follows: used, degraded or ruined. In the case of buildings

covered with a steep roof, the type of roong constitutes

an important feature of the landscape pattern. However,

in the analysed period, the original roong materials were

completely replaced. Therefore, this factor was excluded

from the study. The fact that the buildings were entered

into the municipal register of monuments (gminna ewi-

dencja zabytków – GEZ) was signalled, as it can be consi-

dered a manifestation of social knowledge of the cultural

value of such architectural objects.

Results

The study was conducted in seven locations. These in-

cluded Roztoka and Czarna Huta, Częstocin (Przywidz

commune), Piotrowo and Połęczyno (Somonino commune)

and Grabowska Huta and Jasiowa Huta (Nowa Karczma

commune), in the period from July to September 2022.

Fig. 2. Two types of farmstead houses in Kashubia:

a) a building with a high roof, b) a building with a semi-flat roof (photo by A. Górka)

Il. 2. Dwa typy domów zagrodowych na Kaszubach:

a) budynek z dachem wysokim, b) budynek z dachem półpłaskim (fot. A. Górka)

a b

52 Anna Górka

Fig. 3. Scenic routs with farmsteads. Solid lines mark local roads, dashed lines – field roads, homesteads are marked with numbers

(drawn by A. Górka)

Il. 3. Trasy widokowe i zagrody. Liniami ciągłymi oznaczono drogi lokalne, liniami przerywanymi – drogi polne, zagrody oznaczono numerami

(rys. A. Górka)

Fig. 4. An example of a farmsted inventory card (elaborated by A. Górka)

Il. 4. Przykładowa karta inwentaryzacyjna zagrody (oprac. A. Górka)

No 18: Grabowska Huta 38, 83-403 No 18, No 19

No 19: Grabowska Huta 39, 83-403

before 1937 r., after 1937 r.

M – a modified building body or facade; U-used; D -

degrading; R- in ruins

No 18

livestock U

barn U

storage MU 2U

house

house MU

livestock

barn

storageU

livestock

No 19

map from 1937 with

building data from 2020

ortophotomap and building data from 2020

The role of isolated farmsteads in the open landscape protection on the example of Kashubia 53

Along the scenic routes, 26 historic farmsteads were

identied (Fig. 3). Each of them was described on an inven-

tory card, in accordance with the model shown in

Figure 4.

Based on cartographic research and expert analysis of ar-

chitectural features, buildings dating back to before 1937

and ones that were erected later were identied. They were

documented in photos, their condition was described while

modications to traditional features were noted.

A detailed description of the location of all farmsteads

and a comparative summary of changes in their layout in

the years 1937–2020 are provided in Table 1.

In the 26 examined farmsteads from 1937, 22 tradition-

al houses, 16 livestock buildings and 9 barns remained.

In total, by 1937, 49 out of 75 farmstead buildings were

demolished. In the analysed period between 1937–2020,

6 new houses and 30 farmstead buildings were erected,

No Location

Buildings in historic farmsteads

erected after 1937 dating back to before 1937

buildings in 1937

house

outbuilding

house

livestock

building

barn

1 Południowa 17, 83-047 Roztoka 1 2 1D – – 3

2 Południowa 19, 83-047 Roztoka 1 1 1 1 3

3 Południowa 18, 83-047 Roztoka 1 1 1 1 3

4 Błękitna 3, 83-047 Czarna Huta 1 1 – 1D 3

5 Szara 4, 83-047 Czarna Huta 1 1

GEZ

1D 3

6 Piotrowo 7, 83-315 Piotrowo 1 1 – 2

7 Piotrowo 8, 83-315 Piotrowo 1 1 1 1 3

8 Piotrowo 10, 83-315 Piotrowo 1 1 1 – 3

9 Piotrowo 11, 83-315 Piotrowo 1 1 – 3

10 Letnia 10, 83-047 Częstocin 2 1 1 – 3

11 Południowa 11, 83-047 Roztoka 1 2 – – 1D 2

12 Południowa 12, 83-047 Roztoka 1 1 – – 4

13 Akacjowa 10, 83-047 Częstocin 4 1 – 3

54°12’02.5”N 18°12’40.1”E 54.200704, 18.211150

Połęczyno

3 1 1 – 4

54°11’59.0”N 18°12’27.9”E 54.199732, 18.207735

Połęczyno

1 in construction

– 1D – 4

16 Połęczyno 59, 83-312 1 2 – 1 3

17 Połęczyno 9, 83-312 1 – – 3

18 Grabowska Huta 38, 83-403 Grabowska Huta

GEZ

– – 1

19 Grabowska Huta 39, 83-403 Grabowska Huta 1 – 2 1 3

20 Grabowska Huta 2, 83-403 Grabowska Huta

GEZ

1 – 3

21 Przywidzka 9, 83-403 Grabowo Kościerskie 2 1 – 2

22 Jasiowa Huta 8, 83-403 Jasiowa Huta 1 1 – – 3

23 Jasiowa Huta 12, 83-403 Jasiowa Huta 2 1 – 1D 2

24 Jasiowa Huta 11, 83-403 Jasiowa Huta 2 1 – – 3

25 Jasiowa Huta 4, 83-403 Jasiowa Huta 1 1 1 3

54°09’52.2”N 18°11’45.5”E 54.164508, 18.195968

Nowa Karczma, Grabowo Kościerskie

1 1 – 3

Total 6 30 22 16 9 75

Table 1. Buildings preserved from 1937 and built after 1937 (elaborated by A. Górka)

Tabela 1. Budynki zachowane z 1937 r. i wybudowane po 1937 r. (oprac. A. Górka)

D – building in poor technical condition, R – building in ruins, buildings in use – unmarked,

GEZ – building entered into the municipal register of monuments

54 Anna Górka

which constitutes a 75% reconstruction of the building

asset. This indicates stagnation rather than an increase in

production and housing needs. No new barn was erected.

The results of the study show a greater durability of houses,

as compared to farmstead buildings (livestock buildings

and barns). This fact may result from the more solid con-

struction of residential buildings or may indicate the nec-

essary adaptation of auxiliary farmstead buildings to the

changing requirements of agricultural production (this

claim seems to be conrmed by the disappearance of barns).

Presumably, some of the newly erected farmstead build-

ings were built on the site of the previously demolished

buildings; perhaps along the traces of the former barns

that were no longer considered useful. Additionally, the

research identied only one complex in which likely all of

the old buildings were preserved in good condition (home-

stead No. 25). The limited certainty in this case results

from the fact that although the architectural features of the

house, the barn and the cowshed (shape, details of the wall

façade), as well as the shape of the homestead itself clear-

ly indicate its historical origin, the location of the house

diers from the location indicated by the archive map.

Despite the new buildings erected since 1937, the ma-

jority of the farmsteads retained integrity (no division of

the farmyard occurred) (Table 2). This fact may suggest

the durability and contemporary usefulness of the tradi-

Fig. 5. New building

closing the scenic corridor

(photo by A. Górka)

Il. 5. Nowy budynek

zamykający korytarz widokowy

(fot. A. Górka)

tional method of using the farmyard as a communication

zone within the farm. Changes in compactness, namely the

appearance of new buildings located outside the former

outline of the farmstead, concern 12 building complexes.

The construction of new auxiliary buildings results from

the increased demand for warehouse, storage or garage

space. New buildings having a non-agricultural function

are visible in the neighbourhood of 13 farmsteads (the

lack of integrity of the farmstead and its context).

An active building development process was observed

in the touristically attractive surroundings of the Czarna

Huta hamlet and in the area of Połęczyn. In the Czarna

Huta area, the emergence of new single-family buildings

has led to a disturbance in the picturesque view corridor

marked by slopes of greenery-covered hills interspersed by

farmsteads and trees (Fig. 5). The new buildings around

Połęczyn led to the creation of a chaotic panorama strongly

exposed from the south (Fig. 6). The integrity of the con-

text of settlements located further away from local roads

remains unaected (for instance farmsteads 10, 11, 12, 25).

The number of buildings in historic farmsteads not

always resulted from the wealth of the farm, which is

usually assumed for simplication based on model farm

projects developed for the reconstruction of villages in

independent Poland [16]. In the studied area, both small

multi-building farmsteads and two-building layouts of

Farmstead

number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Integrity with the

neighbourhood

° ° °

• •

° °

• • • •

° ° ° ° ° °

• • • • •

° °

• •

Compactness

of the layout

•

• • •

° °

•

° °

•

° ° °

• • •

° °

• •

Coherence

of the layout

• • • •

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • •

Table 2. Alterations in farmstead structure features (elaborated by A. Górka)

Tabela 2. Zmiany cech układów zagród (oprac. A. Górka)

•

maintained;

unmaintained

The role of isolated farmsteads in the open landscape protection on the example of Kashubia 55

Fig. 6. Panorama of Połęczyn (photo by A. Górka)

Il. 6. Panorama Połęczyna (fot. A. Górka)

•

maintained;

unmaintained; 2 – two traditional farm buildings on the farm

Table 3. Alterations in the characteristics of traditional farm buildings (elaborated by A. Górka)

Tabela 3. Zmiany cech tradycyjnych budynków zagrodowych (oprac. A. Górka)

House

Farmstead

number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Building body

• • • • • • • • •

• •

Façade

° ° ° ° ° °

•

° ° ° ° ° °

• •

° ° °

• •

Livestock building

Building body

• • • • •

° °

• • • • • •

Façade

° ° ° °

• • •

° ° °

•

• •

Barn

Building body

• • • • • • • • •

Façade

• • • •

wealthy farms remained. More modest farmsteads - away

from local roads (for instance farmsteads 2 and 3) – may

have emerged as a result of parcellation conducted by

Polish credit associations societies before World War I or

may have originated later. The few but distinctive farm-

steads with brick multi-story buildings located by local

roads (such as farm 21) probably emerged owing to the

colonisation campaign conducted by the Prussian state

and belonged to German settlers [17]. During the recon-

struction of the village after World War I, non-amma-

ble, cheaper and implementable concrete structures were

being popularised [18]. Hence, probably at least some of

the plastered farm buildings that date back to before 1937

were built of concrete blocks rather than brick.

Of the 22 former country houses, 21 are still being used

(including 18 of them in use year-round and 3 used for hol-

idays), whereas one has been abandoned. The vast majority

(20) retained a recognisable, traditional form with a high

or semi-at roof (Table 3). 8-storey brick houses with

a semi-at roof survived, 4 of which having preserved brick

façades (in farmsteads 4, 7, 8, 9). The remaining buildings

are single-story buildings with high roofs, including one

having a visible mixed structure (farmstead 20 entered into

the GEZ), and two buildings having brick façades (farm-

steads 25 and 26). The second house listed in the GEZ (in

farmstead 18), probably having a wooden frame structure,

was negligently covered with Styrofoam (Fig. 2). In other

houses with high roofs, the structure is hidden under old

plaster or a plastered layer of insulation. In some of them,

their shape was rebuilt (annexes, superstructures), but with

no changes to the scale, which moderately aects the visual

perception, unlike colourful plasters and roofs visible from

a distance. Based on the pilot study, it can be concluded

that brick houses with semi-at roofs tend to be more re-

sistant to changes, probably due to their more solid struc-

ture. Additionally, as the most recently erected buildings,

they meet modern utility requirements more eectively.

Of the 9 preserved wooden barns, 5 survived in decent

condition. The remaining former farm buildings include

11 buildings with plastered walls, 4 brick buildings, 3 of

which have stone foundations, and one with stone ground

oor walls and a wooden gable. The only livestock building

listed in the GEZ was demolished. Newer farm and residen-

tial buildings generally retain the scale of traditional build-

ing development. A rather negative impact on the aesthetic

impression is exerted by the contrast between excessively

56 Anna Górka

dierent structures of old farms and single-family build-

ings, as well as the generally low culture of using the farm-

stead space and maintaining the buildings themselves.

Few buildings with well-preserved traditional features

and aesthetic values were found (buildings in farmsteads

number 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26). In the study area, an active

disappearance process of the architectural features in

terms of traditional rural buildings as a result of thermal

modernisation was noted.

Discussion

For centuries, the farmstead provided the centre of work

on the family farm. Currently, in the study area, the farm-

stead either serves various functions or its buildings are fall-

ing into ruin. The family farm is considered the most eco-

nomically, environmentally and socially sustainable form

agricultural production, as its operation is based on con-

tinuance [19]. The exibility of operation of family farms

and their protectiveness of the environment and landscape

support food security and ensure the viability of culture,

the rural economy and the natural environment. As the

international community appreciates the importance of

landscapes created by family farms, action is taken to pre-

serve them [20]. Furthermore, in various places around the

world, eorts are being made to maintain old farmstead

building development, which may no longer always be

a place of agricultural production, but still denes a space

where people remain in close connection with their terri-

tory, namely with the cultural landscape, including agri-

cultural one, with the natural surroundings, as well as the

broader social environment [21]. It is believed that pre-

serving agricultural dwellings provides the landscape with

visual attractiveness. Further use of their development

and protection of their ecological, production-related and

landscape context supports biodiversity, reduces the car-

bon footprint, contributes to the richness and continuity

of material culture and can serve as a source of social and

economic innovativeness. The European Union’s (EU)

long-term vision for rural areas until 2040 [22] draws

at tention to the need to protect the soil surface and land

quality, both of which are fundamental to the protection

of life. The EU’s mission on soil quality [23] is aimed at

forming connections between rural and urban communi-

ties and land managers. Therefore, the method by which

the development of isolated settlements is managed exerts

a multidimensional impact on the resilience of large ar-

eas. This explains the need to harmonise their relationship

with the production landscape and to formulate recom-

mendations for the future management of agricultural and

rural space with regard to new challenges [24].

The results of the undertaken studies are contributive to

completing a vivid portrait of the Kashubian village. Traces

of contemporary transformation are superimposed onto ear-

lier layers, thus the boundary between them is blurred. The

rst major transformation of villages in Gdańsk Pome rania

occurred in the post-enfranchisement period.

World War II

is considered to have put an end to the development of

construction with regional characteristics [25]. The chang-

es that followed after 1989 indicate the decline of agri-

cultural settlements. The construction boom of the 1950s

aected compact rural settlements and the areas in their

immediate vicinity. On the other hand, the development

of residential buildings after 1989 mainly aects agricul-

tural areas unrelated to the original village dwelling. The

current parcellation of agricultural land is usually run by

small, unprotable family farms. This process is common

and rather disorderly. The random location of new hous-

ing estates and houses causes the built-up and agricultur-

al areas to mix, hence the harmonious panoramas of the

village are degraded. The atrophy of agricultural villages

and their landscapes occurs jointly with the nostalgic cre-

ation of rurality as a result of developing rural tourism.

Moreover, the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic

have given a new outlook on the social value of a healthy

lifestyle associated with the countryside. Therefore, an in-

crease in the importance of rural scenery in making busi-

ness and investment decisions can be expected, as is the

case in other EU countries [26].

The eld research results have conrmed that the expo-

sure of the traditional form of a farmstead in an open land-

scape is in danger. The threats include the abandonment

and devastation of old farms, the disappearance of his-

toric architectural features resulting from modernisation

and the loss of the landscape context due to the develop-

ment of residential buildings. However, numerous attrac-

tive landscapes where the form of the farmstead is clear

have survived. In these cases, the traditional farmstead

still serves as an element that structures and enriches the

view. Therefore, the protection of preserved farmsteads as

distinguishing features of the agricultural landscape may

provide a tool with which to eectively support the shap-

ing of spatial order in large areas. The protection of view,

by preventing excessive dispersion of buildings and infra-

structure, will also avert the reduction of the production

value of agricultural land. Additionally, it will counteract

the reduction of biodiversity and retention, and the de-

cline in the tourist attractiveness of landscapes due to their

loss of the natural environment values. The conclusions

from the universal landscape audit, conducted in Poland

for the rst time in 2019–2022, have pointed out the need

to broaden knowledge of landscape physiognomy so that

the principles of its protection can be optimised. However,

deeper systemic changes are required for the reconstruc-

tion of spatial order based on the protection of the visual

landscape. These changes include the integration of spatial

planning of municipalities (local plans) with the principles

for the shaping of agricultural production space (agricul-

tural management plan)

and the mandatory inclusion of

the results of landscape studies into spatial policy. The

system of integrated rural development planning, in force

in Bavaria [27], can be a model to follow. Integrated man-

agement of rural space oers the possibility to regulate

the boundaries of agricultural land and non-agricultural

According to the Polish Standard of 1997, agricultural facili-

ties are a set of planned measures (technical and organisational); they

take into account natural, economic, legal and social conditions and are

aimed at adapting the spatial structure of a given area to the needs of

a rational organisation of agricultural production space.

The role of isolated farmsteads in the open landscape protection on the example of Kashubia 57

development areas so as to preserve the strategic produc-

tion value of the agricultural land, as well as the natural,

cultural and aesthetic resources of the landscape.

As a territorial unit, the isolated farmstead is now los-

ing its traditional architectural and landscape expression.

Being a trace of the former connection between the coun-

tryside and agriculture, it should be considered an endan-

gered cultural asset that requires protection; it should be

seen as vital for preserving the richness of experience.

However, public attention is hardly focused on other el-

ements than the traditional country house. Imitating the

architectural features of such a house becomes a substitute

for landscape protection. Architectural competitions for

regional houses were organised in the past, but they gener-

ally ignored the local conditions of the project. Local de-

velopment plans, landscape park protection plans and pro-

tected landscape area plans are at risk of having selective

architectural parameters. In this way, actions to protect the

rural landscape are feigned, while the actual obstacles to

spatial order remain unchanged. Moreover, problems re-

sult from the popular method of external thermal moderni-

sation, as such interference deprives traditional buildings

of their distinctive features. In other EU countries, the ear-

lier manifestation of this phenomenon prompted the reac-

tion of promoting an integrated approach to the renovation

process, with an account of technical and cultural aspects

[28]. The identication and assessment of the resources of

traditional farmstead development provide a condition on

which increasing their adaptability and participation in the

development of the sustainable development economy is

possible. Such identication and assessment may lead to

the formulation of rules for modernisation and use of old

building development for new functions or to the estab-

lishment of mechanisms by which to recirculate building

materials in the event of demolition.

Eective protection of the farmstead as an integral part

of the agricultural landscape is only possible in a situation

in which the local community appreciates it and wants

to maintain its attributes, recognising and taking advan-

tage of the opportunities such farmsteads provide. So

far, even the strong sense of cultural identity and attach-

ment to place, which is characteristic of the inhabitants of

Kashubia, has not translated into the reproduction of the

landscape value. Improvement of the quality of experienc-

es is among the goals of sustainable development. Thus,

public awareness of the importance of aesthetic values

must be strengthened. Social awareness depends on col-

lective knowledge. The digitisation era, the development

of media and the accelerated ow of information create

particularly favourable conditions for the increase in so-

cial awareness. The spread of digital technology, includ-

ing mobile applications, facilitates the sharing and co-cre-

ation of spatial data. It makes it possible to launch and

integrate databases with information concerning territori-

al resources. Additionally, the operation of thematic rural

platforms that ensure the ow of information and commu-

nication is enabled. Furthermore, volunteer research and

citizen science may serve as ways to simultaneously raise

awareness and collective knowledge [29]. The increase in

the activity of residents in these elds, as well as the use

of digital tools, would be extremely useful, in such cases

as creating a record of local architectural forms. Attach-

ment to the values of the local landscape should be devel-

oped by means of direct experience, school education and

training activities with adults in their place of residence.

Over time the regional knowledge acquired in this manner

will trigger commitment and innovation in the protection

of landscape resources.

Conclusions

The study was aimed at conducting a preliminary as-

sessment of the cultural potential enjoyed by traditional

single-manor settlement development in the protection of

the open landscape, as well as in the process of restoring

spatial order in rural areas. The main assumption behind the

study was that the protection of the visual landscape value,

which brings together the interests of various spheres and

stakeholders, plays a fundamental role in sustainable devel-

opment conducted by the local community.

A eld pilot study, based on the results of comparative

cartographic analysis, was conducted along the selected

scenic routes in the dispersed rural settlement area of Cen-

tral Kashubia that emerged at the turn of the 19

and 20

centuries. Architectural features of buildings that aect

the quality of aesthetic experience within the landscape

were examined in the study. Changes in the exposure and

spatial layout of 26 farmsteads were determined, together

with alterations in the shape and materials of the façades

on the walls of the farmstead buildings, as compared with

their historical pattern. A threat of degradation of all the

examined development features and a chance to preserve

their landscape values in selected areas were determined

in the course of the study. The need to take remedial mea-

sures at several levels was indicated. The following were

indicated:

– creating an integrated approach to managing the cul-

tural heritage of agricultural landscapes, with an account

of its participation in the circular economy,

– raising awareness and providing education on the

importance of landscape heritage for human well-being,

as well as of the need for environmental quality in order

to involve the local community in the process of change

management and spatial planning.

The above discussion supports the thesis that a valued

scenic motif governs changes in the entire landscape frame.

In the study, hope is expressed that social appreciation of

a traditional farmstead image will prompt its contempo-

rary users to protect and guard the agricultural landscape

heritage. The protection of agricultural landscape heritage

may support the spatial policy of agricultural communes

that currently identify the expansion of the areas designat-

ed for residential development as their only opportunity.

Subsequent research should cover a specic area and dis-

cuss further features of the open landscape, thus leading to

the formulation of more detailed recommendations regard-

ing the protection strategy of rural landscapes.

Translated by

Emilia Mełgieś

58 Anna Górka

Abstract

The role of isolated farmsteads in the open landscape protection

on the example of Kashubia

As a result of the social and economic transformation of rural areas, open landscapes are disappearing. Former farmsteads are being devastated

or beginning to lose their landscape context due to the spread of residential building development. At the same time, in many places, the farmstead

form is clearly legible and remains an element with which the view is structured and enriched. The article was aimed at drawing attention to the

multidimensional importance of isolated farmsteads and the need to recognise their surviving resources. Being distinguishing features with which the

attractiveness of an open landscape can be determined, they inspire the development of a multifunctional rural economy led by the local community.

Isolated farmsteads can respond to the city’s problems and function in many non-agricultural areas, including education, tourism and recreation,

nature protection and health protection. Protection of the building development of former farmsteads may provide a tool to eectively support the

shaping of spatial order in large areas.

The article presents a method for describing the preservation condition of single-manor buildings developed at the turn of the 19

and 20

cen-

turies. It is proposed that the study analyses the architectural features of farmsteads that play an important part in the recognition of such building

[1] Knyba J., Budownictwo ludowe na Kaszubach, Wydawnictwo Mor -

skie, Gdańsk 1987.

[2] Studia nad chaosem przestrzennym. Koszty chaosu przestrzennego,

“Studia KPZK” 2018, Vol. 182(2).

[3] Cienciała A., Sobura S., Sobolewska-Mikulska K., Optimising Land

Consolidation by Implementing UAV Technology, “Sustainability”

2022, 14(8), 4412, doi: 10.3390/su14084412.

[4] Wilkaniec A., Stan zachowania i trwałość historycznych układów

przestrzennych dawnych wsi i majątków w strukturze Poznania,

Wydawnictwo UP, Poznań 2018.

[5] Sadkowski T., Szarejko K., Chata za miastem: na Kaszubach i Ko-

ciewiu, Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie, Gdańsk 1978.

[6] Niedźwiecka-Filipiak I., Wyróżniki krajobrazu i architektury wsi

Polski południowo-zachodniej, Wydawnictwo UP, Wrocław 2009.

[7] Kistowski M., Lipińska B., Korwel-Lejkowska B., Studium ochro-

ny krajobrazu województwa pomorskiego, Gdańsk 2005 [manu-

script in: Pomorskie Biuro Planowania Regionalnego].

[8] Kiełczeska-Zalewska M., O powstaniu i przeobrażaniu wsi Pomo-

rza Gdańskiego, PWN, Warszawa 1956.

[9] Wilczewski T., Nazwy miejscowości na Kaszubach, Wydawnictwo

Galan, Gdańsk 2015, https://pbc.gda.pl/Content/50166/Wilczew-

ski_5.pdf [accessed: 5.03.2022].

[10]

Prarat M., Architektura wiejska w granicach Prus Zachodnich jako

przedmiot zainteresowań naukowych i konserwatorskich do lat 40.

XX w., “Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Zabytkoznawstwo

i Kon ser wa

torstwo” 2014, Vol. 45, 185–222, doi: 10.12775/AUNC_

ZiK.2014.008.

[11] Łukasiewicz D., Życie codzienne w Królestwie Prus w latach 1701–

1933, Instytut Historii PAN, Warszawa 2020.

[12] Chwalba A., Harpula W., Cham i Pan. A nam, prostym, zewsząd

nędza?, Wydawnictwo Literackie, Kraków 2022.

[13]

Hinc M., Przemiany społeczno-ekonomiczne w rolnictwie i na wsi

kaszubskiej w latach 1945–1956 (zarys problematyki), “Acta Cassu -

biana” 2017, Vol. 19, 287–330.

[14] Baranowski A., Baranowska K., Lipińska B., Medowski T., Szarej-

ko K. et al., Pierwiastki tradycji we współczesnej architekturze wsi

w wybranym regionie Kaszub, charter number 870157, Resortowy

Program Badawczo Rozwojowy – 18.16.05.06, Gdańsk 1987 [ma-

nuscript in: Gdańsk University of Technology, Faculty of Architec-

ture, Department of Environmental Design].

[15] Szarejko M., Górka A., Ocena przekształceń piętrowego, cegla-

nego domu z dachem półpłaskim z przełomu XIX–XX wieku pod

wpływem termomodernizacji na przykładzie gminy Puck, woj. po-

morskie, “Wiadomości Konserwatorskie” 2023, nr 73, 102–116,

doi: 10.48234/WK73PUCK.

[16] Odbudowa polskiej wsi: projekty chat i zagród włościańskich,

W. Ekielski (red.), Obywatelski Komitet Odbudowy Wsi i Miast,

Kraków 1915, https://bcpw.bg.pw.edu.pl/dlibra/publication/513/

edition/731?language=pl [accessed: 4.06.2022].

[17] Pawłowski S., Osiedla wiejskie na Pomorzu pod względem geo-

graczno-osadniczym i narodowościowym, Wydawnictwa Insty-

tutu Bałtyckiego, Toruń 1935, https://bibliotekacyfrowa.eu/Con-

tent/8667/outimg-0001.pdf [accessed: 5.03.2022].

[18] Choiński M., Szewczyk J., Ozdobne pustaki betonowe na północno-

wschodnim Mazowszu, “Architecturae et Artibus” 2017, nr 3, 24–38.

[19] Rolnictwo rodzinne, “Przegląd Obszarów Wiejskich UE” 2013,

nr 17, https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/les/PublicationENR-

Dperiodical-17_pl.pdf [accessed: 10.02.2022].

[20]

ICOMOS-IFLA, Principles Concerning Rural Landscapes as Heri-

tage, GA 2017 6-3-1, New Delhi 2017, https://www.icomos.org/imag-

es/DOCUMENTS/Charters/GA2017_6-3-1_RuralLandscapesPrin-

ciples_EN_adopted-15122017.pdf [accessed: 20.01.2022].

[21] Mitchell N.J., Barrett B., Exploring Agricultural Heritage Land-

scapes: A Journey Across Terra Incognita, “The George Wright

Forum” 2017, Vol. 34, No. 2, 180–194, http://www.jstor.org/sta-

ble/26342388 [accessed: 14.09.2023].

[22] European Commission, Long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas,

30.06.2021, Brussels, [press release], https://ec.europa.eu/commis-

sion/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_3162 [accessed: 10.01.2022].

[23] European Commission, Soil Strategy for 2030. Reaping the benets

of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate, 17.11.2021,

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX-

%3A52021DC0699 [accessed: 10.01.2022].

[24] Morse C.E., Strong A.M., Mendez V.E., Lovel S.T., Troye A.R.,

Performing a New England Landscape: viewing, engaging and be-

longing, “Journal of Rural Studies” 2014, Vol. 36, 226–236, doi:

10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.09.002.

[25] Magdziak M., Od chłopskiej chałupy do domu współczesnego rol-

nika, Wydawnictwo PŁ, Łódź 2020.

[26]

Hassink J., Agricola H., Veen E.J. et al., The Care Farming Sector in

The Netherlands: A Reection on Its Developments and Promis ing Inno-

vations, “Sustainability” 2020, 12(9), 3811, doi: 10.3390/su12093811.

[27] Anduła M., Baster P., Faschingbauer B. et al., Koncepcja postę-

powania dla zintegrowanego rozwoju obszarów wiejskich włącz-

nie z propozycjami dla prowadzenia przyszłych postępowań. Pro-

jekt “Zintegrowane programowanie rozwoju obszarów wiejskich

w Polsce w oparciu o wzorce Bawarii”. Opracowano na podstawie

prac przeprowadzonych w Województwie Małopolskim, w sołec-

twie Strzelce Wielkie (gmina Szczurowa, powiat brzeski), Urząd

Marszałkowski Województwa Małopolskiego, Kraków 2015.

[28] European Parliament and Council of Europe, Directive (EU)

2018/844 of the of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2010/31/EU

on the energy performance of buildings and Directive 2012/27/

EU on energy eciency, Ocial Journal of the European Union

2018, L 156/75, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/

?uri=CELEX%3A32018L0844 [accessed: 10.01.2022].

[29] Duklewska K., Chmielewski S., Gawryluk, A., Woźniak-Kostec-

ka I., Nauka obywatelska jako metoda budowania społecznej świa-

domości ekologicznej, [in:] M. Babicz, B. Nowakowicz-Dębek,

K. Kropiwiec-Domańska (red.), Wybrane zagadnienia z zakresu

ochrony i zagrożeń środowiska, t. 2, Wydawnictwo UP, Lublin

2022, 51–62, doi: 10.24326/mon.2022.10.

References

The role of isolated farmsteads in the open landscape protection on the example of Kashubia 59

development in the open landscape. Observation areas were selected based on the results of remote identication of the location of historic farmsteads

and buildings.

The eld study was conducted in the central part of Kashubia, along selected scenic routes. These routes comprised 26 solitary homesteads. In half

of the cases studied, the exposure of the farmstead buildings deteriorated due to the proximity of modern residential building development. The spa-

tial layout of the majority of farmsteads has changed, which most commonly resulted from expansion beyond the former outline of the farmyard.

Numerous historic buildings have been rebuilt. Despite the above-mentioned modications, in the study area, the farmstead has remained a distinctive

feature of the landscape and retained the potential for transformation to be used in the sustainable development economy. The results encourage the

study to be continued. The identied resources and architectural values of the traditional farmstead could support the management and protection of

the heritage of agricultural landscapes.

Key words: farmsteads, open landscape, heritage protection, sustainable rural development, Kashubia

Streszczenie

Rola zagród samotniczych w ochronie krajobrazu otwartego na przykładzie Kaszub

Na skutek społecznej i gospodarczej transformacji obszarów wiejskich zanikają krajobrazy otwarte. Stare rolnicze siedliska ulegają dewastacji

lub tracą kontekst krajobrazowy w związku z rozprzestrzenianiem się zabudowy rezydencjonalnej. Zarazem w wielu miejscach forma zagrody jest

czytelna i pozostaje elementem strukturalizującym i wzbogacającym widok. Celem artykułu było zwrócenie uwagi na wielowymiarowe znaczenie

samotniczych zagród i konieczność rozpoznania ich ocalałych zasobów. Jako wyróżniki decydujące o atrakcyjności krajobrazu otwartego inspirują

one rozwój wielofunkcyjnej gospodarki wiejskiej kierowanej przez społeczność lokalną. Mogą odpowiadać na problemy miasta i funkcjonować

w wielu pozarolniczych dziedzinach: w edukacji, turystyce i rekreacji, w ochronie przyrody i zdrowia. Ochrona zabudowy dawnych gospodarstw

może stanowić narzędzie skutecznie wspomagające kształtowanie ładu przestrzennego na rozległych obszarach.

W artykule przedstawiono metodę opisu stanu zachowania zabudowy jednodworczej ukształtowanej na przełomie XIX i XX w. Zaproponowano

analizowanie cech architektonicznych zagród o istotnym znaczeniu dla ich rozpoznawalności w krajobrazie otwartym. Obszary obserwacji wytypo-

wano, opierając się na wynikach zdalnej identykacji położenia historycznych zagród i budynków.

Badanie terenowe przeprowadzono w środkowej części Kaszub, wzdłuż wybranych tras widokowych. Objęto nimi 26 samotniczych zagród.

W przypadku połowy z nich odnotowano pogorszenie ekspozycji na skutek sąsiedztwa współczesnej zabudowy mieszkaniowej. Układ przestrzenny

większości zagród uległ zmianie najczęściej na skutek rozbudowy poza dawnym narysem podwórza. Wiele historycznych budynków przebudowa-

no. Mimo wymienionych modykacji zagroda na obszarze badania pozostała wyróżnikiem krajobrazu oraz zachowała potencjał transformacji do

wykorzystania w gospodarce zrównoważonego rozwoju. Wyniki zachęcają do kontynuowania badań. Rozpoznane zasoby i walory architektoniczne

tradycyjnej zagrody mogłyby wspierać zarządzanie dziedzictwem krajobrazów rolniczych i ich ochronę.

Słowa kluczowe: zagrody, krajobraz otwarty, ochrona dziedzictwa, zrównoważony rozwój wsi, Kaszuby