Full Citation- 2005- IAPLE
-
Upload
annunaki417 -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Full Citation- 2005- IAPLE
8/3/2019 Full Citation- 2005- IAPLE
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/full-citation-2005-iaple 1/5
Full Citation:
Nassauer, J. I. 2005. Using Cultural Knowledge to Make New Landscape Patterns. In Issues in Landscape
Ecology. J. A. Wiens and M. R. Moss, eds. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge UK. Pp. 274‐280.
Revised from Culture as a Means of Experimentation and Action. In Issues in Landscape Ecology J. A.
Wiens and M. R. Moss, eds. International Association for Landscape Ecology.
8/3/2019 Full Citation- 2005- IAPLE
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/full-citation-2005-iaple 2/5
274
JOAN IVERSON NASSAUER
27
Using cultural knowledge to make new
landscape patterns
Human interactions with ecological systems are typically described as
impacts. Thinking of culture not only as the source of impacts but also as
the source of clues to what motivates human behavior may help us integrate
hum an effects into landscape ecological research and action. We can simulate
and model the landscape ecological effects not only of current trends but also
of distinctly different futures. Motivations may be difficult to change, but the
particular behaviors that disturb, pollute, and consume landscapes may bemalleable to the extent that human needs, including cultural preferences anddesires, continue to be met (Bailly et ai., 2000).
For example, two very different land-use behaviors, sprawl and urban
habitat restoration, may be motivated by similar needs. Both sprawl, the
large-lot development pattern that has spread from metropolitan farmland
to scenic rangeland and wildlands, and habitat restoration of abandoned
urban industrial sites may fulfill the desire to live close to nature (Strong,
1965; Grove and Cresswell, 1983; Nelessen, 1994; Hough, 1995; Nassauer,
1995; Romme, 1997; Nasar, 1998). Sprawl disturbs habitats, pollutes water
and air, and consumes agricultural land. Urban habitat restoration establishes
small patches that may have aggregative effects across the larger landscape
matrix (Collinge, 1996; Corry and Nassauer, 2002). If we understand thedesire to live close to nature as part of what motivates people to choose to
live on large lots far from traditional centers of cities and towns, we can
propose different ways to meet the same perceived need.We can ask ourselves:
what are ecologically beneficial substitutes for ecologically destructive behav
ior? What new landscape patterns would be improvements compared with
present landscape patterns if they continue into the future?
People are not inherently averse to improvement. In fact, most intentional
landscape change, from the eighteenth-century enclosure movement in
England to the post-war rise of suburbia in the United States, has been
Issues and Perspectives In Landscape Ecology, ed. John A. Wiens and Michael R. Moss. Published by Cambridge University Press.~ , Cambridge University Press 2005.
Using cultural knowledge to make new landscape patterns 275
understood and advocated as improvement. In contrast, people generally are
unwilling to deny their desires and needs. Telling people to do less of what
they are doing can sound more like piety than a plan. New landscape patterns
that are immediately recognizable as improvements will be seen as real
alternatives to present l a n ~ s c a p e trends.
Recognition is not automatic. I t requires that what is new match what
people know they value, and culture provides the clues to recognition. What
people value is not surprising. People want to feel safe, they want to feel Ihealthy, they want to take care of their children, they want to be proud of IIwhere they live, they want to get along with their neighbors, and they want to !
make a liv ing (Nelessen, 1994; Nasar, 1998). Perhaps because these values are
so common, they are sometimes unexamined. How particular cultures make
these values concrete in the landscape is the source of our clues for designing Inew landscape patterns. We need to understand what people recognize when
they look at the newest subdivision. What do people see that they want when
they look at "Mountain Creek," or "Brookfield Farms," or any other develop
ment named to evoke the image of home that we desire? We can respect
people's values at the same time as we invent new ways to fulfill them. The
new should be familiar, looking like nature and home, at the same time as it isfundamentally new in the way it embodies ecological function (Nassauer,
1997).
The initial precepts of landscape ecology suggest how we can approach
inventing new landscapes that accommodate human needs and also embody
ecological function. Landscape ecology includes human behavior in ecosys-
tems; it attends to inhabited as well as pristine ecosystems; it studies eco-
logical function across landscapes at multiple scales including scales of
everyday human experience; and it is interdisciplinary (Risser et ai., 1984).
Fulfilling these precepts requires landscape ecologists to continue to experi
ment with our ways of working.
The best cultural indicators of landscape ecological quality may not be
readily available numbers, like the economic and demographic data we havegathered for decades. The science and scholarship practised by environmental
psychologists, cultural geographers, design behaviorists, and environmental
historians have examined causes rather than only trends in human landscape
perception and behavior. Knowledge about causes allows us to realign trends
toward normative goals. For example, we know that people seek landscapes
that afford perceived opportunities for the display of pride to others (e.g.,
Lowenthal and Prince, 1965; Nassauer, 1988; Gobster, 1997; Nasar, 1998;
Westphal, 1999), rest and psychological restoration (e.g., Kaplan, 1995), safety
(e.g., Schroeder and Anderson, 1984; Nasar, 1993; Bailly et ai., 2000; Ness and
Low, 2000), information and locomotion (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Gibson, 1979;
8/3/2019 Full Citation- 2005- IAPLE
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/full-citation-2005-iaple 3/5
276 J. I. NASSAUER
Kaplan and Kaplan, 1982; Golledge and Stimson, 1987), prospect and refuge .
(Appleton 1975), and closeness to nature (e.g., Grove and Cresswell, 1983;
Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Gobster and Westphal, 1998; Gobster, 2001).
Humans will seek landscapes that are designed and planned to protect and
enhance ecological function if they also provide these apparen t opportunities.
To propose new landscapes, we need to be able to make good judgments
and good hypotheses about how they will function ecologically. We need
ecological data and models that describe subdivisions and cities as well as
forest patterns and reserves. Landscape ecology has given us the strongestbasis for judging the ecological functi on of settled landscapes to date, but we
know our understanding is dramatically incomplete (Peck, 1998). By working
together in our shared medi um, the landscape, landscape ecologistsof several
disciplines can propose new landscapes for exper imentat ion and for action.
One example of this kind of new landscape is a model 120-ha subdivision
for the city of Cambridge, Minnesota (Nassauer et ai., 1997). The city of 5700
within the expanding commutershed of MinneapoliS-St. Paul, a metropolis
of 2.5 million, wanted this model to inform its negotiations with developers
who see a burgeoni ng market for new homes. Using our best understanding
of the evolving ecological principles in landscape ecology and seeking the
critique and insights of our ecology and hydrology colleagues, we proposed a
form of subdivision that was both familiar and radically new (Fig. 27.1). Todevelopers and homebuyers, the unusual ecological function of this new
subdivision would likely be oflittle immediat e value. However, the familiar
cultural cues that are appare nt in the landscape patt ern would be of immedi
ate value. We designed the landscape to be a sourceof pride, to lookwell cared
for, to createa senseofownership, to looksafe, to be legible, to afford prospect
and refuge, to create a feeling of closeness to nature. We also designed it to
include affordable housing, to be accessible by public transportation, to
provide public access to high-amenity landscape features, and to minimize
infrastructure costs. Improving surface- and groundwater quality and
increasing habitat quality, connectivity, and extent were our leading goals,
but not the leading goals for homebuyers or the developer. We designed with
ecological goals and cultural means.Compared with a large-lot subdivision designed unde r a typical ordinance
intended to maintain rural character with 10-acre (4-ha) lots (Fig. 27.2), this
plan provides more than 15 times as many homes on the same area at lower
net costs to taxpayers. It keeps all homes close to nature and keeps the m ost
high-amenity landscape, t he lakeshore, open to p ublic access. Compared wit h
the typical plan, this pl an creates greate r connectivity and habitat patch size
and restores some lake edge habitats. By cleaning storm water through
detention and infiltration, and developing at a sufficiently high density to
Using cultural knowledge to make new landscape patterns 277
FIGURE 27.1.
Ecological corridor neighborhood design plan: reconnects heterogeneousecosystems, cleans storm water before it reaches wetlands, and includes affordablehousing within a mix of types of sewered residential development.
make extension of the municipal sewer system economical, this plan pro
duces higher water quality than the large lots on septic systems and wells
(Fig. 27.2).
Will the extended and connected patches of woodland, storm-water wet
lands, "natural" wetlands, and lake shown in Fig. 27.1 support greater
biodiversity than the "present trend" development shown in Fig. 27.2?
Could we have hypothesized a different patt ern that would have had a greater
landscape ecological benefit? will developers and homebuyers recognize the
familiar cues to cultural values that were built into this design? This example
demonstrates the necessity for both biophysical and cultural knowledge to
inform new landscape actions. It also implies the wide-ranging possibilities
8/3/2019 Full Citation- 2005- IAPLE
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/full-citation-2005-iaple 4/5
278 J. I. NASSAUER
FIGURE 27.2.
A conventional development alternative: further fragments in situ ecosystems, provides
housing for 0.06 the number of households in Fig. 27.1, and does not use available localsewer capacity.
for more generalizable experiments that propose and test new prototypes for
culturally recognizable and ecologically beneficial landscape structure.
In her 1998 presidential address to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Jane Lubchenco called for a redirection of
American science - away from the single-discipline basic science tha t was
geared toward national defense in the years immediately following the
Second World War and toward a new social contract for science that will
"help society move toward a more sustainable biosphere," a science that
"exercises good judgment, wisdom, and humility." Such a science should
look for strategic intersections with culture, as examined by the humanities
and social sciences and also as interpreted by design and planning. Strategy
new landscape patterns.
References
Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience oJLandscape.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Baill, A. S., Brun, P., Lawrence, R. J, and Rey,
M. C. (eds.) (2000). Socially Sustainable Cities:
Principles and Practices. UNESCO MOST
project. London: Economica.
Collinge, S. K. (1996). Ecological consequences
of habitat fragmentation: implications for
landscape architecture and planning.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 36, 59-77.
Corry, R. C. and Nassauer, J. 1. (2002).
Managing for small patch patterns in
human-dominated landscapes: examples in
Corn Belt agriculture. In Integrating Landscape
Ecology into Natural Resource Management, ed.
J. Liu and W. Taylor. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 92-113.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to
Visual Perception. Boston, MA:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Gobster, P. H. (1997). Perceptions ofthe oak
savanna and urban ecological restorations. In
'I
Using cultural knowledge to make new landscape patterns 2791
11' 11
1
1 IIdoes not need to be a compromise of our sense of ecological integrity or our1
sense of human satisfactions. However, strategy does imply normative.1
Ichange; it moves us toward goals. By definition, landscape ecology can help
to define goals for human interactions with ecological systems. I t also can identify strategies for achieving those goals by passing ideas for new land
1
111 ,
II,scapes between disciplines, so that each can examine and rework those ideasilll' 'from particular disciplinary perspectives.
,\1
We do need to know more about culture just as we need to know more ,.
about ecosystems, but we cannot afford to wait. We can begin to act by I
looking at what we know now in a different way. We should see culture notI
as a constraint but as a means forlandscapeinnovation. If culture is the means "
IIby which humans achieve our needs (sometimes in convoluted and misguided
ways), then it also can be the medium for inventing new forms of humanII1 11
,
settlement that support ecological function. We should study culture not only III Ito predict what will happen if current trends continue but also to conceive
IIIwhat motivates people to change landscapes. What needs are met by sky IIII
scrapers and subdivisions, by factory farms and seaside resorts? Rather than11
1 : \accepting these settings as the inevitable detritus of human frailty, we shouldI
study them as the incomplete realization of human aspirations, and use our I
11 1
1understanding of human needs and landscape ecological function to propose111 ,1
1111 1
I
Proceedings of the Midwest Oak Savanna
Conference, February 20, 1993. Northeastern
Illinois University, Chicago. IL, ed. F. Stearns Iand K. Holland. Chicago, IL: US EPA.
1
www.epa.gov/ecopage/upland/oak/oak93/ I1I I
gobster.html.
Gobster, P.H. (2001). Visions of nature: conflict 1111
and compatibility in urban par k restoration. 'IIILandscape and Urban Planning, 56, 35-51.
1
,1 '1Gobster, P. H. and Westphal, 1. M. (1998).
People and the River: Perception and Use of
II1II
Chicago Waterways and Recreation.
Milwaukee, WI: National Park Service.
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance ~ ~ Program.
Golledge, R. G. and Stimson, R. J. (1987). l ~ Analytical BehaviouralGeography. Beckenham,
Kent: Croom Helm. rove, A. B. and Cresswell, R. (1983). City
Landscape: aContribution to the Council of
Europe's European Campaign for Urban l'\ enaissance. London: Butterworths.!'I,I
I 111 '111I1 1'111,I,1
8/3/2019 Full Citation- 2005- IAPLE
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/full-citation-2005-iaple 5/5
28 0 J. I. NASSAUER
Hough, M. (1995). Cities and Natural Process.
London: Routledge.
Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience
ofNature. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of
nature: toward an integrative framework.
Joumal ofEnvironmentalPsychology, 15, 169--182.
Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and
Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World.New York, NY: Praeger.
Lowenthal, D. and Prince, H. C. (1965). English
landscape tastes. Geographical Review, 55,
186--222.
Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of
the environme nt: a new social contract for
science. Science, 279, 491--497.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image ofthe City.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nasar, J. (1993). Proximate physical cues to fear
of crime. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26,
161-178.
Nasar, J.1. (1998). The Evaluative Image of the
City. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nassauer, J. I. (1988). Landscape care: perceptions oflocal people in landscape ecologyand
sustainable development. Landscape and Land
Use Planning, 8, 27--41. Washington, DC:
American Society of Landscape Architects.
Nassauer, J.1. (1995). Culture and changing
landscape structure. Landscape Ecology, 10,
229-237.
Nassauer, J.1. (1997). Cultural sustainability. In
Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology,
ed. J. Nassauer. Washington , DC: Island
Press, pp. 65-83.
Nassauer, J. I., Bower, A., McCardle, K., and
Caddock, A. (1997). The Cambridge Ecological
Comdor Neighborhood: Using Ecological Patterns
to Guide Urban Growth. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota.
Nelessen, A. C. (1994). Visions for aNew American
Dream: Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to
Plan and Design Small Communities. Chicago,
IL: Planners Press, American Planning
Association.Ness, G. D. and Low, M. M. (2000). Five Cities:
Modelling Asian Urban Population-Environment
Dynamics. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Peck, S. (1998). PlanningJor Biodiversity: Issues
and Examples. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Risser, P. G., Karr, J. R., and Forman, R. T. T.
(1984). Landscape Ecology: Directions and
Approaches. Illinois Natural Hist oty Survey,
Special Pub. 2. Champaign, IL: IHNS.
Romme, W. H. (1997). Creating pseudo-rural
landscapes in the mountain west. In Placing
Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology, ed.
J. Nassauer. Washington, DC: Island Press,
pp. 139-161.
Schroeder, H. W. and Anderson, 1. M. (1984).Perception of personal safety in urban
recreation sites. Journal ofLeisure Research, 16,
178-194.
Strong, A. (1965). Open Space for urban America.
Washington DC: US Urban Renewal
Administration, Department of Housing and
urban Development.
Westphal, 1. M. (1999). Growing power: social
benefits of urban greening projects. Doctoral
dissestation, University ofIllinois at
Chicago.
I
!l, I
!III,
NANCY POLLOCK-ELLWAND' 1 11 1
1
2811
1 . 1 . ' 1.' .
'I'
!I!
iThe critical divide: landscape policy
and its implementation
I
II II
Forecasts made in planning policy are rarely achieved in the practicalities
oflocal application, and the case for landscape conservation is no exception.
The critical divide between landscape policy developed by upper-tier govern
ment agencies and the implementation of those conservation measures at
a local level is a phenomenon common to many locations. A specific case of
this divide was studied in Ontario, Canada over a span of time between the
passing and defeat of one planning act and the introduction of another.
Through a series of interviews conducted with both the creators and the
future implementers of the landscape policy in those acts, central issues
that contribute to conservation resistance were examined. This qualitative
study compares the responses, identifies the differences, and in the end
suggests strategies that may be useful to other jurisdictions to help foster a
better land-use planning environment for landscape interpretation, use, and
protection in the development process.
The concept oflandscape: theory an d application
"Landscape" is an idea that has a long tradition in academic literature
(Sauer, 1925; Hartshorne, 1939; Hoskins, 1969; Meinig, 1979; Cosgrove,
1984; Schama, 1995). Interest in the concept's utility for planning has
grown in the last decade (Mitchell et ai., 1993; Maines and Bridger, 1992;
Watson and Labelle, 1997; CardinalI and Day, 1998; Rydin, 1998; McGinnis et
ai., 1999). It has been acknowledged that it can serve as a basis from which
planners can integrate natural and cultural elements and issues - historically,
two realms polarized from each other (01wig, 1996). And as a ubiquitous I1
resource it exists as the common ground between various interests in land ,' I " ~'1"1';:
"use development decisions (Stilgoe, 1982; Jackson, 1984). In this Canadian"
I,
Istudy, "landscape" was explored in its broadest interp retation from natural
Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology, ed. John A. Wiens and Michael R. Moss. published by Cambridge Universiry Press. 28 1
c-. Cambridge University Press 200S.
1