Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
boundaries of physical contiguity'' ( 2000 : 453). Spaces of place and of flows are
very different, yet have to be seen together, like the external and internal per-
spectives described above: ''The major danger in such a new historically spatial
dichotomy is the breakdown of communication between power and people,
between cities and citizen, and ultimately between a spatial technocratic instru-
mentalism and localistic fundamentalism'' (Castells 1992 : 75).
A physically bounded landscape may function as a place, a defined locale, but
more typically an extensive landscape is a mosaic of contiguous places, just as it is
a mosaic of ecosystems. The extent to which a landscape may be seen either as a
defined area of space within which 'places' are located, or as a 'place' itself, as in
the sense of a self-containing whole, was illustrated in a study of how Danish
farmers in two different landscapes responded to the following question. The
question was asked half an hour into a longer interview about how the farmers
have experienced change in their landscape: ''If you were talking on the phone
with a remote relative who has not visited your area, and the relative asked you
how it was where you live, what kind of landscape or place was it—how would
you then reply?'' The farmers (15 in each landscape) gave two kinds of answers,
largely distinguished by the type of landscape in which they live and work. In one
of the landscapes they all proudly referred to how it was a very nice area—located
close to very nice (and for Danes well known) places. In the other landscape no
one mentioned nearby attractions such as the spectacular dune systems on the
North Sea Coast less than 10 km away. Instead they all referred to experiential
features of the local landscape, such as the peacefulness (with no main roads), the
flat landscape with the high sky (high 'ceilings'), and the new forests and the
wildlife which came with them (Primdahl et al. 2010 ).
In the first landscape farmers talked about their landscape as a space relative to
other locations, whereas in the second landscape they talked about their specific
place within the landscape. One of the main differences between the two land-
scapes was that in the latter (place defined) landscape there has been a long
tradition of co-operation on landscape issues, from heathland reclamation (in the
1950s) to afforestation (in the 1990s), as well as a shared and successful struggle
against plans for locating a regional waste dump in their area, and common grazing
of semi-natural salt marshes. These collective experiences may well have con-
tributed to the strong sense of place in this area. In the former situation, landscape
was an abstract concept, in the latter case it was lived—a distinction that has been
widely recognised in the geographical literature, and identified in other similarly
contrasting landscapes in very different countries (Primdahl and Swaffield 2004 ).
Landscape as place becomes a focus of governance and spatial strategy making,
framing attention and action in the way described by Healey ( 2009 ).
Landscape ecology has potential to contribute concepts and knowledge to both
conceptions of landscape: landscape as a mosaic- which is the conventional focus
for the discipline, or landscape as a concentration of meaning and experience, a
locale. Most attention has been upon the former, with landscape ecology offering
descriptive and explanatory knowledge about the relationships between landscape
Search WWH ::




Custom Search