Mis maastik on. Grupitöö teemad. Kodu – kuidas ruumist saab koht ja kodu, koha/koduloomestrateegiad, maastiku kodustamine Nõuka pärand maastikes – milles see ilmneb ja mis sellega peale hakata, kelle probleem see on? Üldse vana kaitse
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Koht ja maastik ja ruum (territoorium) on nagu areen, dekoratsioonid ja teater. Jüri Jagomägi 2001
Landscape is a kind of backcloth to the whole stage of human activities. Jay Appleton 1986
Landscape is a cultural image, a pictorial way of representing, structuring or symbolising surroundings. This is not to say that landscapes are immaterial. They may be represented in a variety of materials and on many surfaces - in paint on canvas, in writing on paper, in earth, stone, water and vegetation on the groundMaastik on kultuuriline kujund, ümbritseva esitamise, struktureerimise või sümboliseerimise pildiline viis.See ei tähenda, et maastikud oleks mittemateriaalsed. Maastikud võivad olla esitatud mitmesugusel alusel mitmesuguste materjalidega – värviga lõuendil, kirjana paberil, pinnase, kivide, vee ja taimedega maapinnal(Daniels, Cosgrove 1988).
This interface represents the interaction of time-space continuum which influences the design and planning of landscape research and management. Often we focus on just one of the these two fundamental variables treating the other as fixed, such that we study spatial processes via a snap-shot in time, and temporal processes at just one point in space as if this place was not connected to other places. An important interface for the development of our understanding and hence theory development in the realm of landscape development and dynamics. For examples, land use change transition matrices can provide important insights into the dynamics of landscape change through the study not only of mass change but also where that change took place and how each parcel of land became transformed to another use.
An important interface for combining technical approaches with classical historical methodology.
This interface deals with the interaction between different cultures. It is the way different cultures perceive and interpret landscape that is in focus as well as the way different cultures give landscape different symbolic meaning.
The study of the cultural interface in landscape research is extremely important for the understanding of how landscape evolved in the past and how conflicts may arise in the future.
The interface also links with the past-future interface since cultures can be from different geographic, ethnic, socio-economic groups or the same group at different time periods.
The past-future interface in landscape studies focuses on the temporal landscape dynamics. The temporal dynamics have been always seen as a fundamental aspect of landscape studies and is also reflected in most landscape ecology definitions. The interface is in the present but at the junction where we both look forward and back. The techniques used by futures studies and those of history have some similarities but they are not the same – can we find new ways of looking at the past or new ways of predicting the future through combining approaches?
Scenario testing is one of the important toys in futures studies but how do we assess the reliability of both the scenarios and their consequences? Several studies have tried retrospective futures studies by predicting the present from historical data.
Combining a wide range of research approaches will be necessary to advance our ability to predict alternative landscape futures and their social and environmental consequences.
The human landscape is that which is formed in our brains and studied through a wide range of humanistic approaches, particularly phenomenological perspectives and techniques. The material landscape is the one we can touch and smell and agree is there through consensus.
Linking to the two together has been and continues to be a difficult process. Fortunately, there are several research initiatives making progress in this field. Of course both aspects of this interface exist and have a place in landscape research. The challenge is the interface between them and how to develop joint theory.
Part of the problem is the extreme relativist approach has rather little to offer landscape management which is dealing with very real problems in material landscapes. How can insights gathered from studying the mental landscape best be incorporated into the knowledge base needed for solving current landscape conflicts.
The major conflict in landscape studies is between the humanities and the natural sciences. Both lay claims to the landscape studies and both have ownership rights over certain aspects of landscape knowledge. How then do we combine these and other knowledge cultures?
The problems are somewhat connected to the interface between material and mental landscapes but go deeper into the ontological issues. Just what constitutes reliable knowledge and what can be accepted as data.
The role of interdisciplinarity, the advantages of combining approaches etc. etc.
One of the current social trends is the involvement of lay people especially stakeholders, into the research process. This participatory research and the related action research are both popular social sciences approaches offering a way for end users of research to have input to the defining the research objectives, research methods, data collection, analysis and interpretation.
What is this interface, where is it leading? Does it work? Does it remove conflicts? How does the position of the researcher change and is this a good thing? Is mode 2 (Gibbons) knowledge really better?
A way forward, getting the best from the interface.
The scale interface is one that is often hidden in research planning but important for our understanding of social and environmental processes.
Hierarchy theory and its impact. The international movement from sites to landscapes as suitable management arenas. The emphasis on landscape typology and landscape planning and management in both cultural and natural heritage studies and policy.
The interfaces and interactions between scales. The importance of always viewing the scale up and down from that selected for research studies.
The use versus preservation debate, both for cultural, and natural heritage management. New thinking on historical landscapes their mapping, evaluation and management.
Alternatives to museum preservation.
Involving local people in cultural heritage management.
Environmental capital. Growing importance of local and national identity. Symbolic/ritual landscapes and their preservation.
Too much to do in this one, more of a problem to cut down…..