Oleksa Kovalyov
My discussion
with the authors of the article
Landscape as Connecting Link
by Stella Sofia Kyvelou, Anestis Gourgiotis, Greece
The problem of defining the concept of «landscape» and understanding what underlies it is quite old. Therefore, any work
that contains any views on the nature of this phenomenon is valuable. I was interested
in this work because the authors claim the possibility of the existence of
different interpretations of the concept of «landscape», which is a condition for the further development of
landscape science and the so-called landscape planning. My point of view on the landscape is slightly different from that
suggested by the authors of the article, so I will comment on the text based on
my understanding of this phenomenon. The authors – S.S. Kyvelou and A.
Gourgiotis - argue that «the research paper
investigates the diverse understandings of «landscape», along with
demonstrating the modes of contribution of the European Landscape Convention
(ELC) of the Council of Europe (CE) in influencing national spatial planning
systems. The paper, interested in considering the efficiency of landscape
policy from a territorial perspective, briefly outlines the perception and
understanding of landscape as connecting link of nature and culture and
conducts a literature review with the aim to support the prospect of a
«European model of landscape planning» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 1].
1. Introduction
The authors write: «The word “landscape” (landscap in Middle Dutch, landschaft
in German, landskap in Old Norse, landskip
in a previous formation in English) appeared in English in 1603, designating a
“settler’s clearing in the forest with
animals, huts, fields, and fences” [1 – 3]. “Landscape” initially meant a
man-made construct and the intrinsic cultural values and practices [4]» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 1].
My comment: But we use this term not only in the case of «man-made
construct» options, but also to denote intact lands - steppe, floodplain,
mountain, plain, glacial and other options. We can assume that the concept of «landscape»
began to take shape under the influence of economic activity, which led to the
formation of more expressive land-ordering. Moreover, as A. Berque suggested
[Berque, 2000], this meaning generally penetrated into Europe from China, where
it was generated by Chinese landscape painters of the 4th - 5th centuries - a
version that deserves attention.
Next, the authors refer to the definition of H. Leser and J. Löffler: «Leser in 1997 [5] defined landscapes as ecosystems, i.e.,
composite systems of biotic (including humans) and abiotic elements» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 1].
My comment: It is difficult
to understand why the terms «landscape» and «ecosystem» (as a geocomplex or geosystem that is
common among Russian authors) can be synonymous. We should also not forget that the term «ecosystem» does not mean
the object itself, but its model, built on a systemic principle.
Let's continue: «Nowadays,
the shared understanding of “landscape” complies with and often derives from
the definition of the European Landscape Convention (ELC, 2000) as “an area, as
perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and
interaction of natural and/or human factors”» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis,
2019: 1 - 2]. Referring to C. Taylor, the authors note: «This definition is compatible with the landscape theory
shift to a cultural-based approach of the landscape [2], which explicitly
condemns the idea that landscape, is a view, scenery, or an object that
remained unaltered over the ages. The perception of landscape as embraced by
the European Convention echoes also the idea of landscape as a social
construction. This new paradigm considers landscape as a social product that is
the cultural projection of a society in a particular territory from a tangible,
intangible and symbolic viewpoint» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 2].
My comment: Since the authors emphasize the definition of «landscape»
contained in The European Landscape Convention (this is a very important
document), I will dwell on this definition at once. It is as follows: «"Landscape"
means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the
action and interaction of natural and/or human factors» [European Landscape Convention, 2000: 9]. Let's try to analyze this definition.
1. «"Landscape"
means an area...» - the word «area»
I consider as locality, terrain (locality,
place, district, country,
ground, ambit, sight - I'm not English
and I don't know what the differences are and in what cases they are used). But what's the point of adding another term to
denote a place? Landscape is not an area (locality, place, district, country,
ground, ambit, sight), it is something else, from my point of view, it is an
image of the terrain, a pattern that contains the main features, first of all,
the drawing of the day surface in this area, the face of the terrain.
2. «as perceived by people». It turns out that when people do not perceive this
area (terrain), the landscape
is absent. Then the question arises: is there a landscape or not? The
definition does not give an answer! To imagine the landscape of a particular
area, it is enough to see only part of it. Moreover, when it comes to familiar
places, you do not even need to see them, because our memory preserves the
images of these places. The effect is enhanced if a person has experience of
traveling in this area.
3. «whose character is the result of the
action and interaction of natural and/or human factors». It is impossible to separate natural and human
factors, because man is a part of nature: man with his productive activity and
Nature form a single body - man-natural organics. We should talk about a single
landscape-forming process as a result of the integration of many different
processes that create the physiography of the area with a
special pattern of the day surface. Landscape should be defined as land-orderliness,
where «lands» are morphotypes of the day surface that form a
complex mosaic. So called «landscape-making process» is the process of ordering.
Therefore, this definition of landscape cannot be
considered correct. Based on it, it is impossible to understand what a
landscape is and what is not. In the reference documents of the European
Landscape Convention we find the statements «development of landscapes», «Believing that the landscape is a key element of
individual and social well-being and that its protection, management and
planning entail rights and responsibilities for everyone» [European Landscape Convention, 2000: 8], which
immediately raises the question: a landscape is an entity that exists in the
physical world that can develop? And also: in what relation is such a
definition of landscape with other concepts, especially geography, such as the
concept of «geographical
environment»? Finally, is
there a mass-energy exchange between the landscape and the environment?
So the definition of the European Landscape Convention
(ELC, 2000) given by the authors should be understood as follows: a landscape
is the result of people's perception of a certain area that has certain
characteristics. In fact, it is not the area that is perceived, but the
structure of the day (not buried) surface (drawing) as a kind of
two-dimensional text, and the landscape is manifested as its general meaning.
Such perception depends on a number of factors, including those cultural
features that are inherent in the perceiving person. This is very important:
the landscape (and this is nothing but land orderliness, where land is the
morphotype of the day – visible - surface) is a mental image of the terrain,
not a material object: it is not a body. Thus, a landscape is a generalized
image of a terrain that distinguishes it from a simple view, a scene (a
landscape is not a scene) or an object (a landscape is not a material object
that can be divided into parts). Therefore, the best metaphor for the landscape
is the face, in this case the face of the terrain, which is not the same as the
physical surface of the face. Landscape is an image formed on the basis of the
perception (and contacts in general) of differences in the pattern of the day
surface, which contains the history of its formation as a result of the
so-called landscape-forming process (ordering process). From this point of
view, the landscape is an organization of differences that are perceived by our
consciousness in the process of observation. Thus, landscape-forming is an area
with a characteristic type of surface pattern, and areas can be of different
scales. The point is that areas of different scales are nested in areas of
larger scales, which, in turn, are inserted in areas of even larger scales. It
turns out an nested structure that contains a fairly wide range of sizes. A
great example is Lake Kliluq (english -
Spotted Lake,
okan. Kłlil'xᵂ), shown in Fig. 1. If the surface pattern is complex, fractoid[1],
we can identify several areas of different scales, in accordance with which the
landscapes will be formed.
Fig. 1. Spotted Lake is
a saline endorheic alkali lake located northwest of Osoyoos in the eastern
Similkameen Valley of British Columbia, Canada. This is an example
of a nested-like structure.
This raises questions about the scale of the terrain
as a landscaping area. I will note that we can talk about a fairly wide range
of scales (and, accordingly, their patterns). In Fig. 2 shows an example of a
small area with an original surface pattern. The island of greenery with
flowers contrasts sharply with the surroundings. In Fig. 3 we have an example
of a much larger area: it is tundra, different variants of which differ in the
nature of the surface patterns, but in general - this is the only pattern. In
all cases, we are dealing with areas which features of surface drawings allow
you to form a mental image. This applies to our entire planet, which can be
observed from Space: it is recognizable because it has its own face.
Fig. 2. That's great, max androsace. It's a great job: an example of a small terrain.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/374432156517418775/
Fig. 3. Type of tundra (one of the options): an example of a large-scale terrain. –
https://sites.google.com/site/tundrarara/
It should be added that the landscape is an informational
nature, the result of choice, because there are many transitional options. This
means that surfaces with a chaotic or rigidly ordered structure (for example, a
drawing of a chessboard) cannot be the basis for their perception as landscapes
(Fig. 4). This led me to define the landscape as the organization of the drawing
of the day surface, where the organization is connected with the action of the
landscape-forming (order-forming) process. On the other hand, the
perceived drawing of the surface is organized by the perceiver into a mental
image - pattern. The formation of such images is a way to curb complexity, which
allows you to better navigate the environment (by the way, this allows us to
talk about economic, political, linguistic, human and other landscapes). I
agree that «landscape as a social product that is
the cultural projection of a society in a particular territory from a tangible,
intangible and symbolic viewpoint» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 2]. At
the same time, in the structure of the day surface there is a certain internal
order, organization, which allows us to talk about the ontolandscape - a hidden
order due to the action of the landscape-forming process.
Fig. 4. On the left - a rigidly ordered surface structure (chessboard); on the
right - a chaotic drawing of the surface: it is not possible to detect the
presence of order of the elements.
Let's move on. The following text answers the
question: is the landscape, from the point of view of the authors, tangible,
can it be built, transformed; can we talk about landscapes in the absence of
human activity? It seems that the authors are in this position.
My comment: But landscapes are not used physically! I do not
think that the landscape is material, because it is only an image, a pattern of
what we perceive. The day surface is material, so people interact with it, not
with the landscape. We also do not photograph or draw the landscape, but the
day surface (the science that studies the structure of the day surface and its
origin is physiography) or the environment as a whole. It consists of many
elements - soil particles, stones, intact rock outcrops, ice, snow, water,
thermal springs, plants, animals, various formations associated with human
activities. They are somewhat orderly, which allows us to talk about patterns.
In the presence of biotic components, we say that the surface is biotized, in
the presence of anthropogenic components - anthropotized. Accordingly, such
will be the landscapes. I do not consider the expression «cultural landscape» as
correct, because then we should also talk about «uncultured landscape». To
denote such surfaces and corresponding landscapes, the expression «anthropotized»
is quite sufficient.
Referring to F. Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke, the
authors write: «Consequently, landscapes and
specifically cultural landscapes can be comprehended as social-ecological
systems, in which economic, environmental and social constituents are closely
interlinked [11]» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 2].
My comment: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that
these authors consider ecological systems as a natural resource that should be
managed. This is an outdated position based on anthropocentrism. Today we
perceive Nature not as a resource, but as a source of humanity and its home.
Man is a product of Nature and in no way came out of it. From my point of view,
Nature created Man for self-knowledge. It is not ecosystems that should be
managed, but one's own behavior, not transforming Nature, but adapting to it. A
great example is the Nilots, who settled in Africa's largest swamp (Fig. 5). I
give several options for settlements in this swamp to show how people fit into
the surroundings, becoming
an organic part of it. We have an example of a well-balanced existence of
people in a sustainable environment. Each case is a terrain (terrains) in a
larger terrain; each option allows you to form different patterns. And this is
another option: The integration of settlements in the Netherlands has a
completely different look (Fig. 6). Although in both cases we are talking about
life near water, we have different structures of the day surface, which are the
basis for the formation of different landscapes. The number of options for how
settlements and elements of economic activity of people fit into the
environment is quite large. There are many
such examples in different natural conditions, and in all cases traces of human
activity will be included in the general patterns of the terrains. They do not
violate anything, only slightly enliven the area and make it more attractive.
Fig. 5. Nilots in the Swamp Sudd (they live in the middle of the largest swamp in Africa): settlement options are a reflection of the diversity of conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDe8jEiEPX0
Fig. 6. In Giethoorn, a typically Dutch village in
Overijssel, you can perfectly see how the Dutch love to live with and on the
water. In an environment full of lakes, reed beds and forests lies this
picturesque village with its many handsome farms with thatched roofs and
characteristic wooden bridges. [Giethoorn].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu74trq9BDE
The presence of a person with his economic activity
complicates the situation. Therefore, formations that contain human activity
should be considered as a continuation of the development of natural
formations, as their anthropization. In this consideration, the concept of «Social-Ecological
Systems» is not needed.
To circumvent these problems, I introduced the concept of geoholon≈geoorg as a
continuation of the line «geocomplex» → «geosystem». Geoholon can
be abiotic, biotized or anthropotized. This applies to the three main axes,
which the authors write below.
2. Materials used and Methods of Assessment
In paragraphs 2 and 3, the authors write about
Landscape Zones – «A
“Landscape Zone” is defined as an area identified and demarcated on the basis
of its distinct personality, taking into account geomorphology and the elements
that characterize it. A Landscape Zone is characterized by a dominant function
or element (a lake, gorge etc.), which however may extend to neighboring areas
with which there is functional spatial dependence» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 3].
My comment: I think we should talk about physiographic areas and
zones. This also applies to the landscape map. There are some questions on the 3rd point. There are some questions. There is a question about
the concept of «individual
landscape». This option is
defined as «unique designs
for individuals», but any
landscape is an individual form of perception of the structure of the day
surface. So, this concept does not make sense. Next, in
paragraph (6) we read: «value
of landscape as a natural resource». But the landscape cannot be a resource!
The authors address the issue of classification of
landscapes, but do not classify landscapes, but morphotypes of the day surface.
In paragraph 3, the authors write about spatial plans. I understand
that the plans are different, but here we are talking about objects with a
clear space component. The authors
cite Table 1 - «Number
and category of landscapes, in the three Greek regions mentioned above». Of course, maps are not landscape, they are maps of
areas: maps of areas on physiological grounds. Scale - Landscape of
International Value; Landscape of National Value; Landscape of Regional Value;
Particularly Degraded Landscape - looks artificial. I think it was worth making
a map of the attractiveness of the area.
The authors used the following criteria to assess what
they present as landscapes: «(1) aesthetic and
natural beauty, (2) representativeness, (3) recognition, (4) natural character,
(5) existing recognized protected elements, (6) value of landscape as a natural
resource, and (7) uniqueness-rarity» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 5].
My comment: «natural beauty»: I don't know what «natural beauty»
is, it's a very controversial term. Beauty, natural or not, is appreciated by
each person individually and is a deep feeling that (this is for sure) is not
fully conveyed in words.
«representativeness» is a good indicator, but diversity is more important.
«recognition» - it depends on how knowledgeable and experienced people
(observers) are.
«natural character»: I understand that we are talking about the naturalness
of the area, the degree of «pollution» by
anthropogenic elements or simply their presence. But the above photos show that
often their presence enlivens the environment, making it more attractive.
«existing recognized protected elements» - the landscape is an integral image and has no
elements.
«value of landscape as a natural resource» - the landscape cannot be considered a resource.
«uniqueness-rarity» - this is an important criterion.
In paragraph 4, the authors write about the priorities
in landscape planning. I think we should talk about physiographic planning.
3. Results
3.1. A Literature Review about Landscape Policy from a
Territorial Perspective
A sufficiently complete review of the literature,
which, however, is, firstly, limited to ELC-related sources, and secondly, is
not critical. This indicates that the authors fully agree with the provisions
of the ELC and the authors who discuss these issues in the publications. At
that time, there is an issue that would be worth discussing. For example, what
is the meaning of the term «landscape considerations»? I understand what mechanistic reasoning, systemic
reasoning, and holistic reasoning is, but it's hard for me to imagine how it is
possible to think in a landscape way. Next, referring to A. Phillips and R. Clarke,
the authors write that «Landscape
has come to be viewed as both a natural and cultural resource with a strong
appeal to society and a medium through which sustainable development programs
can be pursued in the future [29]» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 5]. But not all authors hold this position.
My comment: First: «a natural and cultural resource». Landscape is
not a resource at all, because it is only a form of our perception of the
environment, which allows us to curb the complexity that facilitates
orientation in the world. Second: Man is a product of the evolution of Nature,
everything that people produce is allowed by Nature. This also applies to
culture. The era of industrialization has contributed to the spread of the idea
of human domination over Nature, but this is a misconception. Over time, such a
culture will be developed - geoculture - that will ensure the
integration of humanity into Nature. The so-called «sustainable development» (I prefer the term «concerted/coordinated development») really contributes
to this.
It seems that we are dealing with a political party «ELC», whose supporters without discussion reject all other
options and try to approve a single version as an indisputable fact. This once
happened in Soviet geography, when everyone was imposed a single point of view
associated with the L.S. Berg’ name.
3.2. Greek Landscapes, between Nature and Culture
Next, I will discuss the points that evoke
lamentations. Authors write: «The surrounding Mediterranean basin is a very special
natural-geographical space» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 10], «The
peculiarities, the complexity and the beauty of these spatial and social
formations ...» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis,
2019: 10]. This also applies to the term «spatial formations», which the authors put on a par with social
formations, which is not correct.
My comment: The so-called geographical space is a misconception
that has taken over the minds of geographers in recent decades. Geographical space does not exist, just as there is no physical space,
because the concept of «space» is a pure abstraction, which was formed by the
development of human civilization to organize the environment. This also
applies to the concept of «time». In the
scientific field, space and time are only parameters that are convenient for
displaying phenomena and processes. Mathematician H. Minkovski developed a
theory of four-dimensional space-time. Adding an organization, we will have a
5-dimensional HoroChronoOrg as an integral whole although the space-time
component (dynamics) is already contained in the organization.
Another statement that raises the question: «The landscape traditionally adapted to
local socio-economic structures, often governed by the locally diversified
power relationships between the different families and social groups and to a
great extent was influenced by the action of indigenous people and communities,
their values and knowledge, their means of production and the technology they
used» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 10].
My comment: I apologize, the landscape does not adapt to
anything, it is not a physical (biological, social ...) formation, and it only
expresses the general appearance of the day surface as a reflection of the
action of certain processes within the area, as seen by the observer. If
processes related to human activity are connected, this will be included in the
general pattern: we get an anthropogenic
landscape.
3.3. The Institutional Approach to Landscape in Greece
This paragraph is very interesting. The attitude
towards natural and archeological sites in Greece can be an example for other
countries.
On p. 12 authors write: «The choice, due to the great extent of
the dichotomy between environmental policy and planning still valid in the country,
was to adopt an autonomous framework of tools and actions for the environmental
components, independent of that of the spatial components, without direct
interconnection and interdependence» [Kyvelou,
Gourgiotis, 2019: 11].
My comment: I do not understand the term «spatial components»: are
these components of space or some components that are marked by spatiality as
the most important characteristic? I think both options are incorrect.
In the signature of Fig. 4 and the corresponding table
is a statement: «Spatial planning-sustainable
development and other provisions» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 12].
My comment: I have already spoken above about the existence of
space (and time), but did not consider the so-called «spatial planning». I
consider this statement incorrect, it is necessary to speak about territorial
planning, and perhaps even about structural-functional planning.
The need for change may necessitate structural changes, which entails
functional changes (elimination of old or emergence of new functions).
3.4. The Greek Response to the European Landscape
Convention, Spatial Planning Implications
The authors write: «The
Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for spatial/regional
planning (CEMAT) has shown [44] that well-designed spatial planning policies
based on balancing social, cultural, economic and environmental needs are
essential in order to ensure sustainable long-term growth and exploit the
landscape as a strategic component of citizens’ quality of life, in accordance
with the European Landscape Convention» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 11],
and especially the following text: «Landscape is considered to be
environmental and development planning resource representing the country’s
comparative advantage ...» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis,
2019: 11].
My comment: But this suggests that the landscape in this article
is seen as a geographical environment that is perceived as a resource that can
be managed. It looks weird.
I am overwhelmed by statements like this «sustainable management of landscape as a
whole», «key priorities and landscape quality targets for each
Landscape Zone» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis,
2019: 13].
My comment: This reminds me of the old days, when it was
believed that man can conquer Nature and manage it sustainably. Nature, especially if it
contains human activity, is too complex an entity that cannot be managed, it is
difficult to manage even one's own behavior!
It also raises the question of whether the landscape
consists of elements derived from the phrase «… for
the protection of landscape elements» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 14]?
My comment: Landscape is a whole and is not divided into
elements.
Below we read: «This initial aspect has, of course,
changed, the natural and cultural components of the landscape are understood
through the spatial footprint of culture» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 14].
My comment: The landscape does not consist of elements or
components. Decomposition into components (or elements) radically changes the
essence of the landscape as a whole pattern.
I like the author's view on the problem of the
relationship between the natural environment and human activity: «The establishment of high-quality
landscapes deriving from the feedback relationship that local communities
develop with the natural-geographic features of space in the context of
socio-economic relations, as these develop at the local, national and
international level, is a requirement of modern times but also a necessity of
which we become increasingly aware» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 15].
My comment: We should not talk about high-quality landscapes,
but about high-quality (attractive) physiography of areas/terrain. I also can't
agree with the phrase «the
natural-geographical features of space». The question arises: what properties of space are
geographical? Geography is the science of the forms of organization of
geographical formations - abiotic, biotized and anthropized, sustained and dynamic modes of
which are reflected in the structure of the day surface. Regarding the concept
of «space», I have already stated above.
4. Discussion and Recommendations
Could not miss the following phrase: «Such tools could include the establishment of a Greek
Landscape Observatory, in order to pinpoint landscape features at the local
level and, at the same time, contribute to the sound management of space»
[Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 15].
My comment: Here I will pay attention to «management of space». It is possible to control what can change, and space
is just an abstraction, which arose due to the fact that we are in a
heterogeneous environment and have a memory. Therefore, «management of
space» is meaningless.
5. Conclusions
This is an important piece of text that allows a
clearer understanding of the authors' position on the concept of «landscape»: «This research paper
primarily aimed at positioning landscape as a connecting link between nature
and culture. Landscapes reconnect symbolically nature and culture, since they
developed due to natural processes in continuous interaction with social and
cultural interventions and economic pressures and are major sources of a series
of ecosystem services including cultural ones (CES), thus being sources of
inspiration, cultural and recreational values. Landscapes and especially
cultural landscapes are nowadays comprehended as social-ecological systems, in
which social, economic, and environmental components are closely interlinked.
This consideration, in combination with the evolution of our understanding of
conservation, has apparently influenced the definition of landscape as
expressed in the European Landscape Convention (ELC) of the Council of Europe.
Based on the literature review, a conclusion is that the ELC marks a transition
regarding an environmental and territorial understanding of the concept of
landscape and the correlated actions of landscape protection, management and
planning» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 16].
My comment: It is difficult to agree with this. Landscape is a
holistic image of the environment within the terrain, primarily - the
physiography of the day surface. It is here that the processes that form its
image as a kind of two-dimensional text unfold. And it does not matter which
processes are included in the overall landscape-forming process - abiotic,
biotized or anthropotized, interacting, they act together. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the
statements of the authors. A landscape is a
holistic image of the environment within the area, primarily - the physiography
of the day surface. It is here that the processes that form its image as a kind
of two-dimensional text unfold. And it does not matter which processes are
included in the overall landscape-forming process - abiotic, biotic or
anthropic, interacting, they act together: there is human nature and human
nature and nothing goes beyond Nature. What the author calls cultural
interventions and economic (actually - production) pressure is a sign of
insufficient culture. It makes no sense to classify the so-called cultural
landscapes (these should be called anthropotized) as socio-ecological systems.
Why match two terms to one phenomenon? There is no logic in this. To ask the
question of the evolution of the understanding of environmental activities
today is an anachronism, today we should ask the question of the evolution of
human behaviour in relation to Nature, of which it is a part. I would like to
note that the laws adopted in Greece to implement the provisions developed by
the ELC are an important direction, but we should not forget that the laws are
a system of external restrictions. Therefore, it is much more important to work
towards spreading people's culture, because culture is a system of internal
constraints. This is what the concept of concerted/coordinated development aims at. It is about the formation and spread of geoculture.
Concluding the review, I note the following. We see
that it is not so easy to find common ground with people who cover issues
related to the phenomenon of landscape, as well as the problems of interaction
of human communities with the natural environment. We need a closer and more
active interaction between professionals with different views.
References
Kyvelou S.S., Gourgiotis A. Landscape as Connecting
Link of Nature and Culture: Spatial Planning Policy Implications in Greece // Urban
Sci. 2019, 3, 81; doi:10.3390/urbansci3030081, 2019. – 20 p. –
Berque A. Landscape
and the overcoming of modernity - Zong Bing’s principle - SG2 – IGU
Study Group – THE CULTURAL APPROACH IN GEOGRAPHY – Seoul, August 14-18,
2000, pp. 1 – 8.
URL: http://www.isc.senshu-u.ac.jp/~the0043/Landscape.pdf
European Landscape Convention, 2000 - https://rm.coe.int/16802f80c6
Nilots in the Swamp Sudd –
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDe8jEiEPX0
Giethoorn, Holland.com editors.
URL: https://www.holland.com/global/tourism/destinations/provinces/overijssel/giethoorn-10.htm
[1] The term "fractoid" was introduced by the famous Kharkiv astronomer Yu.G. Shkuratov to denote formations having a structure close to fractal in a limited number of scale levels.
What worries me in this article? First of all, the authors took only one definition of "landscape", only one point of view related to the ELC, although there are many different options. And, as it turned out, it is not so perfect in terms of justification. And this version is already used for the legal framework intended for practice. This does not look entirely correct.
ВідповістиВидалити