Landscape – Great Idea! X-LArch III - Department für Raum ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

40 Landscape Evaluation Process. A Methodological Proposal for Spatial Planning and Decision Making Process Grazia Brunetta 1 , Angioletta Voghera 2 1 Inter-University Department of Territorial Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino, Viale Mattioli 39, 10125, Turin, Italy. (email: grazia.brunetta@polito.it) 2 Inter-University Department of Territorial Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino, Viale Mattioli 39, 10125, Turin, Italy. (email: angioletta.voghera@polito.it) Abstract According to the innovation of the landscape in the strategies of the European Landscape Convention (2000) that promotes a radical shift in perspective, moving from well-entrenched practices towards landscape conservation, planning and management, it is important to define a new approach to landscape governance based on landscape evaluation in order to make landscape values and their meanings clear to the population, with a view to promoting sustainability. In the paper, we propose a landscape assessment methodology useful to play the role of a technical learning process inside the decision-making whose goal is to make explicit the values and the criteria adopted for making territorial choices in a social participation. Although this paper is the result of a collective reflection, parts 1, 2 are mainly the work of Grazia Brunetta, and parts 3, 4 are mainly the work of Angioletta Voghera. Key words Landscape evaluation, landscape policy, European Landscape Convention, landscape values, landscape governance vision. 1.Landscape evaluation and assessment The landscape is a special focus of interest and innovation of spatial policies for the international community, in particular in the strategies of the European Landscape Convention (ELC; CoE, 2000; CoE, 2008, CM/ Rec(2008)3) in order to: 1. Analyse the landscape in an integrated and systemic perspective useful to outline the interrelation among ecological, natural, social-cultural, visual, economical and urban-settlements values; 2. Define methods to identify and assess the landscape aimed at guiding and verifying the territorial choices of conservation, restoration, valorisation and planning (Bailly, Raffestin, Reymond, 1980; Cosgrove, 1984; Oneto, 1987 and 1997) aimed at reinforcing their shared identity (Coppola Pignatelli, 1992). This process involves analysis of morphological, archaeological, historical, cultural and natural characteristics and their interrelations and also analysis of changes, including perception of the landscape by the populations (Cosgrove, 1984; Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Brown T., 1989). The fundamental stages in the process leading to landscape action are (CoE, 2008, CM/Rec(2008)3): (i) knowledge of the landscapes: identification, description and assessment; (ii) definition of landscape quality objectives; attainment of these objectives by protection, management and planning over a period of time (exceptional actions and measures and ordinary actions and measures); (iii) monitoring of changes, evaluation of the effects of policies, possible redefinition of choices. Referring to landscape evaluation experiences developed in Europe, it is possible to identify various approaches (Brunetta and Voghera, 2008) that comply more closely with the ELC Recommendation: identification employs descriptions in order to disseminate landscape identity in society; interpretation develops multidisciplinary readings of landscapes in order to define values and set restrictions; the social legitimization of the values of economic, aesthetic, cultural, and social identities defines criteria for guiding and planning sustainable transformations of the landscapes. In this perspective, the aim of this paper is, according to the ELC Recommendation and the social legitimization approach, to propose a methodology to evaluate the landscape as a technical assessment process within decision making, aimed at recognizing values and selecting criteria for the planning of each landscape and for the definition of a new landscape governance. This objective requires investigation of the following principal methodological topics: 1. definition of the landscapes whereby the landscape is considered to be a meta-organization of relationships between different systems: geomorphologic, environmental-ecological, culturalhistorical and socio-economic systems and also the systems of settlement and use of the territory. In other words, landscape is the concept that includes all the genetic, dynamic, and functional relationships between the components of every part of the land surface. An interpretation of this type is the first to introduce the concept of landscape as an expression of an ecological, economic and social organization that includes multi-faceted, differentiated values that can acquire stable and/ or dynamic values;
41 2. 3. the role of evaluation in defining different types of landscape values: a) consolidated; b) regulative; c) to be implemented; consideration of the assessment actions that can be summed up in the following features which should be understood as strictly interrelated (Alexander, 2006; Brunetta and Peano, 2003; Brunetta, 2006; Fusco Girard, 1998): • assessment should be considered a gradual learning process, as a way of steering assessment and transformation actions; • assessment is not only a technical procedure but also a simultaneous dialogue between institutions and between institutions and citizens in order to construct socially shared policies; • therefore, assessment must not be seen as static analysis but as a steadily evolving process; • assessment is not merely an analysis but is oriented towards the construction of policies in order to promote sustainable development. 2.The values involved in landscape evaluation According to the discussion in Brunetta and Voghera (2008), this methodological perspective complies more effectively with the aim of determining the value of landscape resources. Value should be considered a variable trait that may change over time and assume different meanings. The role of assessment is to reveal the meanings and positions that each party attaches to each landscape resource. We must assume, of course, that values change over time but, here, we propose a definition for current trends that, hopefully, will prove useful for the evaluation process of landscapes. In fact, some values acquire an “intrinsic” value, i.e. a value that does not depend on anything but itself and cannot be related to any other value and which is therefore independent of the meaning acquired case by case by other values. Cultural resources are examples of this type of value. On the other hand, there are other values that have an “extrinsic” value. This distinction between these two types of values is useful for our discussion from the ELC perspective of promoting the planning of new ‘landscapes’. In particular, we should examine the process of definition of “extrinsic values”, i.e. those that tend to sway decisions regarding the conservation, rehabilitation, enhancement and transformation of various landscapes in a territory and which can be distinguished in the following types (Brunetta and Voghera, 2007): • consolidated values refer to the collective identity, representing the expectations of quality and selfrecognition of a community of individuals with a shared conception of life (cultural values, values of belonging) (Kaplan R., Kaplan, Brown, 1989); • regulative values originate in the restrictions that certain elements may impose on certain sites and/ or areas; • values to be implemented are values that identify opportunities for landscape improvement as a driving force for development based on the specificity of each landscape organization. From this point of view, the process of legitimizing these types of “extrinsic” values becomes an indispensable step in the landscape planning decision-making process. This process is a public process of debate that reinforces and strengthens the feeling of belonging of the parties involved and therefore the “opportunities” and “interactions” in and of the landscape. The actions involved in defining landscape values perform the task of reinforcing the “bonds” and feeling of belonging among the various parties. Their aim is to reveal the positions of the various parties regarding each landscape resource, to attribute new values to each resource, to define their positions about each resource and, at the same time, to broaden each party’s scope of action and commitment (Jakle, 1987; Higuchi, 1989) However, this act of public identification of values can be sustained only if assessment is perceived as a learning process inserted in a decision-making process (Gorgeu Y., Jenkins C., 1995). During the assessment, values take shape, emerge, are made more specific and are defined in relation to other values. From this point of view, it is necessary to emphasize the process of social identification of values before we can begin to formulate “activist policies” able to blend the integrated goals of conservation and enhancement. Without this process, there is no landscape identification or assessment. For this reason, the value evaluation process is an essential feature of new landscape planning approaches. The ELC implemented a process whereby methods were to be innovated and advantageous practices were to be deployed with regard to identifying the quality and the identities of landscapes. Despite this, we propose a method for defining articulated development programs for all landscapes based on the legitimization of “values”. This is the only way in which such programs can become engines of sustainable landscape growth and the growth of territories. 3. The proposal methodology In the perspective described our proposal methodology is characterised by integration of the extrinsic values identified by the research (i.e. consolidated and regulative values and values to be implemented) and the various methods of landscape acknowledgement (identification, interpretation and social legitimization) stemming from Papers
Page 1 and 2: University of Natural Resources and
Page 3 and 4: Authors of the papers are fully res
Page 5: 3 Day 2 Thursday, April 30, 2009 Se
Page 8 and 9: 6 The “Landscape-Infrastructure
Page 10 and 11: 8 a) b) Fig. 2 : Study of the perme
Page 12 and 13: 10 Endnotes [1] Bernetti, Casini, M
Page 14 and 15: 12 Urban landscapes need great idea
Page 16 and 17: 14 the term “overall expression
Page 18 and 19: 16 Fig. 2: Initial overall pictures
Page 20 and 21: 18 Evaluation of Open Space Form an
Page 22 and 23: 20 Fig. 5: Other vegetation This st
Page 24 and 25: 22 Type of activity: • Exercise/p
Page 26 and 27: 24 Landscaped, Modern, or Social? T
Page 28 and 29: 26 Fig. 2: Rose and Perennial Show
Page 30 and 31: 28 Herbert Bayer’s Megastructures
Page 32 and 33: 30 a large extent the Japanese deve
Page 34 and 35: 32 A Fertile Wilderness: The CPR’
Page 36 and 37: 34 Fig.3 as their destination. The
Page 38 and 39: 36 The Method of Structuralist Land
Page 40 and 41: 38 Fig. 2: SLA implements gender eq
Page 44 and 45: 42 systematic application of certai
Page 46 and 47: 44 holders (as Piemonte Region, Riv
Page 48 and 49: 46 Frameworks - Preparing rural lan
Page 50 and 51: 48 The issues are organized into fa
Page 52 and 53: 50 Do Landscape Architects make the
Page 54 and 55: 52 within the larger landscape piec
Page 56 and 57: 54 Landscape as Urban Structure: th
Page 58 and 59: 56 city extension area but also in
Page 60 and 61: 58 housing neighborhoods. Construct
Page 62 and 63: 60 “massive change, required - ni
Page 64 and 65: 62 architecture’s ability to conc
Page 66 and 67: 64 cape Journal 6 (1): 4-12 Jackson
Page 68 and 69: 66 Green Idea/Grey Reality Carl Smi
Page 70 and 71: 68 argument was put forward for omi
Page 72 and 73: 70 Green Streets Potential for Down
Page 74 and 75: 72 size of rain garden through the
Page 76 and 77: 74 Climate Change asks for Sustaina
Page 78 and 79: 76 Fig. 2: Simplified example (livi
Page 80 and 81: 78 Sustainability in Park Design -
Page 82 and 83: 80 Fig 2: Integrative Design Approa
Page 84 and 85: 82 Preserving community gardens in
Page 86 and 87: 84 the City applied the military so
Page 88 and 89: 86 Endnotes [1] Anyone interested i
Page 90 and 91: 88 Urban imageability & open space
Page 92 and 93:
90 ning up degraded wetlands, plant
Page 94 and 95:
92 How to balance the multiple role
Page 96 and 97:
94 to the site. The public domain i
Page 98 and 99:
96 public spaces in the HBA, and by
Page 100 and 101:
98 Questions of scale for sustainab
Page 102 and 103:
100 Fig. 4: Nested structure of an
Page 104 and 105:
102 Fig. 8: Fragmentary planning mo
Page 106 and 107:
104 Moving Land: International Buil
Page 108 and 109:
106 Fig. 3: Concept Desert/Oasis We
Page 110 and 111:
108 Exploring a New Mode of Sustain
Page 112 and 113:
110 Serveral private sectors initia
Page 114 and 115:
112 Structuring the Concept of Land
Page 116 and 117:
114 transformation; the regulative
Page 118 and 119:
116 Anti-planning, anti-design? Exp
Page 120 and 121:
118 ate them, provided they still r
Page 122 and 123:
120 Complexity Ethos + Strategies:
Page 124 and 125:
122 cher” from a twenty-five foot
Page 126 and 127:
124 Great Ideas in Landscapes Seen
Page 128 and 129:
126 Depending on motivation, these
Page 130 and 131:
128 The traditions of landscape sch
Page 132 and 133:
130 Landscape Insertions: Operation
Page 134 and 135:
132 Fig. 02: Llorca Stéphanie, AXY
Page 136 and 137:
134 and creative innovation that in
Page 138 and 139:
136 Significance of the post-mining
Page 140 and 141:
138 Designing the post-industrial c
Page 142 and 143:
140 Hidden landscapes - The Enclose
Page 144 and 145:
142 Fig. 3: Paley Park is an inters
Page 146 and 147:
144 House and Exterior in the archi
Page 148 and 149:
146 Fig. 4 architectonical work“
Page 150 and 151:
148 The socio-cultural role of peri
Page 152 and 153:
150 Ecological networks representat
Page 154 and 155:
152 Veneto integrated water landsca
Page 156 and 157:
154 Fig. 2: Ponte di Piave 2025 (A)
Page 158 and 159:
156 Observing the Landscape Roland
Page 160 and 161:
158 Fig. 2: signalman house and rai
Page 162 and 163:
160 Mobility and Territory Sanja Cv
Page 164 and 165:
162 Kevin Lynch’s Openness of the
Page 166 and 167:
164 Phytoremediation as an Experien
Page 168 and 169:
166 Fig. 2: Rhizotron: An undergrou
Page 170 and 171:
168
Page 172 and 173:
170
Page 174 and 175:
172
Page 176 and 177:
174
Page 178 and 179:
176
Page 180 and 181:
178
Page 184:
Many Thanks to our Supporters ILA -
show all

Landscape – Great Idea! X-LArch III - Department für Raum ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?