Für einen Zeitraum von 8 Jahren wurde die vom Institut NIAB-EMR (East Malling, UK) stammende Unterlage M200 in einem Gemeinschaftsversuch zwischen dem „Versuchszentrum Laimburg“ (Italien) und dem „Dienstleistungszentrum Ländlicher Raum Rheinpfalz“ in Klein-Altendorf (Deutschland) geprüft. Ein positiver Aspekt der Unterlage sind ihre höheren Baumerträge im Vergleich zu M9 T337, bei einer ähnlichen Fruchtqualität. Die glatte Oberfläche der Unterlage ist fast frei von Wurzelfeldern. Auch Wurzelaustriebe sind sehr selten im Unterschied zu M9 T337. M200 hat keine höhere Toleranz gegenüber Bodenmüdigkeit gezeigt als M9 T337: Vor allem im Pflanzjahr und im 2. Standjahr wurden Wachstums- und Ertragsdefizite auf unbehandeltem Boden festgestellt, ähnlich wie bei M9 T337, G 11 und G 41. M200 wächst am Versuchszentrum Laimburg allerdings signifikant stärker als M9 T337, was im Nachbau oder in Kombination mit schwachwüchsigen Sorten von Vorteil sein kann. In Klein-Altendorf liegt M200 in der Wüchsigkeit um M9 T337, wobei anzumerken ist, dass die neue Unterlage in den ersten 4 Standjahren höhere Triebzuwächse als M9 T337 erreicht. G 11 ist im Vergleich zu M200 in beiden Versuchen als schwächer einzustufen. Diese Divergenz der Resultate auf beiden Standorten bestätigt, dass in der Bewertung von Unterlagen Interaktionen zwischen Unterlage, Boden und klimatischen Bedingungen berücksichtigt werden müssen.
{"title":"Achtjährige Erfahrungen mit der Apfelunterlage M200","authors":"Irene Höller, G. Baab, Rolf Wemhöner, W. Guerra","doi":"10.23796/LJ/2021.005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23796/LJ/2021.005","url":null,"abstract":"Für einen Zeitraum von 8 Jahren wurde die vom Institut NIAB-EMR (East Malling, UK) stammende Unterlage M200 in einem Gemeinschaftsversuch zwischen dem „Versuchszentrum Laimburg“ (Italien) und dem „Dienstleistungszentrum Ländlicher Raum Rheinpfalz“ in Klein-Altendorf (Deutschland) geprüft. Ein positiver Aspekt der Unterlage sind ihre höheren Baumerträge im Vergleich zu M9 T337, bei einer ähnlichen Fruchtqualität. Die glatte Oberfläche der Unterlage ist fast frei von Wurzelfeldern. Auch Wurzelaustriebe sind sehr selten im Unterschied zu M9 T337. M200 hat keine höhere Toleranz gegenüber Bodenmüdigkeit gezeigt als M9 T337: Vor allem im Pflanzjahr und im 2. Standjahr wurden Wachstums- und Ertragsdefizite auf unbehandeltem Boden festgestellt, ähnlich wie bei M9 T337, G 11 und G 41. M200 wächst am Versuchszentrum Laimburg allerdings signifikant stärker als M9 T337, was im Nachbau oder in Kombination mit schwachwüchsigen Sorten von Vorteil sein kann. In Klein-Altendorf liegt M200 in der Wüchsigkeit um M9 T337, wobei anzumerken ist, dass die neue Unterlage in den ersten 4 Standjahren höhere Triebzuwächse als M9 T337 erreicht. G 11 ist im Vergleich zu M200 in beiden Versuchen als schwächer einzustufen. Diese Divergenz der Resultate auf beiden Standorten bestätigt, dass in der Bewertung von Unterlagen Interaktionen zwischen Unterlage, Boden und klimatischen Bedingungen berücksichtigt werden müssen.","PeriodicalId":54062,"journal":{"name":"Landscape Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68840742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Invention of Public Space: Designing for Inclusion in Lindsay’s New York","authors":"Richard S. Hawks","doi":"10.3368/wplj.40.1.71","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/wplj.40.1.71","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54062,"journal":{"name":"Landscape Journal","volume":"40 1","pages":"71 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48879744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
People experiencing homelessness struggle to find a place in the city. With public spaces mostly devoted to infrastructure (for cars), civic identity, and recreation, few spaces remain for the unhoused. Cities regulate behavior in more visible public spaces to prevent loitering, sleeping, and sometimes sitting and eating. Given the scarcity of welcoming public spaces for people experiencing homelessness, it is unclear where they live and whether these spaces are providing what they need. To uncover how people experiencing homelessness use landscapes, I mapped the location of people along urban transects in three California cities: Sacramento, Oakland, and Santa Cruz. I interviewed people who are unhoused in these cities regarding their daily movements. The mapping and interviews resulted in a typology of public spaces of homelessness. This research found that although many people experiencing homelessness inhabit urban parks and sidewalks around social service centers, they also frequent places formed by and adjacent to transportation infrastructure. People experiencing homelessness creatively appropriate public transportation infrastructure as living areas to socialize, rest, and manage their visibility. I argue that the redesign of infrastructure should consider the preservation of edge conditions and informal spaces to provide public space for people experiencing homelessness.
{"title":"Homelessness in the Public Landscape: A Typology of Informal Infrastructure","authors":"C. Parker","doi":"10.3368/wplj.40.1.49","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/wplj.40.1.49","url":null,"abstract":"People experiencing homelessness struggle to find a place in the city. With public spaces mostly devoted to infrastructure (for cars), civic identity, and recreation, few spaces remain for the unhoused. Cities regulate behavior in more visible public spaces to prevent loitering, sleeping, and sometimes sitting and eating. Given the scarcity of welcoming public spaces for people experiencing homelessness, it is unclear where they live and whether these spaces are providing what they need. To uncover how people experiencing homelessness use landscapes, I mapped the location of people along urban transects in three California cities: Sacramento, Oakland, and Santa Cruz. I interviewed people who are unhoused in these cities regarding their daily movements. The mapping and interviews resulted in a typology of public spaces of homelessness. This research found that although many people experiencing homelessness inhabit urban parks and sidewalks around social service centers, they also frequent places formed by and adjacent to transportation infrastructure. People experiencing homelessness creatively appropriate public transportation infrastructure as living areas to socialize, rest, and manage their visibility. I argue that the redesign of infrastructure should consider the preservation of edge conditions and informal spaces to provide public space for people experiencing homelessness.","PeriodicalId":54062,"journal":{"name":"Landscape Journal","volume":"40 1","pages":"49 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46204702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Accidental Wilderness: The Origins and Ecology of Toronto’s Tommy Thompson Park","authors":"R. Smardon","doi":"10.3368/wplj.40.1.68","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/wplj.40.1.68","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54062,"journal":{"name":"Landscape Journal","volume":"40 1","pages":"68 - 69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42945607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the role that physical design plays in shaping women’s everyday experiences in public space by studying gender differences in the use of a 1.3-acre urban park in a specific cultural enclave. Through direct observation, behavior mapping, and quantitative analysis, the project reveals an obvious gender separation of space usage in Portsmouth Square in the Chinatown district of San Francisco, California. In-depth interviews exposed a range of reasons for this separation and revealed how some Chinese immigrants construct and negotiate their social dynamics and territoriality on the urban square. The findings reaffirm that men and women often have different preferences in open spaces as well as different concepts of optimum public space experiences. Results also indicate that observed segregation by gender is not all voluntary. In this case, besides the known factors such as cultural and social norms, physical space design is important in shaping women’s use of public space, perpetuating and even intensifying gender separation and inequity. This study addresses and highlights some spatial elements that can be easily overlooked by landscape architects and environmental planners. It argues that to create a gender-inclusive—or, at a minimum, genderaware— public space, designers must consider not only the differences of ability, movement, and designated spots but also barriers, interruptions, and spaces avoided or inaccessible by specific populations.
{"title":"“Separate but Equal?” Understanding Gender Differences in Urban Park Usage and Its Implications for Gender-Inclusive Design","authors":"Yiwei Huang, N. C. Napawan","doi":"10.3368/wplj.40.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/wplj.40.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the role that physical design plays in shaping women’s everyday experiences in public space by studying gender differences in the use of a 1.3-acre urban park in a specific cultural enclave. Through direct observation, behavior mapping, and quantitative analysis, the project reveals an obvious gender separation of space usage in Portsmouth Square in the Chinatown district of San Francisco, California. In-depth interviews exposed a range of reasons for this separation and revealed how some Chinese immigrants construct and negotiate their social dynamics and territoriality on the urban square. The findings reaffirm that men and women often have different preferences in open spaces as well as different concepts of optimum public space experiences. Results also indicate that observed segregation by gender is not all voluntary. In this case, besides the known factors such as cultural and social norms, physical space design is important in shaping women’s use of public space, perpetuating and even intensifying gender separation and inequity. This study addresses and highlights some spatial elements that can be easily overlooked by landscape architects and environmental planners. It argues that to create a gender-inclusive—or, at a minimum, genderaware— public space, designers must consider not only the differences of ability, movement, and designated spots but also barriers, interruptions, and spaces avoided or inaccessible by specific populations.","PeriodicalId":54062,"journal":{"name":"Landscape Journal","volume":"40 1","pages":"1 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46252035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although the four peer-reviewed articles in this issue were selected on their merit and not from a proposed topic, taken as a whole, they do suggest a theme. On the broadest level, the articles point out that when thinking about and managing landscapes, one size does not fit all. Guidelines for public spaces, assumptions about environmental justice, models from new urbanism, and even “spatial imaginaries” (how we imagine our cities should be) do not always capture the complexity of our places and our perspectives on them. An understanding of different genders, different socioeconomic groups, and different ecological conditions can challenge our existing knowledge and shift design and management decisions. In these articles, these new understandings do not invalidate existing knowledge; they expand it, creating more nuanced and inclusive approaches to design, planning, and management. In “Separate but equal?,” Yiwei Huang and N. Claire Napawan explore how gender influences park use in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Through behavioral observation and on-site interviews, they document how the park design intersects with the demands of women’s daily lives; women with children or bags of groceries felt restricted to certain areas of the park. Huang and Napawan conclude that although gender segregation in park usage is often explained by differences in preferences, in this case, the park design created involuntary segregation as well. They argue that designers should be aware of how gender plays out in people’s daily lives to create more gender-inclusive designs. Isabel Shargo and a research team from the Community Engagement, Environmental Justice, and Health Laboratory at University of Maryland use GIS mapping to explore how two aspects of environmental justice—food access through urban farms and the location of toxic sites—relate to each other in Baltimore. Their findings show that although urban farms are primarily located in low-income communities of color, these farms are not usually in proximity to toxic sites. This is generally good news for people interested in improving food access through urban farming; however, the story is more nuanced. As they conclude, the “separation of toxic sites and urban farming was not by design but was an unintended result of discriminatory housing practices and gentrification trends.” Gavin Smith, Allison Anderson, and David Perkes question the “one-size-fits-all” approach of the new urbanist transect, especially when it is applied to coastal zones experiencing more frequent extreme weather events and sea level rise because of climate change. They propose a modification of the transect—a combination of the transect with a hazard overlay district that can incorporate a more adaptive and flexible approach to design regulations in coastal zones. In the final article of this issue, Cory Parker explores how people experiencing homelessness inhabit landscapes in three California cities. From behavior observation and on-sit
尽管本期四篇经过同行评议的文章是根据它们的优点而不是从一个拟议的主题中选出的，但从整体上看，它们确实提出了一个主题。在最广泛的层面上，文章指出，在思考和管理景观时，一种方式并不适合所有人。公共空间的指导方针、关于环境正义的假设、新城市主义的模型，甚至“空间想象”(我们想象我们的城市应该是什么样子)，都不能总是捕捉到我们的地方的复杂性和我们对它们的看法。对不同性别、不同社会经济群体和不同生态条件的理解可以挑战我们现有的知识，改变设计和管理决策。在这些文章中，这些新的理解并没有使现有的知识无效;他们扩展了它，创造了更细致和包容的设计、规划和管理方法。在《隔离但平等?》， Huang和N. Claire Napawan探讨了性别如何影响旧金山唐人街的公园使用。通过行为观察和现场访谈，他们记录了公园设计与女性日常生活需求的交集;带着孩子或带着杂货袋的妇女感到只能在公园的某些区域活动。Huang和Napawan得出结论，尽管公园使用中的性别隔离通常可以用偏好的差异来解释，但在这种情况下，公园的设计也造成了非自愿的隔离。他们认为，设计师应该意识到性别如何在人们的日常生活中发挥作用，以创造更具性别包容性的设计。来自马里兰大学社区参与、环境正义和健康实验室的伊莎贝尔·沙戈和一个研究小组使用GIS制图来探索巴尔的摩环境正义的两个方面——通过城市农场获取食物和有毒地点的位置——是如何相互关联的。他们的研究结果表明，虽然城市农场主要位于有色人种的低收入社区，但这些农场通常不靠近有毒场所。对于那些希望通过城市农业改善粮食供应的人来说，这通常是个好消息;然而，这个故事更加微妙。正如他们的结论，“有毒场所和城市农业的分离不是设计出来的，而是歧视性住房实践和中产阶级化趋势的意外结果。”加文·史密斯、艾莉森·安德森和大卫·珀克斯质疑新城市主义样带的“一刀切”方法，特别是当它被应用于因气候变化而经历更频繁的极端天气事件和海平面上升的沿海地区时。他们提出了对横带的修改——将横带与危险覆盖区结合起来，可以采用更具适应性和灵活性的方法来设计沿海地区的法规。在本期的最后一篇文章中，科里·帕克探索了加州三个城市中无家可归的人是如何居住的。通过行为观察和现场访谈，他开发了三种土地用途的类型学:公园和公共空间，工业区和交通基础设施。在每个网站中，不同的网站是首选的，这取决于人们期望的可见性水平。虽然无家可归的人不得不将就剩余的空间，但帕克描述了他们如何在决定全天居住的景观方面表现出能动性。他要求设计师和规划者在他们的过程中考虑无家可归者的需求，也许留下一些非正式和未设计的空间。总的来说，这些文章对设计和规划中的排他做法提出了挑战，无论是有意的(例如在La和sc使用警察和围栏)，如Jo ur na 1 0:1 is SN 0 27 724 26 eIS SN 15 53 -2 70 4
{"title":"About This Issue","authors":"K. Melcher","doi":"10.3368/wplj.40.1.v","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/wplj.40.1.v","url":null,"abstract":"Although the four peer-reviewed articles in this issue were selected on their merit and not from a proposed topic, taken as a whole, they do suggest a theme. On the broadest level, the articles point out that when thinking about and managing landscapes, one size does not fit all. Guidelines for public spaces, assumptions about environmental justice, models from new urbanism, and even “spatial imaginaries” (how we imagine our cities should be) do not always capture the complexity of our places and our perspectives on them. An understanding of different genders, different socioeconomic groups, and different ecological conditions can challenge our existing knowledge and shift design and management decisions. In these articles, these new understandings do not invalidate existing knowledge; they expand it, creating more nuanced and inclusive approaches to design, planning, and management. In “Separate but equal?,” Yiwei Huang and N. Claire Napawan explore how gender influences park use in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Through behavioral observation and on-site interviews, they document how the park design intersects with the demands of women’s daily lives; women with children or bags of groceries felt restricted to certain areas of the park. Huang and Napawan conclude that although gender segregation in park usage is often explained by differences in preferences, in this case, the park design created involuntary segregation as well. They argue that designers should be aware of how gender plays out in people’s daily lives to create more gender-inclusive designs. Isabel Shargo and a research team from the Community Engagement, Environmental Justice, and Health Laboratory at University of Maryland use GIS mapping to explore how two aspects of environmental justice—food access through urban farms and the location of toxic sites—relate to each other in Baltimore. Their findings show that although urban farms are primarily located in low-income communities of color, these farms are not usually in proximity to toxic sites. This is generally good news for people interested in improving food access through urban farming; however, the story is more nuanced. As they conclude, the “separation of toxic sites and urban farming was not by design but was an unintended result of discriminatory housing practices and gentrification trends.” Gavin Smith, Allison Anderson, and David Perkes question the “one-size-fits-all” approach of the new urbanist transect, especially when it is applied to coastal zones experiencing more frequent extreme weather events and sea level rise because of climate change. They propose a modification of the transect—a combination of the transect with a hazard overlay district that can incorporate a more adaptive and flexible approach to design regulations in coastal zones. In the final article of this issue, Cory Parker explores how people experiencing homelessness inhabit landscapes in three California cities. From behavior observation and on-sit","PeriodicalId":54062,"journal":{"name":"Landscape Journal","volume":"40 1","pages":"v - vi"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44208227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Isabel Shargo, Jonathan Hall, Ashley Deng, Niya Khanjar, Camryn Edwards, Isabelle Berman, Joseph Galarraga, Sacoby M. Wilson
The proliferation of urban farming in Baltimore City has helped counter the lack of available healthy food but raises concerns regarding public health and environmental justice because of its potential proximity to environmental hazards and toxic sites. We used GIS mapping and a Getis–Ord Gi* hotspot analysis to determine if specific environmental hazards were disproportionately located in census tracts with urban farms or in low-income communities of color. These analyses found that most urban farms were in pockets of lowincome communities of color. However, most environmental hazards were not proximate to urban farms but in regions with more White populations bordering the Inner Harbor, including Federal Hill, and in historically industrial centers such as Curtis Bay. These findings are hopeful with respect to the notion of urban farming as a healthy and sustainable solution to food insecurity with low risk of contamination. Even so, there were cases of hazardous sites in census tracts deemed urban farm hotspots. Some urban farms located in areas with high percentages of lowincome communities and Black or African American populations have the potential to be contaminated by hazardous sites. The methodology in this study could be used in the siting of future urban agricultural ventures in cities with legacy pollution as a first step in ensuring that growing operations are not sited near toxic hazards that could threaten the safety of produce for consumption.
{"title":"Proximity of Urban Farms to Contaminated Sites in Baltimore, Maryland","authors":"Isabel Shargo, Jonathan Hall, Ashley Deng, Niya Khanjar, Camryn Edwards, Isabelle Berman, Joseph Galarraga, Sacoby M. Wilson","doi":"10.3368/wplj.40.1.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/wplj.40.1.17","url":null,"abstract":"The proliferation of urban farming in Baltimore City has helped counter the lack of available healthy food but raises concerns regarding public health and environmental justice because of its potential proximity to environmental hazards and toxic sites. We used GIS mapping and a Getis–Ord Gi* hotspot analysis to determine if specific environmental hazards were disproportionately located in census tracts with urban farms or in low-income communities of color. These analyses found that most urban farms were in pockets of lowincome communities of color. However, most environmental hazards were not proximate to urban farms but in regions with more White populations bordering the Inner Harbor, including Federal Hill, and in historically industrial centers such as Curtis Bay. These findings are hopeful with respect to the notion of urban farming as a healthy and sustainable solution to food insecurity with low risk of contamination. Even so, there were cases of hazardous sites in census tracts deemed urban farm hotspots. Some urban farms located in areas with high percentages of lowincome communities and Black or African American populations have the potential to be contaminated by hazardous sites. The methodology in this study could be used in the siting of future urban agricultural ventures in cities with legacy pollution as a first step in ensuring that growing operations are not sited near toxic hazards that could threaten the safety of produce for consumption.","PeriodicalId":54062,"journal":{"name":"Landscape Journal","volume":"40 1","pages":"17 - 33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49091949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A manual for the next generation of parks and recreation practitioners, Barth weaves together a prescriptive handbook of strategies and examples for systems-oriented master planning in the sector. While it can be read linearly, it is more useful as a compendium of pointers related to the different steps of the master planning process in a parks and recreation context. Operating in three parts, Barth first weaves together a compelling introduction for practitioners about the importance of parks and recreation to ecosystems, health, society, and economy. The next two parts lay out the advantages of a strategic approach to developing plans compared to more traditional methods, and the minutia of practicing parks and recreation system planning and implementation with this more strategic approach. As a landscape architect, project manager, and urban planner with decades of consulting experience, Barth is well suited to provide instructional guidance on this topic.Barth applies a systems theory approach to parks and recreation system planning and manage-ment. The opening chapters make the case for adopting a triple-bottom line lens to parks and recreation systems, grounded in considerable research. The case studies of “high performance public spaces” illustrates the power of this lens to make the economic, social, and environmental case for parks and recreation. For example, Barth shares his experiences in revitalizing Kissimmee Lakefront Park in Florida that improved lake habitat, provided new recreational and social amenities, and catalyzed broader economic development in the surrounding area. This theoretical approach is carried through the later chapters of the book with a detailing of the minute operational elements of a cyclical plan development and review process. In these chapters, the author lays out a blueprint for how to prepare for, develop, and implement a parks and recreation system master plan. There is a plethora of useful framing questions and propositions in these later chapters that will likely make their way into many local government master planning initiatives in the coming decade. Barth emphasizes collaboration at
作为下一代公园和娱乐从业人员的手册，Barth为该部门面向系统的总体规划编制了一本规范的战略和示例手册。虽然它可以线性阅读，但作为一个与公园和娱乐环境中总体规划过程的不同步骤相关的指针的汇编更有用。Barth分为三个部分，首先为实践者编织了一个引人注目的介绍，介绍了公园和娱乐对生态系统、健康、社会和经济的重要性。接下来的两部分阐述了战略方法与传统方法相比的优势，以及实践公园和娱乐系统规划和实施的细节。作为一名拥有数十年咨询经验的景观设计师、项目经理和城市规划师，Barth非常适合为这一主题提供指导。巴斯将系统理论方法应用于公园和娱乐系统的规划和管理。开篇几章在大量研究的基础上，提出了对公园和娱乐系统采用三重底线视角的案例。“高性能公共空间”的案例研究说明了这一视角在公园和娱乐的经济、社会和环境方面的力量。例如，Barth分享了他在佛罗里达州基西米湖滨公园(Kissimmee lake front Park)的复兴经验，该公园改善了湖泊栖息地，提供了新的娱乐和社交设施，并促进了周边地区更广泛的经济发展。这种理论方法贯穿了本书的后面章节，详细介绍了周期性计划开发和审查过程的微小操作元素。在这些章节中，作者为如何准备、开发和实施公园和娱乐系统总体规划绘制了蓝图。在后面的章节中有大量有用的框架问题和命题，这些问题和命题可能会在未来十年被纳入许多地方政府的总体规划倡议。Barth强调合作
{"title":"Parks and Recreation System Planning: A New Approach for Creating Sustainable, Resilient Communities","authors":"D. Kuehn","doi":"10.3368/wplj.40.1.67","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3368/wplj.40.1.67","url":null,"abstract":"A manual for the next generation of parks and recreation practitioners, Barth weaves together a prescriptive handbook of strategies and examples for systems-oriented master planning in the sector. While it can be read linearly, it is more useful as a compendium of pointers related to the different steps of the master planning process in a parks and recreation context. Operating in three parts, Barth first weaves together a compelling introduction for practitioners about the importance of parks and recreation to ecosystems, health, society, and economy. The next two parts lay out the advantages of a strategic approach to developing plans compared to more traditional methods, and the minutia of practicing parks and recreation system planning and implementation with this more strategic approach. As a landscape architect, project manager, and urban planner with decades of consulting experience, Barth is well suited to provide instructional guidance on this topic.Barth applies a systems theory approach to parks and recreation system planning and manage-ment. The opening chapters make the case for adopting a triple-bottom line lens to parks and recreation systems, grounded in considerable research. The case studies of “high performance public spaces” illustrates the power of this lens to make the economic, social, and environmental case for parks and recreation. For example, Barth shares his experiences in revitalizing Kissimmee Lakefront Park in Florida that improved lake habitat, provided new recreational and social amenities, and catalyzed broader economic development in the surrounding area. This theoretical approach is carried through the later chapters of the book with a detailing of the minute operational elements of a cyclical plan development and review process. In these chapters, the author lays out a blueprint for how to prepare for, develop, and implement a parks and recreation system master plan. There is a plethora of useful framing questions and propositions in these later chapters that will likely make their way into many local government master planning initiatives in the coming decade. Barth emphasizes collaboration at","PeriodicalId":54062,"journal":{"name":"Landscape Journal","volume":"40 1","pages":"67 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47678579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：