英国景观评价运动(1965-85)

IF 0.3 2区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY Rural History-Economy Society Culture Pub Date : 2022-05-30 DOI:10.1017/S0956793322000061
Moa Carlsson
{"title":"英国景观评价运动(1965-85)","authors":"Moa Carlsson","doi":"10.1017/S0956793322000061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Tracing developments in British town and country planning during the 1960s and 1970s, this article describes the sudden upsurge of landscape evaluation method-development among landscape architects and planners, and the disputes that made such efforts come to an end in the late 1970s. In this burst of activity, here referred to as the UK landscape evaluation movement, we can observe competing definitions of visual amenity and landscape quality take form. It is described how practitioners invented or adopted numerical measurement and preference methods as means to gain a supposedly unbiased understanding of how different landscape areas are valued by communities. Struggling to make themselves heard in a planning sector that was dominated by more powerful stakeholders and quantitative approaches (for example, cost-benefit analysis), in the landscape evaluation movement we can also witness how pioneering practitioners adopt advanced statistical techniques and computer mapping to communicate qualitative values of landscape more effectively to each other, communities and decision-makers. These were deliberate attempts by the practitioners to occupy a more active and influential role in landscape and country planning during the period. As this article shows, their success in this regard was limited due to the lack of general agreement with respect to the reliability, validity and generalisability of both assessment methods and produced findings.","PeriodicalId":44300,"journal":{"name":"Rural History-Economy Society Culture","volume":"33 1","pages":"137 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The UK landscape evaluation movement (1965–85)\",\"authors\":\"Moa Carlsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0956793322000061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Tracing developments in British town and country planning during the 1960s and 1970s, this article describes the sudden upsurge of landscape evaluation method-development among landscape architects and planners, and the disputes that made such efforts come to an end in the late 1970s. In this burst of activity, here referred to as the UK landscape evaluation movement, we can observe competing definitions of visual amenity and landscape quality take form. It is described how practitioners invented or adopted numerical measurement and preference methods as means to gain a supposedly unbiased understanding of how different landscape areas are valued by communities. Struggling to make themselves heard in a planning sector that was dominated by more powerful stakeholders and quantitative approaches (for example, cost-benefit analysis), in the landscape evaluation movement we can also witness how pioneering practitioners adopt advanced statistical techniques and computer mapping to communicate qualitative values of landscape more effectively to each other, communities and decision-makers. These were deliberate attempts by the practitioners to occupy a more active and influential role in landscape and country planning during the period. As this article shows, their success in this regard was limited due to the lack of general agreement with respect to the reliability, validity and generalisability of both assessment methods and produced findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rural History-Economy Society Culture\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"137 - 155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rural History-Economy Society Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956793322000061\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rural History-Economy Society Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956793322000061","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文追溯了20世纪六七十年代英国城镇和乡村规划的发展,描述了景观评估方法在景观设计师和规划师之间的突然兴起,以及导致这种努力在20世纪70年代末结束的争论。在这种被称为英国景观评估运动的活动中,我们可以观察到视觉舒适性和景观质量的相互竞争的定义。它描述了从业者如何发明或采用数值测量和偏好方法作为手段,以获得对社区如何评价不同景观区域的所谓公正理解。在一个由更强大的利益相关者和定量方法(例如成本效益分析)主导的规划领域,努力让自己的声音被听到,在景观评估运动中,我们也可以看到,开拓性的从业者如何采用先进的统计技术和计算机制图,更有效地向彼此、社区和决策者传达景观的定性价值。这些都是从业者在这一时期在景观和国家规划中发挥更积极和更有影响力作用的刻意尝试。正如本文所示,他们在这方面的成功是有限的,因为对两种评估方法和产生的结果的可靠性、有效性和普遍性缺乏普遍的一致意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The UK landscape evaluation movement (1965–85)
Abstract Tracing developments in British town and country planning during the 1960s and 1970s, this article describes the sudden upsurge of landscape evaluation method-development among landscape architects and planners, and the disputes that made such efforts come to an end in the late 1970s. In this burst of activity, here referred to as the UK landscape evaluation movement, we can observe competing definitions of visual amenity and landscape quality take form. It is described how practitioners invented or adopted numerical measurement and preference methods as means to gain a supposedly unbiased understanding of how different landscape areas are valued by communities. Struggling to make themselves heard in a planning sector that was dominated by more powerful stakeholders and quantitative approaches (for example, cost-benefit analysis), in the landscape evaluation movement we can also witness how pioneering practitioners adopt advanced statistical techniques and computer mapping to communicate qualitative values of landscape more effectively to each other, communities and decision-makers. These were deliberate attempts by the practitioners to occupy a more active and influential role in landscape and country planning during the period. As this article shows, their success in this regard was limited due to the lack of general agreement with respect to the reliability, validity and generalisability of both assessment methods and produced findings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Rural History is well known as a stimulating forum for interdisciplinary exchange. Its definition of rural history ignores traditional subject boundaries to encourage the cross-fertilisation that is essential for an understanding of rural society. It stimulates original scholarship and provides access to the best of recent research. While concentrating on the English-speaking world and Europe, the journal is not limited in geographical coverage. Subject areas include: agricultural history; historical ecology; folklore; popular culture and religion; rural literature; landscape history, archaeology and material culture; vernacular architecture; ethnography, anthropology and rural sociology; the study of women in rural societies.
期刊最新文献
Pre-industrial ‘charity land’ and the dynamics of rural poverty in south-west England, 1656–1739: a case study The ‘pheasant of the future’: Encountering and imagining Reeves’ pheasant in Britain, 1831 – 1913 RUH volume 34 issue 2 Cover and Back matter RUH volume 34 issue 2 Cover and Front matter A Rebato: Popular uprisings and the striking of the bells in eighteenth-century Castile
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1