欧洲和拉脱维亚国家重要景观的识别、保护和管理实践

IF 0.1 0 ARCHITECTURE Landscape Architecture and Art Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI:10.22616/j.landarchart.2021.19.02
N. Ņitavska, Daiga Skujāne
{"title":"欧洲和拉脱维亚国家重要景观的识别、保护和管理实践","authors":"N. Ņitavska, Daiga Skujāne","doi":"10.22616/j.landarchart.2021.19.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Landscape variability due to anthropogenic pressure poses a risk to the existence of valuable and unique landscapes. It once became the reason for raising the issue of landscape protection in Europe, paying special attention to landscapes of national importance by giving them a special status. In European practice, the granting of the status of a landscape of national importance to certain territories is based on a long tradition. In England and Scotland, it was started in 1949, separating nature protection and landscape protection directly into laws and regulations, and also later by identifying and mapping the country's most important landscapes, developing guidelines for landscape protection, planning and management, and setting up national landscape protection institutions. Later, in 1992, Finland also granted a special status to its particularly important landscapes. In general, this establishing method is similar to the UK experience. The experience of France, on the other hand, is based on exploiting the potential of the landscape for tourism, by branding specific landscapes and linking them in a single network. The traditions of European countries in identifying and managing landscapes of national importance are different, but they are mainly based on the desire of each country to highlight and preserve its special and important landscapes both as real territories and as symbols of national identity. This article analyses the understanding of national landscapes, comparing the examples of individual European countries, as well as the experience of Latvia, with the aim to determine the best basis and method for Latvia to identify, protect and manage national landscapes.","PeriodicalId":40393,"journal":{"name":"Landscape Architecture and Art","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practice of Identification, Protection and Management of Landscapes of National Importance in Europe and Latvia\",\"authors\":\"N. Ņitavska, Daiga Skujāne\",\"doi\":\"10.22616/j.landarchart.2021.19.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Landscape variability due to anthropogenic pressure poses a risk to the existence of valuable and unique landscapes. It once became the reason for raising the issue of landscape protection in Europe, paying special attention to landscapes of national importance by giving them a special status. In European practice, the granting of the status of a landscape of national importance to certain territories is based on a long tradition. In England and Scotland, it was started in 1949, separating nature protection and landscape protection directly into laws and regulations, and also later by identifying and mapping the country's most important landscapes, developing guidelines for landscape protection, planning and management, and setting up national landscape protection institutions. Later, in 1992, Finland also granted a special status to its particularly important landscapes. In general, this establishing method is similar to the UK experience. The experience of France, on the other hand, is based on exploiting the potential of the landscape for tourism, by branding specific landscapes and linking them in a single network. The traditions of European countries in identifying and managing landscapes of national importance are different, but they are mainly based on the desire of each country to highlight and preserve its special and important landscapes both as real territories and as symbols of national identity. This article analyses the understanding of national landscapes, comparing the examples of individual European countries, as well as the experience of Latvia, with the aim to determine the best basis and method for Latvia to identify, protect and manage national landscapes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Landscape Architecture and Art\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Landscape Architecture and Art\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2021.19.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHITECTURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Landscape Architecture and Art","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2021.19.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于人为压力造成的景观变异性对有价值和独特景观的存在构成了威胁。它一度成为欧洲提出景观保护问题的理由,通过赋予其特殊地位来特别关注具有国家重要性的景观。在欧洲的实践中,授予某些领土具有国家重要性的景观地位是基于一个悠久的传统。在英格兰和苏格兰,它始于1949年,将自然保护和景观保护直接划分为法律法规,后来又通过确定和绘制国家最重要的景观,制定景观保护、规划和管理指南,并建立国家景观保护机构。后来,在1992年,芬兰也对其特别重要的景观给予了特殊地位。总的来说,这种建立方法与英国的经验相似。另一方面,法国的经验是基于开发景观的旅游潜力,通过品牌化特定的景观并将它们连接在一个单一的网络中。欧洲国家在确定和管理具有国家重要性的景观方面的传统各不相同,但它们主要是基于每个国家都希望突出和保护其特殊和重要的景观,将其作为真正的领土和国家身份的象征。本文分析了对国家景观的认识,比较了欧洲个别国家的例子,以及拉脱维亚的经验,旨在确定拉脱维亚识别、保护和管理国家景观的最佳基础和方法。
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
Practice of Identification, Protection and Management of Landscapes of National Importance in Europe and Latvia
Landscape variability due to anthropogenic pressure poses a risk to the existence of valuable and unique landscapes. It once became the reason for raising the issue of landscape protection in Europe, paying special attention to landscapes of national importance by giving them a special status. In European practice, the granting of the status of a landscape of national importance to certain territories is based on a long tradition. In England and Scotland, it was started in 1949, separating nature protection and landscape protection directly into laws and regulations, and also later by identifying and mapping the country's most important landscapes, developing guidelines for landscape protection, planning and management, and setting up national landscape protection institutions. Later, in 1992, Finland also granted a special status to its particularly important landscapes. In general, this establishing method is similar to the UK experience. The experience of France, on the other hand, is based on exploiting the potential of the landscape for tourism, by branding specific landscapes and linking them in a single network. The traditions of European countries in identifying and managing landscapes of national importance are different, but they are mainly based on the desire of each country to highlight and preserve its special and important landscapes both as real territories and as symbols of national identity. This article analyses the understanding of national landscapes, comparing the examples of individual European countries, as well as the experience of Latvia, with the aim to determine the best basis and method for Latvia to identify, protect and manage national landscapes.
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
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Cardiogram of the Park: Quantitative Analysis of Walking Scenarios of Trakų Vokė Historic Park The importance of silhouette in the perception of the urban landscape. Saldus example Multicriteria assessment of landscape architecture projects: the sustainability perspective Public open space placemaking suitable for adolescents Malpils Manor: architecture, cultural and historical developments. Second half of the 18th century – first quarter of the 21st century
×
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