Landscape as an arena for applied environmental studies

Download Landscape as an arena for applied environmental studies

Post on 26-Feb-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politcnica de Valncia]On: 24 October 2014, At: 09:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

    Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal ofGeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sgeo20

    Landscape as an arena for applied environmentalstudiesLouise Simonsson aa Department of Earth Sciences, University of Uppsala , Villavagen , SE-752 32 , SwedenE-mail:Published online: 28 Jan 2014.

    To cite this article: Louise Simonsson (2003) Landscape as an arena for applied environmental studies, Norsk GeografiskTidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 57:1, 40-48, DOI: 10.1080/00291950310000811

    To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00291950310000811

    PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

    Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

    This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

    http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sgeo20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00291950310000811http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00291950310000811http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

  • Norsk G

    eograji.1k Tid

    sskriji-N

    orvoegian Journal of' Geography V

    ol. 57,40--48. Oslo. ISSN

    0029-1951

    Landscape as an arena for applied environm

    ental studies

    I.OliiS

    L S

    IMO

    NS

    SO

    N

    Sim

    on

    "on

    . L 2tK

    U. L

    andscape as an arena for applied environmental studies. N

    orsk GeoK

    rafisk Tidsskriji-N

    orweK

    ian Journal of

    (;,ographl Vol. 57 . ..\t}-4X

    . Oslo. IS

    SN

    1Xl29-1951.

    The concept o

    f lancbcapc is discussed in relation to environmental studies and landscape assessm

    ents. It is argued that the separa-tion of. fam

    bcape nlto natural and ~:ufturaf has hampered m

    terd"c1phnary syntheses and understandings of com

    plex ecological rela-tiO

    nships. The Im

    portance of per>pect1vc and v

    arym

    gw

    ays of v

    ~ewmg and thus assessing the landscape is em

    phasized. It is argued that the lack of ~mde~standmg of landscape as a hohsll, S

    E-7

    52

    3f> Upp.m

    la. Swt~den. -mail: louise.sim

    onsson@;.:eo.uu.sl'

    '

    Introduction

    Landscape is a w

    ord that evokes feelings in most people, has

    an air of m

    ystique and contains a great deal of sym

    bolism.

    Yet it is a concept that is seldom

    fully utilized. This m

    ay be because it

    is used by

    so many and for so m

    any different purposes,

    How

    ever, O

    lwig

    (1993) argues

    against the

    elimination o

    f such polyvalent words and their replacem

    ent by supposedly m

    ore neutral, univalent concepts. Still, w

    hen a landscape is assessed for practical environm

    ental projects or

    planning, it is

    the visual, rational, quantifiable param

    eters that receive the m

    ost attention. Therefore, there is a need for

    a com

    mon

    arena and

    a practical,

    useful concept

    for environm

    ental studies where m

    any different disciplines and levels o

    f expertise are involved, and where the term

    inology and technical language differ w

    idely. T

    here is some resistance tow

    ards words and concepts that

    are com

    plex and

    complicate

    the com

    partmentalization

    of

    thought. Often people think in term

    s of opposites, at least in

    western society. N

    ature and culture are examples o

    f such a dichotom

    y. When 'natural' is perceived as pure, an ideal, that

    humankind and its techniques have desecrated, then virgin

    land or w

    ilderness arc term

    s used w

    here hum

    ans are not recognized as a part o

    f nature and the environment (S

    oper 1995, A

    dmns &

    McS

    hane 1996, Darier 1999). N

    evertheless, changes in subsistence strategies, dem

    ography or perception

    have, through time, resulted in both intended and unintended

    modification o

    f the global environment (C

    rumley 1994). A

    n exam

    ple from T

    anzania is given by Schm

    idt ( 1997), who has

    shown

    that cultural

    perceptions have

    affected landscape

    managem

    ent over

    the last

    2500 years

    in the

    Usam

    bara M

    ountains area. D

    espite a widely accepted construction o

    f a eo-evolving past, w

    estern scicn

  • ~ORSK G

    EO

    GR

    AF

    ISK

    TID

    SS

    KR

    IFT

    57 120031

    cially, for

    example

    by the

    tourist industry,

    but also

    in guidelines for landscape assessm

    ents, wh

    ich often coincide

    or overlap with visual im

    pact assessment (e.g. C

    ountryside C

    omm

    ission I YY I). A

    cademics have discussed the concept

    widely

    and further

    divided the

    term

    into subclasses

    and categories, such as natural landscapes, cultural landscapes, political landscapes, m

    ental landscapes, etc. How

    ever, I will

    argue that by breaking do

    wn

    into narrow com

    partments one

    of the few

    concepts that actually describes a totality, where

    all processes

    -physical,

    cultural, rational,

    political and

    mental -

    are present,

    we dim

    inish o

    ur chances o

    f under-standing

    the com

    plex reality

    that w

    e try

    to explain

    and m

    anage. L

    andscape thus enco

    mp

    asses both the conceptual and the physical.

    This is o

    f course not a new idea. M

    einig ( 1979, 21

    8-2

    19

    ) listed the key feature o

    f J. B. Jack

    son

    's idea of landscape as:

    'landscape is

    a unity

    of

    people and

    env

    iron

    men

    t w

    hich opposes in its reality the false d

    icho

    tom

    y o

    f man and nature.'

    Hi.igerstrand ( 1991) argues that in co

    mp

    arison

    with hum

    an ecology there is an

    'old

    er concept, wh

    ich does not im

    ply a division

    between

    natural an

    d

    human,

    between

    living and

    manufactured.' T

    his concept is landscape, understood as the m

    ixture of everything that is present an

    d spatially distributed

    ov

    er the surface of the earth, but it is absolutely not a static

    concept. A

    lthough the concept of en

    viro

    nm

    ent has been defined b

    y

    the World B

    ank (19

    98

    ) as a unity of nature and culture, the

    idea of 'lan

    dscap

    e' has a utility and flexibility that is easier to understand as an ev

    eryd

    ay reality than 'en

    viro

    nm

    ent' (B

    ruun 1998, B

    ell 1999). Landscape is that part o

    f the env

    iron

    men

    t that is the h

    um

    an habitat, perceived an

    d understood by us

    through the medium

    of o

    ur perceptions. T

    his aw

    areness has m

    any implications fo

    r planners, designers and managers o

    f landscape.

    Landscape as form

    an

    d process

    Cart S

    auer ( 1925) defined 'lan

    dscap

    e' as an area made up o

    f a distinct association o

    f forms, both physical and cultural. H

    e noted:

    An inevitable difficulty w

    ith a purely genetic morphology o

    f relief form

    s is that most o

    f the actual relief features of the

    earth are of very m

    ixed origin. Behind the present form

    s lie processal

    associations, previous

    or ancestral

    forms,

    and alm

    ost inscrutable expressions of tim

    e (Sauer 192.'i. ~~).

    Later geographers (e.g. O

    lsson 1994, W

    idg

    ren

    1999) have recognized that geom

    etric form d

    oes not necessarily associ-

    ate with one given process. W

    idg

    ren (1

    99

    9) has su

    mm

    arized

    the form

    -pro

    cess discussion: landscape is, on

    the one hand, a form

    which at a given m

    om

    ent and in a given context can b

    e represented in a landscape painting o

    r recorded and inter-preted in satellite im

    agery; on

    the oth

    er hand, landscapes can only be understood as continual processes, flow

    s of energy

    and matter, thoughts and actions. H

    ence, landscape is form,

    but it is also an o

    ng

    oin

    g process, as

    well as the result o

    f previous processes.

    Therefore

    it can

    no

    t b

    e treated exclu-sively as either process o

    r form. H

    ence landscape ceases to

    Lu

    nd

    lcllf"' u

    s llll llrt'llll ji1r llflf'linl t'lll"il"llllllll'llltlf ,./tu

    /it' 41

    be a static concept that merely c

    omprise~ everything prc~cnt

    and recorded visually today.

    Perspectil'e a

    nd

    percetJtion

    Cosgrovc ( 1990, 199X

    ) ha~ di~cu~~cd in depth the importance

    of perspective

    for the concept of lalllbcapc. w

    here land-

    scape mainly is som

    ething to be seen

    -a picture. H

    e write~:

    The landscape idea represents a w

    ay of ~eein)!

    -a w

    ay in

    which som

    e Europeans h

    aw rcprc~entcd to thcm~elves and to

    others the world ahout them

    and their relati

  • l' I

    \un

    t'll, ,o,

    )Ci"IIJl "'

    il.IIL' iilc

    ':IIIIL' nlu

    c:lllllll .111d ll:lllllll)C

    1\lu1

    1

    I'I'Jl). ((

    '1)

    \\ l11k lilt \1'11lll('k'\ .lllliU

    dc d

    e'll\c'd fro111

    til.:ir illlllh:r-

    ''"11 111 tile lllt.dll~

    ol th

    e l.llld,c:q

    lL'. l11:111 :lr).!ued I llJ

    74

    ) tha

    t

    the

    c'.Jitil', '11il:1ce ''

    lil;:lil~ 1:11icd

    . hu

    t th

    e 11:1~'

    in 1\h

    lc'il

    pellp

    k pc' I CL' I 1 c .111d

    t\lTtll'd

    ll1).! to

    .lon

    e' 1

    1 11'11) th

    e ~C

    ) co

    nce

    pt

    i' in

    tcr,u

    hjcc

    -

    lil it). T

    h.: p

    o1nt o

    f d.:p

    :1rtu

    r.: i' th

    at

    r.::dit)

    i' n

    eith

    er'' h

    ull)

    oh

    (ceti\L' IH

    lr 11 ho

    ll) 'Uh(c'l'tilc

    . l.and

    ,.:ap

    \c' .111.1) ln1111

    the '\\'e,t

  • Table I. Characteristics of land systems for the eastern pan of Babati District (see Fig. 2).

    Land System A

    Land System 8

    Land System C

    Ufiome mountain

    Sangaiwe Hill~

    Climate

    Average rainfall: 500-700 mm/year

    Temperature: 22-24C

    Average rainfall: 700-1000 mm/year

    Temperature: 18-20C

    Average rdinfaU: 500-600 mm/year

    Average rainfall: 900-> 1000 mm/year

    A vcrage rainfall: 500--7

  • ..j..j / . Si11u'""o"

    nunH:ro

    u' n

    a1

    np

    k' i'rnm

    i'rica

    when.:

    peor~c~ pre~cn

    cc

    ha

    ' he~n r~nd

    .:r d i111 i'ihl~ 'im

    ply

    b~cau'c th

    eir ecolog

    ical im

    pact w

    a~ no

    t 'ul'li

  • NO

    RS

    K (;IJ

    )(;R,\H

    SK

    TlllS

    SK

    RIIT

    )7

    (~IK1.1J

    Good

    N

    i 0~ _

    ___::2.._,5:.__ _ _:.,5 0 km

    pH 6

    -7

    A

    pH 7

    -8

    A

    pH 8

    -9

    45

    0-9

    00

    kg matZ

    e/acre

    90

    0-1

    35

    0 kg m

    arze

    /acre

    1350-180

    0 kg m

    aze/acre

    1

    80

    0-2

    25

    0 kg m

    arze

    /acre

    , .. it:. -1. An iiiL

    hlratiu

    ll or Sallf:ti\\~ \ illa

    gc \\ ith thl...' ltlpog

    r:tph~ di-.pl:t~Ld

    ;I', :I

    'D

    llhllk

    l. ll"

    l..'d a' thL

    h:l'-.j..., ror di,cu

    ,,ioth and

    ,Jh

    l\\ ing

    both

    pll: ,jcal and 'm

    :ial tbta

    . Thl' p

    i I. IL

    Xtun

    .. am.l

    L'n

    luu

    r \lf

    thL' 'llil \.:an p

    nl\ id..:

    ini"P

    rlllatio

    n

    t\.:garding

    lattd,

    crp~..: hi,to

    ry a-. \\1..'11 a~ l'llTTL'III p

    nh

    _'\..':-.'c'. The i11fo

    rma

    tion

    ttll

    ) idd

    1\!\!.:

  • -lfJ / ..

    Silllo

    /1.\.\o

    ll N

    OR

    SK

    GE

    OG

    RA

    FIS

    K T

    IDS

    SK

    RIFT' 57 (200

    ~)

    PAS

    T C

    LIM

    AT

    ES

    , TEC

    TON

    IC EVE

    NT

    S, GE

    OM

    OR

    PH

    OL

    OG

    ICA

    L PR

    OC

    ESS

    ES

    :;; "' _, s: z 0 " ~ m l" s: z 0 c 6

    /'-,

    PO

    PU

    LA

    TI

    urr7:~* "' .m

    GE

    OLO

    GY

    X

    X

    X

    POL

    ICIE

    S LA

    WS

    Interaction between ind

    ividual

    agent and social com

    ext

    PER

    CE

    PTIO

    NS

    & V

    AL

    UE

    S INT

    ER

    PRE

    TE

    D IN

    A SO

    CIO

    -HIST

    OR

    ICA

    L CO

    NT

    EX

    T

    Fig

    . 7. I m p

    orta Ill f:.u

    .:tor' in the 'ha pin

    g and intc.!rprc

    t~llinn of a land

    scape. T

    hi:-. i!-1 a m

    od

    el of th

    e case :-.tucly land

    scape recognisin

    g hum

    ans as an active age

    nt. both

    in the pa'l '"we

    ll"' in the prc>crll. w

    here pcr,pccrivc. inrcrprclalinn and hcru.:c shapin

    g is ba>ed on factors such as :rgc. sex. cu

    llurc. ere .. set in contex

    t with the

    phy"ic:tl and ... ncial m

    ilieu in tim

    e and ... pace:.

    imp

    on

    ance with

    in th

    e village. F

    ig. 4 show

    s how

    land that is p

    rcfcrn.:d and co

    nsid

    ered 'goo

    d' does no

    t necessarily ove

    rlap w

    ith th

    e land used for agric

    ultu

    ral produ

    ction

    . Th

    is can p

    artly

    be expla

    ined by ag

    ricu

    ltura

    l techniques. but also by variatio

    n ove

    r tim

    e in th

    e landscape.

    where

    wild

    life mig

    ration

    and occa~

    iona

    l n

    oodin

    g make som

    e areas too risky in the lo

    ng-

    term pe

    rspective to p

    repare and c

    ultivate. A

    reas consid

    ered va

    luab

    le do

    no

    t co

    inc

    ide

    with

    the

    ones

    perceived

    as 'im

    po

    rtant'. Eve

    n tho

    ugh th

    e Baobab tree (F

    ig. 5) is rath

    er im

    pressive. bo

    th Figs. 5 and 6 show

    that imp

    ortant places do

    not necessa

    rily re

    veal o

    r expose th

    eir imp

    ortan

    ce by bein

    g exce

    ptio

    na

    l in a phys

    icaL materia

    l sense. T

    he ho

    use visible

    in Fig

    . 5 is the v

    illage office

    where the villa

    ge governm

    ent

    officia

    ls have

    their

    mee

    tings

    and thu

    s w

    here im

    po

    rtant po

    litical

    decisions are

    made.

    but it

    is th

    e tree

    that

    wa

    s m

    entio

    ned by m

    ost people d

    urin

    g the interv

    iews.

    Th

    e tree w

    as a mee

    ting pla

    ce before the village w

    as created

    , and the

    village o

    ffice was co

    nstructed at an already im

    po

    rtant place.

    Fig. 4 also sh

    ow

    s anoth

    er place of p

    olitica

    l imp

    ortance o

    n the

    border w

    ith another villa

    ge. Peo

    ple gath

    er here to discuss

    pro

    blem

    s th

    at o

    ccur

    on

    a sca

    le no

    t restricted

    to th

    e adm

    inistrati ve u

    nit itself.

    In F

    ig. 6

    there

    are no

    easy d

    etectable

    signs

    of

    the

    sign

    ificance

    of

    the area.

    lt is a place

    mostly

    used by

    the

    eld

    ers fo

    r trad

    itional

    religio

    us purposes,

    but also

    for

    celebrations

    of

    harvests,

    etc. N

    o

    remote

    sensin

    g. so

    il sa

    mp

    ling o

    r land cover m

    apping alone w

    ou

    ld have in

    dica

    ted th

    at this is an imp

    ortant feature in

    the land

    scape th

    at wo

    uld

    be cru

    cial to record in an E

    IA.

    lt mu

    st be emphasized th

    at the loca

    l populatio

    n is seld

    om

    a sin

    gle. ho

    moge

    neous g

    roup o

    f people. T

    here m

    ay be oth

    er trib

    es or g

    roup

    s that be

    nefit or su

    ffer from

    de

    velopm

    ent. An

    en

    vironm

    ental featu

    re mig

    ht be valued by one g

    rou

    p, but n

    ot

    by o

    thers.

    Wh

    ile in

    this particu

    lar

    villag

    e

    there

    wa

    s a

    con se

    nsus on th

    e issues investiga

    ted. assessmen

    t mu

    st take in

    to account that o

    ther g

    roup

    s may h

    ave intere

    sts. Fig. 7 su

    mm

    arizes the fin

    din

    gs o

    f the stud

    y and attemp

    ts to cap

    ture th

    e inte

    rrela

    tion

    ship

    between fo

    rm and pro

    cess in th

    e land

    scape, e

    mph

    asisin

    g the im

    po

    rtance o

    f differe

    nt perspec-

    ti ves. lt is d

    erived fro

    m in

    form

    atio

    n o

    n soils, geo

    mo

    rph

    ol-

    og

    y, geo

    log

    y, clim

    ate,

    wild

    life,

    land use and

    land cove

    r histo

    ry (a

    rchive,

    map

    and aerial

    pho

    tog

    raph

    y stu

    dies)

    togeth

    er with

    interview

    s of resid

    ents. officia

    ls and in

    terna-

    tional rep

    resentatives (S

    imo

    nsson 20

    00).

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Uni

    vers

    itat P

    olit

    cnic

    a de

    Val

    nci

    a] a

    t 09:

    34 2

    4 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • NO

    RSK

    GE

    OG

    RA

    FIS

    K T

    IDS

    SK

    RIF

    f 57 (2003)

    Conclusion

    The landscape is an arena w

    here biogeochemical processes

    and human actions,

    perceptions and political decisions in tim

    e and space together shape the landscape. The present

    study show

    s how

    landscapes

    are valued

    and assessed

    differently, depending on cultural background along w

    ith individual

    characteristics. W

    hile the

    visual and

    physical elem

    ents are stressed by outsiders, insiders read the land-scape through a social and historical filter.

    Maps and m

    ap-making can serve as a m

    edium for creating

    a dialogue and comm

    unicating knowledge and ideas both

    between local people, experts and scientists from

    different disciplines and decision-m

    akers. How

    ever, mapping m

    ust be approached w

    ith caution, for, as Hiigerstrand (1997) rem

    inds us, how

    ever precise the map-m

    aking techniques are, they can only

    measure

    association, eo-variation

    or correlation be-

    tween variables, but cannot prove causation. Fry (200 I) points out that disciplinarity is a dem

    arcation that has no reality in nature and w

    hen it comes to m

    aking decisions about the m

    anagement of natural resources, single

    subject approaches will not be enough. L

    andscape provides practitioners

    of m

    any disciplines

    -from

    geography

    and ecology to architecture and philosophy -

    with a com

    mon and

    useful concept. How

    ever, integrated research is not simply a

    question o

    f creating

    an arena

    within

    which

    disparate disciplinary

    contributions can

    be placed

    alongside one

    another. A

    series of studies o

    f climate, soils,

    hydrology, and dem

    ographic factors that are assembled and presented in

    separate chapters, with a 'synthesis' listing the independent

    conclusions, does not produce

    a truly integrated

    picture. D

    efining landscape

    in the

    manner

    proposed here

    might

    improve the quality o

    f environmental projects and reduce

    costly and painful conflicts. How

    ever, applied projects have strict requirem

    ents of cost-

    and time-effectiveness. M

    ethods are needed that have the ability to m

    eet these requirements

    but still convey the message o

    f the complexity o

    f interactions betw

    een natural and human system

    s.

    Ackn

    ow

    ledg

    emen

    ts.-This study has been m

    ade possible with the assistance

    and co-operation of the villagers o

    f Sangaiw

    e and other people in Babati

    District, T

    anzania. The S

    wedish S

    ociety for Anthropology and G

    eography, the

    Royal

    Academ

    y o

    f Sciences,

    Margit A

    lthins fond

    and A

    nna M

    aria L

    undins stipendiefond

    have kindly

    provided funding

    for fieldw

    ork and

    archive studies. Thanks are due to L

    ennart Strom

    quist, Urban E

    manuelsson

    and Mats W

    idgren for comm

    ents on the manuscript.

    Man

    uscrip

    t sub

    mitted

    21 M

    ay 2002; accepted 10 D

    ecemb

    er 2002

    References

    Aasb!il.

    S.

    1999. H

    istory and

    ecology in

    everyday landscape.

    Norsk

    Geografisk T

    idsskrift 53, 145-152. A

    dams, J. S. &

    McS

    hane, T. 0

    . 1996. The Myth o

    f Wild A

    frica. Conservation

    Without

    Illusion. U

    niversity o

    f C

    alifornia P

    ress, B

    erkeley and

    Los

    Angeles.

    Barrow

    , C

    . J.

    1997. E

    nvironmental a

    nd

    Social Im

    pact A

    ssessment.

    An

    Introduction. A

    mold, L

    ondon. B

    ell, S. 1999. Landscape. P

    attern, Perception and P

    rocess. E. &

    F. N. S

    pon, L

    ondon. B

    ender, B. 1999. S

    ubverting the Western G

    aze: mapping alternative w

    orlds. U

    cko, P. J. &

    Layton, R

    . (eds.) The Archaeology and A

    nthropology of

    Landscape. Shaping Y

    our Landscape, 31-45. R

    outledge, London.

    Landscape as an arena .flJr applied enl'ironm

    ental studies 4

    7

    Bruun,

    H.

    1998. L

    andskapets begreppsliga landskap -

    en hum

    anekolog' reftexioner om

    landskapsbcgreppets m

    i\jligheter. N

    ord.

    Security P

    erceived and

    Achieved.

    EP

    OS

    , R

    esearch P

    rogramm

    e on

    Environm

    ental Policy and S

    ociety. Institute ofT

    ema R

    esearch. Linkiiping.

    Hurni,

    H.

    1985. Soil

    Conservation

    Manual

    ji>r

    Ethiopia.

    Ministry

    of

    Agriculture,

    Natural

    Resources

    Conservation

    and D

    evelopment

    Main

    Departm

    ent, and Com

    munity F

    orests and Soil C

    onservation Developm

    ent D

    epartment, A

    ddis Ababa.

    Jones, M. 1991. T

    he elusive reality of landscape. C

    oncepts and approaches in landscape research. N

    orsk Geografisk T

    idsskriji 45, 229-244. K

    jekshus, H.

    1977. Ecology C

    ontrol an

    d E

    conomic D

    evelopmem

    in E

    mt

    African

    History.

    The

    Case

    of T

    anganyika /8

    50

    -/95

    0.

    Heinem

    ann. L

    ondon. L

    illey, K. D

    . 2000. Landscape m

    apping and symbolic form

    : drawing as a

    creative medium

    in cultural geography. Cook, I., C

    rouch, D., N

    aylor. S. &

    Ryan, J. R

    . (eds.) C

    ultural Turm

    JGeographil'al Turns:

    Perspectil'es ""

    Cultural G

    eography, 370-386. Prentice H

    all, New

    York.

    Meinig,

    D.

    W.

    1979. R

    eading the

    landscape, an

    appreciation o

    f W.

    G.

    Hoskins and J. B

    . Jackson.

    Meinig, D

    . W

    . (ed.) The

    Interpretation

  • 4X

    L Sim

    on1.1t111

    intcNi

Recommended

View more >