Landscape Ecology

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 239–250

The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy

  • Joan Iverson Nassauer

Abstract

Environmental policy should explicitly address the appearance of the landscape because people make inferences about ecological quality from the look of the land. Where appearances are misleading, failing to portray ecological degradation or ecological health, public opinion may be ill-informed, with consequences for environmental policy. This paper argues that while ecology is a scientific concept, landscape perception is a social process. If we do not recognize this difference, we have problems with the appearance of ecological systems. Three influential problems are discussed: 1) the problem of the false identity of ecological systems, 2) the problem of design and planning as deceit about ecological systems, and 3) the problem of invisible ecological systems. These problems for environmental policy may be resolved in part if landscape planners and policy-makers use socially-recognized signs to display human intentions for ecological systems. Specifically, planning and policy can include socially-recognized signs of beauty and stewardship to display human care for ecological systems. An example in United States federal agricultural policy is described.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adirondack Park Agency. 1979. A Citizen's Guide to Adirondack Park Agency Land Use Regulations. Adirondack Park Agency. Ray Brook, New York. 24 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Beardsley, J. 1984. Earthworks and Beyond: Contemporary Art in the Landscape. Abbeville Press, New York. 144 pp.Google Scholar
  3. The Commission on the Adirondacks. 1990. The Adirondacks Park in the Twenty First Century. State of New York. 96 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Clifford, D. 1963. A History of Garden Design. Praeger, New York. 232 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Eaton, M.M. 1990a. Responding to the call for new landscape metaphors. Landsc. J. 9: 22–27.Google Scholar
  6. Eaton, M.M. 1990b. Aesthetics and the Good Life. Farleigh Dickinson University Press, London. 209 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Howett, C. 1987. Systems, signs, sensibilities: Sources for a new landscape aesthetic. Landsc. J. 6: 1–12.Google Scholar
  8. Koh, J. 1982. Ecological design: A post-modern design paradigm of holistic philosophy and evolutionary ethics. Landsc. J. 1: 76–84.Google Scholar
  9. Koh, J. 1988. An ecological aesthetic. Landsc. J. 7: 177–191.Google Scholar
  10. Laurie, M. 1979. A history of aesthetic conservation in California. Landsc. Plan. 6: 1–49.Google Scholar
  11. Leopold, A. 1966. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, New York. 296 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Lynch, K. 1971. Site Planning. Second ed. MIT Press, Cambridge. 384 pp.Google Scholar
  13. McGuire, I. 1979. Managing the forest landscape for public expectations. In Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource. pp. 16–18. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35, Berkeley, CA. 752 pp.Google Scholar
  14. McKibben, W. 1989. The end of nature. Random House, New York. 226 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Nash, R. 1967. Wilderness and the American mind. Yale University Press, New Haven. 425 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Nassauer, J. 1979. Managing naturalness in wildlands and agricultural landscapes. In Our National Landscape. pp. 447–453. USDA General Technical Report PSW-35, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  17. Nassauer, J.I. 1986. Caring for the countryside. Publication AD-SB-3017. University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul. 48 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Nassauer, J.I. 1988a. ‘The aesthetics of horticulture: Neatness as a form of care.’ Hort. Sci. 23: 973–977.Google Scholar
  19. Nassauer, J.I. 1988b. ‘Landscape Care: Perceptions of Local People in Landscape Ecology and Sustainable Development.’ Landscape and Land Use Planning 8: 24–37. American Society of Landscape Architects, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. Pevsner, N. 1944. The genesis of the picturesque. Arch. Rev. 96: 139–146.Google Scholar
  21. Pitt, D.G. and Nassauer, J.I. 1989. The Use of Image Capture Technology and Geographic Information Systems to Integrate Landscape Values into Public Policy: Six Case Studies. Landscape and Land Use Planning 9: 44–58. American Society of Landscape. Architects, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  22. Pitt, D.G. 1990. Developing an image capture system to see wilderness management solutions. In Managing America's Enduring Wilderness Resource. pp. 541–548. Edited by D.W. Lime. University of Minnesota, St. Paul. 706 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Second Edition. 1987. Random House, New York. 2426 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Robinson, S.K. 1990. The picturesque in an ancient Japanese novel. Landsc. J. 9: 9–15.Google Scholar
  25. Solomon, M. 1974. Marxism and Art. Vintage Books, Random House, New York. 649 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Spirn, A.W. 1988. The poetics of city and nature: Towards a new aesthetic for urban design. Landsc. J. 7: 108–126.Google Scholar
  27. Thayer, R.L. Jr. 1989. The experience of sustainable landscapes. Landsc. J. 8: 101–110.Google Scholar
  28. Thorne, J. 1991. An Ecological Aesthetic. In Landscape and Urban Planning.Google Scholar
  29. Wood, D. 1988. Unnatural illusions: Some works about visual resource management. Landsc. J. 7(2): 192–205.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973–85. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 1, Agriculture Handbook 434; National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1: The Visual Management System. Agriculture Handbook 462; Chapter 2: Utilities. Agriculture Handbook 478; Chapter 3: Roads. Agriculture Handbook 483; Chapter 6: Fire. Agriculture Handbook 608; Chapter 7: Ski Areas. Agriculture Handbook 617. Forest Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Procedure to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture. Technical Release 65. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  32. U.S. Department of Interior. 1975. Visual Resource Management: BLM Manual. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1989. Farm programs: Conservation research program could be less costly and more effective. GAO/RCED-90–13. U.S.G.A.O. Gaithersburg, Maryland. 79 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan Iverson Nassauer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations