Advertisement

Recognition and Preservation of Associative Landscape Features

  • Ana SopinaEmail author
  • Bojana Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

This study is based on exploring the relationship between examples of coastal settlements of the Eastern Adriatic coast in Croatia and their natural context—the sea and the mountain hinterland. These are landscapes with different intensities and qualities of associative features. Associative landscape provides mental connections of physical elements with intangible heritage through the experience of landscape meaning. Associative experience is possible when landscape is perceived as a whole, with recognised contextual values and a unity of intellectual and physical content. In this research, landscape identity is observed as the most prominent and comprehensive associative landscape feature. The research is based on the Heritage Urbanism approach, with the aim of defining models for the revival and enhancement of landscape identity from the landscape and spatial and urban planning points of view. Selected case studies, Starigrad Paklenica with South Velebit, and Makarska with Biokovo, are landscapes where strong relations exist between urbanscape and the natural context, through which means of the recognition and preservation of the landscape associative features and landscape identity are established. The research results define the present state of perceiving associative landscape features (the landscape identity model), identifying the means of perceiving the landscape identity which requires preservation (the landscape concern model) and setting a spatial development strategy from the aspect of the relationship between the settlement and its natural landscape (the landscape resilience model). Landscape perceived as a whole is presented as a new heritage dimension and as a process of the development of the perception of knowing a landscape. By establishing the perception, concern and resilience models of associative landscape features, the associative dimension is affirmed in landscapes as fundamental to their being retained, restored and redefined.

Keywords

Landscape perception Associative experience Landscape identity Landscape concern Landscape resilience 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research is part of the scientific project “Heritage Urbanism—Urban and Spatial Planning Models for the Revival and Enhancement of Cultural Heritage”. It is financed by the Croatian Science Foundation [HRZZ-2032] and carried out at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Architecture.

References

  1. Andersson E (2006) Urban landscapes and sustainable cities. Ecol Soc.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01639-110134
  2. Belaj V (2004) Traditional mountain cattle breeding on the mountain of Velebit and ethnogenesis of Bunjevci. Stud Ethnologica Croat 16:5–31Google Scholar
  3. Bell S (1999) Landscape: pattern, perception and process. E&FN SPON, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Berleant A (2013) The art in knowing a landscape. Diogenes 59(1–2):52–62.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192112469320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B (2018) Urbanscape emanation versus types of landscape. In: Cocci Grifoni R, D’Onofrio R, Sargolini M (eds) Quality of life in urban landscapes. Springer, Cham, pp 337–343Google Scholar
  6. Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B (2015) Perceiving heritage versus awareness of heritage. In: Obad Šćitaroci M (ed) International scientific conference cultural heritage—possibilities for spatial and economic development—proceedings. Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, pp 212–215Google Scholar
  7. Bridgewater PB, Bridgewater C (2004) Is there a future for cultural landscapes? In: Jongman RHG (ed) The new dimensions of the European landscape. Springer, Berlin, pp 245–248Google Scholar
  8. Bušljeta A (2010) Deruralisation of Southern Velebit—aspects of life of Velebit Piedmont dwellers in the first half of the 20th century. Senjski zbornik 37:397–428Google Scholar
  9. Cicero MT (2008) The nature of gods (trans: Walsh PS). Oxford University Press, Oxford (Original work published 45 BC)Google Scholar
  10. Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention. Council of Europe. Available via COE. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680080621. Accessed on 22 Aug 2018
  11. Faber A (1995) The life of the Velebit cattle shepherd and his relationship to death (Discussion with the mirilo). Senjski zbornik 22:157–170Google Scholar
  12. Fein A (1972) A study of the profession of landscape architecture. The Gallup Organization, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Folke C, Jansson A, Larsson J, Costanza R (1997) Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio 26:167–172Google Scholar
  14. Furlan Zimmermann N (1999) Uvod. In: Krajolik – Sadržajna i metodska podloga Krajobrazne osnove Hrvatske. Ministarstvo prostornog uređenja, graditeljstva i stanovanja – Zavod za prostorno planiranje, Agronomski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu – Zavod za ukrasno bilje i krajobraznu arhitekturu, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  15. Gašparović S, Sopina A (2018) The role of landscape in planning the city of Zagreb from the early 20th to the early 21st century. Prostor A Sch J Archit Urban Plan 26(1):133–145Google Scholar
  16. Gunderson LH (2000) Ecological resilience—in theory and application. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 31:425–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunt JD (2000) Garden perfections: the practice of garden theory. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Ignatieff M (1995) Walk on the wild side—review of Simon Schama’s “Landscape and memory”. The Independent on Sunday, 9 April 1995, pp 36–37Google Scholar
  19. Leopold A (1949) A sand county almanac. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucas D (2009) Heritage landscape criteria. Available via Lucas Associates. Retrieved from http://www.lucas-associates.co.nz/assets/Heritage/HERITAGE-LANDSCAPE-CRITERIA-Lucas-March-2009.pdf. Accessed on 22 Aug 2018
  21. Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Marić T, Palaiologou G, Griffits S, Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B (2017) Gateway-pathway heritage and urban growth—Zagreb case study. In: Heitor T, Serra M, Pinelo Silva J, Bacharel M, Cannas da Silva L (eds) Proceedings of the 11th international space syntax symposium. Instituto Superior Técnico, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Arquitetura e Georrecursos, LisabonGoogle Scholar
  23. McHarg IL (1969) Design with nature. Garden City, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Montgomery J (1998) Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design. J Urban Des 3(1):93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mumford L (1961) The city in history—its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. Harcourt, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  26. Obad Šćitaroci M (2017) Uvod u Znanstveni kolokvij Modeli revitalizacije i unaprjeđenja kulturnog naslijeđa. In: Obad Šćitaroci M, Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B (eds) Znanstveni kolokvij Modeli revitalizacije i unaprjeđenja kulturnog naslijeđa – Zbornik radova – Multidisciplinarni dijalog. Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, pp 6–11Google Scholar
  27. Obad Šćitaroci M (2015) Introduction. In: Obad Šćitaroci M (ed) International scientific conference cultural heritage—possibilities for spatial and economic development—proceedings. Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, pp 6–7Google Scholar
  28. Obad Šćitaroci M, Dumbović Bilušić B, Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B, Božić N (2014) Krajolik – čimbenik strategije prostornog razvoja. Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  29. Ode A, Tveit MS, Fry G (2008) Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Res 33(1):89–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osmond P (2007) Quantifying the qualitative: an evaluation of urban ambience. In: Semat Kubat A et al (eds) Proceedings: 6th international space syntax symposium. ITU Faculty of Architecture, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  31. Parris K (2002) Agricultural landscape indicators in the context of the OECD work on agrienvironmental indicators. In: Dramstad W, Sogge C (eds) Agricultural impacts on landscapes: developing indicators for policy analysis. NIJOS/OECD Expert Meeting, Oslo, pp 10–18Google Scholar
  32. Relph E (1976) Place and placelessness. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Sopina A, Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B (2015) Associative features of landscapes. Prostor A Sch J Archit Urban Plan 23(2):304–313Google Scholar
  34. Sopina A, Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci B, Gašparović S (2015) Natural, anthropogenic, morphological and intangible elements of South Velebit landscape. In: Obad Šćitaroci M (ed) International scientific conference cultural heritage—possibilities for spatial and economic development—proceedings. Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, pp 304–309Google Scholar
  35. Taylor K (2008) Landscape and memory: cultural landscapes, intangible values and some thoughts on Asia. In: 16th ICOMOS general assembly and international symposium: finding the spirit of place—between the tangible and the intangible, Quebec, 29 Sept–4 Oct 2008Google Scholar
  36. Thompson IH (2000) Ecology, community and delight—sources of values in landscape architecture. E&FN SPON, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Timmermans W, Woestenburg M, Jonkhof J, Annema H, Shllaku M, Yano S (2015) The rooted city—European capitals and their connection with the landscape. Blauwdruk Publishers, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  38. Tomasović M (2002) The Hvar culture of the late Neolithic and the neighbouring coast. Prilozi povijesti otoka Hvara 9(1):33–44Google Scholar
  39. Tomasović M (2009) Archeological suggestions for ubication of cities from chapter 36 of De administrando imperio by Porfirogenet. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3:293–313Google Scholar
  40. Tomasović M (2017) Gothic art in Primorje, Gorska Župa and Radobilja in the time of the Herzog Stjepan Vukčić Kosača—between reality and folk tradition. Hercegovina 3:273–329Google Scholar
  41. Trošelj M (1992) A review of mirila specifics on Velebit. Senjski zbornik 19:73–80Google Scholar
  42. Trošelj M (2013) Southern Velebit mirilo from the research of Professor Ante Glavičić to today. Senjski zbornik 40:611–630Google Scholar
  43. Tuan YF (1977) Space and place: the perspectives of experience. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  44. Turner T (2001) HyperLandscapes. Landscape Design 304:28–32Google Scholar
  45. Tveit MS, Ode A, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Res 31(3):229–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tveit MS, Ode Sang A (2014) Landscape assessment in metropolitan areas—developing a visual indicator-based approach. SPOOL 1(1):301–316.  https://doi.org/10.7480/spool.2013.1.641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ujang N, Zakariya K (2015) The notion of place, place meaning and identity in urban regeneration. Proc Soc Behav Sci 170:709–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. UNESCO (1972) Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Available via UNESCO. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf. Accessed on 22 Aug 2018
  49. UNESCO (2003) Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Available via UNESCO. Retrieved from https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention. Accessed on 22 Aug 2018
  50. UNESCO (2005) Declaration on the Conservation of Historic Urban Landscapes. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Available via UNESCO. Retreived from https://whc.unesco.org/document/6812. Accessed on 24 Dec 2018
  51. UNESCO (2011) Recommendation on the historic urban landscape. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Available via UNESCO. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-638-98.pdf. Accessed on 22 Aug 2018
  52. UNESCO (2017) Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Available via UNESCO. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/. Accessed on 22 Aug 2018
  53. United Cities and Local Governments (2008) Agenda 21 for culture. Available via Agenda 21 for culture. Retrieved from http://www.agenda21culture.net/sites/default/files/files/documents/multi/ag21_en.pdf. Accessed on 22 Aug 2018
  54. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available via UN. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. Accessed on 22 Aug 2018
  55. Valentić M (2013) The Velebit mirilo in the research of Ante Glavičić and others and several themes about the people which the Velebit mirilo belong to together with their dual faith. Senjski zbornik 40:583–610Google Scholar
  56. Vidović D (2012) An overview of the toponymy of the Makarska region. Folia Onomastica Croatica 21:207–232Google Scholar
  57. Vitruvius (1999) In Rowland I (ed). Ten books on architecture. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Waldheim C (2006) The landscape urbanism reader. Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. Available via the UN. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed on 22 Aug 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArchitectureUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations