sustainability
Discussion
The Role of Geographical Landscape Studies for Sustainable Territorial Planning
Iván Franch-Pardo 1,* ID , Brian M. Napoletano 2,* ID , Gerardo Bocco 2, Sara Barrasa 2 ID and Luis Cancer-Pomar 3 ID
1 Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Morelia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Campus Morelia, 58190 Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico
2 Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Campus Morelia, 58190 Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico; gbocco@ciga.unam.mx (G.B.); sbarrasa@ciga.unam.mx (S.B.)
3 Department of Physical Geography and CEACTierra, University of Jaen, 23071 Jaen, Spain, lcancer@ujaen.es
* Correspondence:
ifranch@enesmorelia.unam.mx (I.F.-P.);
brian@ciga.unam.mx (B.M.N.)
Received: 12 September 2017; Accepted: 7 November 2017; Published: 17 November 2017
Sustainability 2017, 9, 2123
Abstract:
One of the primary objectives of physical geography is to determine how natural phenomena produce specific territorial patterns. Therefore, physical geography offers substantial scientific input into territorial planning for sustainability. A key area where p hysical geography cancontribute to land management is in the delimitation of landscape units. Such units are fundamental to formal socio-economic zoning and management in territorial planning. However, numerous methodologies—based on widely varying criteria—exist to delineate and map landscapes. We have selected five consolidated methodologies with current applications for mapping the landscape to analyse the different role of physical geography in each: (1) geomorphological landscape maps based on landforms; (2) geosystemic landscape maps; (3) Landscape Character Assessment; (4) landscape studies based on visual landscape units; (5) landscape image-pair test. We maintain that none of these methodologies are universally applicable, but that each contributes important insights into landscapeanalysis for land management within particular biogeophysical and social contexts. This work isintended to demonstrate that physical geography is ubiquitous in contemporary landscape studies intended to facilitate sustainable territorial planning, but that the role it plays varies substantially with the criteria prioritized.
Keywords: environmental geography; landscape delimitation and mapping; geomorphology; geosystem-territory-landscape; viewshed; Landscape Character Assessment; image-pair test;territorial planning
4. Conclusions
Sustainable territorial planning entails applied, integrated geography, but this does not necessarilyimply a single unitary methodology. On the one hand, the methodological diversity in landscapecartography must also be considered in the context of the wide diversity of landscapes on the planet,as well as the processes that form them [132]. Therefore, the methodology must be appropriate to thesocial, physical, and geographical context of the study area, and to its intended application.
On the other hand, we have also discussed how the economic, social, and political contexts ofthe countries working with landscape cartography influence the selection of the methodology used.
Sustainable territorial planning entails applied, integrated geography, but this does not necessarilyimply a single unitary methodology. On the one hand, the methodological diversity in landscapecartography must also be considered in the context of the wide diversity of landscapes on the planet,as well as the processes that form them [132]. Therefore, the methodology must be appropriate to thesocial, physical, and geographical context of the study area, and to its intended application.
On the other hand, we have also discussed how the economic, social, and political contexts ofthe countries working with landscape cartography influence the selection of the methodology used.
This nexus of biogeophysical and social factors illustrates the need to maintain a careful dialecticalbalance between determinism and constructionism when dealing with the complex interactionsbetween human and non-human systems [42]. On the one hand, the methodologies discussed inthis paper generally avoid falling into radical constructionism, and therefore social monism, as eventhe methodology most heavily based on social evaluation—image-pair testing—at least attemptsto link human preferences to an underlying reality. However, as discussed in the introduction. land management from the landscape perspective tends to rely heavily on deterministic, post-positivistepistemological positions whose attempts at ethical neutrality frequently leads them to neglectunderlying political and socio-economic factors, with profound implications for both the ecologicaland social viability of sustainable management proposals [48]. In addition to structural, political,and economic factors that tend to influence decision-making, this lack of epistemological reflexivitycan help to explain why, as Liu et al. (2014) [4] note, many environmental assessments for sustainablemanagement fail to adequately address environmental protection, social justice, and economic equalitysimultaneously. Programs propounding ecological sustainability that neglect these dimensions ofsocial justice and economic equality undermine the possibility of long-term social sustainability,given humanity’s tendency to resist and undermine unjust social orders [133]. Rather than rejectsuch incomplete methodologies outright, however, we propose that they be used for the valid,if partial, insights they can still provide in the construction of a geography with a “dual methodologicalcommitment to scientific integrity and non-neutrality” [48] (p. 9). This pursuit of an emancipatorygeography is fundamental to the pursuit of human sustainability in all three respects.
Author Contributions: Iván Franch-Pardo co-ordinated contributions from other authors, provided most ofthe background information in the introduction, as well as the discussion, and provided the information ongeosystemic landscape maps. Brian M. Napoletano provided the information on Landscape Character Analysis,and the text in the introduction and conclusions regarding sustainability and translated most of the text intoEnglish. Gerardo Bocco provided the information on mapping geomorphological landscapes based on landformsand helped to evaluate the manuscript in its entirety. Sara Barrasa provided the information on landscapeassessment based on image-pair tests. Luis Cancer-Pomar provided the information on landscape mapping usingvisual landscape units.
References
1.Mansfield, B. Sustainability. In A Companion to Environmental Geography; Castree, N., Demeritt, D.,Liverman, D., Rhoads, B., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: West Sussex, UK, 2009; pp. 37–49.
2.Sneddon, C.S. ‘Sustainability’ in ecological economics, ecology and livelihoods: A review. Prog. Hum. Geogr.2000, 24, 521–549.
3.Agyeman, J.; Evans, B. Environmental Quality and Human Equality. Local Environ. 2002, 7, 5–6.
4.Liu, L.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Z. Environmental Justice and Sustainability Impact Assessment: In Search of Solutionsto Ethnic Conflicts Caused by Coal Mining in Inner Mongolia, China. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8756–8774.
5.Agyeman, J. Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice; NYU Press: New York, NY,USA, 2005; 256p.
6.Turner, B.L., II; Moran, E.F.; Rindfuss, R.R. Integrated land-change science and its relevance to the humansciences. In Land Change Science: Observing, Monitoring and Understanding Trajectories of Change on the Earth’sSurface; Gutman, G., Janetos, A.C., Justice, C.O., Moran, E.F., Mustard, J.F., Rindfuss, R.R., Skole, D.L.,Turner, B.L., Cochrane, M.A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 431–447.
7.Antrop, M. Sustainable landscapes: Contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 187–197.
8.Castree, N.; Demeritt, D.; Liverman, D. Introduction: Making sense of environmental geography. In A Companionto Environmental Geography; Castree, N., Demeritt, D., Liverman, D., Rhoads, B., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell:West Sussex, UK, 2009; pp. 1–15. Page 19.
9.Leng, S.; Lin, C.; Yang, Y.; Guo, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Yang, L.; Li, B. Environmental geography. In The GeographicalSciences during 1986–2015, From the Classics to the Frontiers; Leng, S., Gao, X., Pei, T., Zhang, G., Chen, L.,Chen, X., He, C., He, D., Li, X., Lin, C., et al., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 167–202.
10. Harrison, S.; Massey, D.; Richards, K.; Magilligan, F.J.; Thrift, N.; Bender, B. Thinking across the divide:Perspectives on the conversations between physical and human geography. Area 2004, 36, 435–442.
11. Pattison, W.D. The four traditions of geography. J. Geogr. 1964, 63, 211–216.
12. Sauer, C.O. The Morphology of Landscape; University of California: Oakland, CA, USA, 1925; pp. 19–53.
13. Schnaiberg, A.; Gould, K. Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY,USA, 1994; p. 280.
14. Lave, R.; Wilson, M.W.; Barron, E.S.; Biermann, C.; Carey, M.A.; Duvall, C.S.; Johnson, L.; Lane, K.M.;McClintock, N.; Munroe, D.; et al. Intervention: Critical physical geography. Can. Geogr. 2014, 58, 1–10.
15. Diamond, J. Guns, Germs, and Steel; W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 1999; 496p.
16. Wilson, E.O. The Future of Life; Vintage Books: New York, NY, USA, 2003; 229p.
17. Demeritt, D. What is the ‘social construction of nature’? A typology and sympathetic critique. Prog. Hum. Geogr.2002, 26, 767–790.
18. Foster, J.B. Marxism in the Anthropocene: Dialectical Rifts on the Left. Int. Crit. Thought 2016, 6, 393–421.
19. Turner, B.L., II; Lambin, E.F.; Reenberg, A. The emergence of land change science for global environmentalchange and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 20666–20671.
20. Turner, B.L., II; Robbins, P. Land-Change Science and Political Ecology: Similarities, Differences, and Implicationsfor Sustainability Science. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008, 33, 295–316.
21. Bastian, O.; Krönert, R.; Lipský, Z. Landscape diagnosis on different space and time scales—A challenge forlandscape planning. Landsc. Ecol. 2006, 21, 359–374.
22. Burinskiene, M.; Rudzkiene, V. Future insights, scenarios and expert method application in sustainableterritorial planning. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2009, 15, 10–25.
23. Gómez-Orea, D.; Gómez-Villarino, A. Ordenación Territorial; Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2013; p. 543.
24. Skole, D.L. Geography as a great intellectual melting pot and the preeminent interdisciplinary environmentaldiscipline. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2004, 94, 739–743.
25. Chartier, D.; Rodary, E. Géographie de l’environnement, écologie politique et cosmopolitiques. L’EspacePolitique. Revue en Ligne de Géographie Politique et de Géopolitique 2007.
26. Bocco, G.; Urquijo, P.S. Geografía ambiental: Reflexiones teóricas y práctica institucional. Región y Sociedad2013, 25, 75–102.
27. André, M.F. From physical geography to environmental geography: Bridges and gaps (a French perspective).Can. Geogr. 2017, 61, 136–142.
28. Baerwald, T.J. Prospects for geography as an interdisciplinary discipline. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2010, 100,493–501.
29. Erickson, R.A. Geography and the changing landscape of higher education. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 2012, 36,9–24.
30. Bocco, G.; Priego, A.; Cotler, H. The contribution of physical geography to environmental public policydevelopment in Mexico. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2010, 31, 215–223.
31. Strahler, A. Introducing Physical Geography, 6th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2013; p. 550.
32. National Research Council (NRC). Rediscovering Geography: New Relevance for Science and Society; NationalResearch Council, Rediscovering Geography Committee, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA,1997; 248p.
33. Inkpen, R.; Wilson, G. Science, Philosophy and Physical Geography; Routledge: London, UK, 2013.
34. Massey, D. Space-time, ‘science’ and the relationship between physical geography and human geography.Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 1999, 24, 261–276.
35. Clifford, N.; Cope, M.; Gillespie, T.; French, S. (Eds.) Key Methods in Geography, 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK,2016; p. 545.36. Cataldo, A.; Rinaldi, A.M. An ontological approach to represent knowledge in territorial planning science.Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2010, 34, 117–132.
37. Von Bertalanffy, L. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications; Braziller: New York, NY,USA, 1968; 295p.
38. Antrop, M. Geography and landscape science. Belgeo Revue Belge de Géographie 2000, 1-2-3-4, 9–36.
39. Antrop, M. Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 77, 17–28.
40. Zoido-Naranjo, F. Landscape and spatial planning policies. In Landscape and Sustainable Development: Challengesof the European Landscape Convention; Prieur, M., Luginbuehl, Y., Zoido Naranjo, F., De Montmollin, B.,Pedroli, B., Van Mansvelt, J.D., Durousseau, S., Eds.; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2005; pp. 55–79.
41. Lane, S.N. Slow science, the geographical expedition, and Critical Physical Geography. Can. Geogr. 2017, 61,84–101.
42. Levins, R.; Lewontin, R. The Dialectical Biologist; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987; 336p.43. Peet, R. Global Capitalism: Theories of Societal Development; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1991; 206p.
44. Foster, J.B. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature; Monthly Review Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; 200p.
45. Napoletano, B.M.; Paneque-Gálvez, J.; Vieyra, A. Spatial Fix and Metabolic Rift as Conceptual Tools inLand-Change Science. Cap. Nat. Soc. 2015, 26, 198–214.
46. Wolf, E.R. Facing Power-Old Insights, New Questions. Am. Anthropol. 1990, 92, 586–596.
47. Sayer, A. Realism and Social Science; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2000; 224p.
48. Harvey, D. On the History and Present Condition of Geography: An Historical Materialist Manifesto.Prof. Geogr. 1984, 36, 1–11.
49. Harvey, D. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference; Wiley-Blackwell: West Sussex, UK, 1997; 488p.
50. Shaw, D.J.; Oldfield, J.D. Landscape science: A Russian geographical tradition. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2007,97, 111–126.
51. Real Academia Española. Nuevo Tesoro Lexicográfico de la Lengua Española. Available online: http: //ntlle.rae.es/ntlle/SrvltGUILoginNtlle (accessed on 1 April 2017).
52. Claval, P. Geographie Culturelle: Une Nouvelle Approche des Societes et des Milieux; Armand Colin: Paris, France,2003; 352p.
53. Cosgrove, D.E. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, 2nd ed.; University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI,USA, 1998.
54. Tuan, Y.F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN,USA, 1977.
55. Gregory, D.; Johnston, R.; Pratt, G.; Watts, M.; Whatmore, S. (Eds.) The Dictionary of Human Geography;Wiley-Blackwell: London, UK, 2009; 1072p.
56. Turner, M.G.; Gardner, R.H.; O’Neill, R.V. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process;Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2001; 401p.
57. Cancer-Pomar, L. La Degradación y la Protección del Paisaje; Cátedra: Madrid, Spain, 1999; 248p.
58. Bryant, R.L.; Bailey, S. Third World Political Ecology; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1998; 256p.
59. Tress, B.; Tress, G.; Decamps, H.; D’Hausteserre, A.M. Bridging human and natural sciences in landscaperesearch. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 57, 137–141.
60. Brandt, J.; Tress, B. Multifunctional Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Research andManagement. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multifunctional Landscapes: InterdisciplinaryApproaches to Landscape Research and Management, Roskilde, Denmark, 18–21 October 2000.
61. Selman, P. Multi-function landscape plans: A missing link in sustainability planning? Local Environ. 2002, 7,283–294.
62. Stockdale, A.; Barker, A. Sustainability and the multifunctional landscape: An assessment of approaches toplanning and management in the Cairngorms National Park. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 479–492.
63. Fry, G.L.; Tveit, M.S.; Ode, A.; Velarde, M.D. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptualcommon ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 933–947.
64. Gómez Zotano, J.; Riesco Chueca, P. Marco Conceptual y Metodológico Para los Paisajes Españoles: Aplicacióna tres Escalas Espaciales; Consejería de Obras Públicas y Vivienda, Centro de Estudios Paisaje y Territorio:Sevilla, Spain, 2010; 467p.
65. Council of Europe. European Landscape Convention; Council of Europe: Florence, Italy, 2000; 7p.
66. Mazzoni, E. Unidades de paisaje como base para la organización y gestión territorial. Estudios Socioterritoriales2014, 16 (Suppl. 1). Available online: http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1853- 43922014000300004&lng=es&nrm=iso (accessed on 13 November 2017)
67. Verstappen, H.T. Applied Geomorphology: Geomorphological Surveys for Environments Development; Elsevier:Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1983; 435p.
68. Van Zuidam, R.A. Aerial Photo-Interpretation in Terrain Analysis and Geomorphologic Mapping; Smiths Publishers:The Hague, The Netherlands, 1986; 350p.
69. Verstappen, H.T.; Zuidam, R.V.; Meijerink, A.M.J.; Nossin, J.J. The ITC System of Geomorphologic Survey: A Basisfor the Evaluation of Natural Resources and Hazards; Enschede ITC: Enschede, The Netherlands, 1991; 89p.
70. Minca, C. Humboldt’s compromise, or the forgotten geographies of landscape. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2007, 31,179–193.
71. Bolós, M.D. Manual de Ciencia del Paisaje. Teoría, Métodos y Aplicaciones; Colección de Geografía, Masson:Barcelona, Spain, 1992; 273p.
72. Martínez-Graña, A.M.; Goy, J.L.; Zazo, C.; Silva, P.G.; Santos-Francés, F. Configuration and Evolution ofthe Landscape from the Geomorphological Map in the Natural Parks Batuecas-Quilamas (Central System,SW Salamanca, Spain). Sustainability 2017, 9, 1458.
73. Brierley, G.; Fryirs, K.; Cullum, C.; Tadaki, M.; Huang, H.Q.; Blue, B. Reading the landscape: Integratingthe theory and practice of geomorphology to develop place-based understandings of river systems.Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2013, 37, 601–621.
74. Phillips, J.D. The perfect landscape. Geomorphology 2007, 84, 159–169.
75. Bocco, G.; Velázquez, A.; Siebe, C. Using geomorphologic mapping to strengthen natural resourcemanagement in developing countries. The case of rural indigenous communities in Michoacan, Mexico.Catena 2005, 60, 239–253.
76. Isachenko, A.G. Principles of Landscape Science and Physical-Geographic Regionalization; Melbourne UniversityPress: Melbourne, Australia, 1973; 311p.
77. Demek, J. The landscape as a geosystem. Geoforum 1978, 9, 29–34.
78. Richling, A. Subject of study in complex physical geography (Landscape geography). GeoJournal 1983, 7,185–187.
79. Beruchashvili, N.L. Caucasus: Landscapes, Models, Experiments; TGU Publishing House: Tbilisi, Georgia, 1995.
80. Burel, F.; Baudry, J. Landscape Ecology Concepts, Methods and Applications; Science Publishers Inc.: Enfield, NH,USA, 2003; 362p.
81. Frolova, M. Desde el concepto de paisaje a la Teoría de geosistema en la Geografía rusa: Hacia unaaproximación geográfica global del medio ambiente? Ería 2006, 70, 225–235.
82. Priego, A.; Bocco, G.; Mendoza, M.; Garrido, A. Propuesta Para la Generación Semiautomática de Unidades dePaisaje; SEMARNAT, INE, CIGA-UNAM: Mexico City, Mexico, 2010; 104p.
83. Franch-Pardo, I.; Priego-Santander, Á.G.; Bollo-Manent, M.; Cancer-Pomar, L.; Bautista-Zúñiga, F. Aplicaciónde los paisajes físico-geográficos en un sector de la cordillera ibérica: La cuenca del río Martín (Aragón,España). Interciencia 2015, 40, 381–389.
84. Bollo Manent, M.; Hernández Santana, J.R. Paisajes físico-geográficos del noroeste del estado de Chiapas,México. Investig. Geogr. 2006, 66, 7–24.
85. Swanwick, C. Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland; Technical Report;The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage: Gloucestershire, UK, 2002; 104p.
86. Tudor, C. An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment; Core Document 40.20; Natural England: London,UK, 2014; 57p.
87. Warnock, S.; Griffiths, G. Landscape characterisation: The Living Landscapes approach in the UK. Landsc. Res.2015, 40, 261–278.
88. Eetvelde, V.V.; Antrop, M. Indicators for assessing changing landscape character of cultural landscapes inFlanders (Belgium). Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 901–910.
89. Caspersen, O.H. Public participation in strengthening cultural heritage: The role of landscape characterassessment in Denmark. Geografisk Tidsskrift Dan. J. Geogr. 2009, 109, 33–45.
90. Wascher, D. European Landscape Character Areas: Typologies, Cartography and Indicators for the Assessment ofSustainable Landscapes; Research Report; Landscape Europe: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2005; 160p.91. Brabyn, L. Classifying landscape character. Landsc. Res. 2009, 34, 299–321.
92. Kim, K.-H.; Pauleit, S. Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: The case of Kwangju CityRegion, South Korea. Land Use Policy 2007, 24, 264–274.
93. Blanco, A.; Gonzales, S.; Ramos, A. Visual landscape classification in the coastal strip of Santander (Spain).Coast. Manag. 1982, 9, 271–297.
94. Aramburu, M.P.; Escribano, R.; López, R.; Sánchez, P. Cartografía del paisaje de la Comunidad Autónoma de laRioja; Gobierno de La Rioja-ETSI de Montes de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid: Logroño, Spain, 2005.
95. Otero, I.; Casermeiro, M.A.; Ezquerra, A.; Esparcia, P. Landscape evaluation: Comparison of evaluationmethods in a region of Spain. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 85, 204–214.
96. Gobierno de Aragón. Mapas de Paisaje. Available online: http://idearagon.aragon.es/paisaje.jsp (accessedon 14 May 2017).
97. Montoya, R.; Padilla, J.; Stanford, S. Valoración de la calidad y fragilidad visual del paisaje en el Valle deZapotitlán de las Salinas, Puebla (México). Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles 2003, 35, 123–136.
98. Franch-Pardo, I.; Cancer-Pomar, L. El componente visual en la cartografía del paisaje. Aptitud paisajísticapara la protección en la cuenca del río Chiquito (Morelia, Michoacán). Investig. Geogr. 2017, 93, 42–60.
99. Cancer-Pomar, L. Ecogeografía de los Paisajes del Alto Gállego; Consejo de Protección de la Naturaleza deAragón: Zaragoza, Spain, 1995; 314p.
100. Franch-Pardo, I.; Cancer-Pomar, L.; Napoletano, B.M. Visibility analysis and landscape evaluation in MartinRiver Cultural Park (Aragon, Spain) integrating biophysical and visual units. J. Maps 2017, 13, 415–424.
101. López-Santiago, C. Lo Universal y lo Cultural en la Estética del Paisaje. Experimento Transcultural dePercepción del Paisaje. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 10 January 1994.
102. González Bernáldez, F. Invitación a la Ecología Humana. La Adaptación Afectiva al Entorno, 1st ed.; Tecnos:Madrid, Spain, 1985; 159p.
103. González Bernáldez, F. El paisaje natural. In Figura con Paisajes. Homenaje a Fernando González Bernáldez,1st ed.; Montes del Olmo, C., Levassoir Riche, C., de Otaola, S.C., Cuenca Fernández, A., Eds.; GonzálezBernáldez: Madrid, Spain, 2002; pp. 132–145.
104. Appleton, J. The Experience of Landscape, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 1975; 296p.
105. Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 1st ed.; H. Mifflin Co.: Boston, MA, USA, 1979; 305p.
106. Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R. Cognition and Environment, 1st ed.; Praeger Ed.: New York, NY, USA, 1982.
107. Barrasa García, S. Valoración de la calidad estética de los paisajes de La Habana (Cuba) con métodos departicipación social. Estudios Geográficos 2013, 274, 45–66.
108. López-Santiago, C.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Martín-López, B.; Plieninger, T.; González-Martín, E.; González, J.A.Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: The caseof transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 27.
109. McHarg, I. Proyectar con la Naturaleza; Gustavo Gili: Barcelona, Spain, 2000; 216p.
110. Antrop, M.; Van Eervelde, V. Holistic aspect of suburban landscape. Visual image interpretation andlandscape metrics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 50, 43–58.
111. Hedding, D.W. Spatial inventory of landforms in the recently exposed central highland of sub-AntarcticMarion Island. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 2008, 90, 11–21.
112. Souza Filho, P.W.M.; Paradella, W.R. Recognition of the main geobotanical features along the Bragançamangrove coast (Brazilian Amazon Region) from Landsat TM and RADARSAT-1 data. Wetl. Ecol. Manag.2002, 10, 121–130.
113. Bocco, G.; Napoletano, B.M. The prospects of terrace agriculture as an adaptation to climate change in LatinAmerica. Geogr. Compass 2017, in press.
114. Schellnhuber, H.J.; Crutzen, P.J.; Clark, W.C.; Hunt, J. Earth system analysis for sustainability. Environ. Sci.Policy Sustain. Dev. 2005, 47, 10–25.
115. Mata Olmo, R. El paisaje, patrimonio y recurso para el desarrollo territorial sostenible. Conocimiento yacción pública. Arbor 2008, 184, 155–172.
116. Conrad, E.; Cassar, L.F.; Jones, M.; Eiter, S.; Cová, Z.I.; Barankova, Z.; Christie, M.; Fazey, I. Rhetoric andReporting of Public Participation in Landscape Policy. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2011, 13, 23–47.
117. Lawton, J.H. Ecology, politics and policy. J. Appl. Ecol. 2007, 44, 465–474.
118. Butler, A.; Berglund, U. Landscape character assessment as an approach to understanding public interestswithin the European Landscape Convention. Landsc. Res. 2014, 39, 219–236.
119. James, P.; Gittins, J.W. Local landscape character assessment: An evaluation of community-led schemes inCheshire. Landsc. Res. 2007, 32, 423–442.
120. Ode, Å.; Tveit, M.S.; Fry, G. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base withlandscape aesthetic theory. Landsc. Res. 2008, 33, 89–117.
121. Butler, A.; Åkerskog, A. Awareness-raising of landscape in practice. An analysis of Landscape CharacterAssessments in England. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 441–449.
122. Lee, K.C.; Son, Y.H. Exploring Landscape Perceptions of Bukhansan National Park According to the Degreeof Visitors’ Experience. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1306.
123. Cherem, G.J.; Driver, B.L. Visitor employed photography: A technique to measure common perceptions ofnatural environments. J. Leis. Res. 1983, 15, 65–83.
124. De Lucio Fernández, J.V. Paisaje y ecología del paisaje. In Figura con Paisajes. Homenaje a Fernando GonzálezBernáldez, 1st ed.; del Olmo, C.M., Levassoir Riche, C., Casado de Otaola, S., Cuenca Fernández, A., Eds.;González Bernáldez: Madrid, Spain, 2002; pp. 126–131.
125. Dramstad, W.E.; Sundli, M.; Fjelltad, W.J.; Fry, G.L.A. Relationships between visual landscape preferencesand map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 465–474.
126. Farina, A.; Scozzafava, S.; Napoletano, B. Therapeutic landscapes: Paradigms and applications. J. Mediterr. Ecol.2007, 8, 9–16.
127. Robbins, P. Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Who We Are; Temple University Press:Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007; 208p.
128. Garibray Orozco, C.; Boni, A.; Panico, F.; Urquijo, P.; Klooster, D. Unequal Partners, Unequal Exchange:Goldcorp, the Mexican State, and Campesino dispossession at the Peñasquito goldmine. J. Latin Am. Geogr.2011, 10, 153–171.
129. Bocco, G. Remoteness and remote places. A geographic perspective. Geoforum 2016, 77, 178–181.
130. Garibay Orozco, C.; Balzaretti Camacho, A. Goldcorp y la reciprocidad negativa en el paisaje minero deMezcala, Guerrero. Desacatos 2009, 30, 91–110.
131. Scott, A. Beyond the conventional: Meeting the challenges of landscape governance within the EuropeanLandscape Convention? J. Environ. Man. 2011, 92, 2754–2762.
132. Smil, V. The Earth’s Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA,2002; 346p.
133. Scott, J.C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT,USA, 1999; 269p.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق