- Email: [email protected]
Development of the discipline of landscape planning
DEVELOPMENT
OF THE DISCIPLINE OF LANDSCAPE PLANNING
Although there is a widespread belief that Landscape Planning is a new discipline and has become recognised by the professions concerned with Landscape Design and Physical Planning only recently, the first issue of the Journal Landscape Planning is an occasion to refer to the development of the discipline. It is true to say that projects involving landscape change and development over large areas of land have taken place ever since Man began to need the products and aesthetic benefit of the landscape for an urban population. Some of these projects were planned and some of them took account of the ecological situation, more as a result of experience over the ages rather than as the result of a scientific study of the area in question. During the 1939-1945 War, considerable progress was made in the policies and techniques of Physical Planning, aided by some wider thinking on the part of pioneers in the previous three decades. The husbanding of the World’s resources was one matter for concern, and the aim of the International Union for the Conse~ation of Nature and Natural Resources - that all the resources of wildlife, natural areas, minerals, the ocean and the land should be considered as elements of an ecological system - began to emerge in 1949. During the following 15 years or so, IUCN, represented in particular by the North European countries, pioneered research into techniques and clarified the aims and objectives of Landscape Planning. Within the last decade, Landscape Planning as a discipline and as a necessary part of the planning process has become widely recognised all over the World, and countries, like the U.S.A., have been able to commission many Landscape Planning studies, though in many less wealthy countries, the urgent need for Physical Planning which includes the aims of Landscape Planning is still largely unfulfilled. Landscape Planning up to the present time has had a strong ecological basis, but whether the discipline will accept other bases and objectives in the future is something that will emerge. There is a danger that the present interest in various mathematical and computer techniques, which exists in most Planning circles, may lead to the use of crude models which fail to reflect the intricacy and dynamic nature of ecological relationships which are flexible and always responding to changes in the landscape. There is also the matter of one’s values on the appearance of the landscape, and these change from person to person, and from generation to generation - elaborate techniques, often too laborious to use in practice, fail to take into account this fact. It is unfortunate that in the emergence of Physical Planning org~isations, Landscape Planning should have come to the fore at such a late stage, when its concern for the landscape, upon which all physical development takes place, should have been established first. Many of the disasters of land use change are the direct result of a failure to understand and incorporate Land-
107
scape Planning principles. The clock cannot, however, be put back, and it is necessary to work out how Landscape Planning can operate influentially within the Physical Planning organisation which exists in most countries today, and this will involve team work. Thus, we hope there will be occasions when the brief is for a Landscape Plan, prepared by a team, and other occasions when the brief is for a conventional Physical Plan, also prepared by a team including Landscape Planners and Ecologists with training and experience in wide ecological relationships. B. Hackett
Newcastle
Upon Tyne, Great Britain
_
LANDSCAPE PLANNING - AN OVERVIEW This overview was written to draw attention to the virile element of intuitive enquiry and creative rationality needed to maintain freedom and dignity in the planning process. Most of us who ascribe to the aims of our new international journal will agree that a revolutionary type of action is needed to halt the forces of deterioration which are seriously blighting our landscapes at an ever increasing rate. Who are these forces of deterioration? This question has raised long and bitter controversies with blame directed to political systems, economic systems, religious ideologies and technology. But is it not possible that if we examine the situation closely we will come to the same conclusion as did those comic strip youngsters - “The enemy is we ?” Yes, we the people with our selfish and complacent human nature are not willing to exert ourselves to find out what is our role nor willing to sacrifice “our thing” to fulfil it. Perhaps we do have some reason for lack of action because either we have not been given a clear picture by the expertise or we are bound within constraints impossible to overcome. On the other hand, should we, as responsible citizens, be willing to leave all decisions to the bureaucrats or the technocrats? (Skinner, 1971). Therefore it would appear essential that there be a general understanding (if not complete agreement*) of the role which each arm of the revolutionary army should play (expertise, designers, decision makers and populace). Can the decision maker look to the scientist for ready made prescriptions of what ought to be? Archer (1963) says no, “that for the planner, philosophy not science is the practical discipline. Natural (physical or pure) science seeks to understand the nature of phenomena but passes no judgment upon them”. In “Science is a Sacred Cow”, Standen (1950) stated “One of the greatest sophistries of the world is the over extension of the scientific method into * Difficulties such as semantics formidable obstacles.
and conflicting
philosophies
and world perspectives
being
OF THE DISCIPLINE OF LANDSCAPE PLANNING
Although there is a widespread belief that Landscape Planning is a new discipline and has become recognised by the professions concerned with Landscape Design and Physical Planning only recently, the first issue of the Journal Landscape Planning is an occasion to refer to the development of the discipline. It is true to say that projects involving landscape change and development over large areas of land have taken place ever since Man began to need the products and aesthetic benefit of the landscape for an urban population. Some of these projects were planned and some of them took account of the ecological situation, more as a result of experience over the ages rather than as the result of a scientific study of the area in question. During the 1939-1945 War, considerable progress was made in the policies and techniques of Physical Planning, aided by some wider thinking on the part of pioneers in the previous three decades. The husbanding of the World’s resources was one matter for concern, and the aim of the International Union for the Conse~ation of Nature and Natural Resources - that all the resources of wildlife, natural areas, minerals, the ocean and the land should be considered as elements of an ecological system - began to emerge in 1949. During the following 15 years or so, IUCN, represented in particular by the North European countries, pioneered research into techniques and clarified the aims and objectives of Landscape Planning. Within the last decade, Landscape Planning as a discipline and as a necessary part of the planning process has become widely recognised all over the World, and countries, like the U.S.A., have been able to commission many Landscape Planning studies, though in many less wealthy countries, the urgent need for Physical Planning which includes the aims of Landscape Planning is still largely unfulfilled. Landscape Planning up to the present time has had a strong ecological basis, but whether the discipline will accept other bases and objectives in the future is something that will emerge. There is a danger that the present interest in various mathematical and computer techniques, which exists in most Planning circles, may lead to the use of crude models which fail to reflect the intricacy and dynamic nature of ecological relationships which are flexible and always responding to changes in the landscape. There is also the matter of one’s values on the appearance of the landscape, and these change from person to person, and from generation to generation - elaborate techniques, often too laborious to use in practice, fail to take into account this fact. It is unfortunate that in the emergence of Physical Planning org~isations, Landscape Planning should have come to the fore at such a late stage, when its concern for the landscape, upon which all physical development takes place, should have been established first. Many of the disasters of land use change are the direct result of a failure to understand and incorporate Land-
107
scape Planning principles. The clock cannot, however, be put back, and it is necessary to work out how Landscape Planning can operate influentially within the Physical Planning organisation which exists in most countries today, and this will involve team work. Thus, we hope there will be occasions when the brief is for a Landscape Plan, prepared by a team, and other occasions when the brief is for a conventional Physical Plan, also prepared by a team including Landscape Planners and Ecologists with training and experience in wide ecological relationships. B. Hackett
Newcastle
Upon Tyne, Great Britain
_
LANDSCAPE PLANNING - AN OVERVIEW This overview was written to draw attention to the virile element of intuitive enquiry and creative rationality needed to maintain freedom and dignity in the planning process. Most of us who ascribe to the aims of our new international journal will agree that a revolutionary type of action is needed to halt the forces of deterioration which are seriously blighting our landscapes at an ever increasing rate. Who are these forces of deterioration? This question has raised long and bitter controversies with blame directed to political systems, economic systems, religious ideologies and technology. But is it not possible that if we examine the situation closely we will come to the same conclusion as did those comic strip youngsters - “The enemy is we ?” Yes, we the people with our selfish and complacent human nature are not willing to exert ourselves to find out what is our role nor willing to sacrifice “our thing” to fulfil it. Perhaps we do have some reason for lack of action because either we have not been given a clear picture by the expertise or we are bound within constraints impossible to overcome. On the other hand, should we, as responsible citizens, be willing to leave all decisions to the bureaucrats or the technocrats? (Skinner, 1971). Therefore it would appear essential that there be a general understanding (if not complete agreement*) of the role which each arm of the revolutionary army should play (expertise, designers, decision makers and populace). Can the decision maker look to the scientist for ready made prescriptions of what ought to be? Archer (1963) says no, “that for the planner, philosophy not science is the practical discipline. Natural (physical or pure) science seeks to understand the nature of phenomena but passes no judgment upon them”. In “Science is a Sacred Cow”, Standen (1950) stated “One of the greatest sophistries of the world is the over extension of the scientific method into * Difficulties such as semantics formidable obstacles.
and conflicting
philosophies
and world perspectives
being