The Perceivable Landscape a Theoretical-Methodological Approach to Landscape
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE PERCEIVABLE LANDSCAPE A THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO LANDSCAPE TAJUTAV MAASTIK TEOREETILIS-METODOLOOGILINE KÄSITLUS MAASTIKUST NELE NUTT A Thesis for applying for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture Väitekiri filosoofiadoktori kraadi taotlemiseks maastikuarhitektuuri erialal Tartu 2017 Eesti Maaülikooli doktoritööd Doctoral Theses of the Estonian University of Life Sciences THE PERCEIVABLE LANDSCAPE A THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO LANDSCAPE TAJUTAV MAASTIK TEOREETILIS-METODOLOOGILINE KÄSITLUS MAASTIKUST NELE NUTT A Thesis for applying for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture Väitekiri filosoofiadoktori kraadi taotlemiseks maastikuarhitektuuri erialal Tartu 2017 Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Estonian University of Life Sciences According to the verdict No 6-14/3-8 of April 28, 2017, the Doctoral Commitee for Environmental Sciences and Applied Biology of the Estonian University of Life Sciences has accepted the thesis for the defence of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture. Opponent: Kati Lindström, PhD KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Pre-opponent: Prof Lilian Hansar, PhD Estonian Academy of Arts, Estonia Supervisors: Prof Juhan Maiste, PhD University of Tartu, Estonia Prof Zenia Kotval, PhD Michigan State University, USA Tallinn University of Technology Tartu College, Estonia Consultant: Prof Kalev Sepp, PhD Estonian University of Life Sciences, Estonia Defence of the thesis: Estonian University of Life Sciences, room Kreutzwaldi St. 5-1A5, Tartu on June 15, 2017, at 11:15 a.m. The English text in the thesis has been revised by Juta Ristsoo and the Estonian by Jane Tiidelepp. © Nele Nutt 2017 ISSN 2382-7076 ISBN 978-9949-569-79-3 (publication) ISBN 978-9949-569-80-9 (PDF) 4 CONTENTS LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS .................................................6 FOREWORD .................................................................................................8 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................10 2. AIMS OF THE STUDY .......................................................................12 3. LANDSCAPE – DEFINITION OF THE OBJECT .....................14 4. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................16 4.1. PHILOSOPHICAL-THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .....16 4.2. THEORETICAL-METHODICAL APPROACHES ............20 5. SYNOPSIS OF THE RESEARCH ...................................................29 6. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................33 7. MATERIAL USED IN THE CASE STUDIES ..............................35 7.1. TARTU COUNTY MANORS ...................................................35 7.2. HAANJA NATURE PARK ........................................................35 7.3. OTEPÄÄ NATURE PARK ........................................................35 7.4. KÕLLESTE RURAL MUNICIPALITY ..................................36 7.5. LAHEMAA NATIONAL PARK ..............................................36 7.6. MATSALU NATIONAL PARK ................................................37 7.7. SUPILINN ......................................................................................38 8. RESULTS .................................................................................................39 8.1. LANDSCAPE AS SEMIOSPHERE .........................................39 8.2. MEMORIES DEFINED BY LANDSCAPES .......................50 8.3. LANDSCAPE DEFINED BY MEMORIES ..........................59 9. DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................72 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS .............................................................79 REFERENCES ............................................................................................83 KOKKUVÕTE ............................................................................................97 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................101 ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS ...............................................................103 CURRICULUM VITAE...........................................................................181 ELULOOKIRJELDUS ............................................................................186 5 LIST OF ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS The thesis is a summary of the following papers, which are referred to by their Roman numerals in the text and included as appendices at the end of thesis. I. Nutt, Nele, Hiob, Mart, Kotval, Zenia. 2016. Supilinn, Tartu— The Lively Vernacular Against Urban Renewal: A Lefebvrean Critique. Space and Culture, 2, 332–344. II. Nutt, Nele, Hiob, Mart, Nurme, Sulev, Salmistu, Sirle. 2013. Gentrification in a Post-Socialist Town: The Case of the Supilinn District, Tartu, Estonia. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 109−123. III. Hiob, Mart; Nutt, Nele, Nurme, Sulev, De Luca, Francesco. 2012. Risen from the Dead. From Slumming to Gentrification. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 92−105. IV. Nutt, Nele. 2009. Mõisamaastiku aeg ja ruum. Eesti Kunstiakadeemia Kunstiteaduste Instituudi Toimetised, 19, 32−44. V. Nutt, Nele. 2009. Mõis ja maastik. Park on paradiis looduses ja kunstis. Tartu: Eesti Maaülikool, 94−105. 6 Author’s contribution The authors made contributions to the following articles: Originalidea Studydesign Datacollection Data analysis the Preparation of manuscript I Nutt, Nele; Hiob, Mart; Kotval, x x x x x Zenia. 2016. Supilinn, Tartu – The Lively Vernacular Against Urban Renewal: A Lefebvrean Critique. II Nutt, Nele; Hiob, Mart; Nurme, x x x x x Sulev; Salmistu, Sirle. 2013. Gentrification in a Post-Socialist Town: The Case of the Supilinn District, Tartu, Estonia. III Hiob, Mart; Nutt, Nele; Nurme, x x x x x Sulev; De Luca, Francesco. 2012. Risen from the Dead. From Slumming to Gentrification. IV Nutt, Nele. 2009. Mõisamaastiku x x x x x aeg ja ruum. V Nutt, Nele. 2009. Mõis ja x x x x x maastik. 7 FOREWORD My first serious contacts with theoretical and practical issues related to landscapes date back to 2000 when I started my research on manor landscapes as a landscape type. During the subsequent fifteen years, as a practicing landscape architect, I have had the opportunity to participate in large-scale landscape research projects within the framework of which a great number of complicated theoretical problems have had to be resolved, and answers found for the practical issues that arose. In the context of this thesis, the most important projects that were carried out include the following: conducting an inventory of the manors in Tartu County (2000-2004); zoning the landscape in the Haanja Nature Park (2006); the thematic planning of the areas of cultural and historical value in Kõlleste Rural Municipality (2009); the landscape-related zoning of the Otepää Nature Park (2009); analysis of the architecture and settlement structure in the villages of Lahemaa (2009-2012); analysis of the spatial development of Supilinn and proposals for drawing up the thematic planning (2010); preparing the special heritage protection conditions for the thematic planning of Supilinn (2010); and the inventory of the architecture and settlement structure of Matsalu National Park (2012- 2013). Of foremost importance in all these projects was the analysis of the physical environment in order to answer the following question: What changes have occurred in the landscape and how well have the values been preserved? And yet, something else exists in the landscape that those who had prepared the initial task had not taken into account. It is hard to believe that people don’t know how to notice the non-physical component of the landscape and don’t consider it to be important. It is more likely that people are so used to this that they consider them to be self-evident, and therefore, attention is not paid to them. In addition, physical parameters for this are lacking, and therefore, it tends to slip through one’s fingers. And yet, for fifteen years at the international level, in addition to the physical component, the non-physical has been considered to be so important that is specified separately when defining a landscape. In the European Convention on the Landscape (Council of Europe 2000), which was passed by the Council of Europe in Florence in 2000, the landscape is defined as follows: “Landscape means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.” 8 In the case of all the practical projects mentioned above, for me questions related to the perceivable component of the landscape as defined in the convention have arisen time and again and required answers. Simultaneously with my landscape architecture studies at the Estonian University of Life Sciences, I was able to deal in depth with the theoretical problems related to the practical work during PhD courses taken in the Cultural Heritage and Conservation Department of the Estonian Academy of Arts, and my academic studies in both sociology and psychology at the University of Tartu, which also expanded the opportunities for combining the methods of different disciplines. As a lecturer of landscape architecture at the Tartu College of the Tallinn University of Technology, during the last ten years, I have come in contact with these theoretical and methodological issues on an everyday basis. This thesis is comprised of the conclusions I have come to through this thought