Ijll Cultural Aspects of Landscape

The conference could not have taken place without the support of:

Stichting Groeneveld (particularly Dr L Westerman-Van der Steen)

Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij

Kasteel Groeneveld, Baarn

Stichting Nationaal Fonds voor Natuur- en Milieueducatie

Grontmij NV Ijll Cultural aspects of landscape

First International Conference organized by the Working Group 'Culture and Landscape' of the International Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE), Castle Groeneveld, Baarn,Th e Netherlands, 28-30Jun e 1989

Hana Svobodovä (Editor)

Pudoc Waseningen 1990

(? yr~ Copyright photographs (except the photograph on page 142): Thomas Swoboda, Postbus 5020, 1007A A Amsterdam

PIBLIOTHEEK EANDBOUWUNIVERSITEn WAOENINGFN

CIP-Data Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag

Cultural

Cultural aspects of landscape: first international conference organized by the working group 'Culture and Landscape' of the International Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE), Castle Groeneveld, Baam, The Netherlands, 28-30 June 1989 / Hana Svobodovâ (ed.). - Wageningen: Pudoc. - 111. ISBN 90-220-1018-X SISO 570.3 UDC 574:712(063) NUGI 672 Trefw.: landschapsecologie.

All rights reserved. Nothing from this publication may be reproduced, stored in a computerized system of published in any form or in any manner, including electronic, mechanical, reprographic or photographic, without prior written permission from the publisher, Pudoc, P.O. Box 4, 6700 AA Wageningen, Netherlands.

The individual contributions in this publication and any liabilities arising from them remain the responsibility of the authors.

Insofar as photocopies from this publication are permitted by the Copyright Act 1912, Article I6B, and Royal Netherlands Decree of 20 June 1974 (Staatsblad 351) as amended in Royal Netherlands Decree of 23 August 1985 (Staatsblad 471) and by Copyright Act 1912, Article 17, the legally defined copyright fee for any copies should be transferred to the Stichting Reprorecht (P.O. Box 882, I 180 AW Amstelveen, Netherlands). For reproduction of parts of this publication in compilations such as anthologies or readers (Copyright Act 1912, Article 16), permission must be obtained from the publisher.

Printed in the Netherlands

FOREWORD

The conference "Cultural Aspects of Landscape" was held to encourage scientists of various disciplines-ecologists, architects, social scientists, art and literary historians-to exchange current ideas about landscape.Ther e are some case studies in the final chapter on ways to used approach specific ecological problems. Whereas it relatively easy to hold a meeting for specialists who have narrow research interests in one field, our conference, with its broad approach, was both conceptually and organizationally difficult; there are different landscapes and spaces in the world and different culturalreaction s by human beings tothem . A number of landscapes in the world are, at the present, under threat-as is now evident to most people-and it goes without saying that we must use every possible means to avoid a catastrophe on earth. The interdisciplinary conference was one of the first to bring together the specialists from different disciplines who wanted to listen to, and to try to understand, each other. This conference was not only a difficult methodological task, but also one which demanded important human qualities from the participants: the wish to understand, and the wish to help. We need to link arms if we are to protect nature and landscape; it is both our moral duty andth e duty of ourcontemporar y culture. I would like to thank theparticipant s of the conference and the contributors to this book for their contributions toth e greattas ktha t weface .

Hana Svobodovâ Chairman Working Group 'Culture and Landscape' (IALE)

vu CONTENTS

Foreword vii

Preface 1

Introduction 7

1 Cultural aspects of human ecology (the humanities and social sciences) 13 The space of landscape and the space of geography: Rereading Erwin Straus' Phenomenology of Spatial Perception - Christian G.Allesch 17 Some remarks on thephenomenologica l categories of cultural aspects of landscape - Hana Svobodovâ 24 Environmental orientations and their impact on landscape - Ina-Maria Greverus 32

2 Landscape ecology 41 Landscape ecology as abridg e between bio-ecology and human ecology - Zev Naveh 45 Das Wesen von Natur und Landschaft -ihr eNutzun g und Gestaltung durch den Menschen - Zdenek Zvolsky 59 The dynamic development of concepts in Dutch nature conservation organizations - Jos Dekker 70

3 Aesthetics and the landscape 81 The Finnish mineral substances act as amean s of protecting the beauty of eskers - YrjöSepänmaa • 85 Aesthetics: Counter-nature or second-nature? - Jale Erzen 95

4 Nature and landscape in art and literature 101 Landschaft in Werken der Kunst des 20. Jahrhunderts - Peter Spielmann 105 Geopoetry - Jan LS.Zonneveld 112

5 Architecture and landscape 121 Nature as need, ideology and deception: Designed 'natural' environments in urban architecture - G.Keul 125

6 Ecological'case studies' 135 Conflict in the Cairngorms: contrasting attitudes towards the use of the mountains -R. Goodier 139 Poaching in Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda - Michael Oneka 147 Country seats in abroo k -valle y system: Landscape-ecological planning in cultural perspective in the catchment area of the Baaksche Beek (the Netherlands) - Clara Sloet van Oldruitenborgh,Juliette Kuiper, Renée Santema 155 Landscape-ecological planning as an integral part between the human being and its environment in the developing countries - Florin Zigrai, Madhab P.Gautam 167

Some of the results meanings of the conference - 171

List of participants 174

Acknowledgements 180 PREFACE

JanLS . Zonneveld

Between June 28 and 30,1989, theWorkin g Group "CulturalEcology "o f the International Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE) held its first international conference, organized by Hanna Svobodova and Josef Fanta. Some sixtyparticipant s representing very different fields of research in natural sciences as well as in the humaniora had come to Baarn in the Netherlands. The theme of the conference was: "Cultural Aspects of Landscape" and the programme was oriented on the central theme "Landscape". But, on inspecting the programme, some participants were wondering aloud what kind of connection there was supposed to be between the lectures announced for certain sessions. And during the start of the conference the meeting could be compared with a chicken- house in which some quite different kind of fowl had been let in from various directions- There were somecommunication s problems:eac h group usedit s own language andjargon , and cherished its own point of view. But this was not embarrassing. For the goal of convening these meetings had been to have the chicken run of Landscape Ecology filled with "all sorts and conditions of fowl" - biologists and foresters, cultural anthropologists, geographers, penologists, landscape architects, artists and students of art, and have them cackling on thatcentra l theme:th elandscape . ' The results were very interesting and promising indeed. Of course, it was not possible to end theconferenc e with adocumen t in which allquestion s were answered and all problems solved, but in many cases the participants became aware that their object of study-the landscape-can be viewed from directions other than those they were used to. And as a result of this evolution they were able toformulat e theirquestion s more adequately. The start of the conference reminded us of the old, well-known Indian story of the three blind men that were dropped into an elephants's den: One man was convinced that an elephant consists of four vertical pillars; his place was under the belly of the animal. The second told everybody, with great certainty, that an elephant is ahoselik e thing that has the capacity to blow; he was the man that had landed in front of the elephant. And the third, who hadbee n on the animal's back, lived with theunshakabl e conviction that elephants are made to sito n and to beuse d asmean s of transportation. During the opening session, les S. Zonneveld, the former president of IALE, introduced a more modern metaphor, the "parable of the ball": A spherical piece of stone is discovered by a boy who thinks he has found a ball. The boy inspects its weight and hardness, plays for some moments with it, and then leaves it in the lawn. An artist, visiting the premises, admires the ball for its pure form and its colour, contrasted against the green grass. A geologist who passes by recognizes the rock as a useless dolerite. The boy's mother, however, carries the ball home and uses it as the lid for a waterjar . And finally, a visiting historian discovers that the lid is a rare specimen of a cannon ball, areli c from an ancient local war... The notion "landscape" encompasses a great variety of meanings, and people dealing with that notion may havedifferen t startingpoint s ordifferen t intentions. We are glad that in the following pages the text of practically all the papers read during the conference are represented. We hope that this publication might further the mutual understanding of people reared in different disciplines and spheres of thought, but who are nevertheless involved in the same theme:Landscape . Opening speech:"Groeneveld " 28-6-89

Isaak S.Zonneveld , Ex-President IALE

Ladies andgentleme n - TheIAL E would like to welcome you to the conference, and also to the country where the word landscape-the main theme of this conference-was born. It is said that the Dutch word "Landschap" migrated over the grey North Sea together with the paintings of Adrian van de Venne, Hendrick Avercamp, Jan van Goyen, Pieter Molijn, Salomon and Jacob van Ruijsdael, Aelbert Cuyp, Meindert Hobbema, Philips Koninck, Jan Hacxkaert, and many, many other colleagues. The migration occurred in the 17th century-the period which in Holland is called the Golden Age-when the then about one million Dutch population had other influences in the world. It is also likely that King William of Orange and his wife Mary also contributed, "en passant", to making that word current by introducing theDutc h garden arts andth eDutc h type of parliamentint o the British sphere. (The latter-the Dutch type of parliament-in fact derived from the "Waterschaps" rule, an old democratic system of ruling the land, then divided into "Waterschappen", comprising polders and gardens. These were special forms of landscapes delineated by a combination of administrative, technical, and natural boundaries by the local inhabitants, which could be effectively defended against the common enemy-the water from the sea, rivers, and marshes-only byvoluntar y cooperation.) Before that rime, theEnglish-speakin g peoples had only the words "Land" and "Scenery" available to indicate in general that which wear e goingt o deal with in this conference. The concept of what we now call "Landscape", however, must already have existed in those days, because there were hunters, gatherers, herdsmen, and farmers (depending on the type of land that formed their environment), many of whom had a profound local knowledge and usedman y localtoponyms . It was this type of knowledge that first aroused the interest of scientists through early geographers, for example, Von Humbolt, who is said to have characterized such pre- scientific recognized units of land (and their hierarchical wholes on a larger and smaller scale) as"Landschaft" , as "DasTota l Charaktereine rErdgegend" . Later, geography lostit s early holistic character and gave rise to the highly successful subdisciplines such as geology, geomorphology, and regional soil science on the physical side, and human geographical disciplines on the human side of the "Total Charakter" of the "Erdgegend's" studied. In the last half a century, however, it was discovered both in the physical, the biological and human sciences as well as in philosophy, that there is a need to not only delve deeper into analyses and research for causality, but also to consider wholes and to look for functionality. The book of Smuts on holism andth e general andth e general systems theory of Von Bertalanffy played a role here. Carl Troll gave an impetus for the introduction of theseidea sint oth econcep to f land andlandscape . I do not need to go into details here, because during the congress several speakers, for instance our good friend Zev Naveh, and also my brother, are prepared to deal with this subject. I only want at the beginning of this conference to put you on the right track. As Ex- President and current member of the executive committee of the International Association for Landscape Ecology, I have quite a lot of experience with this type of thing under the heading of the termLandscape . I have already mentioned the origin of this word. The full story, as told to me by Schmidthuesen, is that the German term "Landschaft" (as, most probably, did the Dutch term "Landschap") in the early middle ages and before that, meant nothing more than a piece of land, an area, I would say, in the meaning of the Greek "chore". This indicates only how it and its boundaries is are situated in space: hence "where it is". Through the activity of art, however, say around the time of Abrecht Durer, the term acquired a land content (just as, earlier, portraits filled the frames of painters), and became gradually something similar to the Greek term "topos":th e aura andit s content, not only the wherei t is (chore),bu t also"wha t itis" . So, gradually, the term landscape acqyuired the meaning of what later Von Humboldt would call "The total Character of apiec e of the earth". Still later, after theintroductio n of system thinking into land sciences, this developed into "The system at the earth surface of biotic and abiotic forces that visually can be recognized": hence "Land as a tangible ecosystem". In the meantime,paralle l to soil science andrelate d land-survey activities, disciplines such as "Land Evaluation", and concepts as "Land systems, Land unit, and Land facet" developed. There the term "Land" appears to have an almost identical meaning as landscape as described by me earlier, although a more pure agronomist may have a somewhat stronger bias to real farmer's land than others, who use land evaluation also in the urban and more natural sphere. In the context of IALE, in whose name I am speaking, this term"Land " and thebefor e described term"Landscape "ar eno w almostidentical . But now I see and feel certain landscape philosophers, artists, maybe even also certain landscape architects and some biologists, becoming a bit uneasy. But sir, they are thinking, landscape in ourprofessio n is,i n thefirs t place, that what I observe around me, that which influences my mood. It is composed outo f natural forms and artifacts, there is scenery and the skyline at the horizon in the countryside as well as in the cities. No, says another, it is the mosaic, the pattern of patches and corridors connecting ecosystems; land is not an ecosystem but a complex of many ecosystems, connected with an "ecological infrastructure". And here we are in the middle of a cacophony of ideas. Therefore, I want to start this conference with aparabl e in order to enableyo u to adjust your perception to therigh t level any timeth e word"Landscape "i s used bya ne w speaker. TheParabl e of theBall : Once upon atim e therewa s abal l lying on agree n lawn. Alittl e boypasse d by, discovered the ball, gave it akic k andi t startedrolling . And, aslittl e boys are wont to do, after awhil e he had enough of it, and left thebal l on the lawn.Later , he told his mother that he hadbee n playing with a ball, and described how round and how heavy it was, talked of all its other qualities as atoy . In the meantime, an artist passed by. He saw the ball and found it to be a beautiful form that fitted nicely in the corner where it had come to a standstill. He got his camera out and made a series ofphotos ;i n the nextphotographi c competition, hewo n aprize . The ballremaine d where it was until ama ncam e along who was looking for a special type of stone. He cut a piece off the ball, made some chemical analyses, and found that it was useless; soh e left the ball,th eplace , andthi s story. Finally, a rural lady passed by, saw the damaged ball andremembere d she had at home an earthen water-storage jar that needed a lid. She reckoned that the ball would fit exactly, so she took it home. Since then, the ball has served aver y useful purpose: that of keeping her drinking water clean. A thirsty historian then happened topas s by the house and was given some water from the jar. He was delighted to discover that the lid was a very rare specimen of a cannon ball from someforgotten , ancient war. So, dear audience: what is a ball? The boy firmly states that a ball is a round thing made forrollin g andplayin g with.Th e stone expert had not even noticed theexterna l form of the piece of stone he had found, except that its physiognomy suggested to him something about its internal composition. The artist, when hereturne d later with his wife to show her how beautiful the stone was lying in the corner of the lawn, was annoyed that it had been taken away and used for such a profane, utilitarian aim as closing a waterjar . And so was the historian, whoeventuall y started aproces s toge t thebal lint oa museum . The lady, however, who used it for her legal purpose, would never call it a ball, but rather herja r cover; and she could not understand that the stone specialist would call it a useless piece of dolerite he once had seen and thrown away. Neither could she understand the historian inhi sple afo r an ancientpiec e of armament. What, then, ladies and gentlemen, is the function and definition of a "ball"? In this conference, some people will concentrate on the physiognomic side of the landscape concept; others will highlight the mosaic character; some will talk about topological aspects;other s aboutth e chorean drelation s between them.An d all of them areright . But it is important to interpret in the beginning of each talk whether he or she is the boy, the stone specialist, thehistorian , thephotographer , or thecountr y lady. In one thing,however , all speakers at anIAL E symposium should be bound together. They will develop their ideas from the common view that what they call land or landscape is a facet of the whole, and that forces at the earth's surface form a system. Then it does not matter that the various groups of participants indulge in their own terminology, because everybody from now on at least knows that the landscape of the pure artist and that of certain landscape architects is something different from the landscape concept of the land ecologist who has to judge the sustainability of land-use in a country with an expanding population - and that again may differ from the aspect that certain biologists study, the movements of certain animals between the various mosaic elements that together form the landscape. All those views integrated together are the core of landscape ecology. At this conference we will pay special attention to the cultural aspects of the landscape. Some of you may even state that one can only speak of landscape if there are cultural elements in it. But even if this, in the IALE context of landscape ecological thinking, seems a too one sided view, there is an acceptance of the crucial narrow connection between cultural, biotic,an d abiotic aspects.Therefore , itcontribute s torea l landscape ecological reasoning. So, we are looking forward to an instructive week for all of us. I would like to thank Hana Svobodova and Josef Fanta for their initiative in bringing us together as a working group on the cultural aspects of landscape, and hope that it will be the start of a centre of intensive scientific study. On behalf of the IALE, I wish you a pleasant and fruitful conference. m

'•' "**/ ..-*Kiï

>4^#~'\ '„ -:

»?$£ INTRODUCTION

Jan LS. Zonneveld

Landscape ecology is the meeting place of a variety of disciplines. In landscape ecological discussions, therefore, thejargon s andidiom s of the different disciplines should merge and develop as soon as possible into one common landscape ecological language. But the participants of landscape ecological meetings will have experienced that, nevertheless, the use of different jargons (together with the natural resistance against alteration of existing standpoints) may still be a serious drawback, hampering mutual understanding. This might especially occur if the chosen theme is as broad as the Cultural Aspects of Landscape Ecology, thethem eo f theconferenc e at CastleGroenevel d inBaarn .

So the best way to introduce a book of the papers read during that conference might be a short inspection of the field of common interest, and a review of some important notions andexpressions .

Landscape

Firstly, therefore, a few words on "landscape" proper. The term has given rise to many misunderstandings due to the fact that it is a word used in "normal", general conversation but which, in the meantime, is applied to scientific purposes. In the Dutch and German languages, the terms "landschap" and "Landschaft" originally referred to the notion "region", "territory". It was, for instance, possible to write about the legislation in a township and its surrounding "landschappen". In the 15th and 16th centuries, the period of Duerer and Jan van Eyck, the term was also used for the visible world around us, the scenery that could be represented in a picture. In this respect the notion "landschap" became a very.familiar notion in the sphere of theDutc h painters of the 17th century. And with theDutc h painters and theirpainting s coming toGrea t Britain with King William, the word "landscape"-used for both thepicture d "visible surroundings" and thepaintin g itself- was introduced into theEnglis h language. It gaveris e to new terms such as "seascape"an d "townscape". Later on, German geographers-Von Humboldt, Ritter, Rosenkranz, and others-used the term not only for indicating territorial regions or visible sceneries but for the "totality" of phenomena of all kinds, present in each of the various regions that are distributed over the earth's surface. As a result, in scientific language the notion "landscape" (inFrench , "paysage") refers to the spatial and material parts of the terrestrial reality. These landscapes are complex systems consisting of landforms and water, vegetation and soils, rocks and atmosphere, in other words of the living and non-living phenomena present in a certain area. So, seen from this point of view, landscapes have the following characteristics:

1. They each occupy acertai n space,a territory : they can berepresente d on amap . 2. Theyposses s visual forms andpatterns :a physiognom y thatca n bedepicte d in paintings orphotographs . 3. They are "functioning" dynamic systems,consistin g of avariet y of components and processes thatinfluenc e each other. 4. Theypassed-lik e allthing s onearth-throug h a sequence of situations,i n other words:the yhav egon e through an evolution, ahistory . One of the elements of the landscape system is mankind. By carrying out agricultural and urban activities, mankind changed his natural environment into "cultural landscapes". Human initiatives and efforts are included in pastures and rice fields, agricultural and industrial settlements, simple footpaths and eight-lane roads. The changes were brought about as a result of man's continuous struggle to produce food, his search for materials neededfo r making tools or generating warmth, andhi swan t of mobility and transportation.

The landscape meets many human needs. It fulfils a series of functions: the production of food and materials, the recycling of organic waste, the purification of air and water, and firm ground to build on. And, moreover, it is the source of information of different kinds: information regarding food, materials, or habitability, but besides that alsoinformatio n that might appeal to man's scientific curiosity and his aesthetic consciousness. These "information functions" rendered byth e landscape play aparamoun t role in discussions on the themeCultura l Aspects ofLandscape .

Nature

The use of the word "nature" in relation to "landscape" is not without pitfalls. Some students apply the two words as contradictory terms, nature being the pristine situation, landscape representing a world which has been influenced-or even arranged-by man. But this use of the term landscape is completely incompatible with the landscape notion discussed above. A landscape in which man has not influenced the natural processes and conditions is nevertheless a landscape, it is a natural landscape. Then, when man's activities become influential, it can more or less gradually be changed into a cultural landscape.

The notion "nature"refer s to a situation in which a spontaneous development takes place, without human (in other words, cultural) influences. But we have to be aware that the notion is highly connected with the scale. In a cultivated plant on a windowsill natural processes are certainly taking place although the plant is part of an unmistakable cultural setting. And in an agricultural or urban (in other words, in a cultural) landscape, nature is certainly present within thescal eo f woodlots, gardens,hedges ,o risolate dtrees .

Nature is a condition of the landscape reality; it may be the original, pristine situation that has not yet been touched byman' s hand, buti tma y interfere with orhav e been superposed on manmade landscapes as well. It might even be present in the trodden grass of a playground ori n theclou d seenthroug h ahumbl edorme rwindow .

The interrelations between mankind and landscape

In cultural landscapes, aclos erelatio n isclearl y expressed between the human way of life - the human need for food, materials, shelter, and transportation. Agricultural activities and other achievements relating to the productive and the supporting functions of our environment haveresulte d in cultural landscapes. But during the last decades, the relations between mankind and the landscape-his environment-has suffered mismanagement: man is over-using the functions offered by the landscape; he is trespassing the limits of the environment's regulating capacities, causing pollution, deterioration and all the other environmental problems that today are asking for a solution. But discussing the cultural aspects of Landscape Ecology is not only talking about cultural landscapes,i t is alsoconcentratin g on the information functions rendered by thelandscape . This information is the matrix for human curiosity in general as well as for scientific activities, ranging from geological physio-geography and biological research to social and historical co-geographical investigations. These sciences can be applied in various ways in the practice of life; their results can be used for the intensification of man's technical grip on nature, as well as for wise planning and care for nature and landscape. The information functions of landscape (both the natural and the manmade landscapes) may, moreover, appeal toman' s artistic attitudes.

The relation between mankind and the information functions sometimes go hand in hand with human "action" in the sense of interfering in the landscape; as is the case with landscape architecture, "landscape art", and nature planning. But generally mankind's role inrelatio n toth e scientific and aesthetic information functions rendered by the landscape is a receiving and digesting one. Man's reactions to the obtained image may vary from merely enjoying a beautiful sunset to scrutinizing observations of meteorological phenomena, and from admiring an exquisitely laid-out garden to painting a large "seascape"o rwritin g apoem .

In all these cases theinterrelatio n between man andhi senvironmen t is highly controlled by the human perception. For we observe, perceive, the landscape (i.e. the material reality at the earth's surface) by means of our senses and through the sieve, the filter, of our cultural and technical traditions,ou rphilosophi c and scientific convictions,ou r aesthetic attitudes.

Therefore the images, obtained by the human perception, differ depending on the living conditions, the profession, and the cultural environment of the various observers. For a farmer, the perception of the land(scape) includes in the first place elements related to "tillibility" and "productivity", properties in which soil conditions, the hydrological situation and other landscape ecological characteristics play an important role. For aroad - building engineer, the most important attributes of a landscape are accessibility, ruggedness, firmness of the subsoil. And themediaeva l traveler experienced the Alps as an incredibly hostile landscape with threatening dangers, whereas in our century the snow, the fresh air, and the ruggedness of the scenery haveinduce d a booming tourist industry in the sameregion .

The observer in a landscape may perceive the temperature and the moisture of the air or other conditions that may provoke a bodily sensation. Besides that his perception is involved in the landscape's clearness or haziness, and its physiognomic appearance, its forms, its colours. Travelling through the landscape the visitor may enjoy its variety. The physiognomy of the landscape in itsfunctio n of "image bearer"play s aprominen t role:th e tourists "landscape"i sindee d synonymous to "scenery".

It is especially the "scenery" that has been reflected in the arts - reflected in a variety of manners and styles, according to the changing cultural attitudes and appreciations. Also,i n the arts the conditioning of the human perception by the filter of cultural conditions is a very important factor regulating therelatio n between mankind andhi s environment.

The scenery, however, not only appeals to mere aesthetic feelings, but also to historical consciousness. For the physiognomy of a landscape is not related only to the present processes and conditions.I tha s itsroot si n thenatura l and thecultura l history of theregio n concerned.

Landscape asa cultural phenomenon

In the preceding pages, the view was expressed that landscapes are (very complex) material objects,presen t on theearth' s surface and that ourhuma n (agri-)cultural initiatives are embodied in the landscape in the form of arable fields, settlements, graveyards, etc.I n other words: the human mind extends into the landscape. It is also possible to look at the man/landscape relation from the opposite direction. Starting from the view that the observed object (the "image bearer") and its image both are part of one and the same phenomenon (the landscape), the idea can be defended that the landscape-by its image-is present also in the human mind : Landscape is partly object, partly subject, it is, up to a certain degree, apsychologica l phenomenon (cf. Hellpach andLehmann) . Some authors in the field of cultural sciences even identify the notion "landscape" with that image. As a result, for them "landscape" is a cultural feature only, apparently induced by the physiognomy of the outside world, but existing in the human mind. For them "landscape" is the visible aspect of a certain culture in a certain period, an "explicatio culturnae". Landscape ecologists, studying the material reality at the earth's surface, do not deny that landscape has much to do with human culture and may be mirrored in the human mind. But in their opinion, calling the notion landscape a cultural feature only is too limited a view.

Holistic approach, Gestalt

Landscapes consist of amultitud e of elements, such as landforms and vegetation, soils and fields, water tables and ditches, houses and roads. Together they form-as already said-a system in which the various elements influence each other. A landscape, therefore, can be considered a "whole", a totality being more than the total sum of the constituting parts. It has a structure, it is a functioning system in which hierarchies and inter-connections may play prominent roles. Studying a landscape system requires a holistic approach: the parts have tob eregarde d as subsystems of largerunits .

As to the physiognomy, a holistic approach is valid as well: The observer standing in a landscape is surrounded by many elements, such as hills and forests, roads and brooks, hedges and bridges.Nevertheles s he sees,perceives ,on e landscape.Landscape s are seen in the way we see orrecogniz e a face. In psychology, this complex set of attributes perceived as awhol e iscalle d "Gestalt", awhole ,a totality , thatma y show certain qualities asvariety , monotony, neatness,threat , seasonalchange .

The terms "whole" and "holistic totality" applied in landscape research are used also in biology in discussions regarding living organisms and life communities (cf. Smuts, Von Bertalanffy), and sometimes in geography and landscape ecology for referring to complete landscapes (cf. LS. Zonneveld, Naveh).Bu t we have tokee p in mind that the terms usedi n thesevariou s fields do notcove rcompletel y thesam eideas :

- In biology, the living organism is a whole consisting of organs and tissues that are genetically related, a whole that came into existence during the phylogenetic evolution of the species and theontogeneti c development of the individual plant or animal. And the life

10 prin-ciple is the main characteristic that has been "added to the sum total of the constituting parts".Thi s concept of holism was introduced by Jan Smuts precisely with the goalo f studying life, a"blac k box"phenomeno n thati sno tvisibl e atlowe rlevels .

- In landscape ecology, the notion "whole" or "totality" refers to.a set of interconnected elements as well, but the interrelationship is not as close as in the case of the living organism. The components may have different origins, and although the principle characteristics (for instance, self-regulation, homeostasis) of life are not absent playing a certain role, especially at the level of the life communities, homeostasis for the total landscape is not a very clear phenomenon. (Lovelock has published an interesting theory, the Gaia-theory, suggesting that the earth as a whole should be regarded a kind of super- organism in which thehuma n mind should (have to) act asa kin d of brains).

- And finally the "whole" in the sense of the "Gestalt" of the perceived image is not all involved in genetic connections or functional relationships. It is totally based on a psychological process inth e human mind.

Landscape Ecology

And now the term "Landscape Ecology" itself. About fifty years ago, in 1939, the word was coined by Carl Troll, a German geographer with a vivid interest in vegetation. Troll aimed at ageograph y that asks how the landscape, theworl d around us,i s built up,ho w the various components are functioning in relation to each other - in other words, how this world is "working".Landscape , seenfro m this point of view,wa sno tprimaril y regarded as a collection of spatial phenomena that could be studied, described, and classified as separate objects or groups of objects. Troll stressed that in the landscape the various phenomena are interconnected and influence each other. This way of studying the landscape with the awareness of theexistin g interrelationships and mutualdependencie s he called "Landscape Ecology". (Troll translated the word into English by using the term "geo-ecology". The word "ecology (o-kology) had been used previously by the well- known biologist Haeckel when indicating the study of therelation s between organisms and their surroundings.Troll' s intention inusin g the samewor d was to stress thefac t thati n the landscape an interrelation between the living and non-living elements exists. Many biologists, being used to apply the Haeckelian thoughts mainly in the context of their biological investigations, took the view that landscape ecology is nothing other than (biological) ecology carried out in the open field, in the scale of the landscape and that-in other words-landscape ecology should be regarded a part of biology. But this use of the word includes an incorrect restriction. Landscape Ecology aims at the interrelatedness of the phenomena of all kinds, present at the earth's surface. Landscape ecology is practiced by physical geographers, biologists, and hydrologists, as well as by students who investigate the results of human activities in the landscape. It is a field of research where all students are aware of the fact that at the skin of the planet Earth, lithosphère, atmosphere and hydrosphere plants, animals and humans are interacting and constitute a fascinating world. Some students are concentrating on highly integrated entities, others are using just the methods characteristic of their own discipline; but the research by both is aimed ata bette r understanding of theinterrelation s in the landscape system. Mankind is an important part in these interrelationships. Firstly because man-biologically- is a part of nature. But, moreover, also because during mankind's evolution a completely new element was introduced, the human mind, the source of human culture. This new

il element gave rise to new types of relationships and activities. Natural landscapes were changed into cultural landscapes. On the other side, the side of mankind himself, the perception of scenic beauty and the aesthetic expression of this experience in arts of different kinds could come forth. Landscape ecology in its wide sense is involved with cultural aspects as well. Landscape ecology is therefore functioning as a meeting place for many disciplines, a variety of natural sciences as well as some humaniora. It ispossibl e to call it a (young and stilldeveloping ) transdisciplinary science.An dperhap s theparticipant s still have to get acquainted with each other's jargon or way of thinking. But during conferences such as the one held at Groeneveld in Baarn, it appeared that this kind of difficulty can beovercome .

12 1 CULTURAL ASPECTS OF HUMAN ECOLOGY (THE HUMANI TIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES)

"The perception of nature and landscape has always been a crucial problem for a psychological theory of perception. This is due to the fact that empirical seems to have an ineradicable inclination to a certain kind of elementarism. Generations of psychologists have been obsessed by the idea of constructing a theory of perception by summing up empirical findings on the effect of elementary stimuli. Thus it should be possible, they thought, topredic t the impression of alandscap e by summing up the predictable responses toth eelements , of which it is composed."

Ch.G.Allesc h

13 L "I said tom y soul,b e still, andwai t withouthope . For hope would be hopefo r thewron g thing; therei sye t faith But thefait h andth e love andth e hope are all in the waiting. Wait without thought, for you are notread y for thought: Soth edarknes s shall beth e light, andth e stillness the dancing."

T.S.Elio t

(from "Four Quartets","Eas t Coker") T

I THE SPACEO FLANDSCAP E ANDTH E SPACEO FGEOGRAPH Y

Rereading Erwin Straus' Phenomenology of Spatial Perception

Christian G. Allesch

The perception of nature and landscape has always been a crucial problem for a psychological theory of perception. This is due to the fact that empirical seems to have an ineradicable inclination to a certain kind of elementarism. Generations of psychologists have been obsessed by the idea of constructing a theory of perception by summing up empirical findings on the effect of elementary stimuli. Thus it should be possible, they thought, topredic t the impression of alandscap e by summing up thepredictabl e responses toth e elements of which iti s composed.

Criticism of this strategy has been expressed for some time.On e of theterses t formulations of this criticism was given by the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce who castigated the high-stepping expectations of the aesthetic elementarism of G.Th. Fechner with the pithy comment: "Quanta superbia in questa modestia!" (1) -"Ho w much haughtiness lies in this kind of modesty!".

One of the reasons why the psychological theory of perception was to fail in its attempt to explain the specific phenomena of human perception lies in the fact that perceiving the world as performed by a human being was treated in these theories like any kind of information processing thatcoul d alsob eperforme d by acomple x technical device.

This is the crucial point where we have to decide which kind of psychology we are to pursue in our effort to develop apsychologica l theory of perception. I want to explain the divergent options by dealing with a subject which is very familiar to you, namely the process of perceiving a landscape, and by referring to the ideas of an author who is probably very unfamiliar to you, namely the German-American psychiatrist Erwin Straus (1891-1975).

For a nomothetic psychology which is interested in predictable influences of environmental stimuli on behaviour, a landscape isjus t a cluster of perceivable structures, the variation of which is to becorrelate d with the variation of individual responses, e.g. the scores in a semantic differential which measures connotative meanings by asking subjects how closely their impression is associated with one or the other alternatives in a list of pairs of adjectives. For anomotheti c psychologist iti s notnecessar y tokno w what aperso n really feels if only this pinning of numbers on impressions is reliable enough to establish reproducible correlations between avariatio n of stimuli and avariatio n of responses.

Psychologists realized, of course, that a certain environmental structure may not have the same meaning for different persons, nor for one certain person at different times. A forest will have a different significance for a tourist and for a timber merchant. For this reason, modern cognitive psychology supplemented the concept of stimulus-driven perception (or: bottom-up processing) by the theoretical construct of concept-guided perception (or: top- down processing). In ecological psychology, where Kurt Lewin provided a theoretical foundation by this theory ofpersona l space, these thoughts led to afruitfu l development of

17 research designs for landscape-architecture research and a lot of other kinds of environmental studies.

However, all these concepts usually attempt to predict human responses to variations of their perceivable surroundings by skipping the level of personal feeling. This meets the character of modern psychology as a nomothetic discipline. But this is only one possible concept of psychology, and it is, I suppose, a concept which deprives us of essential scientific approaches when we are confronted, as psychologists, with a phenomenon like "landscape". It was Franz Brentano (1838-1917), the teacher of Edmund Husserl and other eminent scientists, who distinguished between a "descriptive" psychology (or "psychognosis"-the function of which it is to describe and to define psychic phenomena- and a"genetic "psychology , which is directed to causal connections of psychic phenomena with themselves and with theirphysica l surroundings (2).

Although a genetic approach actually presupposes a phenomeno-logical description of what we are dealing with, in scientific practice we often make do with operational definitions which may fit accurately into our experimental designs but do not at all adequately render what is present in our actual experience. So, if we decompose a landscape into a cluster of independent variables in an experimental design in environmental psychology, we may establish reliable correlations between stimuli and reactions, but we really are neither able to describe nor to explain what we actually feel when confronted with theimpressio n of alandscape .

This is exactly theproble m Erwin Strausraise d in hisboo k "The primary world of senses". The title of the German original, "VomSin n der Sinne", which means "On the sense of the senses",point s toth efac t thatth e task of our senses liesno tonl y in supplying the organism with data in order to control its behaviour, but also in organizing a personal world, a sensory space whosecontent s affect the subject's impressions,feeling s andemotions .

This idea leads Erwin Straus to the central thesis of his book, namely that sensory space and perceptual space are not the same. "Sensory space", he says, "stands to perceptual space as landscape to geography. Perceptual space is geographical space" whose structure is not identical with that of physical space but has, nevertheless, "an affinity to physical space"(3) .

However, in our daily life "we live between pure physics and pure landscape" (4). This formulation of Erwin Straus shall serve as a starting point for our reflections on the problem of ahuma n perception of landscape and of our normal, daily surroundings.Le t us first follow Erwin Straus in pointing out the difference between what he calls "landscape" andwha t hedistinguishe s from thata s"geographica l space":

"In a landscape we are enclosed by a horizon; no matter how far we go, the horizon constantly goes with us. Geographical space has no horizon"... "Geographical space is systematized" and my position in this system is determined by an arbitrarily established co-ordinate system: "I no longer stand in the midpoint of a spatial system, as I do in a landscape encircled by a horizon." (5) Whereas geographical space is measured by objective distances that may be abstracted from myself and my actual position, the sensory space of landscape is organized by the impressions of nearness and remoteness. Straus maintains that "the structure of the experienced space does not conform to that of conceptual space, because "the relationship between an experiencing being and the world is entirely different from the relationship between an organism and a stimulus" (6). Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that some aspects of human experience may be described by cybernetic models, nor does it mean that some predictions of human behaviour could not be performed by stimulus-response models. But it does mean that certain aspects of human experiencejus t cannot be explained by such models. What makes a landscape a landscape cannot be explained by the structure of stimuli, but only by the specific way of human experiencing. Experiencing a landscape includes a way of feeling which acyberneti c model can neverrender .

However, our experiencing the world may be defective with regard to the original possibilities of human experience. In our daily life we reduce our experience to more mechanical forms of reacting to our surroundings. A large amount of our everyday life is not characterized by the intention of experiencing, but of using things we perceive in our surroundings. Thus, modern man does not really live within a landscape, but within an arrangement of things which he uses for orientation and for functional intentions. Making experiences is deferred to leisure and we try to make up for our missed experience by concentrated and planned exposure to experiences of the type "adventure holidays" or "Europe in a fortnight".

Erwin Straus scourged this kind of experience, and our modern way of travelling in general, with subtle derision some decades ago:"Th e old form of travelling provided for a more and better balanced relationship between landscape and geography ... We, on the other hand, get on our train or airplane at a certain geographical location and leave it at a different, far removed one. After which having been to this degree estranged from the landscape, we try with all our might to submerge ourselves in it and vitally experience it, something which, however, takes place not without a good deal of affection and chatter." (7)

What we previously stated for our daily life-namely that it no longer happens within landscapes, but rather in an abstract geographically ordered surrounding-we may consequently maintain for travelling as well. Whereas in former times travelling meant movingi n the landscape wherew e getfro m oneplac e toanothe r within the visible horizon, our modern way of travelling takes place in geographical space and is determined by abstract destination outside our visible horizon: "The modern forms of travelling in which intervening spaces are, as it were, skipped over or even slept through, strikingly illustrate the geographical space in which we live as human being", Erwin Straus maintains (8). As early as 1936,i n hisfirs t edition of hisboo k "ThePrimar y World of Senses",i n thechapte r on "The Space ofLandscap e andth e Space of Geography"whic h Iquote d from previously, Erwin Straus pointed to the contradiction between planned experience and experiencing a landscape in a special paragraph entitled "The Plan". I want to quote the most significant paragraph of this text:

"As a rule, ourjourney s are planned and an itinerary mapped out. But what, actually, has such a program to do with landscape, even a program which assures us the most possible sscenic' views in the shortest possible time? There are no plans to programs for experiencing landscape ...W eliv e by the clock and the morei tmaster s us, the farther from usi s the landscape (9)."

19 This is one of the reasons why modern man is largely removed from landscape. "He has not entirely lost it, but he is estranged from it", Straus argues (10). Of course it is not possible for man to live in a pure landscape; even the farmer whose home lies in a remote valley does not live in pure landscape although his home is more person-centred than our geographical space. Our way of life required both, feeling oneself on the centre of a personal space as well as being able to abstract oneself from this egocentric view, because the human perceptual world lies "between landscape andpur ephysics " (11):"I t would bea misinterpretation of thehuma n world to understand it aspur e landscape. Because it borders on both, because it lies between them, it remains ambiguous in itself and not only for the observer. Suspended between these contraries, it is in a state of extreme labile equilibrium, ever threatened by excessive vacillation toward one side or the other. Rarely does man in this world of his keep to the middle path and the true mean. The more modern life is dominated by technology, the greater grows the yearning for the landscape, the more forced is the effort to regain it, to regain it-oddly enough-by means of this very technology"(12).

I would like to skip the concluding paragraph of the quoted chapter where Erwin Straus evolves some interesting ideas on landscape painting, not because it would contain less interesting ideas for our topic, but because we should come to some concluding reflections on therelevanc e ofErwi n Straus' ideas for ourpresen t discussion.

In order to do that we have to cast a glance at modern landscape-assessment research methods in environment psychology. Although the representation, design, and understanding of landscapes has been a topic of interest since the Renaissance, as Taylor, Zube, & Sell argue in a recent methodological essay, a systematic and methodologically reflected approach to landscape-assessment dates back to the past two decades (13). Zube et al. (14) developed a classification scheme for landscape-assessment research using a simple model of the human-landscape interaction process which considers human being and their landscape in a situation of mutual influence. On the basis of this model, the authors organize the various research techniques into four research paradigms: expert, psychophysical, cognitive, and experiential, each of which is said to have strengths and weaknesses, andeac h of which might bebette r suitedfo r different kinds ofproblem s (15).

It is not possible to discuss each of these paradigms in detail here. The one that is interesting for us in the context of our topic is what Taylor and his colleagues call the "experiential" paradigm. This paradigm is characterized by thefac t that "it viewspeopl e as activeparticipant s in the landscape, deriving their values from experience". In this paradigm, "the focus of attention is not on human or landscape components as independent of one another, but on the experience of their interaction ... In this view, people are not simply observers of landscapes but participants in them, and the way they participate has some influence on their landscape value" (16).Taylo r et al.justl y trace the roots of the experiential approach, besides other historical background theories, back to phenomenology, and this is exactly thepoin t where wemee tErwi n Straus again.

One of the modern advocates of a phenomenological approach in environmental- assessment theory is David Seamon, who refers even in the title of his book "A geography of the lifeworld" to the German term "Lebenswelt" which played a crucial role in the works of Edmund Husserl. Seamon's phenomenological approach seeks to "understand

20 and describe the phenomenon as it is in itself before any prejudices or a priori theories haveidentifie d labeled orexplaine dit"(17) .

As Taylor et al. formulate it, a phenomenological approach "strives for insights into the process of landscape encounter" (15); it is "the study of phenomena as experienced by man" (19) or" a wayo f study which works touncove r anddescrib e things and experiences- i.e. phenomena-as they are in their own terms" (20). Thus, phenomenology offers an approach to landscape perception research which contrasts with the predominant methods in human geography as well as in environmental psychology. A vivid discussion on the relevance of phenomenology to behavioural geography was carried out during the seventies in particular (21), raising emphatic support as well as harsh criticism. I do not intend to follow up these discussions in detail. I would like to talk only about some reflections on the reasons why such controversies might appear, and why these reflections may help us to understand how rereading Erwin Straus' Phenomenology of Perception might facilitate coping with the problems of generating a psychological theory of perception.

First, we have to consider that methods are neither good nor bad in general, but suited or not suited to cover specified problems. The kind of method prevailing in a certain science should normally be determined by the kind of problem that arises within its scope. This is not always the case in psychological research. The kind of problem we fdcused on in our discipline was not often determined by methodological trends inside and outside psychology. Information theory, for instance, has stimulated a lot of research and theoretical conceptions in psychology but it narrowed the theoretical interest to those aspects of perception which could be covered by the cybernetic concept of "information". So we learned a lot about information-processing as it is performed by the human brain, but we sometime forgot that information-processing is just one aspect of communication between man and hisenvironment . x

Thus, it does not make sense to quarrel about the relevance and the scientific value of divergent theoretical approaches unless wemak e sure that it is the same question we ask in both paradigmatic concepts. There are, of course, some questions in environmental psychology and in behavioural geography that may be figures in terms of stimuli and behavioural responses. But there are some other problems, too, that must not be dealt with in that way. Whenever we try to predict human behaviour in an abstract, geographical space we have to abstract from that egocentric point of view which characterizes our relation to our lifeworld, and we have to be aware of this state of abstraction lest we run theris k of overlooking theparticularit y of our scientific point of view.Thi s is exactly what Erwin Straus tried to explain by his distinction between the space of landscape and the space of geography. Whenever we try to understand and to explain the relationship of an experiencing being and theworld ,"objectivity " in theclassica l sense of the word cannot be a scientific ideal because it would axiomatically exclude what has been put in question: the relation of a subject to its lifeworld. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, in his "phenomenology of perception", named the way of human being-in-space a "situation" which is more than a mere "position"i n an abstract co-ordinate system (22).

Behavioural geography and environmental psychology have, as David Seamon deplores, "frequently fragmented and objectified man's inner situation". Research in these

21 disciplines has, as he argues, "generally arbitrarily focused on one small band of experience-cognitive map, territorial defence, a one-dimensional form of encounter-which isrepresente d and explained in some measurable,reproducibl e example". By this "implicit separation of person from his world" man is not any more considered a full human being but is "reduced to amachine-lik e brain intercepting standardized perceptual input"(23) .

Whether we guess this estimation as a true depiction of our situation in science or merely of an imminentjeopardy , we have torealiz e that by choosing particular theoretical models we form the concept of man as it is predominant in scientific discussion which is part of our society. In modern times man has got more mobility in the geographical as well as the social space than hecoul d enjoy at any time.Behavioura l sciences should try to understand the existential meaning of phenomena like rootedness and at-homeness, estrangement and alienation, instead of improving book-keeping methods such as migration statistics. They should promote methods of describing and understanding the actual communication between the subject and his lifeworld as revealed by his fears, feelings, dreams, and aesthetic impressions, instead of fragmenting them into "chains of step-wise decisions" involved through a cybernetic process (24). Behavioural sciences should study the phenomenon of landscape not in the abstract space of geography but where it occurs: in that primary world of the senses which Erwin Straus pointed to in his phenomenology of perception.

REFERENCES

(1) B.Croce ,Estetic a come scienza dell'espressione e linguistica generale (1902), 11th ed.Bar i 1965,p .120 .

(2) F.Brentano ,Deskriptiv e Psychologie (Lectures 1887/89;ed . R.W. Chrisholm &W . Baumgartner).Hambur g 1982,p . 1 f., 129 f.

(3) E. Straus,Th ePrimar y World of Senses.Londo n 1963,p .318 .

(4) ibid.

(5) ibid., p.319.

(6) ibid., p. 165 f.

(7) E. Straus,Th ePrimar y World of Senses,p .320 .

(8) E. Straus,Th ePrimar y World of Senses,p .320 .

(9) ibid.

(10) ibid.,p.321.

(11) ibid., p.318.

(12) ibid., p.321.

22 (13) J.G. Taylor,E.H . Zube, &J.L . Seil,Landscap e Assessment and Perception Research Methods.In :R.B .Bechtel ,R.W .Marans , &W .Michelson , Methods in Environmental andBehavioura l Research. NewYor k 1987,p . 361- 393 .

(14) E.H. Zube,J.H . Sell, &J.G.Taylor ,Landscap e perception: Research, Application and Theory. InLandscap ePlannin g 9 (1982),p . 1 -33 .

(15) seeTaylo r etal. ,Landscap e Assessment andPerceptio n Research Methods,p.362 .

(16) ibid., p.362 ,382 .

(17) D. Seamon, AGeograph y of thelifeworld . London 1979,p .17 .

(18) J.G. Taylor et al.,Landscap e Assessment andPerceptio n Research Methods, p. 383.

(19) A. Giorgi,Phenomenolog y andExperimenta l Psychology. In:A . Giorgi et al.(eds.) , Duquesne Studies in Phenomenological Psychology, vol. 1,Pittsburg h 1971, pp. 6- 16.

(20) D. Seamon, Ageograph y of the lifeworld, p. 16.

(21) seeD . Seamon, ibid.,p .19 .

(22) M.Merleau-Ponty , Phénoménologie del aPerception . Paris 1945,p . 116.

(23) D. Seamon, AGeograph y of theLifeworld , p. 160.

(24) ibid.

23 SOME REMARKS ON THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL CATEGORIES OF THE CULTURALASPECT S OFLANDSCAP E

Hana Svobodova

"Erde, ist es nicht dies, was du willst: unsichtbar in uns erstehn? - Ist es dein Traum nicht, einmal unsichtbar zu sein?Erde! "

R.M. Rilke,Di e neunteElegie ,Duinese rElegien , 1922

Cultural landscape is a transformed part of free nature resulting from man's intervention to shape it according to particular concepts of culture. There are many types of landscape, which arehistoricall y dependent on the cultureo f agive n time and onth e original space.

InEurope. ,befor e the Gothic period, somenatura l landscapes underwent achang e resulting from human settlement. In these landscapes, however, wild and untouched natural spaces prevailed. From our point of view, cultural landscapes on alarg e scale did not appear until the Renaissance period and later succeeding by those of the Baroque, Classicist, and Romantic periods. In the 19th century, the landscape was increasingly developed for agricultural purposes. Since the mid 20th century the cultural landscape with the industrial exploitation of nature ceased to have the qualities of a natural environment; in some geographical areas,industrializatio n hascom e toprevai l completely.

Here we will not deal with the origin and history of the transformation of landscape, as they have been described sufficiently in the literature of the history of landscape architecture and in the literature of the history of general culture. With regard to our investigation, we will consider the relation between landscape and human culture to understand the value and sense of landscape andnatur e for modern man.

Man tookpossessio n of the world when he started to build settlements and took up farming in the natural landscape. His relation with the landscape resulted from a complexity of economic, cultural, andreligiou s factors. Theinteractio n of these factors contributed to the gradual development of his culture.

According to Jean Piaget, man's primary orientation in the landscape is based on topological principles, not on geometrical ones.Th e model that describes the way in which man takes possession of the environment that surrounds him resembles the gradual extension of achild' s orientation in space.A chil d feels nearness and separation in termso f the openness and closeness of the surrounding space. Similarly, the phenomenological understanding of how an adult takes possession of the world is described in topologial terms:

-plac e -th e starting point -regio n -th ewide r horizon which in aparticula r way forms the familiar signs of the space.Piaget' s theory of "openness andcloseness "consider s theter m "region" -road s -th edynami c element of change and connection

24 j There are natural and artificial boundaries called "edges" which define landscape areas; j e.g. a river, a forest, mountains, a road, a highway, and so-called "landmarks", such as a i church, a tower, a castle, a cross by a road, a remarkable tree, or a group of trees, the ' panorama of atown .

There are some static and dynamic natural elements in the landscape such as fields, trees, flowers, rivers,th e sea,rain , allo f which are integrated into alandscap e unit.

We define nature as the sum of all abiotic and biotic phenomena on earth, which includes man and the cosmos as well. Human culture is the synthesis of the interaction between human beings,nature , and theuniverse .

The place represents everything that is familiar, as opposed to all that is unfamiliar. This place, as the center-the focus-and with significant events connected to it, is the starting point for ourorientatio n in theworl d atlarge .Man' s primary experience is first in theplac e and later in theexterna l environment.

Geographic regions have a unifying function in existential space. They form the relatively unstructured background, to which places and roads belong as "figures", as Gestalts. The roads divideth e environment intofamilia r regions andzones .

In such a situation, the roads structure space. They can lead to well-known destinations, but very often they indicate thedirectio n tounknow nplaces .

Symbolically, the road represents the basic character of human life; it is realized in human existential space. "Existential space is not a logico-mathematical term, but comprises the basicrelationship s between man andhi s environment, or,i n short, when heexperience s the environment as meaningful. Dwelling therefore implies something more than shelter. It implies that the spaces where life occurs are places, in the true sense of the word. A place is a spacewhic h has adistinctiv echaracter" . (1)

The constitutive elements of existential space are thus determined by man's relation to the environment. The elements of existential space manifest themselves on different levels in theenvironment . The landscape is,then , thebroades t level of human existential space.

In contrast with the landscape, the place is a refuge which gives man security in an unfamiliar world. Beside "the place - house" and "the place - community", man needs an environment in which he can create both inside and outside the place. The environment stimulates his imagination, and his spiritual andemotiona l life.

The place - the roads - the environment - are the basic signs for human mental orientation and provide the basis for physical life. Hence the need to have a dwelling place-a house and its interior-is a precondition for human existence. There is also the human need to establish some form of identification between the environment and the region and the landscape.

The basic structure of the house, a closed place, reflects an existential structure. Through its singular components and structures the place comes to have a special character of its own. All its features are interrelated and balanced. Each part has a significant function in

25 the whole. The whole is nontypical and impersonal. It should, though, be replaced by concepts,whic h arequalitativel y different.

These individual qualitative concepts include essential dimensions of the subjects, which refer to the original meanings of their physical manifestation. The specific poetic treatment of subjects isth eresul t of acomple x conception as well as theessentia l existential intuition which connects the static and dynamic elements of environment.

Theseindividua l qualitative concepts areexpresse d by adjectives: - natural element - human element - spiritual element Thephenomenologica l study of intuitively comprehended nondescriptive symbols is oneo f the best methods tounderstan d qualitative concepts. (2)

Theroad s can lead from theplac e to theregio n andbeyon d it to the macroworld. Theroad s can also be centripetal. In the Dutch landscape, the individual settlement and its environs are specifically directed towards provisioning and bringing prosperity to the place. A typical example is the Dutch farm, functioning as a center of agricultural production and cattle breeding. There, a road is the minimal form of communication that makes primary socio-economic contact with the rest of the community possible. The roads are directed, above all, towards the prosperity of the "place" - the prosperity of settlements. However, communication within the settlement, with the forest, and with elements of the landscape which have anindividuall y unexploited character, is minimal.

In the aforementioned, the function of the "road" as a means of social contact is limited. More important is each circle nearest to the surroundings of a"place" . This circlei s almost closed here.Th eroad s from the place are notroad s leading to the world but are mostly for transporting hay, corn, and milk. They do not lead to the world, because they are centripetal.

The place, the roads, the region, and the environment form the basic components for a horizontal model of existential space. Furthermore, they are the field for human actions as well. The "place" is a starting point. The closed circular roads leading to the region with the non-closed horizon are the dynamic elements in this model.

The horizontal field of human existence in the landscape is crossed here by avertica l axis. By "vertical axis"w e understand a dimension of cosmic space,presen t in the two types of human environment: the individual environment of the place and its environs, and the collectively or individually formed quality of the surroundings. These categories refer to basic human activities, and also tocultura l meanings.

In phenomenological thinking, the horizontally and vertically shaped landscape constitutes an infinite space, which is the archetypical component of the landscape.However , it is also the spacewhic h exists in man's consciousness.

The vertical axis of the cosmic connections implies the connections between the dynamic roleo f cosmic andnatura l phenomena: the sun, themoon , the wind, the weather, the

26 T

clouds, the horizon, the change of day, the seasons, the sea, the sea's cliffs, the mountains andprecipices ,th ebird s in flight.

The vertical phenomena intersect at the level of human horizontal existence. Near their point of intersection, the human being perceives the substance of his existence. In poetry the primary meanings of phenomena and forms do not disappear; they continue to exist through human perception. Any change is preserved because it has been recorded in the culture; whether the environment, the landscape, the place, and the settlement in their surroundings has changed, perished or has become polluted and degraded. These changes are reflected in the culture. Geographically speaking, some horizontal phenomena have a symptomatic meaning: theroa d asa symbol of life, of human fate theray s of the sun, therainbow ,th ereflectio n of the sun and themoo n inwate rca n takeo npoeti c significance birds above ando n thewate r uniteelement s outside thehorizonta l space controlled by man where thebasi c modelo f human existence isrealized .

In the life of natural man, who is isolated from western culture, his primitive tribal culture still preserves, through its traditions, strong ties with the laws of nature and the natural aesthetic order. In human beings that live under the influence of artificial culture, these influences arepresen t too,althoug h they aremor eo rles s suppressed and reduced.

Owing to the form of their subsistence, nomadic merchant people were dependent on people, not on nature. This socialization is apparent, e.g. in the Arabic countries of Northern Africa, in AsiaMinor , andelsewhere .(3 )

Nomadic pastoral life still continues in these regions. The shepherd is a solitary figure, who for centuries has beenlookin g at the same desert or savanna, the same sea, sky, sun,o r horizon. He is able to blend in with the environment which is his natural home. There, the theme of the closed place and of roads leading to the region, customary in European civilization, does not exist. Toth e nomad and shepherd, theplac e and the house practically do not exist. The place, the vertical of space, and the horizontal of landscape cross. The landscape, used for pasture only, has not been changed by highly intensive industrial agriculture. The open space, the burning sun, the cold cosmic nights resemble a dead cosmic landscape. In this simplified sense, man relates his primary situation directly to cosmic space, without any cultural mediation. "The house" is for him only a temporary place: it protects him against the wind and is aplac e to preserve water. It may be a tent, a temporary hut, or only a stop on the way. The surroundings of a temporary dwelling are rarely cultivated, not even after aperso n has settled down in a social centre such atown ,a suburb, or a village. In these social centres, people often just stand and lean against their house, or they sit in front of it, immobile, quietly waiting for the next journey to begin. Traditionally, it is a circular journey to find new pastures and do business. The journey itself was, and probably still is, the goal of these Arab nomads. Their relation with the external environment does not change,eve n when they havecontac t withcivilization . Even if they live in European-type villas,the y do not cultivate the environment. Neither are they disturbed byth e litter andwast e left bycivilization ; infact , they often make use of it.

Weretur n now to discuss some topological phenomena in European culture. The concrete experience of the place gives man a psychological feeling of security. Due to its

27 significance, the place is the center of basic existential phenomena. For man's orientation in the world, it is important for him to understand the relations between the place and the space.Th eroa d is asymboli c key tounderstanding .

To sum up: the concept "road" has a particular meaning as a symbol in the cultural landscape. Ahuma n is bornjus t like any other living being.Th eroa d of his life starts from this particular point. The landscape is the space where his further existential experience occurs. Roads lead to the landscapes, not only as a means of communication but also asa symbol of a human being's personalroa d in life.

The elemental meanings of birth, life, and death are situated in the landscape, which is comprehended as a cosmic and earthly space. The Austrian symbolists R.M. Rilke and G. Trakl were among the first to understand this. The specific cultural, historical, and literary circumstances at that time, in combination with the multidimensional landscape of Central Europe,helpe d the above poets toexperienc e thelandscap e as a spiritual space.Th e marks of people in the landscape are, for example, bells that resonate throughout space symbolizing human communion with the cosmos. Consider the symbols and images in the following poem byG . Trakl:

"AmAbend , wenndi e GlockenFriede n läuten, Folg ich der Vögel wundervollen Flügen, Dielan g geschart, gleich frommen Pilgerzögen, Entschwinden in den herbstlich klaren Weiten.

Hinwandelnd durch den dämmervollen Garten Träum ich nach ihren helleren Geschicken Und fühl der Stunden Weiserkau m mehrrücken . Sofol g ich überWölke n ihren Fahrten.

Damach t ein Hauch mich von Verfall erzittern. DieAmse lklag t inde n entlaubten Zweigen. Es schwankt derrot eWei n anrostige n Gittern.

Indes wie blasser Kinder Todesreigen Um dunkle Brunnenränder, die verwittern, ImWin d sich fröstelnd blaueAster n neigen."

GeorgTrakl : "Verfall", Dichtungen und Briefe, OttoMülle r VerlagSalzburg , 1969, p.33.

The existential space—the landscape which is determined t>y its horizontal and vertical dimensions—is either public or private. This space is a stable frame for individual perception, or for the diffusion or collective perceptions. The individual creates his own meanings for the landscape. There is, therefore, not one landscape, but many different ones. The individual landscape is made into a mental image to realize a certain landscape in one's memory. The form of the image is determined by the social experience of the perceiver - but also by the environment, time, and the urban or rural character of the landscape.

28 The point of observation may be static and invariable. In the European type of settlement, the point of observation is mostly the'house , and in particular from behind a window. The house andth ewindo w asa poin t ofobservatio n makei tpossibl e toescap efro m theoutsid e world and to hideinside . Another kind of observation takes place during motion -walking , running,ridin g abicycl e or ahorse .

Man as observer is separated from the landscape by a closed glass window limiting the angle of his outlook. In the most extreme case there is a deliberate or forced separation between the observer and his surroundings that leads to aversion, fear, and even the refusal to go out. Depending on whether the observer is in a state of melancholy or depression, the outlook will vary, especially when he has no real or active contact with the space. In this way, the human being may be separated from the landscape, nature, and space which ultimately leads him to become confined within the self, or to forced internment - such as when one isil l or imprisoned.

The rudimentary features of each landscape are formed by the workings of natural conditions. During man's annexation of the landscape, cultural and socio-cultural phenomena are added tothes e conditions. (4) The Northern landscape is characterized by its harsh nature, its power and danger. It is a force to be reckoned with. For example, without an understanding of the role of nature in Bergman's films, it is not possible to understand the aesthetics of his creative profile. The basic units of this Northern landscape are stone,water , andforests . TheDutc h landscape is characterized by the following basic phenomena: in the eastern parts, the landscape is practically inaccessible because of agricultural activities. Another large part of the Dutch landscape—the lowland pastures in the north and north western part of Holland, as well as the stretches of dunes along the coast—are cut off by fences and ditches making the landscape inaccessible. Under these circumstances, the landscape can only be observed from a point to which a person has access: a house, or a road. To enter the landscape and go deep into it to observe nature is often not possible. Forest areas in the heart of Holland vary in accessibility.

When someone observes the landscape from afixe d point, the anthropocentric view of iti s stressed. Inpoetr y about nature,individua l self-reflection prevails very often atth e expense of a deeper understanding of, and admiration for, nature. Landscape and nature appear mostly inroug h outlines, andofte n asonl y agenera l characterization.

The distinctiveness of theDutc h landscape is caused by its flat relief without any dominant altitudinal points, and an inexpressive horizon. The rigid towers of churches and the similarly rigorous lines of high poplars, the most prominent tree on the horizon, give the landscape itstypica l character. The trees resemble araise d finger.

In addition, the new and old polders with their rational internal dividing lines contribute to the puritan appearance of the Dutch landscape. This impression is enhanced by the straight lines of the canals and the straight lines in the dense network of roads which have only occasional rational curves togiv e access tohighways .

The Dutch avant garde of the second decade of the 20th century, usually referred to as "De Stijl", and Mondrian's conception of the abstract was probably inspired by these puritan lines and curves in the horizontal division of thelandscape . (5)

29 The ideological orientation of Dutch culture is puritan, and through the cultural economic conditions has contributed to thehistorica l development of theDutc h landscape. (6)

To keep the environment clean means not destroying nature by modern industrialization. Furthermore, it refers symbolically to the purity of the world that formed the character of human beings. Now, in reverse manner, thepollute d landscape, which is like achaoti c and disintegrated society, threatens a human being in the very essence of his human existence and his future. Chaos and the lack of perspectives fill man with fear and anxiety which upset hispersonalit y andhi s ability tolive .

Let us return to the basic phenomena of the specifically Dutch landscape: the primary dynamic elements in the landscape are the wind and the variable, mostly harsh weather. The flat lines of the horizon form aunit y with the water's surface, but also with water asa dynamic element (the sea, the rivers and canals, the lakes, rain). Holland is a country whose major part lies below sea level. Water in Holland has always been a serious enemy, but also ausefu l partner.

The slow motion of the Dutch rivers and their practically unobservable flow bring today a new element of significant new danger: theheav y pollution of thewater . It is aver y serious danger, because the Netherlands' lowland is the estuary of several European rivers, one of which is theRhine .

The broad rivers in the almost motionless landscape are a specific theme in Dutch poetry. The nearly static Rhine has another meaning in Dutch poetry which differs from the river as a dark element as in T.S. Eliot, or D.H. Lawrence's spring flood river which determines the course of human fate.

Thephilosophica l approach to social aspects of the landscape includes various phenomena from an ecologicalpoin t of view concerningnature : - aclea n environment asantithesi s toa pollute don e - the human andnatura l order as antithesis tochao s

The polluted and threatened landscape forces man to rearrange his life, to bring it into harmony with nature, to create and explore ane w lifestyle. Individual and collective fate is intertwined. In daily experience, travel andne w methods of communication have increased thepossibilit y for humans to be closer to the landscape, nature, the world, and thecosmos . The concepts of "nationality" and "native country" have changed. The human horizon is extending itself. Man has a new feeling of ecological responsibility as "inhabitant of the Earth". This concept differs qualitatively from so-called cosmopolitanism and national belonging. Today,ma n is more informed about the world,eve n though heremain s athome .

Theknowledg e that man lives on earth with nature and the'landscape gives him the feeling of being more connected to them than to his native country. This co-existence is not confined to the horizon of the landscape and the region, nor to the border of a national state. As "inhabitants of the Earth" it is essential for human beings to co-exist with the entire social andnatura l universe.

30 T NOTES

(1) Christian Norberg-Schulz: "Genius loci".Toward s aPhenomenolog y of Archi tecture.Academ y EditionsLondon , 1980, p.5.

(2) For adiscussio n of qualitative countenances, see Christian Norberg-Schulz: "Meaning inWester n Architecture",Londo n andNe w York, 1975.

(3) See: "Cités antiques d'Algérie".Ar t et Culture,Alger , 1982,pp.91-102 .

(4) See Kenneth Clarck: "Landscape intoArt" , New York, 1976.

(5) See Trewin Copplestone: "Modern Art Movements". Spring Books,London , 1965.

(6) SeeWerne rHofma n (hrsg.): "Luther unddi eFolge n für die Kunst'!Preste l Verlag, 1983, s.23-71.

31 ENVIRONMENTAL ORIENTATIONS ANDTHEI R IMPACTO N LANDSCAPE

Ina-Maria Grèveras

My model of environmental orientations has been developed in the context of anthro pological ecology - or cultural ecology, as it has been called since Steward's plea. It emphasizes cultural man's practice as environmental orientations in experience and expressions. My model does not emphasize so much as Steward's the material core of man's interchange with nature, butrathe r the question of aholisti c horizon in thecultur eo f human eco-systems. With research in primitive societies social and cultural anthro-pology referred to the dimension of reciprocity in both the thought and the practiced order. That means an ordered inter-dependence of actions between human beings and between human beings and their natural and man-made environment. We can think of it as quasi "natural" system of dynamic equilibrium in an oikos or-as I call it-in a household of life. Roy A. Rappaport emphasizes ecological rationality or ecological order, in association with Heraclit's term logos, in the primitives' worldview. And he strongly contrasts it with modern societies' economic rationality. While economic rationality concentrates onproductio n for individual gain, ecological rationality is based on the realization of logos as the "rational relation of things to one another". Therituals o f reciprocity in what Ical l a "moral community" make the self-regulatory praxis for maintaining and creating ecological equilibrium. These ecosystems are quite different from the anthroprocentric ecosystems of modern societies that aredominate d byeconomi c rationality.

I agree with him in his view of the macrosystem of modern societies or "world society". But my question insists on a level beneath (or beyond) the dominant and ruling economic rationality; insists on the oppressed and displaced longing for expressions and experiences not limited to instrumental environmental orientations, expressions and experiences of real people's real practice in habitable ecotopes and livable ecosystems, that both make an oikos, ahousehol d of life.

The actual adaption to, and formation of, natural and cultural landscape depends on the social stage of development. That means not only the political, economic, technological and scientific level of development but also-and with special emphasis-the ideological level, the worldview. As experiences, these developments become objectified in the formation of space, in cultivated landscape, in settlements and houses and symbolic markers. They are man's creation, but as such these creations also create man's practice, including the neurotic,th e"sic k practice".

A "sick environment" and "sick individuals" are to be found especially in systems where the environmental orientations of the powerful few expropriate the powerless majority. In other words: if one of the environmental orientations gains dominance, perhaps by one sided accumulation of control over the environment or by dominant ideologies, then the environment will become "sick". The ideology of unlimited development, guided by economic rationality, in our modern thought and practice is the most destructive violation of thepotentia l of theenvironmen t toprovid e ecotopes for the establishment of households of life that satisfy human needs.

32 My approach to a model of environmental orientations was practice-guided on two levels. Firstly it insists on the practice of people in a given system as thought and lived orientations and, secondly, it insists on praxis as the scientists' contribution to necessary changes in the development of socialorders . To be more specific: The model was first developed for the revitalization of marginal communities in the context of a rural community development programme called "Dorferneuerung", initiated and financed by the government. Community development, in this case,wa srestricte d toth epreservatio n of historic buildings.

In this programme, our most pressing objective, however, was to find out about the practice of the people living in these communities: their worldview and their environmental orientations, both those lived and those suppressed. The basis of the approach was the following definition of the social problem: The economic process of civilization and political and bureaucratic centralization is the cause of the economic as well as socio-cultural marginalization of rural communities. They have lost their status of being relatively autonomous ecosystems. They became so-called "underdeveloped régions" in the context of regional planning. Self-regulation was thought of as impossible and undesirable in the process of a centralized economic rationality. But is it? Taking into account some visible strategies of previously "invisible" people that are aimed at their environment (for example, community organizing in so-called "Bürgerinitiativen"), there seems to be a community spirit and a community-oriented practice that/is more than a struggle for private gain. It can evolve into an identification with, and struggle for, the satisfaction of environmental orientations in the community that is the habitat of people's everyday lives.

I started with theformulatio n of thefollowin g working hypotheses:

1. The identification with alocalit y depends onit s potential to satisfy human needs as they are formulated in the environmental orientations. The more people are able to satisfy their needs in a community, the more they will identify with it, and this contributes to the recognition andth e constructive maintenance of thelocality .

2. If different environmental orientations are in conflict with the individual in a community, and there is a tendency towards asymmetry of social and economic positions in a community, people will increasingly strive for private solutions, both in the sense of individualist andi n interest-group strategies.

3. The more a community development plan takes into account the collective actions and strategies on conflict-solving, the more chances there are for responsible reciprocity with regard to the dynamic equilibrium of the community as a household of life or a rationalrelatio n of subjects and things toon e another.

To prove these theses I developed a model in environmental orientations. It is based on four categories of environmental orientations that are derived from Erik Cohen's ecologial model. Thecategorie s are: 1.th e instrumental 2. the controlling 3. the socio-cultural 4. the symbolic orientation toth e environment

33 These categories are abstracted from the functions the environment has for its inhabitants. The instrumental orientation relates to natural and cultural landscapes' resources and their utilization for material existence. That includes not only nourishment, but also educational possibilities, housing, health services,infrastructure , andtraffi c services.

The controlling orientation relates to the possibilities of formal as well as informal control of the everyday environment, including not only the official positions of power and patronage, but also the control over space exercised by formal groups (such as the adolescent gang"turf" ) which-depending onth epoin t of view-may orno t belegitimate .

The socio-cultural orientation includes all the activities and interactions that man as creative cultural and social being needs to gain identity by self-knowledge, by being known toother s andb y beingrecognize d by others.I tmean s thepotentia lfo r presentation of self in creativity and interaction and it includes the locality as necessary stage for this presentation. There is nopla y without astage .

The symbolic orientation 'as a dialogue between experience and expression is intensely connected to emotions, taste and values. It is the meaning of the symbols that constitutes the symbolic orientation. These symbols are the visible spatial traces of collective memory, present collective identity, and of collective Utopia. For the individual, they act as man- made and man-thought environmental markers that mediate his sense of belonging. They include aesthetic preferences, moral and legal meanings, the values of tradition and memory, as well as the settings of future traces for the individual and the "we-group". A landscape without mediable, meaningful symbols is a voiceless landscape and casts its inhabitants into the loss of communication. Being a stranger in a cultural tope also means being alone in the symbolic world of others; it means to not understand, means the loss of therelationa l voice,mean s toente r anempt y space.

Tomak e these environmental orientations operational for research and to verify then in the world of everyday practice, wemad e useo f a somewhat complicated multi-methodological instrumental arrangement ranging from systematic observation of behavioural settings in public spaces, inquiries and life histories to testing with photographs, taking "perceptional walks" with inhabitants and doing systematic notations of spatial structure. It is not possible to tell you now all the steps of our varied approaches to the many objects of research. But-to summarize it-in my opinion, the only way to get an impression of the complex whole of the interdependence aswel l as of the conflict potential in environmental orientations you must use amulti-methodologica l approach.

Our first investigation inrura l communities inHessen , Germany,resulte d in high ratingso f the communities' qualities for sociocultural and symbolic orientation by the inhabitants themselves, including traditional shelter and nature as aesthetic values. Opposed to this was the rating of qualities for the instrumental and controlling orientation. However, despite being dissatisfied with these orientations, people identified strongly with then- community and 81% voted for "I liket o livei n thisplace" .

What does this mean for the inhabitants of rural communities? Why do they ascribe such high qualities to a smallrura l community, andals ot o theirprivat e habitat, theirhome ,

34 since they know well how to verbalize defects and deficiencies and to request improvement?

There is a dimension in relating to space that can lead to the type of local identification called "heimat" among Germans. Heimat is a place that makes possible the active and creative process of belonging as gaining material, social andideationa l certainty, unfolding of activity and stimulation and-by means of all of the above-identity. This contrasts with the assumption that present-day "mobile man"take s his home wherever the highest wages, the best consumption-supplies and the highest anonymity for personal/familial privacy are. The latter is aplac e without local, social andcultura l identity. Buti t is-and this is not to be overlooked-awa ymor ean dmor epeopl e aretakin gi nth eproces s of civilization. "Heimat" as a meaningful space of reciprocity between people and their environment, as an oikos, a household of life, becomes a memory, a nostalgia, an Utopia, or a traveller's view of otherness. The expropriation of controlling environmental orientations in centralized society leads to a trend among people to retire into privacy and to no longer take responsibility for the entire interactional communitas between people and their close environment. If nobody takes responsibility for the reciprocal control of even the small oikos anymore, then what chancei sther efo r theplane t earth?

However, I disagree with the development in the spiritual ecological movement of western societies. They take for granted-in their ecology of mind or deep eeology-that the manifesto of personal wholeness (as a kind of finding the cosmic logos in oneself) guarantees that the wholeplane t willregai n its health again. The sanity of the material and social world will not be achieved by spiritual self-control in yoga. Rather, this requires self-controlled communities.

Political discourse has reduces "multiculturalism" to a mere label for differentiation and exchanges on the level of leisure activities. However, "multiculturalism" must be re evaluated for those self-controlled activities that restrain the one-dimensional growth of instrumental orientations, that allow more sociocultural orientations for all members of a community in their cultural tope, and that prevent the destruction of new or old collective symbols. Those symbols may be so-called natural symbols, which are always reflected through culture - that is material, social and ideational meaning: therive r for those born by the river and tropical forest for those born in the forest. They may also be man-made symbols,lik echurche s andpubli cplace s with theflai r of aspecifi c language of space. There are ecological alternatives-in the sense of cultural ecology-that perceive landscape not only as a resource for instrumental exploitation or as an over-exploited resource for mankind's physical needs, but a participant in the system that satisfies all the above- mentioned environmental orientations. They try to step backwards and forwards between ecological rationality and ecological logos, and as a protest against economic rationality, which is the practical reason of our materialistic societies, they often claim ane w spiritual energy. This is where the borderline between the cosmic egotrip of New Age adepts and the logos-inspired Utopias of ecological commun-ities turns fluid. But, for me, the difference between the twoi s in their goals.An d these are the "manifesto of the person"a s opposed to the" manifesto of households of life".

To give you an example: The architect in the Arizona desert, Paolo Soleri, calls his architectural designs "arcology", meaning the combination of architecture and ecology. He has been building one of his ecological cities in the desert for years now. It is called

35 Arcosanti. The union of landscape and of the cultural household of life as ecotope and ecosystem as a thought orientation. Desert: There is the symbolic orientation of the pathway leading from wasteland to ane w life. But it is not only the spiritual way, it is also a material way. Soleri evolves it in specific interactions with the natural environment, especially in the utilization of solar energy. He insists on five material effects : Greenhouse, chimney, apse, heat sink, and horticultural effect. In this way, the desert with its high percentage of sunny days becomes an optimum location. But that is not all. The desert is more than a "Grenzertragslage" (Scarcity environment); its natural beauty as an extreme landscape is seen as an inspiring expression of cosmic creation. The ecological city as a creation of man is contrasted, and also interacting, with nature on the way to "neonature" and "aesthetogenesis" in free enterprise. In Soleri's opinion, the human being is part of nature but has, as the only natural being, aspirations of mental creativity and formgiving activity.H e calls this the technology of transcendence that has for him a divine component and leads to neonature or mind-charged nature. Soleri's core of life is aethetogenesis. Aethetogenesis envelopes the "cosmic pot". Man as an artist overreaches himself by the transfiguration of matter from the anguished to the aesthetic, the man-made beautiful. Mankind's or wo-man's, as Soleri says,destin y is to create beauty and harmony. The arts and man as artist are the focus of his planning of cities and the city itself is thought of as a symbol of the aesthetic process of creation or of symbolism as becoming. The physical structure of Arcosanti, says Soleri, has to be he music, not only the instrument - or: the city does not have any cathedrals, and palaces any more as extraordinary landmarks,bu t it is church andpalac e for all.

In Soleri's ecological city, the environmental orientations do not conflict but are inter dependent. They are linked by the so-called "urban effect". This effect is derived from the evolutionary offspring of life or, as Soleri argues further, the development towards complexity implies intensification and miniaturization asoptima l dimensions of special life spaces. This means the intensified utilization of resources in the city as "conglobated" ecological niche that gives way to other niches in a surviving natural environment. It is the polis-idea as contrasted to the expanding and extensified megalopolis of our times. For Soleri, resources are not only material ones but also of socio-cultural relevance and especially of "techne" as the ability to create harmony and beauty that are to be made use of collectivity. A dense, three-dimensional contained structure-with a high potentiality of self-sufficiency in material, social and idealistic needs-in his city of tomorrow. Its miniaturization includes intensified cooperation and creativity of the complex parts for the whole. The free enterprise to neonature and aesthetogenesis is accompanied by individual and collective neoasceticism as self-control and active responsibility for the whole. And it is accompanied by each individual's display of aesthetic abilities in exchange with one another andwit h theenvironment , the landscape. Soleri has been labeled an absurd utopist. He is an utopist, but he also tries to realize what Rappaport has called "ecological rationality" and what I mean by the new "moral community" as a household of life. The term "moral community" refers to peasant societies because of their worldview of "limited good" (Foster, Bailey). Morality in this context is not so much a category of ethics but the action-guiding knowledge that the natural and social resources of the community and the immediate area are limited. "Good" exists in limited amounts which cannot be expanded in between the relatively closed communities. Hence, any individual improvement will destabilize the equilibrium of the entire community - and by this the ostensibly profit-gaining person himself. As it is thought and lived in so-called open societies you can cross the boundaries of limited good

36 rI to gain individual and interest group's profit. It is the way of economic rationality. As for I the few with power this means increase in controlling and instrumental environmental j orientations. For nature and the powerless majority it means loss of resources, and that j includes the losses of those mobile, powerless beings who only extend their instrumental orientations at thecos t of others.A ne w moral community also needs ecological rationality that accounts for cultural man's needs and facilities in controlling sociocultural and symbolic environmental orientations. To see the limitations of resources for satisfactional reciprocity between people and people and their environment there is need of i responsibility, and responsibility needs the self-controlling free enterprise of new moral communities.

What I intend to illustrate by my examples is how the fourfold environmental orientations of human beings conflict in modern societies' everyday life and how they are integrated in the design of a utopist - may we call him absurd of deep thinking. What I miss in his miniaturized city is the creative process of convergent deep-thinking and working people. Instead, it is merely the design of a single charismatic person. But the ascetic aesthetogenesis has been superceded by hedonistic consumption in our society and convergent collectivity by privacy.Perhap s we initially need charismatic outsiders to show us the hidden potential of life. In the environ-mental orientations of the rural as well as urban respondents in our research projects, something like the longing for aesthetogenesis as creative experience and expression in the practice of everyday-life can also be seen. In their imaginations it was bound to the traditional rural community or to old city centres. It was not the longing for rurality, but the longing for inspiring complexity, and the cultural topes they were longing for have ahig h density. There certainly is acontradictio n between the much preferred one-family home (as last refuge for the satisfaction of the controlling, sociocultural and symbolic environmental orientations) and the dense complexity and variety of intermingling public and private spaces in historical settlements. The decline of public man who acts responsibly in his cultural tope is caused by the basic structural disorder in society that turns man the creator into man the recipient of centralized and bureaucratized instructions and values. To build a house requires unrestricted fantasy, the efforts of thinking and practical competence - to build a household of life required even moreo f this.An djus t as agarde n belongs toth ehouse ,landscap e belongs to the household of life, not only as instrumental resource but also as a symbolic resource, as resource for fantasy.

There is a very special-but all-including-value in our modern societies that I will call "cleaning-up". "Cleaning-up" means the process of making the environment efficient for the economy of time as part of economic rationality. But the economy of time disperses duration and the cleaning-up disperses complexity and variety. "Cleaning-up" means uniformity: beginning with the single crop system in the domestication of nature to the standards of cleanliness in buildings, places and streets of the cities and at last in the cleaned-up gardens and the easily-kept-clean dwellings. Cleaning-up destroys, as is well known, the regenerative facilities of nature, and as is seldom verbalized, also the aesthetic facilities of cultural man. Cleaning-up is theperi l of losing aesthetogenesis.

In my opinion, it is important that cultural ecology takes all human needs, values and strategies seriously - as man is both the constructor and destructor of natural and cultural landscape. In our approaches to ecology, we have to analyze the historicity of man's practice and the totality of human needs and hopes,bot h the time specific andth e universal

37 ones, not only the instrumental orientations should be taken as a guideline for analysis; it also embodies a political demand to redefine ecological rationality in respect to woman's free enterprise in and for their households of life. This may imply a long learning process for the narcissistic socialized consumers of welfare. Help will beneede d to convince them that both welfare society and welfare nature are approaching the point of no return, if we do not change to reciprocity and responsibility as opposed to economic and bureaucratic centralized "cleaning-up" and its beneficiaries which are in it for individual gain in power and profit.

REFERENCES

Bailey, EG. ThePeasan t Viewo f the BadLife . In:Advancemen t of Science, december 1966, p.399-409

Foster, GeorgeM . Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good. In: American Anthropologist, 67, 1965,p.293-315

Giordano, Christian undIna-Mari aGreveru s (Hg.) Sizilien -di e Menschen, dasLan d und der Staat. (=Notizen Nr.24) .Frankfurt/M . 1986

Greverus, Ina-Maria Auf derSuch enac h Heimat. München 1979

Greverus, Ina-Maria Kulturökologisch eAufgabe n imAnalyse - undPlanungsbereic h Gemeinde.In : G. Wiegelmann (Hg.):Gemeind e imWandel . Volkskundliche Gemeinde-Studien inEuropa . Münster 1979,p .87-9 9

Greverus, Ina-Maria, Kiesow, Gottfried, Reuter, Reinhard u.a. (Hg.) Das hessischeDorf .Frankfurt/M . 1982

Greverus,Ina-Mari a undHein z Schilling (Hg.) Heimat Bergen-Enkheim. Lokale Identität amRand ede r Grosstadt. (=Notizen Nr. 12). Frankfurt/M. 1982

Greverus, Ina-Maria Wohnstätten des Seins. Zur Raumorientierung in alternativen Projekten. In: E. Führ (Hg.): Worin noch niemand war: Heimat. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit einem strapazierten Begriff. Historisch -philosophisc h -architektonisch . Wiesbaden -Berli n 1985,p.42-5 2

Greverus,Ina-Mari a Kommunität. Modelle und Redefinition einer Lebensform. In: N.-A. Bringéus u.a. (Hg.): Wandel der Volkskultur in Europa. Fest-schrift für Günter Wiegelmann. Bd. 1. Münster 1988,p .193-20 4

38 Grèveras, Ina-Maria Neues Zeitalter oder VerkehrteWelt .Anthropologi e alsKritik . Darmstadt 1990

Rappaport, RoyA . Ecology, Meaning andReligion..Berkele y 1979

Rappaport, RoyA . Pigs for the Ancestors. Ritual in the Ecology of New Guinea People. New Haven -Londo n 1984

Soleri,Paolo : Arcology The Cityi n the Imageo f Man. Cambridge,Mass .- Londo n 1981(1:1969 ) Soleri,Paol o Arcosanti.Labo r für Öko-Urbanität. Basel 1988

Steward, Julian H. Theory of cultural change. The methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana - Chicago - London 1972

39 2 LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY

"Discussing the cultural aspects of Landscape Ecology is not only talking about cultural landscapes, it is also : concentrating on the information functions rendered by the landscape.Thi s information is the matrix for the human curiousity in general as well as for scientific activities,rangin g from geological,physico-geograph y and biological research to social and historico-geographical investigations. These sciences can be applied in various ways in the practice of life; their results can be used for intensification of man's technical grip on nature, as well as for wise planning and care for nature and landscape. The information fuctions of landscape (both the natural and the man made landscapes) may moreover appeal to man's artistic attitudes."

J.I.S. Zonneveld

41 "Onze dromen zullen wijken voor de feiten, nooit andersom, nooit andersom"

Rutger Kopland

(from "Een legeple k omt e blijven")

LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN BIO-ECOLOGY AND HUMAN ECOLOGY

Zev Naveh

Introduction

In an introductory review of ecosystem theory, E.P. Odum (1985), who can rightly be called the father of contemporary ecosystem science, stated that the school of ecosystem ecology which emerged during the recent period of environmental awareness considers ecology to be not just a subdivision of biology, but a new discipline that integrates biological, physical, and social aspects of man-in-nature interdependence. However, it seems to me that contemporary ecosystem science has not yet fulfilled thispromise . It has not succeeded inbridgin g thecommunicatio n gap between natural and human sciences and has notye toffere d new conceptions and methods for thispurpose .

The same is also true for the-chiefly America-stream of landscape ecology treating it mostly as a ramification and spatial expansion of population, community, and ecosystem ecology, projected "as items of interest at the spatial scale of ten to hundred kilometers" (Forman & Godron, 1986), or as "the synthetic intersection of many related disciplines, which focus on spatial andtempora lpattern s of landscapes" (Passer, 1987).

In his important contribution to the holistic view of nature, Böhm (1980) has lucidly analyzed the deeply ingrained roots of our tendency to fragmentize and take apart what is in reality whole and one.Thi s is also most relevant for theprevailin g views of man-nature relations and the unfortunate rift between exclusively bio-centric or anthropocentric ecological schools of thought, aswel l asth e disastrous intellectual, professional, academic, andinsti-tutiona lfragmentatio n among allthos edealin gwit h environmentalproblems .

Theobjec t of mypape r is to show how landscape ecology can help to overcome these gaps if it will continue the holistic European tradition. This considers landscapes as the scientific basis for integrative study, planning, management, conservation, and restoration of our natural and human living spaces, from the smallest, mappable landscape cell or ecotope, to the global ecosphere landscape. Hence it transcends the realm of classical ecology and the natural sciences into the realm of human sciences, related to land use in thewides t sense (Zonneveld, 1982;Naveh , 1982;Nave h &Lieberman , 1984).

In this lecture I will attempt to develop further this conception of landscape ecology as a transdisciplinary science and as abridg e between bio-ecology and human ecology. For this purpose I will briefly outline some of the basic premises of General Systems Theory and its hierarchy concepts. These can serve as the theoretical foundation for a systematic view of landscapes as concrete entities and ordered wholes of the highest ecological hierarchy, integrating natural systems and human systems, and which we called The Total Human Ecosystem. I will then introduce the noosphere - the sphere of human mind (from Greek noos = mind), as an important part of this highest ecological level, namely the sphere of human mind and consciousness, resulting from the unique biological and cultural co- evolution ofHom o sapiens,whic hhelpe d totransfor m thebiospher eint o amosai co f

45 natural and cultural landscapes of the ecosphere and led to the creation of our present urban-industrial technosphere.

The secondpar t of my lecture will bedevote d to thecontributio n of landscape ecology asa holistic eco-centric science to a new symbiosis in the mutual-causal cybernetic relations between nature and human society, as reflected in its behaviour towards its open natural and cultural landscapes. This could be achieved by supplying scientific and educational information for those regulative feedback loops, which could counteract the threatening destabilizing feedbacks of the rapidly expanding technosphere with the biosphere and geosphere.

A hierarchical-system approach tolandscape s in thetota l human eco-system

According to the above-mentioned holistic view, landscapes are notjus t repeated patterns of ecosystems but ecological systems in theirow nrights. Thus ,Row e (1988),i n one of the central introductory lectures of the first symposium of the Canadian Society of Landscape Ecology and Management (CSLEM), maintained that landscapes have to be conceived "as site-specific boxes of air/water/soil encapsulating organisms with man as an integral part. As non-organismic but organismic-containing systems, landscapes represent a more inclusive category of things of importance, countering the reductionistic tendencies of the traditional disciplinary sciences and requiring new efforts in interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary understanding."

For this purpose, a hierarchical systems approach has to be applied. In this, landscape patterns and processes are viewed not only within a bio-ecological context along spatial and temporal scales (Urban et al., 1987; O'Neill et al., 1986), but they also have to be studied in their totality as ordered ecological, geographical and cultural wholes along cultural,conceptua l andperceptiona l scales.

Of great importance for the theoretical andepistemologica l foundation of this approach are new insights into General Systems Theory, as outlined in more detail by Naveh (1982) and Naveh & Lieberman (1984). General Systems Theory has been recognized as a transdisciplinary, overarching metatheory and holistic view of the world which can help to overcome academic andprofessiona l barriers and link quantitative, formal approaches with qualitative, descriptive approaches (Grinker, 1976). Its basic paradigm is the view of a hierarchical organization of nature as ordered wholes of multilevelled stratified open systems (Laszlo, 1972).

According to the laws of integrative levels (Feiblemann, 1954); Schultz, 1967), each higher level organizes the level below it plus one emergent quality and acquires thereby more complex organization and order. In any hierarchical organizations the mechanism of function lies at the level below, but its purpose lies at the level above. This can also be regarded as the environment of all other lower levels. The higher the level, the smaller the population of instances. It is impossible to reduce the higher level to the lower level. For this reason, as shown explicitly by Weiss (1969) in the example of the biological, organismic hierarchy, full comprehension of any hierarchical organization cannot be achieved by only viewing each level in isolation. This is true, of course, also for the above- organismic ecological hierarchy with which wedea l in landscape ecology.

46 A further important development in the epistemology of the system hierarchy is the "holon"concep t (from the combination of the two Greek works Holos = whole +Proto n = part), formulated by Koestler (1969), in an attempt to overcome the contradiction created in our minds between reductionistic and holistic approaches. According to this concept, each intermediate level of any biological, ecological or social hierarchy functions both as self-contained whole towards its lower subsystem components and at the sametim e alsoa s adependen t part towards itshighe r supersystem level.

Each level can therefore be treated either in a holistic way (as a whole) or in a reductionistic way (as a part). In other words, the physical, biotic and cultural features of each landscape cell or ecotope can be analyzed as dependent parts of a larger landscape unit, such as a watershed. But, at the same time, each ecotope can be treated as an ordered whole inrelatio n to thesefeature s andthei r interacting patterns andprocesses .

According to Koestler (1969), this dichotomy of wholeness andpartnes s causes conflicting tendencies between self-assertion and domination (as a whole) to preserve individual autonomy and self-transcendence and integration (as part), resulting from the function as part of a larger, has far-reaching implications in the physical, biological, ecological and cultural realms. The maintenance of aprope r balance between these conflicting tendencies is vital for the stability of the holon hierarchy (or-in short-"holarchy"). Our dichotomic holon position in the hierarchy of nature, both as cultural "wholes" andra s biological "parts",wil l bediscusse d below.

In the same important symposium, Weiss (1969) has redefined the much disputed and mostly misunderstood holistic axiom of "the whole being more than the sum of the parts" by stating that the information about the whole is larger than the sum of information about its parts. This information steers theregulatio n and coordination functions which constrain the freedom in the behaviour ofpart s ascomponent s of ordered wholes.

Thus, for instance, in natural ecosystems living organisms do not just join their abiotic components of soil, water and air, like a mixture of gravel and sand in an unorganized heap, but their interaction creates new,non-summativ e structural andfunctiona l qualities as interaction systems and ordered wholes at the above-mentioned organismic holon level. In the conventional ecosystem approach man is treated in general as an external disturbance factor of these ecosystems, but not as an interacting and integrated-ecosystem component, adding newly emerging structural and functional non-summative "cultural" qualities to all those ecosystems which are human-influenced, modified and converted. Therefore, in order to distinguish between the few remaining completely natural and close-to-natural ecosystems and all other seminatural, agro-pastoral and urban-industrial ecosystems of our open and built-up cultural landscapes, we have to add a higher hierarchical level of complexity above this bio-ecosystem holon level to the global ecological holarchy. Following Egler (1964), the first ecologist whorecognize d this highest level of integration of man-plus-his-total-environment, we have coined this highest level of the ecological hierarchy the TOTALHUMA N ECOSYSTEM ("THE"). In regarding the THE as the apex of the ecological holarchy and the organisms as its bottom level, we should realize, however, thatthes e holarchies are"open-ended "i n bothdirections . Theyca n be considered as a microhierarchy of the macrohierarchy of the cosmos, which ranges from the space- time field, energy continuum, and quarks, up to the entities of astronomy - planets, stars, starclusters , galaxies, and galaxy clusters (Lazslo, 1972).

47 r

ORGANISMS AUT-ECOLOGY

POPULATION ECOLOGY (DEM-ECOLOGY)

BIO-COMMUNITIES >- ECOLOGY o (PHYTOSOCOLOG YAN D fe%. q ANIMAL COMMUNITIES _l ECOLOGY) o ffi

~~>- o o_J o ÜoJ w sto o «zI _) .~~

~~•TOTAL HUMAN ECOSYSTEM~~

~~:COSYSTEMS~~

~~COMMUNITIES~~

~~POPULATIONS~~

~~'RGANISMS~~

Fig.1. Theecological hierarchy andits scientific disciplines. Thehierarchy offive levels as a combination of (A) thethree; (B) theChinese box, derivedfrom across section through level 5 of thehierarchy tree (Naveh& Lieberman, 1984).

Following Koestler (1969),thi s ecological hierarchy isrepresente d inFig . 1 as ahorizonta l cross-section across an outbranching tree, amplified by a Chinese box diagram. On the right side are the major ecological disciplines studying these branches, linked by integrative sciences, such as synecology and bioecology, dealing with bioecosystems and their lower integrative levers and with landscape ecology, as the integrative science of the THE, bridging between these bio-ecological disciplines and human ecology. Other

48 landscape ecologists, like Langer (1973), have called this higher-level whole "geosocial systems", but within the conceptual framework of General Systems Theory and ecosystem science,i t seems tom etha tTH Ei s amor e appropriate term.

~~The concretean d theconceptua l spaceo f total human ecosystem landscapes~~

For a full comprehension of the relations between landscapes and the THE we have to distinguish between concrete systems and abstracted systems, as defined by Miller (1975): A concrete system is a non-random accumulation of matter/energy in a region in physical space-time that is organized into interacting, interrelated subsystems or components. The units of these systems and their relationships, including spatial, temporal, spatio-temporal andcausa l ones,ar eempiricall y determinable by an observer.

~~This definition applies, without doubt, to landscapes, as voluminous "site-specific boxes" and ecological, topological, geographical and cultural space-time entities.~~

An abstracted systemi s a seto f relationships abstractedo rrelate d according toth e interest, viewpoint, or philosophical view of the observer. In contrast to concrete systems, the boundaries of abstracted systems may be conceptually established at regions that cut through theunit s andrelationship s inphysica l spaceoccupie d by concrete systems.

TheTH E can be conceived as such as abstracted system: It is a conceptual construct of our mind according to our hierarchical viewpoint. It includes not only all concrete sites of the open and built-up ecosphere landscapes, but also the noosphere, as an additional natural envelope of life in its totality and its interaction with the biosphere and geosphere. The noosphere is the result of the evolution of the human brain cortex and the consequent greater mental capacity of Homo sapiens through which he has become a mighty geological agent, acting onth e landscape in both aconstructiv e and destructive way.

The geochemist Vernadsky (1945) who coined this term, believed that the noosphere or "world dominated by mind" of man, will gradually replace the biosphere. However, this over-optimistic and even dangerous confidence in our scientific knowledge and technological skill, allowing us to put ourselves above natural laws and live in the completely artificial world of the technosphere, is one of the major reasons for our present ecological crisis,threatenin g the biosphere and thereby also our survival.

The great anthropologist Teilhard de Chardin (1966) has re-evaluated this concept. He called the active role of man in designing and furthering constructive evolution through self-reflection and human consciousness "Noogenesis". In this process we should not become the unconstrained ruler of nature and its biosphere landscapes, but their conscious modifier and caretaker as holons of the Total Human Ecosystem. In this way, the THE becomes the highest co-evolutionary level of life on earth, with landscapes as its total natural and human living space. It differs from the lower ecosystem level, as used in general by ecologists, and from the recently developed Gaia concept (Lovelock, 1979),b y its emphasis on the coevolutionary process of nature and noogeneses which created our cultural landscapes. Although wehav edefine d landscapes as "concrete systems", it should be realized that as human beings we live not only in the three dimensional Euclidian physical-geographical space of our land and water systems, but also in this conceptual, noospheric space of our THE landscapes, described lucidly in his important book on

49 ecophilosophy by Skolimowski (1981) as our "existential space". In the words in Jantsch (1975) this is the realm of our feelings, imagination and understanding, perception and conception. Homo sapiens has constructed this space from the Pleistocene onwards during his cultural evolution , which added unique psycho-social, techno-economical, aesthetic and spiritual dimensions to his biophysical nature. As described in more detail in the example of Mediterranean landscapes (Naveh, 1984; Naveh & Lieberman, 1984), it released him gradually from his total dependence on the biosphere ecosystems (or-in short- bio-ecosystems) and their pristine, natural landscapes. Through modification and conversion of these landscapes he added entirely new classes of cultural ecological systems, namely first the semi-natural and agricultural ecosystems and much later also the urban-industrial technological ecosystems (ortechno-ecosystems ) of the technosphere.

~~Cultural landscapes as aself-transcenden t Gestalt system~~

Our present, global ecosphere landscapes reflect not only the physical and biological features of the geosphere and biosphere, and the economic-utilitarian values, but also the spiritual, ethical and aesthetic values and aspirations of those who shaped them throughout history. They are ordered wholes and Gestalt systems which contain more than the measurable, tangibleparameter s ofNewtonia n space-time dimension.

Gestalt means both form and form-ness, pattern and pattern-ness and has become an important notion for the wholeness of systems. According to Pankow (1976), there cannot be two absolutely identical Gestalt systems,bu t they have a self-transcedent openness.Thi s means the capability to represent themselves or to be described adequately by homology with the help of another natural Gestalt system, namely our natural language as the organ of consciousness: "Only if our means of representation are themselves self-transcendent can we represent other self-transcendent objects, and our ultimate, most direct, means of representation is our use of language. By means of sensitive feeling (i.e., through the feeling of entering and recognizing the outer world), a homologous representation of this self-transcendence ispossible" .

On the other hand, formal languages, such as mathematical formulas and models or graphical symbols, cannot represent themselves, but only other objects. They arerelate d to each other by analogy. Therefore, we can use them only for the description of the formal openness of our landscapes and ecosystems to the flow of energy/ matter and information. But, by doing this, we should be aware of the fact that we are projecting their uniqueness into a lower dimension, as if we would draw these landscapes only with a pencil, and thereby losing theuniqu equalitie s of theinterpla y of itsdifferen t colours.

As long as landscape ecology will follow exclusively the paradigms of the so-called "objective" scientific reasoning, it has no choice but to reduce the study of landscapes to this formal openness. But in order to become a truly transdisciplinary bio-ecology and human ecology science it has to deal also with this self-transcendent openness of our THE landscape Gestalt systems. Pankow (1976, p.17 ) maintained, rightly, that this self- transcendent openness is "the common interdisciplinary beginning and end of humanistic as well as natural sciences. The inter-disciplinary approach through self-transcendence does not require the formalization of disciplines, but unifies the disciplines while preserving the variety of their ways of thinking and speaking (point orangle s of view)".A s will be shown below, recent development in artificial intelligence and knowledge

50 engineering, using the mathematical theory of Fuzzy Sets, have greatly enhanced the prospects for such a unification through linguistic values. The recognition of this self- transcendent openness has also far-reaching implications for landscape ecology as atoo lo f environmental education. It shows the need for broadening its educational basis from the purely cognitive to the affective realm -fro m perception and intellectual comprehension to the perception of perception, namely consciousness, and from knowing and understanding tolovin g and caring for ournatura l and cultural landscapes.

~~Towards ane w cybernetic symbiosis between manan d nature~~

In recent years it seems that the warnings of concerned ecologists and environmentalists about animpendin g eco-catastrophe may some truei n the not very far future: As explained in more detail elsewhere (Naveh &Lieberma n 1984; Naveh, 1987; 1988;Nave h &Kutiel , 1989), our life-supporting natural and semi-natural biosphere landscapes are threatened by our exponentially expanding technosphere landscapes and their entropy- and pollution- producing waste products.Thes e are being driven by fossil and nuclear energy, coupled by chiefly positive, destabilizing feedback loops with uncontrolled human population growth andconsumption , scientific knowledge andunrestraine d technologicalpower .I n thecours e of this neo-technological landscape degradation, our cultural landscapes which have been shaped through time by above-mentioned creative co-evolutionary processes of man and nature, are turned now more andmor e into man-made deserts, monotonous agro-industrial steppes andfrightenin g urban-industrial monsters and theecospher e asa whol ei s losingit s biological and cultural richness and heterogeneity and thereby its neg-entropic order, complexity and stability.

Fig. 2 shows the one-sided inputs and destabilizing, positive feedbacks of the techno sphere into the open landscapes of the biosphere and their atmosphere, lithosphère, and hydrosphere envelopes. The death of remote lakes, and the rapidly expanding decline of forests in temperate zones by acid rain and by photochemical oxidant pollutants; the increase of various trace constituents and gases, changing the chemical and radiative structure of the atmosphere and inducing global climatic changes in the climate and in the flux of ultraviolet radiation, are some of the alarming syndromes of this decoupling effect between theope n and built-up landscape holons andth e geosphere.

OPEN LANDSCAP E BUILT UPLANDSCAP E n~i NATURAL O © © O o M ECOTOPES r~i SEMI -NATURAL o © © o o 1®J ECOTOPES O r^nAGRO o © © o o L*l ECOTOPES „RURAL o © © o o LS2J ECOTOPES BIO-SPHERE TECHNOSPHERE r^-i SUBURBAN L°J ECOTOPES l—i URBAN ATMOSPHERu E G |©|~ INDUSTRIAL LITHOSPHERE GEOSPHERE — ECOTOPES HYDROSPHERE VJ^^Jrr"^n^ ECO-SPHERE Fig. 2. Biocybemetic regulation of thetotal humanecosystem landscapes.

51 In order to ensure not only spatial but also structural and functional integration of all technosphere landscape holons with those of the biosphere in theTota lHuma n Ecosystem- ecosphere, thesepositiv e feedbacks have to becounteracte d by negative, that is regulative, controlling and stabilizing feedbacks of cultural, scientific and educational information. Wear e facing, therefore, notonl y agrea t ecological but alsoa grea t cultural challenge.

Modern man-in spite of his scientific and technological achievements-is still a biological creature and his existence is dependent on the viability of natural and agricultural bio- ecosystems. Therefore, his techno-ecosystems also cannot survive without the biosphere, and their unrestricted growth is endangering not only the biosphere but also the technosphere. As dependent parts of nature and its ecological holarchy, we are biological creatures. But as independent wholes we tend to behave with the punishable hubris of human arrogance andignorance .W ehav e torealiz e thatno tonl y ourmaterialisti c demands and expectations, but also our unrestrained scientific and technological knowledge, power, and skill stillfa r exceedou recologica lknowledge ,wisdo m andenvironmenta l ethics.

We can view man in a cybernetic way as occupying a position of mutual causality and holon dichotomy: He is both a receiver of vital inputs from the biosphere and geosphere and also their modifier and thus, both whole andpart , affecting and being affected by these modifications (Fig. 3)

We cannot deny the evolution of our neocortex and the noospheric cultural evolution, which has allowed us this present superior anthropocentric status in the ecological hierarchy of nature as "human inventive systems" (Jantsch, 1975). Therefore, we cannot return toth eprimeva l symbiotic status of man with nature in the landscapes of the Gardens of Eden and to a biocentric egalitarian status demanded by "deep" ecologists, such as Sessions (1985).

Fig. 3.Mutual causality among industrial man, thebiosphere, andthe geosphere. Wasteproducts andstressors from the technosphere are causing adverse changes in man'shealth, well-being and behaviour. This conflictcan be resolvedonly by a new balance betweenman's self- transcending andself-asserting holonproperties toward thebiosphere andgeosphere asa part of thetotal human ecosystem-ecosphere (Naveh &Lieberman, 1984).

52 Nor could all of us return to the primitive pre-industrial landscapes to which many romantic nature lover and environmentalists try toescape , and of which we should attempt topreserv e andrestor e asman y aspossibl e for future generations. But atth e sametime ,w e cannot continue toexpan d those despoiled technosphere landscapes and man-made deserts with our arrogant, exploitative, anthropocentric attitudes, rightly criticized by concerned environmentalists and "deep"ecologists .

This dilemma cannot, therefore, be resolved either by extreme and unrealistic egalitarian bio-centric attitudes or byequall y extreme andunrealistic , anthropocentric attitudes, shared by many human ecologists, sociologists, economists and environmental engineers, who believe only in technological fixes. In my opinion, however, comprehensive solutions can be found with the help of innovative eco-centric approaches and methods, aimed at a new bio- and geo-cybernetic symbiosis between man and nature at a higher level of complexity and organization of the Total Human Ecosystem. Such a further, vital co-evolutionary step can be envisaged as the reconciliation between our conflicting self-asserting and self- transcending holonbehaviou r towards ournatura l and cultural landscapes.

The distinguished biologist andenvironmenta l policy maker Lord Ashby (1978) has shown in a very illuminating way some of the first promising signs of this reconciliation of man and nature. They can be recognized in, amongst others, the evolution of new social norms and ethics arising from dealing with intrinsic values of nature in the actual decision making process in land-use planning and management This urgently-needed change in our dialogue with our landscapes from an "I-It" to an "I-Thou" relation is, therefore, not an esoteric and metaphysical demand of utopists, but aver y down-to-earth andpragmati c task in whichlandscap e ecologists shouldpla y animportan trole .

As outlined in detail by Naveh & Lieberman (1984), landscape ecology, as a transdisciplinary human and natural ecosystem science, could help to provide some of the missing regulative feedbacks of scientific, technological and educational information which will ensure theful l functional and structural integration of all ecosphere landscapes.

~~The needfo r newtransdisciplinar y methodsfo r landscape ecology~~

In order to fulfil these functions, landscape ecology cannot remain just another branch of the scientific community which follows faithfully all its conventional and mostly mechanistic and reductionistic paradigms. Above all, it will require the development and large-scale application of methods for analysis and synthesis, which will be able to cope in a more comprehensive way with the complex interactions between natural and human systems. They should offer practical solutions for the decisionmakers in land use planning, management, conservation and restoration by taking into consideration not only the tangible "hard" landscape values and functions, but also the intrinsic and intangible "soft" values. These are not quantifiable by conventional, so-called objective scientific methods and are therefore mostly not included in the short-sighted and narrow economic cost- benefit considerations and environmental impact statements on which most decisions on land use arebased .

As mentioned above, for this purpose we must distinguish between the formal openness to energy/matter of natural and cultural landscapes, and their self-transcendent openness as natural Gestalt systems. The theory of Fuzzy Sets offers a promising way to incorporate

53 subjective evaluations, such as intangible "soft" landscape values and other non-economic landscape richnesses, which can be expressed only in words, not in numbers, as precisely manipulable natural language expressions in knowledge-based computer systems. These can be captured mathematically as Fuzzy Sets and dealt with in algorithmic fashion (Negotia, 1984).

In recent years, the notions of order and disorder and their relations to structure and function have rightly become a central issue in contemporary landscape ecology. A promising beginning in this direction is the application of information theory to the study of order andorganizatio n in natural and cultural landscapes and the use of fractal geometry for their pattern analysis (Phipps, 1984; Berdoulay & Phipps, 1985; Vos & Stortelder, 1988;Pedrol i et al., 1989;Turne r &Gardner , 1989).

In our book on landscape ecology (Naveh & Lieberman, 1984), we have brought several examples of transdisciplinary methods for planning and management. There, we have also attempted to clarify some of the innovative concepts of order and disorder in nature, overruling the conventional thermodynamic and mechanistic paradigms which are still accepted uncritically by most ecologists and geographers. Of great importance in this respect are new insights into the nature of self-organizing systems and the emergence of global order bydissipativ e structures (Prigogine &Stengers , 1984).

Modern physics and especially quantum field theory have further opened the way for the realization of further, richer, subtler and higher levels of order which organize the lower ones. These are "implicate" or "enfolding" orders in which the process of enfoldment is related to the whole and not-as in the order of fractals-to a local order of space (Böhm, 1980). To such a new, higher level of holistic order belongs the hologram systems perceptions (Naveh &Lieberman , 1984).

As noted by Böhm and Peat (1987), we have to free our minds of rigid commitments to familiar notions of order so that we may be able to perceive new hidden orders behind simple regularities and randomness, on which the mechanistic concepts of information theory is based. As contexts change, so should the categories change, to be used by landscape ecologists in their attempts for the formalization of landscape structure (Forman & Grodron, 1986). Such a change occurs if we perceive landscapes not in a mechanistic way as repeated patterns of ecosystems which can be formalized as rigid landscape structures, but as self-transcendent natural and cultural Gestalt system. In these, human mind, consciousness and creativity play an increasingly important and even fateful role. Let us hope that landscape ecologists will be ablet o taketh e leadership in this challenging task.

~~Conclusions~~

In view of the accelerating rate and extension of global neo-technological landscape degradation and its closely interwoven and mutual-causal impacts on natural and human systems, there is urgent need to provide unifying, inclusive and transdisciplinary concepts andmethod s tobridg ebetwee n bio-ecology andhuma n ecology.

~~As a holistic order seeking science of nature and man in their totality, landscape ecology can serve as a bridge between bio-ecology and human ecology. But for this purpose it has~~

54 not only to transcend natural sciences, but also go beyond paradigms of prevailing, mostly mechanistic,positivistic , andreductionisti c conceptions of scientific knowledge in general. These are based on clear distinctions between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge, which is in most cases not included in this scientific paradigm. In their striving for an "objective" and "value-free" cognitive science they deny ethical and aesthetical- oriented cognition. This scientific knowledge is presented only in words or symbols as semantic information inlectures ,journals , books,an dreports .

Landscape ecologists cannot be content only with this semantic information. They must go a step further and arrive at pragmatic information, which-according to Weiszacker (1974)- becomes meaningful through its feedback reactions by thereceive r and is expressed in his action. This is essentially the regulative scientific and educational feedback information which we must provide in the critical interface of land use between nature and society. It should combine sound ecological knowledge with deep ecological wisdom and be guided by theethic s of ane w eco-centric ecological humanism and eco-philosophy, as outlined by Skolimowski (1981). In this way, landscape ecology, as a transdisciplinary science of integrated natural and human ecosystems, could become a catalyst to the urgently needed geo- and bio-cybernetic symbiosis between modern human society andnature .

~~REFERENCES~~

~~Asbay,E . 1978 Reconciling Man with Environment. Stanford University Press,Stanford , California.~~

~~Böhm,D . 1980 Wholeness and theImplicat e Order.Routledg e and Kegan, London.~~

~~Böhm,D . andF .Peat . 1987 Science, Order, and Creativity. A Dramatic New Look at the Roots of Science and Life. BantamBooks , New York.~~

~~Berdoulay, V.,an dM .Phipps . 1985 Paysage et Systeme.Edition s de'/Universit é d'Ottawa.~~

~~Egler,F.E . 1964 Pesticides inou recosystem . Am. Sei.52:110-136 .~~

~~Feiblemann, J.K. 1954 Theory of Integrative Levels.Brit . J.Philos .Sei . 5:559-566.~~

~~Formann, R.T.T. &M . Godron. 1986 Landscape Ecology. Wiley and Sons,Ne wYork .~~

~~Grinker, R.R. 1976 In Memory of Ludwig von Bertalanffy's Contribution to Psychiatry. Behav. Scr. 21:207- 217.~~

~~55 Jantsch, E. 1975 Design for Evolution: Self-Organization and Planning in the Life of Human Systems. GeorgeBraziller , New York.~~

Koestler,A . 1969 Beyond Atomism and Holism - the Concept of the Holon. In: A. Koestler and J.R. Smithies (Eds.),Beyon d Reductionism: NewPerspective s in the Life Sciences, Hutchinson of London, pp. 192-216.

~~Langer, H. 1973 Oekologie der geosozialien Umwelt.Landschaf t +Stad t 5: 133-140.~~

~~Lazio,E . 1972 Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought. Harper Torchbooks, New York,~~

~~Lovelock, J.E. 1979 Gaia: ANe w Look atLif e onEarth . Oxford University Press, Oxford.~~

~~Miller, J.G. 1975 TheNatur e of Living Systems.Behav . Sei. 20:343-365 .~~

~~Naveh, Z. 1982 Landscape Ecology asa nEmergin g Branch of Human Ecosystem Science.In : Advances in Ecological Research 12.Academi cPress ,London , pp. 189- 237 .~~

Naveh, Z. 1984 The Vegetation of the Carmel and Nahal Sefunim and the Evolution of the Cultural Landscape. In: A. Ronen, Sefunim Prehistoric Sites in Mount Carmel, Israel. BAR International Series 230.Oxford , pp.2 3 - 63.

~~Naveh, Z. 1987 Biocybernetic and Thermodynamic Perspectives of Landscape Funtions and Land Use Patterns. J. Landscape Ecology 1:75-85~~

~~Naveh, Z. 1988 Biocybernetic Perspectives of Landscape Ecology and Management. In: M.R. Ross (ed.), LandscapeEcolog y andManagement . 1987.Polyscienc e Pubis Inc.,Montreal ,pp .2 3 -34 .~~

~~Naveh, Z. &A.S .LIEBERMAN . 1984 Landscape Ecology Theory and Applications. Springer-Verlag New York Berlin Heidelberg Tokyo.~~

Naveh, Z. &P .Kutiel . 1989 Changes in Vegetation of the Mediterranean Basis in Response to Human Habitation. In: G. Woodwell (ed.), The Impoverishment of the Biosphere. Cambridge Press, Cambridge, New York. (Inpress) .

~~56 Negotia, C.V. 1985 Expert Systems and Fuzzy Systems. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company. Menloe Park, California.~~

~~Odum,E.P . 1985 Introductionary Review: Perspectives of Ecosystem Theory. In:G .A .Kno x and N.Poluni n (Eds.), Ecosystem Theory and Application. Wiley, Sussex, U.K.~~

~~O'Neill, R.V.& D.L .DeAngeli s & J.B.Waid e &T.H.F .Allen . 1986 AHierarchica l Concept of theEcosystem . Princeton Press,Princeton , New Jersey.~~

~~Pankow,W . 1976 Openness as Self-transcendence. In:E . Jantsch and C.H. Waddington (Eds.),Ecolutio n and Consciousness: Human Systems in Transition. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, pp. 16- 36.~~

~~Pedroli, G.M.B. &W .Vo s& H .Dijkstr a (Eds.). 1988 The Farma River Barrage Effect Study. Giunta Regionale Toscana. Marrilio Edition, Venezia.~~

Phipps, M. 1984 / Rural Landscape Dynamic: The Illustration of Some Key Concepts. In: J. Brandt and P. Agger (Eds.), Methodology in Landscape Research and Planning. Roskilde Universitets- forlag, Roskilde,Denmark , Vol.1,pp . 17- 27 .

~~Prigogne, I& I . Stengers. 1984 Order out of Chaos. Bantam Books,Ne w York.~~

~~Risser, P.G. 1987 Landscape ecology: State of the Art. In: M.G. Turner (ed.), Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. Springer-VerlagNe wYork .~~

~~Rowe,J.S . 1988 Landscape Ecology: The Ecology of Terrain Ecosystems. In: R. Moss (Ed.), Landscape Ecology and Management. Polyscience Publications Inc.,Montreal .~~

Schultz, A.M. 1967 The Ecosystems as a Conceptual Tool in the Management of Natural Resources. In: S.V. Cirancy-Wantrup and J.J. Parsons (Eds.), Natural Resources: Quality and Quantity. University of California Press. Berkeley,pp . 139- 161 .

~~Sessions, G. 1985 Ecological Consciousness and Paradigm Change. In: M. Tobias (Ed.), Deep Ecology. Avant Books, San Diego,pp .2 8- 44 .~~

~~Skolimowski, H. 1984 Eco-Philosophy:Designin g New Tactics for Living.Mario n Boyrs.London .~~

~~57 Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1966 Man's Placei n Nature. Collins,London .~~

~~Turner, M.G. &R.H . Gardner(eds-). 1989 Quantitative Methods inLandscap e Ecology. Springer-Verlag,Ne w York.~~

~~Urban, D.L., &R.V .O'Neil l &H.H . Shugart. JR. 1987 LandscapeEcology . Bioscience 37: 119 -127.~~

~~Vernadsky,W.I . 1945 TheBiospher e andNoosphere . Am. Sei. 33: 1- 12 .~~

~~Vos,W .& A.H.F .Stoftelder . 1988 Vanishing Tuscan Landscapes. Landscape Ecology of a Submediterranean - montane Area (SonaloBasin) ,Tuscany , Italy.Pudoc ,Wageningen .~~

~~Weiss,P.A . 1969 The Living System : Determinism Stratified. In: A. Koestler and LR. Smithies (eds.), Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences. Hutchinson of London, pp. 3-55.~~

~~Weizsaecker, E. Von. 1974 Offene Systeme:Beitrag e zur Zeitstruktur von Information, Entropie undEvolution . St. Klett,Stuttgart .~~

Zonneveld, LS. 1982 Land(scape) Ecology, aScienc e or aStat e of Mind.In : S.P.Tjallingi i andA.A .d eVee r (Eds.),Perspective s in LandscapeEcology . Contribution to Research,Plannin g and Management of ourEnvironment . Proceedings of International Congress of Landscape Ecology, Veldhoven, TheNetherlands , Apr. 6- 11,1981 .Centr efo r Agric.Publ . and Documentation, Wageningen, TheNetherlands ,pp .9 - 15 .

~~58 DAS WESEN VON NATUR UND LANDSCHAFT - IHRE NUTZUNG UND GESTALTUNG DURCHDE N MENSCHEN~~

~~Zdenek Zvolsky~~

~~1.Natu r undLandschaf t undihr e Nutzung~~

Das Begriffspaar "Natur und Landschaft" ist im begrifflichen Zusammenhang für Naturschutz nicht trennbar (1). Es ist ein Axiom (2), das wir nicht definieren, sondern dessen Begriffsinhalte wir lediglich formulieren können,z.B . - für die Zwecke der Operationalisierung in der Naturschutzpolitik, insbesondere mit Hilfe des an dieser Stelle angesprochenen Instrumentes, derLandschaftsplanun g und -fü r den Schutz, diepfleglich e Nutzung und Gestaltung von Natur und Landschaft.

~~Natur und Landschaft erkennenwi r~~

sowohl ind « ÎT Funktion als auch inde rFor m 1. imNatur a laushalt in ihrer Physiognomie und (imLandschaftsbild , 2. inde rr « »alenNutzun g imäußere nAusdruck , durchde r lMensche n inde r Struktur)

anEigenschafte n (Kriterien)wi e z.B. Natürlichkeit, Formen-un d Eigenart, Bedeutungsvielfalt, Seltenheit, visuelle Erlebnisqualität, ökologische Vielfalt, Schönheit, Harmonie Regenerationsfähigkeit

~~Schema 1~~

Jedes Objekt von Natur und Landschaft (eine z.B. abgegrenzte Agrar-, Wald-, oder Stadt- Landschaft bzw. Teilsysteme wie ein Biotopkomplex, ein Feuchtgebiet, ein Dorf, eine Baumgruppe) hat sein inneres Funktionssystem, seine innere Ordnung, die auch äusserlich erkennbar sein können:

DieFunktio n bestimmt weitgehend das Bildde s Objektes. Daraus folgt: Aus dem äusseren Erscheinungsbild (Physiognomie) des Objektes kann man auf die Funktionsfähigkeit des Objektes schliessen. Sicherlich gehört zu dieser Aussage nicht nur das sinnlich, insbesondere das optisch Wahrnehmbare in bezug auf subjektive Gefühle und Urteile (schön, harmonisch, vielfältig,

59 grün, agrarisch, industriell), sondern auch die fachliche Kenntnis über die ökologischen, ökonomischen, bzw. gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhänge des Wirkungsgefüge des betrachteten Objektes - und ein Erfahrungsschatz, wobei auch die Zeitkomponente für die Erkennung derWirkunge n eine Rolle spielt.

Die Landschaften (Landschaftseinheiten) verstehen wir als ganzheitliche, komplexe, innerhalb ihrer Grenzen einigermassen homogene (3) Ausschnitte aus dem Kontinuum des geographischen Raumes. Sie werden geprägt von ihren Ökosystemen. Sie bestehen weiter aus ihren System- bzw. Bestandteilen. Die Grenzen einer Landschaftseinheit werden dort gesucht und ausgewiesen, wo der Charakter dieser Landschaft in einen anderen Charakter der benachbarten Einheit wechselt. Der jeweilige Charakter der räumlichen abgegrenzten Landschaft ist sowohl von den natürlichen Gegebenheiten (vor allem von den Elementen der physischen Geographie des Raumes, von der Höhenzonalität und Kontinentalität, der Pflanzendecke) als auch von der langfristigen Nutzung der Landschaft durch die menschliche Gesellschaft geprägt.

Generalisierend kann eine Landschaft als Summe der darin enthaltenen Funktionsteile, der Faktoren bzw. natürlichen und von Menschen veränderten (landschaftlichen) Ökosysteme aufgefasst und beschrieben werden. Jede Landschaftseinheit ist ein Individuum, ein Unikat; siebesitz t eineEigenart , eine Natürlichkeit, Vielfalt und andereEigenschaften . Das verhindert nicht, dass sich ähnliche nachbarschaftliche Landschaften zu einer grösseren, komplexeren Landschaft (Landschaft höheren Grades) zusammenfassen bzw. ähnliche Landschaften einem Typus zuordnen (typisieren) lassen.

Natürliche Ökosysteme existieren heutei nEurop a nuri nBruchstücken , stattdesse n müssen wir über (von Menschen beeinflusste) Landschaftlichen Ökosysteme sprechen: Agrarökosysteme, Wald-, Stadt-Ökosysteme, Erholungslandschaften.

Am Beginn einer solchen Landschaftsbetrachtung steht zunächst die Frage nach kennzeichnenden Kriterien (Qualitäten, Charakterzüge, Eigenschaften undihr e quantitative Ausprägung; s. Schema 1un d Abb. 1), die einerseits eine datenbezogene Erfassung einer Landschaft erlauben und andererseits eine vergleichende Bewertung des ökologischen Zustands verschiedener Landschaften ermöglichen. Diese Frage ist eng mit der gewählten räumlichen Betrachtungsebene (Masstabs-,Planungs- , Verwaltungsebene) verknüpft.

Jede Landschaft ist ein Ergebnis der langfristig wirkenden natürlichen und gesellschaft lichen Kräfteverhältnisse, d.h. einerseits - dernaturgegebene n Entwicklung und Bedingungen, Ökosysteme, und andererseits - der menschlichen Nutzungssysteme, die sich aus den Ansprüchen/Bedürfnissen der Bevölkerung und den etablierten gesellschaftlichen Bedingungen ergeben (Grundgesetz des Staates und darauf aufbauendes Rechtssystem, Besitzverhältnisse, Verwaltung, Management der Nutzungsbereiche wie z.B.Wirtschafts- , Agfar-, Siedlungspolitik u.a.).

Die Bedürfnisse der Gesellschaft werden überwiegend durch Beanspruchung (Nutzung) von Natur und Landschaft befriedigt -wi e auch immer der Begriff "Befriedigung" definiert werden kann. Natur und Landschaft sind gleichzeitig die Lebens-, die Produktionsgrundlagen, Objekte von Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege, Erlebniswelt und Ware (s.Abb . 1).

~~60 Zwischen V~~

~~MENSCH und UMWELT A I läuftei n ständigesZusammenspie lmi t vielfältigen~~

~~Ursachen Interdependenzen und Konsequenzen ab~~

~~Schema 2~~

~~Das hier angesprochene Thema bezieht sich auf die~~

~~gegenseitigen Beziehungenun d Abhängigkeiten zwischen~~

~~Ökosystemenvo nNatu run d Landschaft und~~

~~Nutzungssystemen der Gesellschaft~~

~~Schema 3~~

Wegen der engen Interdependenzen (Beziehungen, Abhängigkeiten, dem Zusammenspiel der Kräfte) lassen sich in Natur und Landschaft die Ökosysteme von den Nutzungssystemen nicht trennen. Um Ökosysteme von Natur und Landschaft schützen zu können, ist es notwendig die landschaftsgebundenen Nutzungssysteme umweltverträglich zu gestalten. DieLandschaf t wird gegenwärtig vor allem als Nutzungs- und Siedlungsraum wahrgenommen. Zu diesem Themenbereich gehört auch das Thema dieser Konferenz über kulturelle Aspekte der Landschaft. Nicht alles, was heutzutage als kultureller Einfluss

~~61 bezeichnet wird, hat auch positive Aspekte für Natur und Landschaft. Auch hier muss eine kritische Einstellung eintreten.~~

Die "ökonomische" Fragestellung der bisherigen gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung wird auf Arbeit (Energie) und Kapital bezogen, wobei die Resource "Geld" den gemeinsamen Schlüssel (Nenner) darstellt. Die Naturfaktoren (wie Boden, Wasser, Luft) werden "genutzt" und dadurch verbraucht oder beeinträchtigt. Wenn man die Ökonomie als das Rechnen mit Knappheitsfolgen sieht, müssen auch natürliche Resourcen, die inzwischen Knappheit aufweisen, in die Gesamtrechnung eingesetzt werden, um echte Kulturlandschaft zu entwickeln. Das knappe Gut Natur und Landschaft muss sparsam verwendet werden.

Die Raumordnung (die Raum- und Fachplanungen) sieht auch den Raum aus der Sicht der (möglichen) Nutzung. Sie stellt die Frage nach der "Nutzungsrelevanz" derLandschaf t als Raum und der Natur als Resource. Das "Nutzen" wird im menschlich-wirtschaftlichen Sinne verstanden. Nicht nur die Nutzungen (Fachplanungen), sondern auch die Raumordnung sind in diesem Sinne anthropozentrisch: Das Mass aller Dinge ist der Mensch. Die Kultur wird.hier als "aliud", etwas anderes, verstanden. Daraus resultiert die einseitige wirtschaftliche und soziale Orientierung des öffentlichen Lebens auf das Verhältnis Raum - Gesellschaft, nicht aber auf das Verhältnis Natur - Gesellschaft : Die Natur bleibt in den politischen Entscheidungen bisher ausgespart. Die "ökologische" Fragestellung der gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung, bezogen auf pflegliche Nutzung bzw. auf totalen Schutz der natürlichen Resourcen und der Landschaft (Was?, Wie?, mit welchen Folgen der Landzeitwirkung für die Ökosysteme?), hat auf allen Ebenen der Absichtserklärung und Entscheidung die Priorität zu erlangen. Zur Kultur gehört auch Schutz undPfleg e der nichtwiederherstellbare n Werte,al sErb e der Menschheit.

~~2. Auswirkungen derNutzun g vonNatu r und Landschaft.~~

~~Die Nutzungssysteme (s.Schem a 3)sin dfunktiona l undräumlic h abhängig:~~

~~- von der Naturfaktoren Boden, Wasser, Geländeform, Exposition, Höhenzonierung, Luft, Klima, Pflanzen- und Tierwelt imWirkungsgefüg e des Naturhaushalts;~~

- von den Naturpotentialen der (abgegrenzten) Landschaften (Abbaugebiete der Mineralienvorkommen, Bodenfruchtbarkeit der Agrargebiete, Vorhandensein von Wasser für Industrie und Siedlungsräume; d.h., die Nutzungssysteme bauen auf den natürlichen Standortbedingungen sowie gegebenen Ökosystemen auf, die sie verändern, und auf den Bodenschätzen, die sieverbrauchen) ,

~~- komplex gesagt von den Objekten von Natur und Landschaft, die unsere Lebensgrundlagen sind (s.Abb . 1),sowi e~~

~~- von den Fähigkeiten der Bevölkerung (die ihre sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Systeme geschaffen hat undi n derLag eist , die andi ejeweil s neue Gegebenheiten anzupassen),~~

- von dem Energie-Eintrag in die Teilsysteme und im erweiterten Sinne von Finanzresourcen, die Stellvertreter für solche Einträge sind, räumlich konzentriert werden können undi n diesen Systemen einen gemeinsamen Nenner darstellen.

~~62 Die Nutzungen undihr eMassnahme n verursachen positive und negative~~

~~Ver arid er irrigen im Naturhaushalt und im Landschaftsbild > <~~

~~der jeweiligen Landschaft Schema 4~~

Die negativen Veränderungen (Beeinträchtigungen, gegebenenfalls Eingriffe (4), s.Abb . 1) überwiegen erfahrungsgemäss. Die menschlichen Bedürfnisse an Konsumware, an Siedlungs- und Erholungsraum, an Kommunikationen, an Wohlstandsgütern werden ständig durch die Nutzungen der natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen in underschiedlicher Art und Intensität befriedigt. Durch die Überbeanspruchung der Naturfaktoren (wie des Bodens, des Wassers, der Luft) und dadurch auch der wildwachsenden Pflanzen- und wildlebenden Tierpopulationen sowie von deren Lebensräumen entstehen stetige und langfristige Beeinträchtigungen der Funktion von Ökosystemen, die zwangsläufig zur Minderung der Naturpotentiale, insbesondere des biotische Regenerations- und des biotischeErtrags-Potential s führen.

Menschliche Eingriffe in Natur und Landschaft rufen Veränderungen der Ökosysteme hervor, schaffen andere, naturfernere Systeme und bringen naturnahe Ökosysteme zum Verschwinden. Dabei kommt es, bei der derzeitigen ökonomischen Einstellungen über Kostenrechnung der Nutzungsabläufe (wegen Knappheit der Produktionsresourcen), zu Konsequenzen, zu negativen Phänomenen in Natur und Landschaft (dies sind z.B. Verbrauch der naturnahen Landschaftsteile, Bodenerosion, Austrocknung der Landschaften, klimahygienische Belastung, Eutrophierung des Bodens und der Gewässer, Kontamination der fremdartigen Stoffe in den Naturfaktoren, Arten- und Biotopvernichtung, ökologische und landschaftsstrukturelle Verarmung sowie Waldsterben und andere negative Auswirkungen riesigen Ausmasses im Naturhaushalt, als Syndrom bisher nicht eindeutig erforschter Ursachen), die mit dem Modewort "Umweltschäden" bezeichnet werden.

~~Ich gehebe idiese nAusführunge n vondre iThese n aus:~~

~~THESE 1:~~

~~Die "Umweltschäden" von Natur und Landschaft werden von den gesellschaftlichen Nutzungen, d.h. - von Produktionstechnologien und - vom Verhalten derMensche n verursacht.~~

~~Die pflegliche Nutzung von und Veränderung des menschlichen Verhältnis gegenüber Natur undLandschaf t sinddi e Voraussetzungen für umweltverträgliche Entwicklungen.~~

~~63 THESE 2:~~

~~Aktiver Naturschutz und wirksame Landschaftspflege zielen nicht nur auf die Milderung der Folgen, sondern auf die Beseitigung derUrsache n ab.~~

~~Die Ziele und Strategien sowie die Massnahmen von Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege müssen also auf die Produktionstechnologien und auf das Verhalten der Menschen ausgerichtet werden.~~

~~THESE3 :~~

~~Der Umfang der notwendigen Umweltmassnahmen und die dafür erforderlichen Kosten hängen von Art und Intensität der gesellschaftlichen Nutzung von Natur und Landschaft ab.~~

Je höher die von den Nutzungen verursachten Beeinträchtigungen von Faktoren oder Teilen der Natur und Landschaft sind, desto höher muss der Umweltschutz-Aufwand sein, umeine nangestrebte n Gleichgewichtsgrad imNaturhaushal t zu erzielen.

Der Rhythmus der Nutzung und Beeinträchtigung sowie der notwendige Schutz der Lebensgrundlagen lassen sich in Form einer Rotation darstellen. Im Kreislauf der Wirkungen (5) (der Interaktionen, der Interdependenzen, s. Schema 2) häufen sich die Beeinträchtigungen und rufen gravierende Belastungen im Naturhaushalt (im Ökosystem) sowiei mLandschaftsbil d hervor (siehefolgend e Abbildung 1).

Bislang "rotierten" die Nutzung von Natur und Landschaft und die daraus resultierenden Beeinträchtigungen in einem Kreislauf. In einer Rotations-Periode geringfügige (und noch nicht sichtbare) Schäden des Naturhaushaltes steigerten sich nach vielen "Rotationen" in ein exponentiell sich entwickeltes Ausmass. Um aus dem "circulus viciosus" der ständigen realen Beeinträchtigungen von Natur und Landschaft auszubrechen, ist es notwendig an mehreren Stellen in diesen Kreislauf einzugreifen.

~~3. Schutz vonNatu r und Landschaft~~

Die heutige Gesellschaft muss sich von der gemeinsamen Absicht leiten lassen, die Nutzung von Natur und Landschaft nicht einem "Selbstlauf" zu überlassen, sondern zu einem umweltverträglichen Verhalten zu kommen. Es kann aber nicht darum gehen, die Nutzung einer Landschaft und ihrer Naturpotentiale zu verneinen, sondern die Überbeanspruchung von Natur und Landschaft wesentlich zu mindern oder überhaupt zu vermeiden. Natur und Landschaft sind die unabdingbaren Grundlagen der Existenz der Menschheit. Der Ökologe und der Landschaftsarchitekt sehen am deutlichsten die Herausforderungen, die von der bisherigen Geringschätzung und Bedrohung von Landschaftsfaktoren und Landschaftsbilders herrühren und allen Bürgern ernsthaft zu denken geben sollten.

~~Die. heutige Naturschutzpolitik kann nicht mehr nur auf den konservierenden Schutz ausgewählter Gebiete ausgerichtet werden. Sie muss flächendeckend die Natur und~~

~~64 Abbildung 1 ZEITABLAUF.~~

•

~~Umsetzung m~~

~~Naturgüter~~

~~Ermittlung der Schutzbedürftigkeit Forderung eines Objektes~~

~~Nutzungen (Befriedigung der Be Beanspruchung dürfnisse des Menschen) Bewertungskriterien Bewertung z.B. Landwirtschaft~~

~~Eigenart IHfl ökologische Vielfalt Natürlichkeit Funktionsfähigkeit Forstwirtschaft~~

~~Seltenheit Landschaftsphysiognomie | z.B. Erholung Wt$M Empfindlichkeit :-':£:;} Erlebnisqualität ::::::::::::::::::::::S-—...;...... •.-—AxjxjS...... ;.;;y... ..MM. . J\~~

~~Auswirkung (ggf. Eingriff) Erfassung der Existenz~~

~~Problemstellung~~

Imabgebildeten Schemasind die Lebensgrundlagen (hierim umfassenden Sinne, ganzheitlich, alsNatur undLandschaft) mitden Objekten vonNaturschutz undLandschaftspflege (hier im engeren Sinne,als Teilbereiche, Faktoren, Resourcenformuliert) gleichzusetzen.

~~Landschaft als Komplex von Ökosystemen und Nutzungssystemen (sozialen und Wirtschaftssystemen) sowie sinnlich wahrnehmbarer Scenerie (Landschaftsphysiognomie) zum Gegenstand desHandeln s machen.~~

Die Beanspruchung von Natur und Landschaft durch die Nutzungstechnologien benötigt eine ständige Beobachtung (Monitoring), um umweltverträgliche Nutzung zu überwachen, bzw. das Ausmass der Schäden festzustellen. Der Naturschutz muss im ersten Falle

65 sozusagen seine Sensoren an den Objekten von Natur und Landschaft haben und sie als Indikatoren des Zustandes benutzen, um rechtzeitige Signale über die Art und Intensität ihrer Beeinträchtigung zu erhalten, umdavo n weitere Schritte zu veranlassen.

Innerhalb von Technologien der Landnutzungen (Beanspruchung) muss man durch Massnahmen des "technischen" Umweltschutzes die Emmissionen aller Art und andere Beeinträchtigungen "an der Schadensquelle" beseitigen oder rigoros mindern. Das Ziel ist hier umweltverträgliche Technologie und Verhalten oder Verzicht auf umweltschädigende Herstellung der Wohlstandsware oder Dienstleistungen. Es ist wohlbekannt, dass die Herstellungskosten und dadurch der Preis der Ware oder der Dienstleistung über den Erfolg des Produktes auf dem Markt entscheidet (These 3). Deswegen müssen in die Kostenrechnung alle "Umweltkosten" eingesetzt und die Preise ohne verdeckte Subventionen errechnet werden, um Marktmechanismen wirken zu lassen und ökologisch überkommene Technologien zu überarbeiten. Dieser Aufwand muss konsequenterweise Bestandteil derHerstellungskoste n undde sPreise sjede rWar eode rDienstleistun g sein und damit, im Sinne einer "Verzichtserklärung", eine Kompotente der "ökologischen" Marktwirtschaft sein. Eine Naturschutzpolotik, die nicht an die betriebs- und volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnung heranrückt, kann kaum positive Ergebnisse im Schutz undi n derGestaltun g von Natur undLandschaf t erzielen.

Um Natur und Landschaft schützen zu können, ist eine neue, den Ressorts übergeordnete gesellschaftliche Aufgabe "Naturschutzpolitik" konsequent einzuführen. Vor allem ist es eines ihrer Instrumente, die vorausschauende Landschaftsplanung, mit der man das objektnahe, praktische und wirksame gesamtpolitische sowie fachliche Handeln einleiten kann (s. Abb. 1). Es handelt sich um die räum- und objektbezogene ökologische und gestalterische Planung

- der pfleglichen Nutzung samt Anpassung der Produktionstechnologien und des Verhaltens der Menschen an die ungestörte Funktionsfähigkeit des Naturhaushaltes und Abwehr von Beeinträchtigungen, - des Schutzes von Natur undLandschaf t in ihrer Ganzheit, in ihren räumlichen Teilen und der natürlichen Resourcen, sowie - der Gestaltung vonNatu r und Landschaft.

Die grundlegenden Voraussetzungen einer gezielten Landschaftsentwicklung in einem Zeitraum sindi n einemdynamische n planerischen Prozess derLandschaftsplanun g für jede Landschaftseinheit, jedes Objekt bzw.Planungsgebie t

-formuliert e Ziele (Ideen,Forderungen) , - vorhandene Daten (der Zielsetzung entsprechende biologische, technische, geographische, chemische, soziale, ökonomische u.a. Daten),di e die Realität objektiv, d.h. auch überprüfbar darstellen (6), - Merkmale,di ekomplexer e Zusammenhänge oderAspekt e festhalten, - Kriterien (s. Schema 1,Abb . 1),di e die qualitativen und quantitativen Konsequenzen der ökologischen Zusammenhänge, d.h. Eigenschaften, Beeinträchtigungen und Physiognomie in - Bewertungsvorgängen (samt der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung aller Nutzungs- massnahmen inde rFachplanungen ) "messbar" wiedergeben.

~~66 Darauf aufbauend werden angemessene undpräzis e~~

~~- Massnahmen technischen, biologischen, sozialen, rechtlichen und finanziellen Charakters zurVerbesserun g in Natur undLandschaf t entwickelt unddurchführungsrei f erarbeitet.~~

~~In einem Abwägungsprozess werden für die Massnahmen der Landschaftspläne naturschutzrelevante~~

~~- politische Entscheidung zu Gunsten der nicht wiederherstellbaren Faktoren der natürlichen Umwelt getroffen.~~

Die Landschaftsplanung muss hier als eine Gesamtheit von unterschiedlichen Planungen mit den oben dargelegten Inhalten verstanden werden. Sie muss vielfältig gegliedert sein, sowi e es vielfältige Landschaften undvielfältig e Ansprüche anihr eNutzun g gibt. Siewir d in jedem Staatsgebilde nach Planungsebenen (Masstäben) sowie nach ihrem Bezug zur räumlichen Gesamtplaning oder zuFachplanunge n spezifisch gegliedert.

Die Landschaftsplanung, die sich flächendeckend und auf alle Landnutzungen bezieht, findet keinen Ersatz in einer der bisherigen Planungsarten. Auch die künstlerischen Landschaftspläne, die überwiegend die architektonische Formgebung von Parks, Grünanlagen und Gärten zum Ziel haben (und die weiterhin existieren werden), werden den hier beschriebenen Aufgaben nicht gerecht. Darüber hinaus müssen ausgewählte naturnahe, ökologisch wichtige Räume (z.B.Naturschutzgebiete , Nationalparke) aufgrund von spezieller Schutz- und Pflegeplanung und konservierenden Massnahmen streng geschützt werden.

Andererseits kann man von der Landschaftsplanung, die ein Instrument der staatlichen Naturschutzpolitik werden soll, keine omnipotente Wirkung erwarten. Sie soll innerhalb der zukunftsorientierten raumbezogenen Planungen eine zentrale Stellung einnehmen, um bewertende Aussagen zu formulieren, wie die Natur und Landschaft im Planungsgebiet von der gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung betroffen werden darf und um sinnvolle und wirksame Massnahmen vorzuschlagen und auszuarbeiten. Die Entscheidungen über die tatsächliche Entwicklung werden immer auf der politischen Ebene von den, hoffentlich, ökologisch denkenden Vertretern derAllgemeinhei t getroffen.

~~Aus dem gegenwärtigen weltweiten ökologischen Zwang resultieren dann Forderungen an weitere Instrumente eines notwendigen Naturschutzes und zeitgemässer Landschaftspflege, vor allem~~

- die Anpassung des Rechtssystems undde rVerwaltun g andies eAufgabe n sowie - dieErziehun g derBevölkerun g auch mitHilf e einer gezielten Öffentlichkeitsarbeit (public relations), um Einklang der persönlichen Motivation im "Umgang mit der Natur", (d.h. der Verhaltensweise der Menschen zur Natur und Landschaft) mit dem öffentlichen Umweltschutz zu erreichen (s.Thes e 1 und2) .

~~Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege erlangen eine überragende staatspolitische Dimension. Dabei muss jedes Land von eigenen Bedingungen ausgehen, um unter den gegebenen~~

67 Umständen rasch und wirksam optimale Ergebnisse zu erzielen. Ökosysteme sowie Umweltbelastungen kennen keine politischen Grenzen: Umweltschutz hat eine weltpolitische Bedeutung. Es geht darum, die Landschaften, in denen wir leben, als echte Kulturlanschaften (nicht aliud, s.o.) zielbewusst zuentwickeln , wodi eNaturfunktione n mit den Sozialfunktionen, mit den ökologischen undkulturhistorische n Werten und dem daraus resultierenden Design eine gelungene Synthese bilden. Die Verantwortung für den Zustand und dieEntwicklun g unserer gemeinsamen kulturellen Umwelt liegt bei uns allen.

~~ENDNOTEN~~

(1)Kolodziejcok , K.-G. &J . Recken Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege und einschlägige Regelungen des Jagd- und Forstrechts. Kommentar zum BNatSchG. Loseblattausgabe. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. S.Punkt2 zumPar . 1.

~~(2) Neef,Ernst ; 1963 Die theoretischen Grundlagen derLandschaftslehre . Gotha-Leipzig: Verlag VEBH .Haack . 152S .~~

(3) "Homogen" verstehen wir hier in derAusprägun g der betrachteten Landschaft in bezug auf nachbarschaftliche Landschaften. z.B. orographische, bodenkundliche oder pflanzenformationbezogene Vielfältigkeit gehören auch zu dieser "Homogenität".

(4)Siehe Par. 8: "Eingriffe in Natur und Landschaft", im Sinne des Bundes naturschutzgesetzes der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Abs. (1), in der Fassung vom 12. März 1987, "sind Veränderungen der Gestalt oder Nutzung von Grundflächen, die die Leidungsfähigkeit des Naturhaushalts oder das Landschaftsbild erheblich oder nachhaltig beeinträchtigen können".

~~(5)Ein e Rotation kann eineVegetations- , eineWahlperiod e oder z.B.ei n Planungszeitraum sein.~~

(6) Allgemein wird ein Mangel an ökologischen Daten festgestellt. Die notwendigen Daten sollen durch angepasste Statistikgesetze, Finanzierung der gezielten Datenaufnahme sowie Garantie des ständigen Informationsflusses von benötigten Daten durch die Fachverwaltungen derKommune n und des Staates gesichert werden.

~~68 Summary: The Character ofNatur e and Landscape -it sUs ean d Design byMa n~~

The two terms "nature and landscape" are inseparable in the context of the protection of nature and for the preservation of natural beauty. They are an axiom and we can only formulate the contents of the terms: that is, for the purpose of operationalization in the policy of nature protection, and for theprotection , use, and design of nature and landscape with landscape planning. We understand landscape (including its ecological systems) as complete, and more or less homogeneous, sections of the continuum of geographical space and its division into its respective elements in its components of the system. On earth, natural ecological systems today only exist in fragments. That is why we have to talk now about semi-natural ecological systems (influenced by man: agricultural landscape, forest landscape,cit y landscape).

The needs of society are usually satisfied by the use of nature and landscape (however, the term "satisfaction" ought to be defined). Nature and landscape are the basis of life and production, the world of human experience and, at the same time, a commodity for consumption.

Landscape is a result of the relationship between the proportion of natural and social factors, that means / - of the natural conditions and ecological systems onon e hand and - the demands of population and the entire social system on the other hand (constitutional and other law, administration, management of the special fields like agricultural policy, economic policy, and land-use policy). To protect landscape, a far-sighted planning of its protection,use ,an ddesig n is necessary.

Basic requirements for theplannin g of a carefully directed development of landscapes are: formulated aims (demands, requirements), existing facts, characteristics and criteria, the process of evaluation (e.g. Environmental Assessment/ Statement) and the process of planning.

Balance and outlook: The necessity for an ecological and designing planning-process and of political decisions relevant to nature protection (weighing of priorities). Aims and demands are: -Protectio n of nature andlandscap e in their entirety, -Protectio n of natural resources, -Preventio n of impacts (likelandscap e destruction, environmental pollution, biotop/habitatdestruction) . - Adaptation of the administration tothes e tasks and -Educatio n of thepopulatio n (publicrelation s work).

~~69 THE DYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTS IN DUTCH NATURE CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS~~

~~Jos Dekker~~

In Dutch nature conservation organizations ideas about the (desired) functions and quality of nature have developed dynamically. The development has not been in one direction only, namely towards more and more differentiated and sophisticated concepts, although one might have expected a science-based movement to develop in such a way. The development of ideas is more complicated. A concept like moderate interventionism has increased in importance, whereas other concepts have appeared, disappeared and appeared again.Thi swave-lik edevelopmen ti sprobabl ymor echaracteristi c of acultura l movement. This view can be illustrated by the discussions that have taken place concerning forestry management and agriculture. The view may have consequences for the strategy pursued by nature conservationists and for allthos econcerne d with theplannin g orredesignin g of ecosystems.

~~Functions under discussion: definition of the problem~~

Since about 1975,privat e nature conservation organizations in the Netherlands have been rather busy discussing their future. In these discussions new objectives and strategies have been proposed. In addition, new concepts have been introduced concerning the (desired) significance and quality of nature (1).

The significance of nature is often expressed in the form of its functions. In the Netherlands these functions are frequently defined as follows: economic (production), recreational, aesthetic, ethical, educational, scientific, and ecological (Ver. Behoud Natuurmonumenten, 1978).

Initially, one gets the impression that there has been little change in the values that private conservation organizations attribute to these functions. It is particularly the economic function which has been interpreted differently atdifferen t periods.

1. Up till about 1950, private conservation organizations more or less officially accepted the interventionist notion that nature, and even nature reserves, had an economic function and put this notion into practice. Timber- and reed-production, hunting and the leasing of land were to bring in money which would be used to pay interest on loans and to clear debts incurred in the purchase of land (Koster, 1938; Gorter, 1986). This economic function, however, was in conflict with the current idealistic non-interventionist concept of anatur e that is unspoilt (Gorter, 1986).

2. In the secondperiod , which is still continuing, the conservationists officially rejected the interventionist notion that their nature reserves should have an economic function. In practice trees are still felled, reeds harvested and the proceeds sold. However, the profit motive was and is definitely still subordinate to the other functions (Ver. Behoud Natuurmonumenten, 1978). The idealistic non-interventionist concept of unspoilt nature has been replaced by the interventionist concept of a nature that had to be as diverse as possible. This period began after the government had agreed to grant subsidies for the purchase and management of areas of natural interest.

70 3. The third periodbega n in the seventies.Then , agriculture was again being recognized to a certain extent as being an economic function important for nature. On the other hand there were heated arguments among non-interventionists about whether to permit forestry and hunting in naturereserves .

4. Since the eighties a new period seems to have begun. The new non-interventionist strategy is called nature development. This strategy favours self-regulating, more or less "complete" and unexploited nature in a so-called "ecological main structure", in which nature is strictly separated from agriculture andothe r forms of land-use.

~~This study considers the first three periods and concentrates on finding answers to the following questions:~~

~~-D o opinions aboutth e (desired) functions of nature change? - If so,i n which direction andwhy ?~~

It is particularly the views of private nature conservation organizations which have been studied. The two main organizations concerned are the Nature Trust (Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland), whose objective is to acquire and manage nature reserves, and the Foundation for Nature and the Environment (Stichting Natuur en Milieu) (FNE), whose aim is to influence government policy. However, most discussions have taken place among groups at the edge of the nature-conservation movement. These groups include critics, some of whom are inside and some outside the conservation organizations. The discussions I am going to consider are those concerning agriculture and forestry. In the last ten years of the period under study, discussions on these two subjects havedevelope d in quitedifferen t directions.

~~Forestry: thesub-cultur e ofnon-interventionis m (2)~~

It was in 1975 that a group of biologists opened the discussion about the management of the Dutch forests. They described them as "a field of pine trees" and as "firewood". Two years later the National Working Group on Critical Forestry Management (Landelijke Werkgroep Kritisch Bosbeheer) (CFM) was set up. The CFM became the most important mouthpiece for criticism of the current forestry management policy of the private timber merchants, the National Forestry Management and the private conservation groups which were concerned primarily with profitability and timber production. What did the CFM (now called the Foundation of Critical Forestry Management) really seek to achieve? The CFM was opposed to timber production as a function of natural forest. It considered this function to bei n conflict with nature conservation. It wanted "natural forest", a completely self-regulating ecosystem in the manner of the primeval forest. "Natural" therefore means "not influenced by man", i.e. non-interventionism. For the CFM, natural forests have mainly an ethical and ecological function. Recreational activities are permitted but they must be controlled.

Unlike the CFM, the Nature Trust considers timber production to be an acceptable and even desirable function, particularly when it is one of several functions (multifunctional forestry). But this economic function isno t asimportan t for the Nature Trust asi t is for the private timber merchants and the National Forestry Management (Staatsbosbeheer). In places where timber production is profitable the Nature Trust wants to continue. The

71 Nature Trust, however, would like to designate a larger part of its wooded area as a nature reserve and stop timber production there. The CFM has certainly had an influence on the policy of theNatur e Trust.

One can point to certain developments in society which probably stimulated the views of the CFM.Th eprofitabilit y of-timber production declined after 1960 because therea l prices of timber dropped. Timber production thus became a less profitable function of nature. After 1960 the public became more interested in forests because of the increase in leisure activities and the growing awareness of the need to conserve nature and the environment. Sother e was now apubli c to stimulate the discussion. The storms of 1972an d 1973,whic h caused a great deal of damage to Dutch woodland, revealed the vulnerability of the existing woods and raised the question of whether themanagemen t of the woodland should apply more natural norms to forests. Ecological research became more concerned about natural processes and the function of animals in forests. Nature development in forests became an attractive proposition as a result of the successful experiments in the Oostvaardersplassen (3). Finally, it is perhaps significant that the rapid growth of nature conservation in the sixties and seventies was accompanied by an influx into the nature conservation movement of new people, some of whom had radical ideas about conservation. They chose a "critical" norm for the desired quality of nature. For the CFM this normwa s basedo n ahypothetica l situationi nth epast .

Discussion about natural forests is nothing new. A similar discussion concerning "biological" versus economic timber production took place in the thirties. Like the CFM, the biological forestry movement was inspired by the concept of non-interventionism. But the management practice of this movement was moderately interventionist. At that time, too, timberproductio n was hardly profitable andpart s of thewood s werei n apoo r state.I n the discussions in both periods new opinions about forestry management were based on new ecological knowledge. After World War II, the non-interventionist trend of biological forestry disappeared because of the new societal demand for timber.

So now and then there is a non-interventionist call for the natural forest which performs functions which are,o n the whole,uneconomic .Appreciatio n of natural forest lives on asa permanent sub-culture that changes in strength and in content and depends partly on the concrete societal functions of the forest. In spite of all the discussions, timber production remains an important function of most forests.

~~Agriculture: a critical or aconstructiv e attitude~~

Agriculture is generally regarded as being primarily responsible for the destruction of nature. Before 1975,conservationist s criticized agriculture and the farmers. After 1975,th e Foundation for Nature and the Environment (Stichting Natuur en Milieu) FNE) levelled its criticism mainly at the government's agricultural policy, but spared the farmer (Utrechtgroep, 1984). Since that time the strategy preferred by the FNE is to work with farmers.

~~In this new policy of cooperation with the farmers new concepts have emerged; these include the "interweaving" of agriculture and nature, "ecologically friendly" agriculture~~

72 and "integrated agriculture" or agriculture with a broader objective (4). The discussion about integrated agriculture illustrates how opinions about the desired relationship between agriculture and nature have developed within the private conservation organizations. The discussion about the conservation and management of meadow-birds is a more specific example in this field (Van der Winst et al., 1989). For a long time, the separation of agriculture and nature was the most strategic concept in nature conservation. This separation strategy was based on the idea that modern agriculture no longer performs any positive function for nature. Inherent in the concept of integrated agriculture is the recognition that interesting nature is to be found on modern farms. To this nature belong the flora and fauna atth e edges of the farm. e.g.plant s growing along the banks of ditches. "Meadow-birds" are also part of the scene. In spite of everything, the birds have not all been driven away yet and some of them take advantage of the modern farming practices or can survive (for the time being) due to the fact that farming practice can be cleverly adapted. In addition, the concept of integrated agriculture has been widened to include functional nature which is beneficial to the running of the farm; for instance, wind-breaks from which firewood can be obtained. At the same time nature that has no functional relationship with agriculture becomesles simportant . In integrated agriculture theemphasi s is on the conservation of nature that has productive functions, but there is less emphasis on the conservation of non-functional nature (Van der Weijden et al., 1984). The concept of integrated agriculture implies the recognition that agriculture has apositiv e role to play in nature conservation (negative effects, however, are not ignored); it 'also implies an extension of theconcep t ofnature .

As the concept of integrated agriculture has developed it has encountered opposition. FNE itself introduced the concept of "ecologically friendly" agriculture (Werkgroep Landbouw, 1981). While recognizing the objectives of the farmers themselves, they establish strict norms aimed at the conservation of nature and the environment. Those who formulated the concept of integrated agriculture were strongly opposed to this purely "restrictive" approach. In addition, they want to givefarmer s opportunities to engage in agriculture with a broader objective (Van der Weijden, 1985). As a reaction, FNE critici those who formulated the integrated agriculture concept on the grounds that they saw nature as something mono-functional for agriculture or as a luxury. FNE feared that the policy of integrated agriculture would lead to a markedly impoverished nature. In this controversy, however, FNE declared itself to be more and more a supporter of integrated agriculture (Logemann, 1985 a,b,c). This does not mean that the controversies over integrated agriculture have disappeared. The study report on integrated agriculture contains building bricks for integrated agriculture, but it is not acomplete d building that can be used only in one way. Various implementations arestil lpossible .

The new view about the function of agriculture is still very tentative and fragile. This is clear from the recent discussions about whether agricultural land should be taken out of cultivation as apotentia l measure top control the surpluses and ease the financial problems of the EEC. The desire to implement this and additional measure to restrict agriculture in other areas now seems to have priority over the promotion of integrated agriculture, but it is alsocriticize d (Dekker, Schröder, 1988). The new strategy is segregation. The conflicts about integrated agriculture reflect essential differences of opinion about the function of nature for agriculture and vice versa. For some people, nature is the only principle and norm that is allowed to direct the function; for others, the interests of the farmers are an additional principle and norm (cf. Werkgroep Kritische Biologen, Dekker,

73 VanLeeuwen , 1982;Dekker , VanLeeuwen , 1985). Until recently, many people in the conservation movement were in agreement with these new interpretations: instead of a (sectorial) policy of confrontation, there is a desire for constructive (integrating) cooperation. Absolutenorm s aregivin g way torelativ enorms .

A similar shift of opinions occurred earlier. Just before World War II, nature conser vationists and agriculturalists had completely opposing views about the bringing under cultivation of the remaining "wild" areas. After World War II, the conservationists had come to the conclusion that "the landscape had always developed in conjunction with farming activities and that is was not possible- except in a few cases-to "conserve" the landscape". It was partly for this reason that the conservationists and the agricultural organizations formed a consultive committee which met at intervals over several years. One of the points on which both groups agreed was that "the rationalization of farming cannot be stopped in order to conserve the beauty of the landscape" (Gorter, 1986). These were several reasons for this shift of attitude: the desire to stop more land from being brought under cultivation, the realization that there was a common problem, the need for more cooperation and, possibly, also the whole background of reconstruction after World War II. Later on, the constructive approach disappeared as a reaction to the rapid intensification of farming. "Out of sheer necessity we must adopt ales s "dynamic" attitude if we are not going to throw away all that we have gained" (Gorter, 1986). Nowadays the constructive approach tointegrate d agriculture also seems to befadin g away.

~~The influence of agricultural development~~

Let us consider which developments in agriculture itself may have led to the reorientation of (apar t of) thenatur e conservation movement with respect to agriculture in theseventies . Of central importance is the continual development of productivity, which in a saturated market, and with the prevailing market and price policies of the European Community, leads to surpluses and financing problems. These problems have produced two reactions which were seized upon by the nature conservationists. The first is the restructuring of agriculture. After the fifties, when market saturation became apparent, the restructuring of agriculture was accelerated. This process led to redundancies in the farming sector and the creation of marginal (unprofitable) land. The restructuring process was accompanied and stimulated by the agricultural policy at both national and European level. Within that framework, the ministries determining agricultural and nature conservation policies developed, in the early seventies, the concept of "interweaving agriculture and nature". This concept allows for some marginal lands to be set aside as nature reserves. Other marginal land is to be retained (at least temporarily) in its present state and is also designated for nature management (so-called management areas). In principle, these management areas remain available for agriculture or other forms of production. The remainder is used for the enlargement of farms or is allocated completely different functions.

In this context of productivity development and restructuring policy, the concepts of interweaving, integration and cooperation with farmers became part of the discussion and strategy with regard to agriculture (cf. Utrechtgroep, 1984). The stimulus to cooperation originated not only in government policy; the social and democratic considerations of socially critical nature conservationists also led to deliberate initiatives for cooperation with farmers (Utrechtgroep, 1984). A second relevant reaction

74 came from the farmers. The growing problem of agricultural surpluses (including the r budgetary problems in Brussels and the related environmental problems) gave some farmers cause for reflection. They sought contact with nature and environmental conservationists (Titulaer, 1983).Natur e conservationists alsoreacte d to this issue in order to strengthen their demands for taking landou t of cultivation or using it less intensively, or seeking solutions with farmers (Joosten, 1984).Bot h developments in agriculture and new attitudes in nature conservation opened the farm gates for conservationists to discover nature within. In a part of the nature conservation movement this opening-up led conservationists to ane w appreciation of agriculture and farmers' work, and to seeing their own norms in perspective. The effect of this advance, however, must not be over estimated. In daily practice there is still much friction between agriculture and nature conservation. Moreover, the results of the cooperation and interweaving strategy have disappointed many conservationists. Now they are again in favour of a segregated development of nature and agriculture,whic h isi n linewit hcurren t agricultural policy.

~~Dilemmas~~

Discussions concerning agriculture and forestry centre on two problems. Firstly, there is the question of whether people may actually make use of what is called "nature": the dilemma here is interventionism, or non-interventionism. If one accepts a certain degreeo f interventionism, as is customary in the Netherlands, the second problem concerns the norms that define that interventionism: the dilemma here is whether one should consider nature asnor m or (also) man asnor m(5) .

Since 1975, the discussions concerning forestry and agriculture have, over the years, developed in opposite directions. For a long time, no one had disputed the fact that timber production was a function of nature. Since 1975, however, this function has been the subject of radical discussion (from interventionism to non-interventionism) by part of the nature conservation movement. As a consequence, the Nature Trust has set up more forest reserves, and in the remaining forests it has explicitly ranked the economic function of timber production as having lower priority than nature management (non-interventionism in adefine d areawit h nature asnorm) .

For a long time, modern agriculture has been seen to be engaged in a fairly fundamental conflict with nature conservation. Agriculture was either kept separate from nature areaso r was placed, as far as possible, under form restrictions. Since 1975,natur e conservation has given a degree of recognition to the function of agriculture in nature management and nature is once again regarded as having some function in agriculture (from traditional to modern interventionism). The interests of farmers are being considered more seriously (also the farmer as norm). In the last few years, this view has again been overruled by the first view. The direction in which opinions have developed with regard to forestry and agriculture within nature conservation is thus notclear-cut . As far as the economic functions of nature are concerned, we see a tendency towards divergence in the positions taken up with regard to thedilemma s mentioned above.

There is also convergence in this development. Opinions on forestry and agriculture swing between the poles on the two dilemmas. The discussion in forestry swings between interventionism and non-interventionism, and in relation to agriculture the discussion

75 swings between nature asnor m and/orma n asnorm . The divergence in the current debate could have to do with different circumstances. The present economic position of agriculture isrelativel y strong, and thato f forestry weak. The development of agriculture has been relatively spectacular and is associated with very obvious problems. The conflict between agriculture and current nature conservation is great. On the other hand, timber production has a relatively long production cycle and forests are easily associated with tradition and esteem, whereby the forest is more readily appreciated as part of nature than is the field. The nature conservation movement has a relatively close institutional relationship with foresters, but has hardly any, or no, connection with farmers. A new generation of forestry ecologists (CFM) has issued a challenge to the traditional foresters. A new generation of nature conservationists has developed acertai n affinity with farmers.

In summary: After alon g period of being in favour of economic forestry, somemember so f the nature conservation movement have adopted a critical attitude in which non- interventionism plays ake yrole .Afte r alon gperio d of conflict with agriculture,par t of the nature conservation movement feels the need to take up a more constructive position in which thefarme r too counts as avali d normi n nature conservation (6).

~~The problem of changing functions~~

A number of the discussions within Dutch nature conservation circles can be interpreted in terms of changing opinions concerning the functions of nature. The changes first became visible at the edge of the conservation movement. In the daily practice of nature conservation, economic (material) functions or activities are still considered to be undesirable and are therefore contested or their effects subjected to limitations. Cultural (non-material) functions (which are also useful functions), however, are accepted and defended, andnatur econservatio n isthereb y justified.

These views have become self-evident among most members of the nature conservation movement. The formal enumeration of (un)desirable functions has become a ritual. The problems concerning the different functions are considered to be obvious. This is not illogical from the point of view of a pressure group; the judgement is a reflection of the group's stand on the issues. Clarity and continuity arecondition s for the group's credibility. Discussions, however, reveal a more balanced picture, a reason for this being that the advantages and disadvantages of functions can change or disappear, depending on the way in which thefunction s develop.

Functions are dynamic in the sense that they change in extent, intensity and composition, because society and nature,betwee n which the functions form relationships, change.View s of functions also change, although the relationships between the dynamic nature of the functions andth echangin g opinions aboutthe m areno t simple.' A central question for conservationists in the future will be how they can anticipate the changing functions of nature in amor erationa l manner.

~~Nature conservation as a game~~

~~Whenever nature conservation pays attention to the functions of nature it faces dilemmas. Functions imply both a risk to nature and a basis and justification for the protection of~~

76 nature. Should functions berecogn i andaccepted , or not? Which ones should be accepted, and which not? If accepted, which norms should beemployed ? These arequestion s which arecommonl y raisedi nthes ediscussions .

The above analysis of "agriculture" and "forestry" show that the dynamics of these functions allow for a certain amount of latitude in the objectives and strategy of nature conservation. Thedevelopmen t of the concept "natural forests" isa nexampl e of the use of this latitude in thedevelopmen t of forestry. Another example is the search for functional naturei nintegrate d agriculture.

Because of the dynamism of these functions, current nature management loses its self- evident character. There is no urgent need -for the survival of man or for that of nature-to strive for a maximum degree of diversity or stability or self-regulation in nature management in theNetherland s (7).Thes e goals arechoice s within thelatitud e offered by the social use of nature and by nature itself (cf. Schroevers, 1984; 1986). These choices were already made some time ago. There ismuc h tob esai d forth echoice s made then,bu t they can be interpreted in different ways, as is evident conservation itself acquired the characteristic of a game by virtue of the dynamics of its function (8). The external constraints of tlie game aredetermine d bychangin g functions of nature, whereas therule s of the game canb edefine d partly byth enatur econservatio n movement itself. Inth egame , various choices are possible with regard to both procedure and content: working with or without others, anticipating more (or less) to changing functions, giving more (or less) space to material functions and more (or less) stimulation to the renewal of cultural functions (cf. Dekker, Van Leeuwen, 1985). To obtain the maximum possible social support forfutur e natureprotectio n oneneed s toattemp t tocontinuall y renew the functions and quality of nature, without losing a kind of multifunctionality of nature, working together with other interested people, within the latitude of the changing functions of nature.Th e conservation gamei s fascinating.

This paper is a completely revised version of an article that has been published in Wetenschap &Samenlevin g (Dekker, 1987a) ando f apape r presented atth econferenc e on Environmental Policy ina Marke tEconom y 1976 (Dekker, 1987b).

~~NOTES~~

(1) In this article nature means what those who are concerned with it explicitly or implicitly understand by it. Generally, nature is envisaged as being not, or only slightly, influenced by man.Accordin g to that view productive functions have tob erelativel y less intensive, orabsent , innature .

~~(2) Based on:Va nde rWindt , Dekker, Brand (1987;1989) . Theperio d studied extends to 1984.~~

~~(3) The Oostvaardersplassen are an internationally famous marshland (6000 ha.) that has developed spontaneously from recent reclamation.~~

~~(4) Integrated agriculture has been defined as "a durable, technologically highly developed agriculture which, compared to theexpecte d development, is more economical~~

77 with energy and raw materials, and which employs more labour and produces under reasonable working conditions by parity or reward of labour and capital not only agricultural products but also nature and landscape, as far aspossibl e in a functional way." (Vande rWeijde n et al. 1984)

(5) Put in this way,i ti s an "improper"dilemma , because man always sets tenorm .Yet , this contrast is handled in theseterm s in thediscussions .Actually , thecontras t is between a defined picture of nature that is oriented to the past and a picture of nature that provided modern man with functions he canuse .

~~(6) Based on among others Van der Windt, Dekker, Brand (1987) and Utrechtgroep (1984).~~

~~(7) Kwa, Ringelberg (1984), for instance, give more emphasis to persistence than to stability asa nobjectiv e for ecosystems.~~

~~(8) This statement does not apply toenvironmenta l management.~~

~~REFERENCES~~

~~Dekker,J. , 1987a. De veranderde funktionaliteit van denatuur .Wetenscha p &Samenlevin g 1:20-30.~~

~~Dekker,J. , 1987b. The changing functions of nature asreflecte d in discussions on nature conservation. Paper for conference onEnvironmenta l Policyi n aMarke tEconomy , Wageningen 1987.~~

~~Dekker, J., T.Va nLeeuwen , 1985. Geef denatuu r toekomst. Natura 82,3:68-73 .~~

~~Dekker,J. ,R . Schroder,1988 . Extensiveren is een betere oplossingda n gronduitstoot. Spil 71-72:19-28 .~~

~~Gorter,H.P. , 1986. Ruimte voor natuur. Ver.Behou d Natuurmonumenten Nederland, 's-Graveland.~~

~~Joosten,L. , 1984. Melk moet, maar mag het ook wat minder? Een vergelijkend overzicht van standpunten overproduktiebeheersin g in demelkveehouderij . Stageverslag, Stichting Natuure n Milieu, Utrecht.~~

~~Koppen,K . van et al.(red) ,1984 . Natuure nmens .Pudoc ,Wageningen .~~

~~Koster,F.,1938 . Natuurbescherming inNederland . DeErve n F.Bohn ,Haarlem .~~

~~78 Kwa, CL., J. Ringelberg, 1984. Algemene ecologische begrippen en hun relatie met ecologisch beheer van opper vlaktewater. Univ. Amsterdam.~~

~~Logemann,D. , 1985a. "Geïntegreerde landbouw" een zinvolle en belangwekkende zoekrichting. St. Natuur en Milieu, Utrecht.~~

~~Logemann,D. , 1985b. Geïntegreerde landbouw: naast lof ookkritiek . Milieudefensie 14,5: 24-25.~~

~~Logemann,D. , 1985c. Geïntegreerde landbouw beter voor boere nmilieu . Natuure n Milieu 9,10: 12-14.~~

~~Schroevers,P. ,1984 . De natuur alsee nrandvoorwaarde .In :Koppen , K.va n et al.(red), 1984,se e above.~~

~~Schroevers,P. ,1985 . Kiezen tussen meerdere toekomsten.Natur a 82: 308-310.~~

~~Tilulaer,G.H.J. ,1983 . Boer blijven; plaats en toekomst van de Nederlandse landbouw. Ned. Agrar. Jongeren Kontakt,De nHaag .~~

~~Utrechtgroep, 1984. Samenwerking tussen boeren ennatuurbeschermers ; ervaringen enperspectieven . Utrecht.~~

~~Vereniging totBehou d vanNatuurmonumenten , 1978. Doelstellingen en hoofdlijnen beleid terreinbeheer.~~

Werkgroep Kritische Biologen,!.Dekker , T.va n Leeuwen, 1982. De natuur is achterhaald; de beperkte natuuropvatting van de traditionele natuur bescherming. Mededel.Werkgem .Landschapsecol . Onderzoek 9,3/4:115-125.

~~Werkgroep Landbouw Stichting Natuur enMilieu ,1981 . Naaree n milieuvriendelijke landbouw (discussienota). Stichting Natuur enMilieu , Utrecht.~~

~~Weijden, WJ. van der,e tal. , 1984. Bouwstenen voor een geïntegreerde landbouw. Staatsuitgeverij, DenHaag .~~

~~Weijden, WJ. van der,e tal. ,1985 . Naast beperkingen ook verruimingen. Milieudefensie 14,6:27-28.~~

Windt,H . van der,J .Dekker ,E . Brand, 1987. Konflikterende denkstijlen in de natuurbescherming en de oekologie: het voorbeeld bosbeheer. In:Vakgroe pMaat-schappelijk e Biologie, 1987.Symposiumverslag . Utrecht.

~~Windt, H.va n der,J .Dekker ,E . Brand, 1989. Ingrijpen of niet,he t continue dilemma vand e natuur-bescherming. Landschap 1:3-18.~~

~~79 3 AESTHETICS AND THE LANDSCAPE~~

"The evaluation of art's relation to nature has constantly changed in the history of aesthetics. Today, nature seems to have been completely discarded from art's conceptual basis, yet art makes use of nature, or of the natural, in the most direct manner. Since aesthetic experience is cultivated through man's relation with nature, then it is impossible tod oawa ycompletel y withnatur ei n art."

~~J.Erze n "I would have likedperhap s to write toyo u aboutman y things,bu t first thedesir e has somuc h left me andthe n Ifee l theuselessness. "~~

~~Vincent van Gogh~~

~~(from hislas tlette r toTheo )~~

~~THE FINNISH MINERAL SUBSTANCES ACT AS A MEANS OF PROTECTING THE BEAUTYO FESKER S~~

~~Yrjö Sepänmaa~~

Eskers have the economic value of a mineral substance-gravel, moraine, sand-at any given time. But as natural landforms they also have values of beauty,recreationa l use as areas for outdoor activities, scientific research and teaching use, and, on account of their ability to filter water, significance in the formation of groundwater. More generally they have value as, for example, ecological communities. This brings up the problem of the evaluation and combination of values; interests that lack a common denominator must now be weighed against each other. (Oncombinatio n cf. Beardsley 1972:9 3- 94. )

We attempt to take into account different values and in that sense try to achieve a state of equilibrium. The Mineral Substances Act is an attempt to create rules of the game and sanctions for the exploitation of a substance, and in that way to secure the position of different values. The limit is set in the Act by aesthetic values, together with scientific and ecological ground. At first glance, it may seem to be a surprising and revolutionary principle torais e values of beauty toa primar y position. How is aesthetics ablet o dealwit h the duties produced by situations of the interpretation of law? Such a specific task would indeed be better suited to environ-mental criticism (though that exists too scarcely). The environmental critic should at least be practiced in reacting to individual works and objects, even though general rules cannot be presented.

The situation is the same as in art: there are no general rules, but there are, nevertheless, recognized principles of argumentation that have been developed in criticism and research, which make possible discussions concerning interpretations and values. In the case of the environment, expert critics are needed from whose manner of thought and operation the community can seek supporti ndisputes .Lega l decisions concerning evenaesthetic s canb e constructed by hearing the different parties and byth edecision-makers ' own observations.

~~The problem: beauty~~

Thedut y is set by theMinera l Substances Act (which was approved atth ebeginnin g of the 1980's after longpreparation) ,i nparticula r it's thirdparagrap h whichi s significant from an aesthetic point of view.I tbegin s as follows:

The substances referred to in this Act may not be extracted in such a way that a beautiful landscape is disfigured, that significant values of natural beauty or exceptional natural features are destroyed or that considerable or extensive detrimental changes take place in naturalconditions .

Professor Samuel Bufford (Ohio State University, College of Law) has pessimistically stated that we cannot, with theprecisio n demanded bylaw ,determin e what is beautiful and what is ugly -tha t we cannot simply forbid the aesthetic disfigurement of the environment, for example by the construction of ugly buildings. A person must reasonably know when he is acting in accordance with the law, there must be stated criteria for law-abiding behaviour. (Bufford 1977:27.)

85 The Finnish Act (in the same way as the act of the Swiss Canton of Vaud that Bufford analyzes in another connection; cf. Bufford 1976), however, speaks of a "beautiful landscape" and its disfigurement, and also of values of beauty in general. We certainly intuitively approve of the aim, but does a law of this kind fulfil, in addition to a sense of justice,th erequiremen t brought bypractica l application?

It is clear that even though the organs of administration andjustic e haveth epowe r tomak e decisions, they are forced to rely on their evaluations of common conceptions and the power of testimony of expert opinion as well as the observations of their own members. Institutions are the official interpreters of the community's conceptions, being at the same time opinion makers. They have also the duty of treating all interested parties-in the first place landowners-equally in acompetitiv e situation.

~~Where can aseriou s opinion be obtained?~~

Theexpert s are environmental critics:depicter s of nature, nature lovers, naturalists, culture researchers. (The significance of naturalists asindicator s of the aesthetics of eco-systems is emphasized by Donald W. Crawford; 1985:268.) In the same way the work of makers (planners)'of the environment-such as designers and landscape architects-presupposes expertise inone' s own field. Interested parties are allthos e wholiv ei n theenvironment : its users or consumers (for once ahapp y term in this connection!).

Taste is the point of departure of criticism - interpretation and evaluation. It comprises sensitivity and knowledge, acquaintance with the operation, and history of the objects. Some have taste, some do not; the development of taste is a matter of practice, expertise, sensitivity, knowledge, and ability (cf. Carlson 1977: 150).Th e environmental critic must be flexible. His goal must be to articulate the environment as a totality, whether the point of departure is the idea of harmony or of tension between the various elements. The goali s also to reveal the multi-layered nature of the environment, the natural and cultural historical dimension.

Iti s possible to ask what thevalu e of the object is as such: what is the value of alandscap e when it is not observed? It is also possible to ask what the value (benefit) of the object is when it is related in one way or another to the observer, someone experiencing it. Monroe C. Beardsley speaks of, along with the value realized by each individual, aesthetic capital of the potential value of the object. On the one hand there is an absolute general value, on the other, benefit to each individual in relation to hisqualifications , thatis ,th e actualizing value. (Beardsley 1972:91. )

For how many and how often does an object produce an experience of value, for example on a regular route? The road favoured by tourists along the eskers represents a typical Finnish lakelandscap e -an d the esker formation that forms'the road-bed. What part of the valueo f an eskeri s achieved bydrivin g along theeske r byca r -th e visual aspect seen from a certain route? What is achieved by walking only slowly and stopping now and then - the specialflor a andfauna ? Andwha tabou t the smells,textures ,tastes ?

If, however, the value capital of the object is endangered through excessive wear, we regard protection as being justified, even though the price is the loss of immediate experiences of value. The object has thus a certain inherent value, and not purely a practical value (cf. Hargrove 1987: 23). Nevertheless, a closed area can be enjoyed, for example through the medium ofphotographs .

The condition of replying to questions of value is a certain view and interpretation of the object, thejustifiabilit y of which should be demanded. The question is always of the value of theobjec t interpreted as something.Who ,therefore , should weas k about thevalue ?

~~-Laymen ?~~

Information concerning lay opinions can be obtained by means of various tests and questionnaires:b yinterviews ,researc h based onpicture s bypsychologica l perception tests. Fundamentally, this is a question of sociological research. The interest is focused on the opinion of the majority; it is all too easy for some kind of environmental entertainment to become the most valued. On the other hand, this provides information on the common experience of the community, on places that are important to it, etc.. There are matters in which the layman is an expert, and the expert a layman. Layman-ness and expertness are alsoi n themselves questions ofpoin to fview .

Tests based on pictures by means of which an attempt is made to chart preferences take take visual properties into account: it can easily happen that the picture is evaluated as a performance and not the object it represents. A picture also makes a delimitation, which need not exist in the environment. In area l situation, the traveller is in the middle of what the perceives and delimitation depends on the point of examination: the composition changes. (On criticism, cf. Carlson 1977.)Fro m the point of view of the composition often the most advantageous place is even sought; in extreme cases it is already marked for the benefit of tourists.

~~One problem that especially concerns laymen is that they are not always able to express verbally what they like and why; to translate one's experience into language requires its own skill.~~

~~- Experts?~~

It is morejustifiabl e to seek support and norms form those whose opinion is based on the most multi-dimensioned and complete understanding and interpretation. Traditionally, naturalists have been translators of this kind.

An expert has a language that is refined and developed in its terminology, and art of speaking in the manner of an art critic. An expert of this kind would be an environmental critic who has the skill to make an object understandable to a layman. He is an intermediary inth e samewa y as an artcriti cis .

Tofor m an opinion worthy of respect—nott ofor m simply an expression ofrando m liking-- logically défendable grounds and their arrangement are required; the validity of such grounds must be questioned. A discussion must be created in which the points of view affecting the matter are brought out; a statement of taste as such, without grounds and without being subject toexterna ltests ,i s not sufficient.

87 A published statement also forms part of the general discussion and in that way becomes the object of criticism. In this way—in giving and working through grounds—the entire matter moves to a more rational foundation. The ambiguous and as such very broad term beautiful then becomes moreprecise ;justifie d differences of opinion arepossible .

~~Taste andit s justifications~~

As therei s no such thing asa ready-mad e qualified critic,i tmus t beaske d what a qualified critic has to show in support of his position. The justifications reveal his competence. Simple emotionally-based liking is not a sufficient ground socially, from the point of view of others, although it can operate as a point of departure for more precise investigation. The preference of the individual alone does not have the force of obligation. It is possible toer r in questions of taste,individuall y orjointly .

~~Support for astatemen t of tasteca n besough t from atleas t the following factors:~~

1.Fro m properties that areperceptibl e to the senses.Mos t clearly these are visually based, formal properties (form, composition, colour). But the variety of senses involved in perception must be remembered: the experience of the environment is more than just visual. It includes sounds and smells,eve n theperceptio n of the movement and pressure of the air and the quality of the ground; in the final resort an observation is a synthetic totality formed from all of these: a "total work of art" (Gesamtkunstwerk).

2. From properties that are conceptual. In the first place, these are processes relating to natural history and ecology: the age of the place, its rarity or commonness, ecological significance, knowledge of that which is not really now perceptible. Cultural history and cultural ecology form another basis for information. The place may have been the sceneo f real and imaginary historical events, and be coloured by tales and stories. The history of the old settlement of an area and the cultural monuments showing it were the point of departure for Prof. Martti Rapola when hefough t alega l battle as the protector of an esker at Sääksmäki (inFinland) .

In their own way, symbolic values are also based on knowledge. These are such things as gravel pits as signs of indifference or dynamic advance, to apply the positive and negative aspect idea aspresente d byYurik o Saito (1984: 158- 175, especially p. 160).

3. From associations. Such things are connections toprivatel y valuable matters: home area, childhood play places, some significant event in one's own life. Yi-Fu Tuan speaks of topophilia, love of place (1974: 93). Places have emotional values, and memories of experiences related to them are—despitethei r subjectivity—nevertheless real.

~~Protection or improvement?~~

Nowadays, the most usual form of the environment is the interaction of Man and Nature; a road along the top of an esker, a cutting through rock. Landscape design is a matter of the combination of human work and natural forces: some human activities produce very successful landscapes.W ear etherefor e forced to evaluate achange . The improvement of nature based on human interests appears to bepossibl e - after all it is possible to breed plants and animals, to make gardens, and to landscape environs! A state of nature can be evaluated as such; it is possible to ask of that which is man-made how well it is made and how the final result—and also the methods of making it—can be developed in the future.

It is not, however, possible to protect everything that is valuable in a state of nature: choices must be made.W ear e forced todetermin e the mutual values of eskers. In this case aspects that can be perceived by the senses have a primary significance. These include form and such formal properties in general in relation to the environment: waters as framers and drawers of outlines,eve n as mirrors. Rapola depicts the silhouette of his esker as follows:

This esker also has the property that it is possible to examine its forms from nearby, for example, from adistanc e of five orte n kilometers,no rdoe s iteve n when viewed from very close up,fro m about akilomete r toth e South, squeeze down to the level of the environment in the same way as,fo r example, Aulandki Hill seen from Hämeenlinna. Because of this, the side views of Rapolanharju include aesthetically effective, rhythmic variations. (1971:231. )

~~In the same way,richnes s of flora and fauna is significant. The songo f birds, the bubbling of a stream andothe r such things are aesthetically significant non-visual properties.~~

Paradigmatic eskers, such as Punkaharju and Hattelmala, provide a cultural model and ideal. Elias Härö has dealt with the history of changes of model formation using Punkaharju ridge as a basis; the basic assemblage of the Finnish landscape consists of a forest, a lake, and an esker! (Cf. Härö 1987.) Eskers have been partially culturalized: the road on the top of an esker is a visible cultural addition that has been well-known for a long time. The sandy soil of pine forest has been a durable road-bed and place of settlement, but in favouring it the matter has certainly alsobee n one of seeking a viewpoint and of offering views tobot h traveller andinhabitant .

These kind of changes in landscape also should be culturally protected (cf. Bufford 1976: 413). A road running along an esker, or a traditional settlement that has arisen on it, or its remains, may be such a valuable combination of the activities of Man and Nature that iti s worth saving the area exactly as it is. Signs of previous settlement, such as graves and utensils which are found during excavation, form "invisible"cultura l history.

~~The author Arto Kytöhonka has spoken of the "Topelian ideal" type exemplified by Topelius'poe m "ASumme r Day at Kangsala":~~

~~From abranc h high above, On theHarjul a ridge, Asfa r as the eyeca n see, I seelake s withbays .~~

Esker ideals, communal images-a high place, a view, water- are created by documentary and fictive depictions. Depictions and models of this kind from belles-lettres are thus cultural identity landmarks; in Topelius' poem the beautiful landscape is a patriotic inspiration. A uniform ideal has even begun to act against other kinds of esker pictures - and eskers!I t is typified in Kytöhonka's example of a civil servant who examines an esker and notes that it is flat, has no water and therefore, is not beautiful! The protector must then demonstrate thatth eobjec t isa neske ro fit sow n typei n anaestheti c sensea swel l and notmerel y an esker geologically.

~~Disfigurement?~~

The law in no way prohibits the extraction of mineral substances in all cases; besides total protection it attempts to minimize the consequences of justified and approved extraction. Thus,i tdoe s notprohibi t theweakenin g of the landscape,bu t only disfigurement, which is aconsiderabl y more serious form of weakening. According to the act (this is stated in the final paragraph of the third chapter) the extraction of mineral substances shall be arranged as follows:

The place of extraction shall be located and the extraction of the substance arranged in such a way that the detrimental effect of extraction on nature and the landscape shall remain as small as possible, nor shall the activity cause a danger or a detriment that could be avoided atreasonabl e cost to settlement orth e environment.

This contains theide a that extraction always weakens thelandscap e -th epoin t of departure is thus a view of the value of a state of nature precisely on account of its being an untouched stateo f nature.I teve n would certainly be logically possible toimprov e the form of an esker by means of some kind of face-lift or by adding settlement or other cultural activity toit . (Cf. forest aesthetics.)

The limitations primarily concern large-scale commercial extraction. According to the regulations added in thefourt h chapter, apermi t is notrequire d for domestic use, which—as permitted by the rules governing the application of the Act-may however be quite extensive. Besides, some valuable eskers may be so vulnerable that even a small pit will disfigure the entirety. Thus, even extraction for domestic purposes should be permitted only when it can takeplac e without being in contradiction with the generalprincipl e of the main chapter -th eprotectio n of beauty.

Does ala w which speaks of abeautifu l landscape picture only securevisua l values,o rdoe s it also provide protection, for example, against the noise of a stone-crushing plant, or against dust andpollutio n that causedetriment s tohealth ? Bufford refers to a Swiss casei n which in the application of local law, a charge of producing noise, soot and vibration was rejected (v. Bufford 1976: 411). The law primarily concentrates on the protection of the object's own value, on its inherent value; it does not derive frdm the detriments caused by extraction to people, animals, and plants, even if it soon recognizes them. The point of view of inhabitants and living things in general appears at the end of the third chapter in which the causing of danger and "detriment that can be avoided at reasonable cost" is forbidden. Detriment may thus beothe r than visual andi n general other than disturbing the examination of the object; for example it may cause a nuisance to life and activity in oro n it.

90 Onerequiremen t in the application of any lawi s theprincipl e of equality (v.Buffor d 1976: 395 - 396): in similar cases one must react in the same way. The equal treatment of landowners is an essential principle of legality in this. Thus, the permitting of one more acceptable detrimental act may bring with it a chain that leads to indisputable disfigurement, the breaking of which would nevertheless be difficult on account of the demand of equal treatment for all applicants.

The fourteenth chapter of the Mineral Substances Act further presents the demand that an object berestore d to its original state if extraction has commenced withoutpermission . But how is reconstruction possible? - Is it at all possible toreconstruc t a natural monument? It is, perhaps possible to copy the external form of the object, but not its content; if the content had also to be copied in the course of landscaping while cleaning up after normal (permitted) extraction, there would be no sense in destroying an esker. The exploitation of a substance means the removal of something! (Insubstantial exploitation is, among other things,displayin g the attraction to tourists.) Itmus t bepossibl e tous e substitute substances when filling inexcavate d eskers. (On theproble m of Forgery v. Elliot, 1982.)

~~Landscape as acompromis e anda sa n artistic challenge~~

An original cannot be replaced - or there is no sense in doing so; it is perhaps possible to recreate the visual form by forgery or reconstruction, but not the esker as a geological formation. The landscaping of a gravel pit may easily remove a visual detriment, but it does not restore the previous state of nature, for example, that the esker has filtered ground-water: on the contrary, new kinds of detriment may appear. The flora and even the fauna may change.Landscapin g often remains only as cosmetic care and cosmetics are not sufficient to fulfil the demands of aesthetics. Geological, biological, and landscaping expertise isrequire d inreconstruction . Inplac e of acopy ,i t isnorma l tocreat e anew ,man - made state of nature - a kind of paradox. However, at best it can be carried out in a restrained way andne w values can be achieved.

Landscaping creates a new landscape, which, perhaps, confirms to the original natural structure. It is not purely beautification or cleaning up afterwards. The right of the landscaper to independence and to personal solutions must berecognize d - it must even be required of him as a landscape artist. Stereotyped solutions (a certain gradient on the slopes,pin e trees planted) must be avoided; this may create a minimum level, but does not employ the possibilities of personal design. After-care has often been merely apparent - for example, when it consists just of allowing nature to reafforest the area. The alternatives could beartificia l lakes,slalo m slopes,parks ,etc .

~~The chain of responsibility~~

From the human point of view eskers are unique, a non-renewable natural resource - we can exclude the possibility of a new ice age to produce eskers, because its time-scale is so different. Destruction leads to thedevastatio n of previous natural andcultura l phases -ho w does one compare such values when oneo f themi s unique?

~~Theresponsibility—a t least morally-does not rest solely with the seller and landowner, but just asmuc h with the buyer and user. It is hypocrisy to accuse the seller of gravel or greed~~

91 if the consumer maintains the demand and need. Nor in the long term is the transfer of protection of much help: shall we protect eskers at the expense of cliffs, cliffs at the expense of marine mature, marine nature at the expense of some further victim? The necessity of the use must be questioned; in the final resort ween d up with social criticism. Itmus t be asked if it ispossibl e tohav e a society andcultur e thatdoe s not require this raw- material, atleas t noti n this quantity.Thi s couldlea d first of all toproduc t development and to more advanced technology. A second possibility is to consciously refrain from some kind or level of consumption; this could influence, for example, the need to renew and maintain theroa d network.

~~Thechai n of questions andchoice s is as follows:~~

~~1. If gravel and sand is extracted, then from where - from eskers, cliffs, the sea-bed? By protecting one, another is threatened; what are the comparative values of eskers, cliffs, and marine nature?~~

2. Is it possible to replace gravel and sand? Valuable material should not be used for secondary purposes. Often, where the special properties of gravel are of no significance, it ispossibl e to use some mineral substance of lesser value, such asindustria l and demolition waste, as infill. The exploitation of a material of lesser value may even remove detriments from somewhere else, such as the unnatural accumulation of waste earth in earth tips and garbage dumps.

3. How is it possible to influence those needs that require the extraction of a material? Is it possible to influence thevalue s and attitudes that maintain needs? How can wed o without, how is it possible to use less? What can be created in place of a wasteful way of life? It should bepossibl e tomak e ahuman e technology.

~~What isneeded ? -Ther e shouldbe :~~

1. An overall plan, a regional division. The extraction of mineral substances must be centralized. Even small amounts of damage here and there are fateful from the point of view of the landscape - it is better to try to create fewer extraction areas, which are then dealt with afterwards in anexper t fashion.

~~2. Frugality, re-use, recycling. Only as much as is needed of only what is needed is taken; rejected material to beuse d for suitablepurposes .~~

3. Obligation to landscape. Disfigurements are not removed by the applicant for a permit simply putting a mark in the box marked "natural reforestation" on the permit application form. Landscaping should be treated as the personal design of a new landscape, using the environment of the extraction area asa challengin g point of departure.

~~Tacticsan d goals~~

The lawca n also beappeale d to byreferrin g to the more easily demonstrable scientific and ecological matters mentioned in it. The moral demand would, of course, be that the motive of preservation should be presented openly. Therefore, the aesthetic grounds also must, in

92 practice, be undisguised, valid and possible: it is unsatisfactory to pursue them—when, in the final resort, one wishes to pursue them—by means of a round-about route, by using somevalu ejustificatio n thati s more easily demonstrated.

This challenge sets demands on aesthetics: to develop a valid form of argumentation in environmental criticism. The model could be themanne r of talking about works of art that is practiced in art criticism and art research. Empirical scales of measurement and systems of measurement, on the other hand, probably cannot be developed any further than they can in art. By means of isolating conceptual sub-factors and by giving points it is certainly possible to articulate andillustrat e evaluations.

A law with its punishments is always a severe means when compared with the soft methods used in environmental education, which are in turn based on enlightenment, the giving of information, discussion, and the arousing of responsibility for the environment. Emotional sensitivity creates an atmosphere within which a law is either approved or rejected in amora l sense.

~~REFERENCES~~

Beardsley 1972 (1968) Monroe C. Beardsley: "Aesthetic Welfare." Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Aesthetics, Uppsala 1968.Act a Universitatis Upsaliensis, Figura Nova, Series X, Uppsala; pp. 89-96. (Also: The Journal of Aesthetic Education, Volume 4, Number 4, October 1970;pp .9-20. )

~~Bufford 1976 Samuel Bufford: "Aesthetic Legislation in Vaud: A Swiss Model Adaptable for American Use." - The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume XXIV, Summer, Number 3; pp. 391 - 446.~~

Bufford 1987 Samuel Bufford: "Legislating a Beautiful Environment: Two Conceptual Difficulties." - Proceedings of the Vllth International Congress of Aesthetics, Bucharest, 28 Août - 2 Septembre, 1972.Editur a AcademieiRepublici i Socialiste Romania;pp .27 7 -279 .

~~Carlson 1977 Allen Carlson: "On the Possibility of Quantifying Scenic Beauty." -Landscap e Planning 4; pp. 131- 177 .~~

Crawford 1985 Donald W. Crawford: "Aesthetic Nature, Art and Culture." - Art in Culture 2. Editors: A. Balis - L. Aagaard-Mogensen - R. Pinxten - F. Vandamme. Communication & Cognition, Ghent (Belgium); pp.25 9 -269 .

~~Elliot 1982 Robert Elliot: "Faking Nature."- Inquiry , Vol.25 ,No . 1,March ; pp. 81- 93 .~~

~~93 Hargrove 1987 Eugene C. Hargrove: "Foundations of Wildlife Protection Attitudes." - Inquiry, Vol. 30, Nos. 1 -2 ,March ;pp . 3-31.~~

HäRö 1987 Elias Härö: "Punkaharju. Etydi maiseman löytämisestä." ("Punkaharju. An Etude about discovering a landscape.") - Muistomerkki - kirjoituksia Antero Sinisalolle. (Landmark. Writings to Antero Sinisalo.) Edited by Pekka Kärki, Marja Ivars, Marja-Terttu Knapas, Jarkko Sinisalo andTuul aPukkila . Helsinki;pp .5 1 -58 .(I n Finnish.)

~~Maa-aineslaki. Annettu Naantalissa 24päivän ä heinäkuuta 1981. (Mineral Substances Act. Given in Naantali July 24, 1981;i n Finnish.)~~

Rapola 1971 Martti Rapola: Omat maisemani. Hämäläisen trilogian epilogi. (My Own Landscapes. An epilogue to the Häme trilogy. Published in connection of the new edition of Vaarin maisema; pp. 191- 280. ) Otava,Helsinki . (InFinnish. )

~~Saito 1984 Yuriko Saito: The Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature: Western and Japanese Perspectives and theirEthica l Implications.Universit y Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.~~

~~Tuan 1974 Yi-Fu Tuan: Topophilia. A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. PrenticeHall , Inc.,Englewoo d Cliffs.~~

~~94 AESTHETICS: COUNTER-NATURE OR SECOND-NATURE?~~

~~JaleErze n~~

The evaluation of art's relation to nature has constantly changed in the history of aesthetics. Today, nature seems to have been completely discarded from art's conceptual basis, yet art makes use of nature, or of the natural, in the most direct manner. Since aesthetic experience is cultivated through man's relation with nature, then is it impossible to do away completely with naturei n art.

Without differentiating, at this point, between artistic and ordinary experience, I will start with the premise that aesthetic quality is a necessity for experience. This is to say that for any experience tohav emeaning , or to berecognize d as having a sense,th eperceive d must have aesthetic qualities, or must refer to them in an imagined way. This implies that aesthetic experience is originally based on the perception of the natural world, and that even at apoin t when culture seems divorced from nature, experience must be enforced by nature,b y a"realit y intake", for aesthetic quality tob ekep t alive.A n aesthetic sense thati s only fed by cultural inputs will eventually dissolve into abstractions. Such a sense will be devoid of import sincei ti sunrelate d toan y origin andt o anyexistentia l source.

This argument brings to mind the serious question of what nature is. In terms of our concerns here, a generalization can be made in defining it as all sensory input. Albeit that much of this can have its source in the man-made, its physical existence is always related to nature. All sensory stimulus is rooted in the physicality ot nature and its form. The history of aesthetic thought displays the gradualproces s of divorcebetwee n art and life and a search for the autonomy of art. This process has led to the undermining of aesthetic quality in experience and, eventually, to the disregard of nature in everyday experience, as well as toth e disregard of the quality of theperceived .

Plato,wh o was thefirs t philosopher to talk systematically about art,treate d art asonl y one among a linear hierarchy of human concerns and occupations within the social realm (1). He differentiated from other concerns not categorically, but in the degree of its proximity to truth. He was also the first to give Western thought the initial impetus for the separation between mind and nature. Although, in his system, the mind's origin isno t clearly defined, its pre-existence to nature already implies a separation. This idea was eventually to lead to the clear division between form (nature) and content (culture), and in the long run, to the differentiation between life and art (art defined as high-culture),o r between experience and aesthetics.

Even when Plato's literature is seen as the first phase of a sequence of continuous categorization, in his time, Mind and Nature have not been completely isolated from each other. For the Greek mind in the 5th century BC, the world is an interrelated whole, organized in linear fashion according to the ideal of perfection. Yet, it is Plato's systemization of the world, however simple it may be at this point, that begins to give man the upper hand over nature and his manipulative capacity.

~~To see the evolution of Plato's concept of Mind, one has to compare his literature and system with that of Homer, While Plato's world view exposes a hierarchic systematic~~

~~95 structure, the world in pre-Socratic Greek culture, as evidenced in Homeric literature, is viewed andexpresse d asa paratacti c structure,wher eever ypa ri s an identity initsel f (2).~~

Allexperienc e andit s equivalent form in expression is treated with equal significance. The tendency to see reality as a limitless and unfixable flow, creates in Homer an open and additive structure of thought, grounded in imagery, as reflected in this paratactic form of literature. The invention of the script Linear B, and the evolution of a written fixation of thought and expression, which becomes increasingly abstract, can be accounted for in the gradual categorization of being and of the establishment of increasingly rigid boundaries in concepts (3).

In ancient Greek belief, the world was created out of Chaos by the Mind; the mind gave form to otherwise undefined essence and created nature (4). Aesthetics was the perception of this form. In ancient Greek, aesthetic meant perception. It is important here to note the interrelatedness of Mind, Nature, and Aesthetics. Aesthetics or perception was related to nature and to experience, which had been transformed from Chaos by the Mind. Aesthetic was the sensory reception of Nature's form, its order. The Mind, by giving form to Chaos and thus by creating Nature, had created order. Perception was the recognition of this order.

Despite its belief in the necessity and control of Mind, Greek culture was still mindful of the force of Chaos, as a reality on another level. Dionysus, the rites and rituals connected with him, were a way of bringing this mysterious reality, without apparent order, our into the open. Apparently, something was left in the world that was still not incorporated into the rational or the ideational. It was this Dionysian realm that fed Greek andHellenisti c art with its poetic qualities that went beyond the formal canons or beyond its realism. This duality has been seen by Nietzsche as the Apollonian versus the Dionysian. It can also be defined asth e poetic and the sensual of theHomeri c and the intellectual and abstract of the Platonic ways of thinking.

Chaos represents a state where definitions and boundaries do not exist, where everything flows into everything else. It is the unknowable in its lack and insufficiency of definitions and boundaries; it is the realm of mysteries, and of sudden changes and transformations. Nature, although created out of Chaos by the Mind, still holds a potential for returning to Chaos in its sudden unexpected phenomena, in its unknowable aspects. As long as the secrets of nature can be understood and an order in it can be apprehended, the Mind takes ascendancy over the unknown; at times when the sway of the world seems uncontrollable, it is to Chaos again that humanity appeals. These changing tendencies have been manifest both in art and in cultural paradigms in alternating periods. Plato's was arevolutio n of the intellect over the sensual, which repeated itself during the Enlightenment and again during the early 20th century. Although in the early 20th centuryv new scientific discoveries suddenly erased Chaos from consciousness and gave man the feeling that nature's mysteries were unfolded for good, the confrontation with Space and the new unknowns into which man was thrown later in the century, once again brought back the validity of Chaos, and created corresponding concepts and attitudes in art and philosophy. Dada, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, and anti-aesthetics, besides pluralistic values in art, can be counted amongthese . For aesthetics and for perception, Nature and Chaos stand for two important concepts: that of cognition through the perception of order and form (nature), and that of the appre-

96 hension of the unknown (chaos),tha t eventually assumes meaning as the mindposit s order intoit . This latter was called "intuition" byKant . Arthold s these tworelate d essences init s core: nature as form and order, and Chaos as the unknown potential that will eventually unfold with the mind's projection of meanings (cultural content). First, let us try to investigate nature's relation to art. Nature's presence in art is twofold. One is the mimetic aspect, and theothe r is thera wvisua l stimulus thatimpresse s upon perception.

Perception has itscounterpar t in theobjec t andth e natureo f theobjec t (its form andorder) . Without the initial confrontation of subject and object, at the level of sensory reception, aesthetic experience is not possible. Otherwise there would be no necessity for the art object, for aesthetic experience to takeplace .T omak e thepoin t explicit, letu s note that the complementary qualities of blue and orange have their counterpart in the human sense mechanism in a receptivity that is sensitive to these qualities and that makes their perception possible. Kant interprets this as "its representation (without any concept) in accordance with its relation to the subject and the subject's internal feeling" (5). This kind of receptivity is also what makes natural organisms and the perpetuation of life possible: thus, nature exists only as long as the subject and the object are co-related. Aesthetic perception is originally grounded in this mechanism which depends both on the stimulus made possible by the form character of the object, and the receptivity of the subject; the interaction of these create a new awareness which means a new state of consciousness in the subject and a new heightened meaning or impressiveness assumed by the object. Kant states: "...to say that the purity of colours and tones, or their variety and contrast, seem to add to beauty does not mean that they supply ahomogeneou s addition toou r satisfaction in the form because they are pleasant in themselves; but they do so because they make the form more exactly, definitely, and completely intuitable, and besides, by their charm (excite therepresentation , while they) awaken and fix our attention on the object itself."(6 )

This phenomenon in inherent in nature's mechanism, in the way aggressive fish change colour before attack, andi n the way some bird species collect visually attractive material to make their nests in order to attract the opposite sex. Yet, this original ground for aesthetic quality is not sufficient to create the full aesthetic experience that we encounter in the art object. Otherwise art and nature would be equal or there would be no necessity for the art object. We cannot deny the implementation of meaning and definition through the mind, and we cannot deny that the signification of the perceived is acquired through knowledge (association, information, cultural input). The intervention of the mind is necessary to provide meaning to an initially pure sensory reception. Just as the subject and the object are correlated in perception, through the reception of form in the sense mechanism, form and meaning are correlated through the intervention of the mind that implements and signifies form with content. For Kant, the aesthetic "is the feeling of (that) harmony in the play of mental powers" (7). Without the reception of form, without perception that is grounded in the essential orders of nature, the impetus towards meaning and eventually towards aesthetic experience isno tpossible .

I have tried toelucidat e art'srelatio n tonature , now Iwil l try to show its relation to Chaos. In art, Chaos, as the unknown potential, has been called by other names and has been referred to through other definitions. My use of the term is tocompar e man's approach ina wake of western civilization with that of today. Thus, I am using the term Chaos with the complex meaning it had for Greek culture, rather than with its generalized cliché implications to today. Even for Kant, who was the most systematic analyzer of the human

97 mind, there existed a limit beyond which the mind could not penetrate. Kant preferred to dwell on this, claiming the impossibility of going beyond the mind. For him the a-priori belonged tothi srealm , and itcoul d not,i n itself, be analyzed.

For Nietzsche, Chaos was the mysterious realm from which its hero, Dionysus, was born and suffered his individuation. This individuation is the birth of art, of the specified identity which is distinguished from the unity and wholeness of nature.Fo r the Romantics, this unknown power against which manha dt o assert his identity was alsoimportant . In the 20th century, at a time when modern consciousness of industrial and technological culture tried todefin e theworl d only in terms of man's rationale and understanding, art had to find its creative source in the irrational and in the unknown. Dada, Surrealism, and Abstract Expressionism were the 20th century movements mostover t in their search intoth epower s of Chaos. In fact, most 20th century movements tried to counterbalance the Apollonian values of science, intellect and logic with those of the undefined, the unknown, and the unfathomable of theDionysia n cult.

What Dionysus suffers in individuation through his transformation from the realm of mysteries to that of the perceived and the defined, is the articulation and form giving of techne, technique. Techne, a word which meant both technique and art in ancient Greek, was not necessarily a faculty above nature, but one that initiated nature. Yet, man's manipulation of nature and his individuation away from nature into culture is a capacity provided by technique. This creates the impetus for the gradual divorce of art from life, and from nature. In its last phase of development, techne, which creates the culture of the industrialized and technological world, has broken its ties with the process of the natural. At this phase, culture assumes its complete autonomy, and it breaks with the aesthetic; the quality of theperceive d loses itsimpac t and significance.

Thus, the liberation of technique from the process of the natural, in other words, the development of technology, has also served to establish the autonomy of art, its independence from the natural. This means, at its extreme, the divorce between form and content, and the interpretation of content alone as aesthetic property. This issue was made explicit by Professor Imamiche during the XI International Congress of Aesthetics. He described how technology had made possible the complete unrelatedness of form and content, by showing that a simple rectangular card could serve as a key, a radio, and an identity card,etc. .

The complete independence of aesthetic meaning from the physical brings us back to Chaos. Today, there are two states of Chaos. Chaos in the Greek sense, meaning the unfathomable and ineffable mystery (from which apprehension brings forth individuation and gradual discovery of meaning). On theothe r hand, therei s the Chaos of modern reality where everything is individuated to the extreme and where„unit y is lost; everything can become everything else, or nothing corresponds to anything. In the latter sense, the definition of art loses its integrity, arti sdefine d through the anti-aesthetic.

Kant's claim for the autonomy of art had established art as second nature, but had not divorced it from nature. A true work of art, in his estimation, had to look not designed; it had to look like nature, unforced and spontaneous; as nature, it had its own rules. Art for Kant was a reality on another level, corresponding not to sense experience, but to feeling, brought about by intuition. The complete separation of mind and matter and the divorce of T

art from the sensory was grounded in the great doubt of Descartes and in the dualistic philosophy systematized by Hegel. The claim that aesthetics lay beyond the material took on more force, as art assumed increasing control over the depiction of the material world, which was made possible through its developed technique. In the 19th century, when realism reached its peak, its materialistic appearance led to the most adamant of metaphysical arguments. But this divorce of aesthetics from nature and from matter also pushed art into social, political, andpsychologica l realms. In the materialistic approach of the early 20th century, when metaphysics can to be regarded as a political evil, aesthetic valuebega n tob e searchedfo r outsideth ear tobject . Thear tobjec t began tob eregarde d as an arbitrary tool, or as a meaningless fetish to stimulate conceptual play. With Duchamp, art's claim to universality lost its validity.Takin ghi s material from the cultural context and completely destroying the form value of the work of art, Duchamp made two implications. Firstly, that beauty and form-concepts which had been grounded in the appreciation of nature-were not the criteria of art. Thus, aesthetic value became obsolete. Secondly, a common criterium or definition was no longer possible if art found its meaning only through culturalreferents , which were arbitrary and always in transformation.

Although this development happened at the end of slow and gradual process of man's increased domination over nature, and of the resulting independence of culture from nature, this has tob e seen as an important rupture in the history of art. Although there have been constant efforts toredee m the value of form andth e meaning of Beauty,i t has pushed art to be increasingly suspicious and critical of its aesthetic ground. Beauty has become suspect, andha s been seen asconspirin g with thereactionary .

Yet, the pendulum finds its balance through other means. All efforts to undermine the aesthetic have brought its source, nature, back into art in another way. While beauty was being replaced by the ugly, and the absolute by the manifold and the plural, aesthetic quality found its way back into art through the sensual. The expressionists and later the abstract expressionists, followed by multi-media artists, and by neo-expressionists, explored the raw material of the art object to address the sensory and to redeem the direct stimulation of theaesthetic .

This shift toth e sensual has to beevaluate d as anecessit y without the satisfaction of which art cannot perpetuate itself. The relation to the physical constitutes for the mind and eventually for culture, the ground for all cognition and intuition and the basis for understanding form. The body's kineasthetic, tactile, visual and auditory senses are developed in the relationship with the environment and thus the imaginative and intuitive powers are fed initially by sensory inputs. In this, nature plays an important role because, more than any other kind of environment, it constantly unfolds something new for perception. The cultural content, which has become the primary property of aesthetic intent, when devoid of natural inputs,become s arbitrary and groundless.

Thus, sinceth e 1960's,whe n art tried toevad e anyreferenc e to nature, asi n Minimalism, it also became involved with the natural in the most direct manner. Environmental art, earth works, body art, were such forms which, while radically trying to evade the established aesthetic criteria, dealt with a direct confrontation of nature. In these, the conventional criteria for beauty were not to be found, and what seemed unrelated to the prevailing definitions of art was actually the means through which the artist tried tocreat e a new and fresh relation to aesthetics. In this kind of art the point of contact was nature in its rawest

99 form; both through his material and through his process the artist evaded reference to the established aesthetic norms.Recen t painting and sculpture appeal to the vieweri n theirra w physicality rather than through cultural references or through iconography. The thickness or roughness of the paint, the fluidity and the chance effects, the directness of the material, as well as of the mass and of thematerial , all seem to want toredee m what was lost for art, namely Nature.

Contrasting raw nature with seemingly unartistic ways of giving form and meaning, the artist has gone to the very essence of Techne and Nature. By confronting them and contrasting them in the most direct way, without appealing to mimesis or to artifice, the modern artist is once again bringing back Chaos, the raw matter of existence and sensibility, andth egroun dfo r individuation, which is art's main function.

~~REFERENCES~~

~~1. Plato,Republis , BookX~~

~~2. Eric A.Havelock , Preface toPlato ,Grosse t andDunlap , New York 1967,p .18 4~~

~~3. Ibid., see the sections onLinea r B,page s given in theindex .~~

~~4. Plato, seePhaedru s~~

~~5. Kant, Critique of Judgement, Philosophies of Art and Beauty, ed. A.Hofstadte r and R.Kuhns, (1964),p.301~~

~~6. Ibid., p.298~~

~~7. Ibid., p.293,300~~

~~100 4 NATURE AND LANDSCAPE IN ART AND LITERATURE~~

"It is especially the "scenery" that has been reflected in the arts, reflected in a variety of manners and styles, according to the changing cultural attitudes and appreciations. Also in the arts the conditioning of the human perception by the filter of cultural conditions is a very important factor regulating therelatio n between mankind and his environment. The scenery, however, not only appeals to mere aesthetic feelings, but to historical consciousness as well. For the physiognomy of a landscape is not only related to the present processes and conditions. It has its roots in the natural and the cultural history of theregio n concerned." ^

~~J.I.S. Zonneveld~~

~~101 "I didpu t aquestio n tomyself :Wher ecome s the evil from?"~~

~~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry~~

~~(from "Citadelle") * ƒ LANDSCHAFT INWERKE N DER KUNSTDE S 20.JAHRHUNDERT S (Bemerkungen zueine mThema )~~

~~Peter Spielmann~~

Die Landschaft hat sich in der bildenden Kunst zuerst als Hintergrund religiöser Geschichten und als Ersatz des goldenen Hintergrundes im Spätmittelalter ertwickelt. Der landschaftliche Hintergrund bedeutete gleichzeitig einen räumlichen Durchbruch, eine Erweiterung des Raumes nach hinten. Sie existierte zwar schon in Bildern der Romantik, die noch nicht über einen goldenen Hintergrund verfügt, aber da war sie nu symbolisch dargestellt, mit farbigen Streifen.

Später hat sie sich verselbständigt und ist besonders in der Malerei und Graphik zu einem selbständigen Thema geworden. Sie entwickelte sich zwischen einem Portrait, einer konkreten Landschaft auf einer Seite zu idealen arkadischen Landschaft als ein Streben nach Utopie auf der anderen Seite. Sie hat so alle Stilwandel der Geschichte der Kunst mitge-macht.

Bis zum 19.Jahrhundert hat man sie überwiegend im Atelier komponiert, aus Erinnerung oder Skizzen. Die französischen Pleinairisten haben als erste die Forderung gestellt, die Landschaft in der Landschaft direkt zu malen, die Impressionisten haben es weiter getrieben und haben die Landschaft untersucht in allen ihren Wandlungen der Atmosphäre und des Lichts.Di e Entwicklung des Lichts über dieFarb e und Atmosphäre, aber auch die momentane Stimmung hat eine Bedeutung für das Bild bekommen. Es sind dabei fast wissen-schaftliche Ergebnisse zustande gekommen, ummöglichs t genaue Farbabstufungen zu erreichen. Um dieses Ergebnis zu erzielen, hat man die Formen aus Farbflecken aus Grundfarben zusammen-gestellt, die sich dann erst im Auge des Menschen in einen Farbton zusammengefügt haben.

Bei den Impressionisten hat die Intuition und Emotion eine grosse Rolle gespielt. Ihre Nachfolger, diePostimpressioniste n oder die Poitillisten genannt, haben dieses Zerlegen an Grund-farbpunkten zu einer wissenschaftlichen Methode ausgearbeitet. Aber gleichzeitig kamen auch andere Reaktionen auf den Impressionismus. Die haben wegweisend die Entwicklung des 20.Jahrhundert s beeinflusst.

VanGog h hat die impressionistische Methode benutzt, um dieLandschaf t mit dem eigenen Zustand der Seele und der Stimmung inEinklan g zu bringen. Er gibtde r Farbe eine andere Aufgabe als nur das Zeugen über die Farbigkeit der Gegenstände. Die Farbe ist ihm ein Instrument des Ausdrucks. Van Gogh malt Landschaften, in denen er lebt, zuerst in Holland dann in Südfrankreich, aber "beseelt" mit Färbern die seinen Ausdruck transportieren, SeinemBrude r beschreibt er seine Methode:

"Ich möchte das Bild eines Freundes machen, eines Künstlers, der von grossen Dingen träumt, der arbeitet, wie die Nachtigall singt, weil das seine Natur ist. Dieser Mann wird blond sein. Ich möchte in das Bild die Bewunderung legen, die Liebe, die ich für ihn empfinde. Ich werde ihn alsozuers t malen wie erist , sogetre u wie ich kann. Aber damit ist das Bildnis nicht beendet. Um es zu beenden, werde ich jetzt der eigenmächtige Kolorist sein. Ich übertreibe das Blond des Haares, ich komme zu orangen Tönen, zu Chromen, zu

105 blassem Zitronengelb. Hinter den Kopf, staat der nichtssagenden Wand des schäbigen Zimmers, male ich das Unendliche, ich mache einen einfachen Hintergrund vom sattesten, eindring-lichsten Blau, das ich zustandebringen kann, und durch diese einfache Zusammenstellung bekommt der blonde, leuchtende Kopf auf dem sattblauen Hintergrund etwas Geheimnisvolles wie der Stern amtiefblaue n Himmelsgewölbe."

~~("Als Mensch under Menschen", Vincent van Gogh in seinen Briefen an den Bruder Theo, übersetzt vonEv a Schumann, Henschelverlag Berlin 1959,Bd .II ,Brie f 520, S.248-9)~~

~~Bei van Goghs Gefährten wird die Farbe nicht mehr in dem Masse zerlegt, die wird in grösseren Flächen aufgetragen; ihre Aufgabe ausdrucksvoll zu sein, wird damit noch gesteigert.~~

Gauguin sucht in der Landschaft eine Möglichkeit einer alternativen gesellschaftlichen Organisation, er sucht eine Verwirklichung einer Utopie, in der sich das menschliche Leben, die Zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungen, wie die Organi-sation der Gesellschaft, auf natörlicher Grundlage verwirklichen.

In Europa -i n derBretagne , in Südfrankreich - scheitert er alsEinzelgänge r und flüchtet in die Südsee,u m esdor tmi t demdurc h Zivilisation noch unverdorbenen "wilden" Menschen und einer "jungfräulichen" Landschaft noch einmal zu versuchen. Sein persönliches Scheitern ändert nichts daran, dass seine Botschaft in der weiteren Entwicklung unüberhörbar geblieben ist undal s Aufgabe immer wieder zu neuen Versuchen führt.

Paul Cézanne will mit der Frabe den Raum der Landschaft und ihre Form in den konstruktieven Grundformen begreifen und zum Ausdruck bringen. Das farbige Volumen und der farbige Raum Cézannes orientieren sich am Unveränderlichen, am Ständigen, Dauernden in der Natur alseine r gegebenen undunerschütter-liche n Sicherheit.

"Die Landschaft spiegelt sich in mir, wird menschlich, wird denkbar. Ich objektiviere sie, übertrage sie,halt e sie auf meinen Bilde fest. Ich will mich in der Natur verlieren, mirihr , wie sie wieder keimen, die eigensinnigen Töne der Felsen haben, die vernünftige Hartnäckigkeit des Gebirges, die Durchsichtigkeit der Luft, die Wärme der Sonne. In einem Grün wird mein Gehirn ganz sicher ergiessen mit den fliessenden Säften eines Baumes. Vor uns ist ein grosses Wesen von Licht undLiebe , das Schwanende Weltall, das Zögern derDinge.

Die Farben, sehen Sie, sind das sichtbare Fleisch der Ideen und Gottes. Das Sichtbarwerden des Geheimnisses, das Farbenspiel der Gesetze. Ihr perlmutterness Lächeln belebt von neuem das tote Antlitz der entschwundenen Welt. Wo ist das Gestern, das Vorgestern? Die Ebene und der Berg, den ich gesehen habe? In diesem Bild, in diesen Farben. Besser als in euren Gedichten, weil mehr realisierte Sinnlichkeit darin steckt, das Bewusstsein der Welt wird in unseren Bildern verewigt. Sie bezeichnen die Entwicklungsstufen des Menschen..."

~~(P. Cézanne "Aus Gesprächen" - zitiert aus: Will Grohmann, Bildende Kunst und Architektur, Zwischen den beiden Kriegen, Bd. 3, Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin 1953, S. 360,361)~~

106 Mit seinen Bemühungen, dieZei t einzufangen, steht er am Anfang einer neuen Epoche der menschlichen Erkenntnis. So ist nicht verwunderlich, dass sein Werk den Grössten Einfluss auf die Entwicklung der Kunst und des ästhetische Denkens erst nach dem Tode des Künstlers ausübte.

Dazwischen kam noch ein Versuch, die verschiedenen auseinanderlaufenden Fäden wieder zusammenzuflechten - es wurde der Jugendstil als ein neuer Stil konstituiert. Der Symbolismus stand als Pate. In der Landschaftsmalerei hat man micht nur die Seele der jeweiligen Landschaft zum Ausdruck gebracht. Der einfache Mensch mit seiner Tracht, seinen Gebräuchen, der Umgang mit seinen Mitmenschen under der Natur ist Symbol geworden der Unverdorbenheit, Reinheit, Natürlichkeit. Auch soziale Gedanken, Wünsche,Ideal e finden hier ihren Platz.

Die "Wilden" in Paris, eine Gruppe von Künstlern, deren Kopf Henri Matisse war, reagierten auf den Impressionismus, aber besonders auf die intellektuelle Methodik des Neoimpressionismus eines Seurat oder Signac. Bei Matisse können wir lesen: "Wir wollen etwas anderes, (als der Impressionismus, Bemerkung des Autors), wir wollen innere Ausgeglichenheit durch Vereinfachung derIdee n undplastische n Formen erreichen.

"Ich entnehme der Natur, was ich gerade brauche, um auf die wirksamste Weise dem mir vorschwebenden Gedanken Ausdruck zu verleihen. Ich kombiniere auf clas sorgfältigste alle Wirkungsmöglichkeiten, ich stelle zwischen ihnenjene s Gleichgewicht her, das in der gegenseitigen Abgewogenheit vonbeschreibende r Zeichnung undFarb e besteht."

(H. Matisse, Aus einem Gespräch mit Estienne 1909, zitiert aus Will Grohmann, Bilderde Kunst und Architektur, Zwischen den beiden Kriegen, Bd. 3, Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin 1953, S. 371). Worauf esmi r in allerersterLini e ankommt, ist der Ausdruck. Für mich liegt der Ausdruck nicht in der Leidenschaft, die in einem Gesicht aufblitzt oder sich in einer heftigen Bewegung äussert. Es ist in der ganzen Anlage meines Bildes enthalten; alles ist daran beteiligt: die Stellen, an der sich die Körper befinden, die leeren Räume, die sie umgeben, die Proportionen. Die Komposi-tion besteht in der Kunst des Malers, die verschienenen Elemente, über die er verfügt, um reine Gefühle auszu-drücken, auf dekoratieve Art zu ordnen. In einem Gemälde solljede r Teil sichtbar sein und die ihm zukommende Rolle, ob wichtig oder sekundär, spielen. Alles, was im Bilde keinen Zweck erfüllt, ist aus diesem Grunde von Nachteil. Ein Werk hat eine Gesamtharmonie, jedes überflüssiges Detail würde im Geist des Betrachters ein anderes wesentliches Detail verdrängen.

~~(H. Matisse, Gedanken über Kunst, zitiert aus Will Grohmann, Bildende Kunst und Architektur, Zwischen den beiden Kriegen, Bd. 3,Suhrkam p Verlag, Berlin 1953,S .373) .~~

Ein Expressionist hat besonders in der Mitte Europas einen revolutionären Einfluss ausgeübt. Es was der Norweger Edward Munch. Die Landschaften des Lebensfrieses steigern den Ausdruck mittels Farbe, einer starken expressiven Kontur, und zeigen die inneren Spannungen des Menschen in die Landschaft projiziert, in ungewohnter Deutlichkeit.

~~Seine erste umfassende Ausstellung veranstaltete Munch in Prag 1905, in der Stadt eines Brokhoff und Mathias Braun, eines Santini, eines Don Giovanni und löste dort under~~

107 jungen Könstlern eine wahre Revolution aus.Eine r der Organisatoren der Ausstellung, der Prager Kulturhistoriker und Kunstkritiker Frantisek X. Salda schrieb seine Glossen zum WerkMunch s unterde mTitel : "DerGewalttäte r desTraums" .E r schreibt:

"Mein erster Eindruck von einigen Werken Munchs war, dass er lieber Verbrecher sein sollte als Könstler und dass die Hand, die auf diese Weise die Farbe auf die Leinwand schmeisst, eher mit einem Messer walten oder Bomber werfen Sollte. Diese Arbeiten sind ihm nurirgendein e Gelegenheit, umdi e Spur seiner leidenschaftlich gewalttätigen Gebärde festzuhalten und zu erhalten. Einige von ihnen sind eine momumentale Karikatur und eher Steine als Bilder. Grossartige Steine, nur grob beigemeisselt. die der Maler auf Menschen wirft, auf dasLeben , auf dieWelt ,au gihr eLüge ,au f Schrecken undEkel... "

~~Und mehr:~~

"Dieser Mensch, dessen manche Strassen wie Kulissen zu Puppenspielstragödien wirken, die irgendwelche schreck-liche und derbe Witze des Schicksals glossieren, hat einige Landschaften und Ecken von irgendeiner Feier-lichen paradiesisch, einer Schönheit duftender Uberseeinsel oder schwerer tropischer Früchte - und mehr als schön: Glücklich von einem ruhigen und starken, vorsintflutlichen Glöck - einem Glöck, das als leidenschaft-licher und heller Tropfen von der modernen, vielleicht nurvo n den Pastoralen Gauguins heruntertropfte."

..."Farbe ist bei Munch ein rein innerer, musikalischer Ausdruck der Dinge: in der Farbe klingt ihm das Wesen derDing ei n einer Sprache, von dere skei n Widerruf gibt. Munch beleuchtet oft die Welt nicht mir einer realen Sonnenbeleuchtung, sondern mit der magischen Lampe seiner Seele: Sie lässt ihn dann sprechen von verborgenen und unterirdischen Dingen. Dinge bluten bei ihm wörtlich Farbe, sie schreiben in ihr ihre Qual und das Geheimnis ihres Seins, sie nässen in ihr wie im eigenen Leiden. Gewaltige und dramatische Affekte und innere Zerrüttung - Leidenschaft, Eifer-sucht, Angst oder Aufruhr - färben ihm die Welt mit einem irrealen farbigen Pathos, und die Farbe ist hier keine objektive Erscheinung, sondern ein lyrisches Schicksal: Gewalttätter desTraums. "

~~(EX. Salda, Nasilnik snu, 1905,Boj e o zitrek, Melantrich, Praha 1950, S.169 u. folgende, Übersetzung P.Spielmann )~~

Wie oben angedeutet, hat die junge Generation der Prager Künstler die Inspiration von Munchs Werken verarbeitet auf schöpferische und zukunftsweisende Art, die diese Generation auch dann geprägt hat, als sie sich anderen formgebenden und stilistischen Regeln zugewandt hat.

Dieselbe Generation in Paris, die Künstler, die um 1881 geboren, haben eine andere Inspirationsquelle entdeckt, die sie geprägt hat. Es war die Ausstellung Cézannes 1906. Picasso und Braque haben in ihr entdeckt, dass die Kunst ein Zeugnis ablegen muss von der Realität, dass nicht nur von den oft täuschenden Sinnen abhängig ist, sondern auch das Wissen und die Erinnerung mit einbezogen werden müssen. Es ging ihnen um das Wesentliche, Dauerhafte, Unveränderbare und Unbeeinflussbare in der Wirklichkeit. Wenn Cézanne gesagt hat:

108 "Ich möchte" sagte ich mir, "den Raum und die Zeit malen, damit sie die Formen der Farbempfindungen werden, denn ich stelle mir manchmal die Farben vor als grosse noumenalaEntitäten , als leibhaftige Ideen,al sWesen ,de rreine n Vernunft,"

~~(P. Cézanne, Aus Gesprächen zitiert aus Will Grohmann, Bildende Kunst und Architektur, Zwischen den beiden Kriegen, Bd. 3,Suhrkam p Verlag,Berli n 1953,S . 360)~~

hat er auf eine Konsequenz aufmerksam gemacht, die imKubismus , voll zum Tragen kam; die Zeit alsDimensio n des Raumes. In diesem Zusammenhang sollte man nicht vergessen, dass der Physiker Albert Einstein 1905 in der Grossen Relativitätstheorie die Zeit als Dimension desRaume s wissenschaft-lich begründet hat.

In den Anfängen der kubistischen Malerei war die Landschaft eines der wesentlichsten Themen. Die Landschaften von Horta del Ebro in Spanien, die Braque, Picasso und auch Derain malten, gaben der Bewegung den Namen, denn der Kritiker Louis Vauxcelles nannte die Landschaften von Braque abwertend "kubistisch", d.h. voll Kuben. Die Maler haben da versucht, die Formen der Landschaft und der in ihr befindlichen Architekturen auf Grundformen zu reduzieren, die von alles zufälligen Details zu befreien. Wichtig erscheint mir dabei, dass es sich um eine "Kulturlandschaft" handelt, also keine "wilde Natur" ist, dieunabhängi g vomMenschen , seinemLebe n und seiner Arbeit existiert. Diese Landschaft trägt Zeichen und Spuren des Menschen sichtbar. Das kulturelle Erbe und den Wert kann man darin sehen, dass der Mensch seine Zeichen, seine Häuser und seine Kultivierungen derLandschaf t im Sinne derNatur ,i mEinklan g mit ihr getan hat, nicht nur in formaler Hinsicht, sondern sogar in ökologischer, wenn auch unbewusst und intuitiv. Wie anders geschieht es oft mit zivilisatorischen Eingriffen des Menschen in die Natur mir der Absicht des Beherrschens, die durch die Nichtbeobachtung der Zusammenhänge zum Eigenschaden, ja sogar zur Selbstver-nichtung führen könnte. Wenn man die kubistischen Bilder aufmerksam beobachtet, sieht man, dass sie die Komponente der Harmonie des Menschen mit derNatu rdeutlic h sichtbar macht.

Wenn sich die Pariser Kubisten von der Landschaft abgewandt haben, um die Frage der neuen Auffassung des Raumes unter Einbeziehung der Zeit in selbst auferlegter Beschränkung am Thema des Stillebens zu lösen, haben die Kubisten besonders in den östlichen Ländern Europas die Thematik offener gehalten und die Emotionalität und Expressivität nicht ausgeschlossen, oft sogar betont. Später sprach man sogar vom "Kuboexpressionismus." Vielleicht auch deswegen weil man dort die stilbildende Aufgabe viel ernster undkonsequente r akzeptierthat .

~~Neben den kubistischen Versuchen entstehen gleichzeitig erste Experimente in Richtung der reinen Abstraktion. Auch das ist der Ausgangspunkt die sinnliche Wahrnehmung der Wirklichkeit.~~

In der Geschichte des Werkes von Piet Mondrian, Hendrick Werkman, Frantisek Kupka und Kasimir Malevic können wir es deutlich nachvolziehen. Die Landschaft spielte bei allen ein wichtiges Motiv. Die Richtung und der Sinn des Abstrahierungsprozesses ist bei den vier erwähnten Könstlern unterschiedlich. Bei Mondrian geht es zum abstrakten System von Farbe, Raum und Zeit. Das Ergebnis ist eher statisch, ein Zustand, der die Zusammenhänge deutlich macht und im Kopf des Zuschauers eine Dynamik auslöst. Ahnlich beiWerkman .

109 Beide n zwei östlichen Künstlern gibt es zwei Aspekte. Bei den Untersuchungen räumlicher Aspekte auch unter Einbeziehung der Zeit als räumliche Dimension finden sie Analogien zur Musik (Kupkas Biograph Louis Arnould- Grémilly spricht davon, das Slawen gleichzeitig sehen und hören können). In den zeiträumlichen Vorstellungen sprengen sie die bisherigen Auffassungen der bildenden Kunst und erweitern den Raum ihrer schöpferischen Aktivität in den Kosmos, Weltraum, mit der utopischen Dimension auch einer möglichen neuen Organisation der Gesellschaft. Diekosmisch e Landschaft ist auf einer Seite abstrakt und normativ, sie soll bewohnbar und dem Menschen dienlich sein. Sie soll ihm ermöglichen in unendliche kosmische Beziehungen einzutreten.

Die dynamische Entwicklung in der ersten Hälfte des 20Jahrhunderts hat in verschie densten Richtungen Grenzen überschritten und Türen und Tore geöffnet. Es wurden der Makrokosmos wie auch der Mikrokosmos erforscht. Man hat auch das Siegel gebrochen, das den Eingang in einen sehr geheim-nisvollen Bereich versperrte: in das Unter- bewusstsein. Die Psychoanalyse Sigmund Freuds tat es in der Wissenschaft, der Surrealismus in derKunst .Dami t wurden neue Zusammenhänge aufgedeckt.

Was under Thema betrifft, erscheinen in der Kunst Traumlandschaften, in denen Beziehungen zur Wirklichkeit sichtbar geblieben sind, die von tiefen subjektiven und eher nicht ausgesprochenen Vorstellungen, Angsten und Wünschen belebt werden, in denen man aber auch verschiedene archetypische Erscheinungen finden kann, die Zusam menhänge mit oft sogar verschütteten Kulturschichten aufdecken. Die kulturelle Tradition lebt hier oft in einer ganz bezonderen Weise auf. Sie werden in europäischen Kontext gebracht, ohne sie als fremdartiges Exotum zu betrachten und so zur Flucht zu benutzen. Chagalls Weltde rjüdisch-russische n Mythen werden uns vertrauter genauso wie und Klee, Macke undHess ei n dieMärchenwel t desOrient s einführen.

Der hier geschilderte Weg der Kunst in der ersten Hälfte des 20.Jahrhunderts ist als ein utopischer Weg der Befreiung, Erweiterung der Räume des Menschen, Festigung der Beziehungen und des Bewusstmachens der Zusammenhänge, zu begreifen. Aber es zogen sich böse Wolken zusammen und man konnte das Gewitter am Horizont ahnen. Das politische Leben entwickelte sich in die Richtung wie Machtsansprüche, Gewalt, unzeitgemässer Nationalismus, Rassismus.Di e Kunstkonnt e sich nichtdiese r Entwicklung verschliessen, die musste reagieren. Umso mehr, da diese Bewegungen - besonders der Faschismus - das ganze Gebäude der Beziehungen und Utopien gefährdeten. Man musste dieKultu r umdi eFreihei t undde nHumanismu s des Menschen Verteidigen.

Die Expressionisten steigerten den Ausdruck auch in den Landschaftsbilder, um die Gefahren deutlicher zu machen, die Bedrohung der Landschaft als Werk des Menschen vorzuzeiten. Die Surrealisten haben in ihren Traumlandschaften die Angstvisionen offengelegt; es wurden oft Schreckenslandschaften, wobei die Hoffnung da nie ganz verschwunden war. Man hat in der Landschaft auch die Werte, die eine Identität eines Volkes und einer kulturellen Tradition bildeten, entdeckt. Es gab dafür oft sogar reale Anlässe: Das Münchener Abkommen von 1938 schnitt der Tschechoslowakischen Republik Grenzregionen ab, die Jahrhunderte lang mit der Region historisch verbunden waren. Die Landschaftsmalerei hat versucht Werte zu bewahren, die Grundlage der humanistischen Tradition des Landes waren und weiter bleiben sollten, als Bekräftigung derinnere n Resistenz.

110 Der Krieg mit seinen furchtbaren Ereignissen und Gewalten konnte nicht alle schöp ferischen Energien der Kunst zwingen, eine Verteidigungshaidung einzunehmen. Die Utopie derHumanisierun g desLeben s undde rGesellschaf t blieb weiter das Hauptanliegen der Kunst in allen Bereichen und Spezialgebieten.

Soerreicht eda sEnd e des Kriegesdi eKuns t nichtunvorbereitet .Di e ersteAufgabe , die sie sich gestellt hat, war die Kontinuität wieder herzustellen, abgebrochene Beziehungen wieder neu anzuknüpfen.

Das Bemühen um Ausdruck in der Landschaftsmalerei bewegte sich weg vom Konkreten. Der abstrakte Expressionismus belegte den Grenzbereich zwischen gegenständlichen und ungegenständ-lichen Vorstellungen. Der innere psychische Zustand des Menschen mit seinen Emotionen war da ein grundlegender Gesichtspunkt. Die Landschaft sollte Spuren des Menschen festhalten, nicht nur um etwas als Zeugnis abzulegen, sondern die notwendigen und unabdingbaren zivilisatorischen Entwick-lungen kulturell zu beeinflussen und zu humanisieren. Mit der Zeit begriff man, dass das auch bedeutet, die Natur zu respektieren.

Man fing an, die Landschaft zu untersuchen: Man bediente sich verwandter Techniken, besonders der Fotografie. Die wurde zum Anlass und zur Vorstufe des Landschaftsbüdes; oft war sie selbst das Endprodukt. Die scheinbare unbeeinflussbare Objektivität war nicht im Widerspruch zur sehr persönlichen Handhabung einzener Künstler. In anderen Fällen war die Fotografie ein Dokument von Zeitabläufen, die als Gescheh-nisse nicht anders festzuhalten waren. Neben derFotografi e war es Film und Video, die Abläufe festgehalten haben, die in der Landschaft und mit der Landschaft veranstaltet wurden. Die sog. Land- Art hat sich erstmals so realisiert. Die Landschaft wurde hier vom Objekt der künstlerischen Darstel-lung zuihre m Subjekt.

Es gab Künstler, die dieLandschaf t durch ihre Manipulation sichtbar gemacht haben - wie z.B. Christo durch Einpackung oder Herbert Bayer durch ihre Umformung. Jörg Voth setzte in sie Zeichen, die auf eine neue Weise die Verbindung zu Archetypen und verschwundenen Mythologien wieder aufdeckten.

Auch ökologische Zusammenhänge werden für die Kunst aufgedeckt, auf Gefahren aufmerksam gemacht. Lösungen entworfen. Die Natur findet wieder mehr Geltung in der Kunst. Die Landschaft als Umwelt, aber auch als Raum des kulturellen Wirkens des Menschen, hatihr eBedeutun g behalten mit neuemBewusstsei n und neuen Aufgaben.

~~in GEOPOETRY~~

~~Jan LS. Zonneveld~~

~~Introduction~~

Geopoetry is poetry in which the earth, the terrestrial nature, plays an important role. It is an expression of the human mind, representing in words the relation between mankind and his natural surroundings. Geopoetry must have existed for as long as man has been able to pronounce sentences thatreflec t his feelings regarding the natural environment in which he finds his food and shelter, and in which he experiences his struggles and astonishments. The poetry of "primitive" peoples contains very pure geopoetry in the form of words of appreciation and praise, addressed to the sun, the clouds, the rainbow, or the animals. Sometimes the words express the admiration of the beauty of the sunrise or of the lofty mountains, but in most cases the praise is closely allied with prayers for help in the struggle against the vicissitudes of daily life, especially the menacing dangers, droughts, and the need for securingfood . Andmor e often than not,thi s poetry has thecharacte r of an incantation. In the following lines,a translatio n of a song noted by aFrenc h anthropologist studying thePygmie s inW .Africa , allthes eelement s arerepresented :

~~Rainbow,o hrainbow , shining high in thesky , above theendles s forests, between theblac k clouds.~~

~~You,partin g the firmament, conqueror in the fight, the wrath of thethunde r haspasse d away. How angry hewas ,ho w furious, furious withus .~~

~~Rainbow,o hrainbow , between the dark clouds parting the dark sky -lik e aknif e splitting aripe frui t - standhig h in the skies.~~

In great haste he fled, thethunderstorm , the man-killer, chased away by the greatHunter . Soth e blackpanthe rput s the antelope to flight. Rainbow, oh rainbow, you areth e bowo f the great Hunter who chases thecloud s asi f theywer e aher d of frightened elephants.

~~112 Rainbow,rende r himou rreverence . Say tohim :b e notangr y withus . Say tohim : beno t wrathful. Sayt ohim :d o notkil lus . For we areafraid , very afraid. Rainbow,o hrainbow . (1)~~

In the modern, mechanized "Western"worl d also,geopoetr y isflourishing , especially since the beginning of the Period of Romanticism. Paradoxically, it was stimulated precisely by the wave of mechanization that has been expanding over Western Europe since the endo f the 18th century: many people living in the growing towns or in the industrializing areas became aware that they were lacking the communication with nature that had been a self- evident principle for preceding generations. In this "modern" geopoetry, the fear and the reverence of natural processes are certainly not completely absent, but in many cases the poetic inspiration is mainly nourished by aesthetic experiences, scientific (for instance, geological) interest, or the notion of being in spiritual contact with nature and in communication with her. Wordsworth-in his "Lines, composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey"-talks about a sublime sense of something dwelling in the light of setting suns in the ocean, the air andth eblu e sky.

~~It is possible to distinguish at least four different ways of being poetically involved with geological or geographical themes.~~

~~Description~~

Firstly, we mention descriptive poetry in which thepoe t "merely" gives an account of what he sees or knows. The poem may concentrate on information regarding more or less scientific topics concerning the scenery or the region. A straightforward representative of this type is didactic poetry, aimed at information about the earth, the rocks, the landscape, in rhyme and/or rhythm. The geologist K.K. Hallowers, who-in his own words-had "decided to leave no stone unturned to become, by hard training, a new poet of Science", has written some interesting geological didactical poetry. According to Hallowers, a poet of Science should have the task to "moisten the rim of the cup of Science with the sweet and golden Honey of Poetry" and to "bring about the transfiguration of theprosai c facts of Science by robing themi nlyrica l raiment".

In most cases, however, poetic descriptions are not only written for cognitive reasons, they are primarily inspired by aesthetic aspects of the atmosphere, the scenery, the colours of therock s orth e sky,th e splendour of landscape forms, therhyth m of geological sequences.

Many poets have created beautiful poetry by painting the scenery in words and expressing their admiration in all kinds of poetic forms. But geopoetry can be more than more poetical description, how ever lofty such a description may be.Th e observations may evoke in the poet's mind reflections of divergent kinds: reflections on the shortness of human life in relation to the duration of geological time; contemplations on the vastness of oceans and deserts, the majesty of the mountains, or the forces hidden in torrents, volcanos or thunderstorms calling forth the humble thoughts that we also recognized in the Rainbow- songo f theW .Africa n Pygmies.

113 For instance, in his poem "Palaeosmilia", the Scottish geologist Archie Lamont compares the durability of a fossil coral (Palaeosmilia is a coral species) with the ephemeral significance of human names,carve d out inth e crumbling limestone.

~~And Jeffers gave amagnificen t impression regarding the difference in scale and relevances between mankind andth e earth:~~

~~THEEY E~~

TheAtlanti c is astorm y moat; and the Mediterranean, Theblu epoo l in theol d garden, More than five thousand years hasdrun k sacrifice Of ships and blood, and shines in the sun;bu t here the Pacific-Our ships, planes,war s areperfectl y irrelevant. Neither ourpresen t blood-feud with the brave dwarfs Noran y future world-quarrel of westering And eastering man, thebloo d migrations, greedo f power,clas h of faith - Is aspec k of dust onth e great scale-pan.

Herefro m this mountain shore,headlan d beyond stormy headland plunging likedolphin s through the blue sea-smoke Intopal e sea- loo k west atth e hillo f water; iti s half theplanet : this dome, this half globe, this bulging Eyeball of water, arched over toAsia , Australia andwhit eAntarctica : Thosear eth eeyelid s that neverclose ; this is thestring unsleeping Eyeo f the earth; andwha t it sees is notou rwars .

~~(2)~~

J.R. Watson (1976), inspired by Wordsworth, writes: "The poet's mind feeds upon infinity, it broods upon what is below ... The mind,... is the great creative link between the created world and the sublime..."

Not only may the aesthetic aspects and the physiognomy of the scenery be a source of poetic inspiration, but also science (and scientists themselves) may give rise to poetry. Alfred Noyes has written a magisterial trilogy, "The Torch-bearers", in which he described the history of scientific discovery. Volume II (The Book of Earth) includes various examples of poetry that could be called didactic geopoetry; it gives an account of the thoughts regarding nature that people like Aristotle, Avicenna, Leonardo da Vinci, Jean Guettard, Linnaeus, Goethe, andDarwi n haddeveloped . But it is certainly more than mere cognital information; it is an epic on the "torch of science passing from hand to hand through thecenturies" .

~~Invocation~~

In geopoetry we also may recognize the invocation in which the human individual addresses himself directly to nature, the landscape, or a specific phenomenon. In "primitive" cultures it is based on the notion that nature is inhabited or personified by

114 spirits anddeitie s andi n this way the invocation veryofte n merges into the incantation (cf. the Rainbow poem, cited above). In the verses of Western poets with more or less pantheistic ideas, the "invocation toNature " may include areligiou s character as well. But, especially during the Romantic period, the invocation was an often-used stylistic form in which the poet addresses himself to Nature in general or to certain phenomena in the landscape—be it the (west)wind, the glacier, or the lofty mountain—in order to express his reverence,hi s adrniration or,possibly , his fear.

~~Personification ofnature , metaphor~~

In spite of the differences in scale and properties between the earth and humankind, sometimes the poet recognizes "qualities of character" in his natural environment that could even becalle d "human":

Unloosing their hair, Pressingclose d theireyes , Pulling atthei rgarments , Exciting chills on their flesh, Destroying their demeanor, Biting their lips Until great sighs confess their love: ' Thewin d in winter is alust y lover Of beautiful women

~~(3)~~

In fact, this comparison of natural phenomena with human behaviour results in a kind of metaphorical geopoetry. The metaphor is an expression very frequently used in poetry. In geopoetry, many parallels between geological and geographical themes on one side, and experiences in human life, on the other, have been worked out in images or symbols. A classic example of this metaphoric use of a geographical phenomenon is Goethe's well- known "Gesang der Geister über den Wassern" in which the human soul is compared with thewate r coming down ahig h waterfall, butmove d by the wind.

~~Ecological poetry~~

But the relationships between mankind and nature are not only to be expressed in invocations or metaphorical poetry in which nature plays therol e of a more or less familiar and even a more or less trustworthy "personality" that can be talked to or dealt with in metaphors. During the last half century, mankind has become aware that his relationships with nature aremuc h more than links that may giveris e to gratitude or horror, monologues or comparisons. We have more or less gradually acquired the conviction that nature does not stop at the frontiers of mankind. We ourselves belong to the ecological system of the earth. We are a part of the natural world, dependant to a high degree on the other natural phenomena. But we are—it is true—a part of nature that is endowed with some specific qualities; one is the possibility to develop a variety of cultural ways of life and to invent various kinds of tool, in this way causing important changes in our environment. Especially during the last decades, we have become aware that the changes we conjured are not always positive ones and that they are burdening ourresponsibility . Another is our

~~115 capability of reasoning and of expressing our thoughts regarding these relationships in language and, therefore, inpoetry .~~

~~For instance, the ecological aspects of human existence, man's dependance in relation to theclimat e andth e earth asa whol ei sth e basicide a behind thefollowin g lines:~~

~~Such majestic rhythms, such tiny disturbances. Therai n of themonsoo n falls, an inescapable treasure,hundred s of millions live Only because of thecertaint y of this season, Thetur n of the wind.~~

~~Thefram e of ourhuma n houserest s onth e motion Of earth and of moon,th eris eo f continents, Invasion of deserts,erosio n of hills, Thecappin go f ice.~~

~~(4)~~

A more personal, more individual "ecological" geopoetry in which the relationship, the kinship of earth and mankind comes to the fore, has been written by Dylan Thomas, Kathleen Raine, andth e WestIndia npoe t A.J. Seymour:

~~Suni s a shapely fire turningi n air Fed bywhit e springs andearth' s apowerles s sun.~~

~~I haveth e sun today deepi n mybone s Sun's inm y blood, light heaps beneath my skin. Suni s abadg eo f powerpourin gi n A darkening startha train s its glory down.~~

Thetree s and Iar ecousins .Thos etal l trees That tier their branches in the hollow sky And, high up,hol d small swaying hands of leaves Up todivinity , their namefo r sun And sometimes mine.We'r ecousins .

~~Suni s a shapely fire Turning in air Sun's in my blood.~~

~~(5)~~

Finally the convictions that the presence of mankind on the earth also has its negative aspects, negative in respect to the earth as well as in relation to its human inhabitants, is giving rise to a poetry in which the concerns regarding our environmental problems are coming to the fore. Some very cynical sentences have been written, about personal disappointment or disgust and worldwide disasters.

116 There are reasons to worry about our overburdened environment and the fate of its inhabitants.Norma n Nicholson expressed his deep concern in the following poem, written on the occasion of aradioactiv e leak at the atomic power station of Calder Hall at the foot of Mt. Scafell in theLak eDistrict , N.England :

~~WINDSCALE~~

Thetoadstoo ltower sinfes t theshore : Stink-horns thatpropagat e and spore Wherever thewin dblows . Scafell looksdow n from thebracke n band, And seeshel li n agrai n of sand, Andfeel s thecanke ritc h between histoes .

This is alan d wheredir t isclean , Andpoiso n pasture, quick andgreen , And storm sky,brigh t andbare ; Where sewers flow with milk, andmea t Is carvedu p for thefir e toeat , Andchildre n suffocate inGod' s fresh air. ,

~~(6)~~

Geopoetry has not yet been studied extensively by philologists or other representatives of the literature sciences. Nevertheless, it ispossibl e to mention here some titles in which the theme has been dealt with (mostly by geologists or geographers):

~~Anderson, M.S., 1954. Splendour ofEarth .A n anthology of travel.London . 404p .~~

~~Bush,D. , 1950. Evolution and the Victorian Poets. In: Science and English Poetry. A historical Sketch 1590-1950. N.York/Oxford.~~

~~Collins,W.H. , 1938. Geology andLiterature . Bull.Geol .Ass .Am .4 6p .355 .~~

~~Cotta, B.von , 1867. Geologie undPoesie . Chapter XIin :Geologi e dergegenwart , Leipzig.~~

~~Hallowers,K.K. ,1933 . ThePoetr y of Geology.London . 61p.~~

~~Hitchcock, Jr.E. , 1982. Thepoetr y of geology in : Hazen,R.M. , (ed),Th ePoetr y of Geology.London . 98p .~~

~~Lamont, A., 1940-41. Lessons in Lithology for the Quarryman. Literature of Erosion. The Quarry Managers' Journal.~~

~~117 Lament, A., 1047. Palaeontology inLiterature ,in :Th eQuarr y ManagersJourna lVol .XX X0.3-22 .~~

~~Lamont,A. , 1969. Notes on geology andScotlan di n Shakespeare. Scottish Journal of ScienceVol .I p . 66-74.~~

~~Oberste-Brink, K., 1924. Dichtkunst undGeologi c DasWer kIV , p. 55-63.~~

~~Rhodes,F.H.T . andR.O . Stone,1981 . Geology andPoetry ,chapte r 8in :Languag e ofth eEarth ,Pergamo nPress .~~

~~Svobodova,H. , 1985. Dichter enLandschap .D eDorschkamp ,rappor t nr.400 .p .168 .~~

~~Swart,H.W. , de, 1976. De grotsonnetten van JacquesPerk . SpeleoNederlan d No.2/82 .p .7-12 .~~

~~Willard, B.,1947 . TheGeolog y of Shakespeare.Th eScientifi c Monthly LXV, p. 399-404.~~

~~Watson,J.R. , 1979. Literature and Landscape: Some Relationships and Problems, in: Appleton, J. (ed.). The Aesthetics ofLandscape ,Hull .~~

Wolpers,T. , 1984. Flüsse und Flusslandschaften in der englischen Dichtung von der Renaissance bis zur Romantik. In: Motive und Themen romantischer Naturdichtung. Adh. der Ak. der Wiss.i n Göttingen.Philologisch-historisch e Klasse,3 .Folg enr .141 .

~~Zonneveld, J.I.S.,1966 . Geoscience andPoetry .Tijdschr . Kon.Ned . Aardr.Gen .LXXXIII .p .311-324 .~~

~~Zonneveld, J.I.S.,1984 . Geography and Poetry. In: Modern geographic Trends. (Felicitation Volume in Honour of Prof.Enaya t Ahmad)Ranchi .India ,p . 13-40.~~

~~Zonneveld, U.S., 1986. Geopoesie derTrope nun d Subtropen.Geoökodynami k 7,p .315-332 .~~

~~118 Notes~~

~~(1) Translation from: Trilles, with confrontation of translation Haasse H., Lyriek der Natuurwolken, Arnhem, 1947.~~

~~(2)R . Jeffers, from: Thedoubl e axean dothe rPoems .From :J .Haywar d (ed).Th ePengui n Book ofEnglis h Verse:Pengui n Books, 1956, p,.428 .~~

~~(3) Bhartrihari, India. &th century. From: Satakatryadisubhasitasamgraha: The epigrams attributed toBhartrihari : Bombay, 1984.~~

~~(4) F.R. Scott, from: A Grain of Rice. From: R. Gustafso n (ed). The Penguin Book of Canadian Verse:Pengui n Books, 1975,p . 139.~~

~~(5)A.J . Seymore,from : TheGuian aBook :Demerar e (Br.Guiana) , 1948, p.34.~~

~~(6)Norma n Nicholson.From :F.S.S .Finn(ed) ,Poet s of ourTime :Londo n 1965.p .128 .~~

~~119 5 ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE~~

"When dealing with landscape ecology and cultural aspects of landscape, the social sciences (and notonl y them) walk over hot "natural"ground .Politica l debates about future land use,pollutio n control, soft tourism,housing ,"revitalization " of city areas etc., already polarized into an "environment versus technology" conflict, have been influential on scientists aswell. "

~~G.Keu l~~

~~121 'Ach, seid ihrLeute! ' sagteK. , 'versteht ihretwa s von Landvermessung?' -'Nein' , sagtensie. "~~

~~Franz Kafka~~

~~(from "Das Schloss",Da s zweiteKapite l )~~

~~NATURE ASNEED ,IDEOLOGY , AND DECEPTION -Designe d "natural"environment s inurba n architecture~~

~~G.Keu l~~

Before the words "nature" and "natural" are used to characterize phenomena of the physical and social context around us, some definitional effort should be taken: NATURE is etymologically derived from Latin "natura" and Greek "physis". I looked up the term "nature" in a Catholic and in a Marxist philosophical dictionary. Brugger (1967, p.243) tells us that it means "the in-born or grown individuality of a living entity, ... a dynamic moment added to essence, ...a principle of development of the being, an inner cause of its acting and enduring, ...the ground-plan and norm of its acting." Klaus and Buhr (1972, p.760-761) give four different definitions: "the independently and outside of the consciousness existing things and phenomena in the full manifold of their forms, ...identical with matter... 2)Natur e astotalit y of natural (? -AK ) movingpattern s of matter as opposed to society. ...3) Nature as different from culture, as not changed by human beings, ...4) Nature in the sense of (inner) essence." If we keep in mind that from this metaphysically loaded meaning complex cultural phenomena like "natural ethics and moral" used for conservative reasoning in theological moral philosophy as well as the "natural sciences", afunctionalist , explicitly non-ethical model of environmental, physical and biological, even of human processes and their manipulation, have branched off, then it becomes clear that arathe r weak denotative conceptual core ("matter", "essence", "cause" etc.) is surrounded by an extended connotative "halo". Even paradoxical sentences are possible: "It is the nature of the human being that he/she is not only nature" (cf. Nachtstudio, 1989). Consequendy, emotional debates about "natural" versus "unnatural" ("perverse", "degenerate") things and being seldom follow rational argumentative guidelines, and it was not by chance that the worst political massacres of the 20th century, causedb ycollectiv eracism , hadbiologistic-metaphysica l foundations. With theincreas eo f neo-conservativism as well as the ecological discussions, this thoroughly abused word is in the focus of social sciences again. What makes a discourse on "nature" of things or being sodangerou s is the easy shift from "natural" scientific data and theories into "natural"law , ethics,religio n and ideology. As wehav e seen, "nature"contain s also apurel y operational, functional core of meaning as terminal, value-dependent meanings. It is only with utmost care thatideologizatio n on a"natural "basi s is avoided

When dealing with landscape ecology and cultural aspects of landscape, the social sciences (and not only them) walk over hot "natural" ground. Political debates about future land use, pollution control, soft tourism, housing, "revitalization" of city areas etc., already polarized into an "environment versus technology" conflict, have been influential on scientists as well. Instead of intellectually duplicating the old positions, I will concentrate on a description and criticism of recent Austrian examples of designed "natural" environments in urban architecture.

~~Example one -"th e Hundertwasser house", Vienna~~

~~The Vienna artist "Friedensreich Hundertwasser" (born as Friedrich Stowasser in 1928, name change 1949) has protested against architectural rationalism since 1953. His~~

125 "Verschimme-lungsmanifest" ("mouldy manifesto", 1958) is an early document of radical environmentalists wishes. Hundertwasser speaks in favour of individualistic, unprofessional building experiments; even if they collapse and kill people, they are worth trying. Slums, he says, do not kill the soul, but modern functionalist architecture does. "A man in a rented flat must have the possibility to lean out of his window and scratch off the stonework (? - AK). And he must be allowed to paint it all in a rose colour with a long brush-as far as he can reach-so that one can see from afar, from the street: There lives a human being who differs from his neighbours, the allocated small livestock (? - AK)! He also must be allowed to saw in pieces the walls ... and tofil l hisroo m with mud andplasticine .Bu t this is forbidden byth e lease! ... The so-called human measure in architecture is a criminal fraud ... when it came out of a Gallupsystem (should read Gallup poll - AK). ... Architect-mason-dweller are a trinity like Godfather-Son-Holy Ghost. ... The use of a ruler in architecture is criminal. ... Therule r is a symbol of ane w analphabetism,... of the new sickness of decay.W eliv e ina chaos of straight lines today,..." (p.162-165). Besides his exaggerations, strangeexpression s andreligiou s symbols,th eemotiona l protest of Hundertwasser against everyday monotonism and against the inhibition of expressive creativity certainly hits â major point in cultural criticism. However, misunderstanding Loos, the famous Viennese Art Nouveau-architect and the Bauhaus movement, in a further manifesto ("Los von Loos", 1968), Hundertwasser compares him with Hitler and puts the blame of having caused functionalist monotony entirely on him because of his manifesto "Ornament and crime" (1908): "By removing the ornaments, the houses did not get more honest. Loos ... praised the straight line, the identical and the smooth. Now we have the smooth. All slips over the smooth. Even God slips. The straight line is godless" (p.174 - 175). What escaped Hundertwasser's attention is the historical fact that Loos himself had protested against the ornamental facade decorations of sickening, crowded "rent barracks" for poor Vienna dwellers at the turn of the century. After several spectacular actions with the samemixtur e of ecology, individualism andreligion , theVienn a mayori n 1977 agreed to a new plan of Hundertwasser. He was allowed to completely design and (with an architect's help) build ahous e in thethir d city district, atth ecorne ro f two streets.

The "Hundertwasser house" was realized from 1983 - 1985 at Löwengasse/Kegelgasse. It has 52 (tenement) flats, two children's playrooms, a winter garden, three roof terraces, a cafe with terrace, etc.. The roof terraces were animated by "tree tenants". Hundertwasser programmaticall y said about this building: "The absence of Kitsch (trash) makes our lives unbearable.... Architecture has to give the soul back to the human being"(cf . Hametner & Melzer, 1988, p.7). In accordance with his earlier writings and this neoromantic programme, the facade and most of the semiprivate rooms of the house interior look chaotic-creative. Statues, colourful columns, onion-shapes domes, stone balls, mosaics and many more items are present. The windows are irregular, "grown" openings, and each apartment is marked by a differently coloured facade. Except for the pre-fabricated staircase window zone, straight lines have been avoided systematically. Quoting from the tri-language booklet issued by the group of tenants: "Naturally, those who only look at things with the eyes of an accountant or an academic architect will probably just shake their heads.... Not one of the 52 apartments is like another.... All edges and corners in theroom s are irregularly rounded off,... Attention has been paid tosuc h details aswate rtaps ,bathroo m fittings, door handles and window fittings, which are different from room to room and from apartment to

126 apartment to ensure that monotony never prevails. The light fixtures in the passages and stairways are also all different. One can never say two lights that are the same at the same time. ... Each tenant had his own personal motive for applying for an apartment in the Hundertwasser House ... Sofa r it is unknown for anyone to haveregrette d his choice. The tone arising from many interviews is that living in the Hundertwasser House has changed most of their lives. They are happy to live in the town once more, have a closer relationship to Nature (! - AK) and are happy every time they re-enter the house" (Hametner &Melzer , 1988,p.49-54) .

As it will not be possible for the auditorium to form an opinion just after seeing a few slides, I will not comment more on the political and architectural controversy over the house in detail. Opinions range from the positive almost propagandist attitude you have just heard, to"anarchisti c act of construction", "fantasy castle","Th e Eighth Wondero f the World" or "garden dwarf architecture". The ambivalence-arousing protest architecture of Hundertwasser is a compact symbol for ecologistic, radically individualistic, neo-romantic and mystic attitudes prevalent in (orrepresse d by) Austrian society nowadays. Tome , it is need, ideology, and deception, all at the same time, which seems tohav eprovoke d another nickname -"clow n architecture".

A second "clown house" by painter Arik Bauer is nearing completion in another Vienna district. As I am not so sure as the tenants who write the booklet that the "Hundertwasser house" fulfils every need of modern city dwellers close to divine perfection, I found the idea of one of our students, Judith Pratscher, very interesting. She wants to explore in a kind of Post-Occupancy Evaluation the thoughts and feelings of "Hundertwasser House" tenants in 1989, four years after the house opened, and after the calming down of world wide media interest. Afirs t fact shereporte d from the study-in-progress is that (apparently) few or no tenants want tore-desig n orre-decorat e the artwork interior architecture, so that the dynamic intent of Hundertwasser's manifestos resulted in static preservation attempts of "the Master's right tocreate "(Pratscher , 1989).

~~Example two -"Ful l architecture", Vienna~~

Almost contrary to Hundertwasser's attempt to design "natural" habitats "from the belly", irrational and spontaneous, a team of scientists around a Vienna architect has tried a "strictly scientific way"toward s "natural"housin g and design. Theresearc h group's corei s architect Harry Glück, who wrote his doctoral thesis 1982 on "economic planning and construction concepts in mass housing" (Glück, 1982), the ethologists Eibl-Eibesfeldt and Hass, opinion researcher Gehmacher, and sociologist Freisitzer (Freisitzer & Glück, 1979; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Hass, Freisitzer, Gehmacher, & Glück, 1985). Reviewing the history of social housing projects and.discussin g housing needs from a biological perspective, they created the "full housing concept". A few programmatic sentences from Harry Glück (1985, p.161): "It is beyond doubt that human behaviour follows the laws of phylógenetic adaptation - or conditioning. This is particularly true for an elementary need as housing. ... (referring to Japanese Gardens:)... The nature contact, the prospect, the possibility of physical and social activities, access to water, identification and territorial affiliation, are the factors that make the difference in housing satisfaction between buildings that are barely more than hygienic shelters" - and "full housing' as master-planned fulfillment of the above biologically determined human wishes. Glück hopes to "reconcile the historical... and biological city-country conflict" by

127 " making the city inhabitable again" (p.161) . "Full" does not mean full-up in this context, but is used as a "brand mark", like in "full-grained wholemeal bread". Opposite to the emotional uproar of Hundertwasser' s manifestos, the Gliick-group argues in a scientific, however, biolologic-deterministic, way, and offers a social Utopia like the pre-Marx Utopian socialists Robert Owen and CharlesFourie r (1854,1840,cf . De Smet, 1987).

Abuildin g trying torealiz e these biosocial criteria of housing quality was realized between 1968 and 1985 at Alt-Erlaa, southern Vienna. It is a "residential park" of 2900 dwelling units for about 10.000 people, so-called "stapled one-family houses". The "park" consists of 22 to 27-floor concrete blocks in an inverted epsilon-shape, built in three rows, north- south orientated. Because of economic feasibility, infrastructure is rich and "full housing concept"-based: Rooftop swimming pools, saunas, green balconies, playgrounds, hobby halls in the "dark zones" of the epsilon buildings, etc.. Like Hundertwasser, the Glück group's concept stimulated aver y emotionalpubli c discussion. Critics-such as the Austrian Audit Office who found the project financially questionable-usually disliked the americanized way of living in a concrete satellite city with "bio-decoration". The Glück group launched arguments infavou r of theirplans , oneo f themproduce d by Gehmacher (a group member) and his opinion researchers. They found out that out of a sample of 3,009 Austrian residents of ten different types of housing, "only 'full housing' projects and compact low-rise housing get closer to the housing satisfaction that was postulated as criterion of a 'full normal standard'" (Gehmacher, 1988,p.18) . This sounds reasonable and precise, but is not. Housing satisfaction was operationalized as response to a five-point school note scale, disregarding most salient qualitative components, and the "full normal standard"wa s arbitrarily set at"abov e mark2" .

What was also disregarded by the researchers was the fact that fierce criticism of the Alt- Erlaa project had caused the residents voluntarily living there to show what psycholanalysts would call a "reaction formation": "It is OK where we are living, how can others know better?!" To overcome methodical one-eyedness, the group has meanwhile started interdisciplinary efforts integrating ethological field observations and medical tests (Freisitzer, Gehmacher, Kaufmann, Schober, Schiefenhüvel, & Grammer, 1988). Although this offers different views of the social phenomena going on in "ordinary" and "planned natural"housin g estates, the optics are still very narrow. Without qualitative, narrative data directly from the residents, housing "satisfaction polls", observations and blood pressure- measurements areonl y "objective"reconstruction s of everyday life conditions.

Glück has learned from problems in the satellite city, it seems, because his more recent "full housing" projects reach a maximum height of eight floors (plus roof top swimming pool). I have mentioned the "full housing" concept here, because it seems to be the very opposite of Hundertwasser's ideas-"natural sciences" versus "artwork"-but ends up in similar questions: How is "natural" defined? Is it a successful model, because people who live there say (or rate it) so? Vestbro (1989) reviewed a modernist housing experiment at Stockholm, Sweden, built in 1935, which, contrary to the Utopian plans of Markelius and Myrdal, "did not attract working class households. It was radical intellectuals who occupied the building,"kin do f torturing themselves for their ideals inrathe r small flats. As it is not really clear (or easily clarified) what "natural", "progressive", and "modern" is, processes of cognitive dissonance (Festinger) and coping within the population actively interested in new concepts should be taken into account. Evaluation research is not "automatically"producin g generalizable results.

~~128 Example three -A post-modern Natural SciencesFaculty , Salzburg~~

The newly-designed and -built Natural Sciences Faculty of Salzburg University at Salzburg-Freisaal, a roughly one billion Austrian Schillings complex, was opened in the fall of 1986. It immediately won the 1986 Architecture Award of the Federal Province of Salzburg and, in 1987, an Award by the Austrian Architects Association. The faculty has moved intoth ene w house from itsol d shelter in"provisional "prefa b barracks nearby.

The planning situation of the Freisaal Faculty was to find a transition between a more or less faceless residential area, and the Freisaal water castle, open meadows and a full view of Salzburg Castle. I will not cover the (politically) controversial planning history of the building, but concentrate on those parts of the "century building" that try to play with or symbolize "nature" as a local theme and as a necessary semiotic element of a Natural Sciences faculty: The transition form residential to recreational spaces is-from east to west-opened by a fountain yard, reaches a post-modern climax in a steel-glass central assembly hall with free-rising stairs and "show green-houses", and gets "more open ..., detailed, playful" with an open-air arena and a pond adjacent to the Freisaal meadows (quotations from official building descriptions; Keul, 1988). The planners particularly emphasized the ecological value of the new complex, which offered "true living spaces". To compare architectural and userperspectives , across-sectiona l six-methodpost-occupanc y evaluation was donei n 1987/88. It used a questionnaire survey on architectonical denotations and connotations (personnel, students, and faculty visitors), the Franke semantic differential (Klockhaus, 1975), sporadic and day-profile observations of user behaviour, student diaries on building use, a student orientation questionnaire survey, a mental map test/re-test, and a trace analysis ("personalization") of the ten institute areas.Summin g up the complex results ina few simple sentences, it became clear that the team of architects had solved the transition problem "civilization - nature" by formally elegant, post-modern and monumental elements, enthusiastically praised by other architects or art critics (e.g. Schneider, 1986), butperceptionall y ambivalent and somewhat dysfunctional toeveryda y users.Fo r instance, the giant central hall with the Alvar Aalto stairs and the north and south "show green houses" received positive denotations and connotations in the user questionnaire-"nice greenhouses, representation, sunny"-as well as harsh criticism - "negative, sterile atmosphere, narrow stairs, closed greenhouses". Students complained of a "Sleeping Beauty Syndrome" and felt locked out of the tropical, lush greenhouse into a cold, empty railway station hall, devoid of life but marble-covered. They did not like that between the east entrance and the west stairs into the garden, only a solitary palm tree in a container decorated the accessible area. Asth e greenhouse was not designed for "public use",bu t for show purposes, the conflict will not be resolved easily. In contrast to rather ambivalent feelings about the building core, the western part (including the pond and other open spaces) produced mostly positive statements: "experiment, life quality, nature, green, nice pond, relaxation". This is in line with study results of Wheeler (1972) on American university campuses. The preferred physical components were: "high level of visual and spatial variety, varied architectural styles, rural character much preferred to urban, spaciousness, openness, greenery, landscape very important" (cf. Rapoport, 1977,p.73 ; italicsAK) .

~~Even if wekee p in mind that amoder n faculty building should alsohav e the atmosphere of an important administrative center, the solution of symbolizing "Natural Sciences" by~~

129 exotic plants and turtles behind zoo window panes might be a post-modern idea of high inspirational value, but emphasizes feelings of alienation between students and "nature", making the "central contact area" an unwanted place (which is corroborated by results of the user behaviour observations). Users-especially young students-prefer tangible to exhibited "nature".

~~Lessons to belearne d for "natural"desig n~~

From the three examples presented so far, several insights into Austrian design practice of "natural"environment s in urban architecture can bederived : Similar as for the terminus "nature" itself, "natural elements" in housing, public or semi- public areas are a result of culturally determined perception, emotion and value systems projected onto a physical and biological substratum. When Hundertwasser, Gluöck or Holzbauer (the Freisaal chief architect) design "green" architectural elements, they are guided by partly conscious individual and/or cultural ideals of nature. Boesch (1976) calls those imaginary, symbol-producing roots "phantasms". "Nature phantasms" in planning give similar results as in diagnostic production tests of clinical/depth psychology. When asked to describe what they have done, and to justify it, planners usually concentrate on particular positions.I tca n be theresul t of goodhermeneutic s toamplif y planner statements and shows important side aspects, or even unmask a building description as a simple rationalization of a completely different content effective on a sensitive user. What has been done internationally under the term of "post-occupancy evaluation" (see Preiser, Rabinowitz, & White, 1988; criticism: Keul, 1989), ranges from a mere economical- technical efficiency control to a hull hermeneutic approach, but the cultural perspective is not too often included. When planning a "natural" landscape, or re-designing a given one, biological, individual and socialissue s should counterbalance each other.

Example one, the "Hundertwasser House", shows radical ecologistic individualism, but rather immature social concern. The "divine plan of creativity" is all, democratic discussion is only possible within the system, re-design of "natural" structures is ideologically encouraged, butpracticall y non-existent. The Glück project, example two, shows a different approach, but a similar outcome. Biologistic technology or "biosociology" is used deductively to create a Walden Two-like master plan, a grid for social activities to form later on "naturally". The social perspective is narrowed onto biodeterminism, so that problems with vandalism etc. appear only as results of imperfect "natural wish fulfillment".

It is always the same problem with large Utopian ideas-individual utopie ideas have to be integrated into the narcissistic grandiosity of the "big utopist"-or crushed. Image a tenant who-after reading the "mouldy manifesto"-literally scrapes off Hundertwasser's facade colours around his own apartment window. Itwoul db e afunn y and tragic experiment... Or, imagine a tenant at Alt-Erlaa who-after reading about "innate basic human needs" for plants and waterfronts-decided that the rooftop swimming-pool and the concrete brushwood container of his balcony are notenoug h for his own Cro-Magnon instincts, and turns to more "natural" re-design... By subordinating nature to architecture ("trees to fill the gap") orarchitectur e tonature , the social context isonl y touched.

130 It is the main thesis of this paper that the "nature controversy" in urban design cannot be uncoupled from political and economic reality in a given society without leading to absurdities.Fo r the average user of urban architecture,fightin g for more"nature"- a garden, a big tree, flower-pots, etc.-may be (but not always is) a Freudian "shift" of deep-rooted dissatisfaction with his/her living conditions and with political reality towards a tangible, sensible, changeable area, where his/her feelings are acted out symbolically. Powerlessness and frustration stimulate the "nature phantasms". However, weakness and alienation continue. Afin e example of this thought is the Klaus Pitter cartoon (1986)

~~fifie^t^~~

~~Fig. 1. KlausPitter cartoon • "Ithink theboss is growing old..."~~

For planners and political powerholders, installing "nature" in urban areas in the form of green side-scenes is a way of stabilizing the system by aesthesizing it. A reduction of ecological debates to an aesthetic or krypto-religious dimension (a tendency noticeable in the writings of Lorenz' pupil Lötsch, e.g. 1989, and others) or to abstract culture criticism (Sedlmayr, 1948, and others), does not provide the necessary solutions. To demonize technology and cry for more beauty receptors against "soul blindness" (Lorenz) is a reactionary construction derived from the metaphysical connotations inherent in the word "nature". Instead of forming an ideology out of certain innate components of "nature" perceptions and"natural "behaviour , social self-organizing processes should beregarde d as balancing forced. The American "social design" movement (e.g. Sommer, 1983) and architects interested in spontaneous, "naive", collective design attempts have already pointed into this direction. It is said that the "urban planner", the "garden architect" or "landscape designer" are professions resulting from the division of labour in western civilization and efforts should be made to encourage people to do such things themselves in their "post-industrial"leisur e hours orholiday s (e.g.Andritsk y &Spitzer , 1981).

131 Iti s theide a of Spitzer (Andritsky &Spitzer , 1981,p.266-274 ) that the modern society has (subconsciously) carried on the old traditions of "garden/green spaces as triumph and power of man being over "wild nature'" which is symbolically expressed by geometric, exact shapes or idyllic-romanticizing views of "ideal" landscapes. "Nature" is the raw material for design processes and shaped according to the will and taste of the garden- "artist". Plants are called good or bad ("ill weeds"); exotic, solitary, bizarre samples are most appreciated. Economic presses and performance/efficiency-based thinking reduce natural "products" to merchandise. Abstract socialization processes introduce nature surrogates, "media nature", two-dimensional reality. Under the main notions of "ecological" and "dialectic shaping", Spitzer advocates an emancipatory shift of environmental aesthetics towards experiencing, interacting with, and learning from natural processes.H e quotes the"wil d gardens"o f LouisL e Roy in theNetherlands .

Theproble m with Utopianprogramme s which are notmaster-planne d blue-prints,usin g the ecological and radical democratic approach, such as Spitzer, is that practically all cultural objectifications are against this view of "nature". According to law, "nature" (a plant, a fruit, a meadow) is merchandise, and it is traded and used according to political and economic power structures. Consequently, people who have internalized the main value structures of their society never form object relations with greater intensity towards anonymous "nature objects" (such as a strip of grass with flowers along a street), but try to possess such objects safely in their personal space (flat, house, private garden) and "personalize" them there, protected by law and order. While "nowhere land" parts of nature are vandalized or exploited where they haveremaine d in urban environment, legally protected "nature"i sdecorate d with garden dwarfs andcultivate d affectionately.

A reason for troubles with alternative ideas and projects seems to be the inability of individuals and society to change this "me/not-me" or "private/public" scheme, "possession phantasms" overlapping with "nature phantasms". Environmental psychologists who have studied this conflict area (e.g. Fietkau, 1988; Spada, in press) under the headline of "environmental consciousness" found it to be a complex one. "Ecologically positive behaviour is not built and stabilized by the shaping of ecological value orientations alone ... but (by) behaviour-relevant ecological knowledge, ... material and ideal stimuli for behaviour ... by making behaviour consequences visible/tangible ... and by creating an available infrastructure" (Fietkau, 1988, p.811). It is high time to develop structures for urban "natural" spaces that last longer than the fame of the planner oreconomica l benefits.

~~REFERENCES~~

~~M.Andritzk y -K . Spitzer (Hg.);Gruö n inde r Stadt,Rowohlt , Reinbek/Hamburg 1981~~

~~E.E. Boesch;Psychopathologi e des Alltags,Huber , Bern 1976~~

~~W.Brugger ; Philosphisches Wurterbuch,Herder ,Freiburg/Breisga u 1967~~

~~R.D e Smet;Wohne n inWien ,Europalia-Katalog , Wien 1987~~

~~132 I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt - H. Hass - K. Freisitzer - E. Gehmacher - H. Gluöck; Stadt und Lebensqualität, Oesterreichischer Bundesverlag,Wie n 1985~~

~~HJ. Fietkau; Umweltpsychologie in: R. Asanger - G. Wenninger; Handwürterbuch der Psychologie,Psychologi e VerlagsUnion , Mönchen 1988,p.808-81 2~~

K. Freisitzer - E. Gehmacher - A. Kaufmann - S. Schober - W. Schiefenhüvel - K. Grammer; Interdisziplinäre Methoden und Vergleichsgrundlagen zur Erfassung der Wöhnzufriedenheit, Institutfö r Stadtforschung, Wien 1988

~~K.Freisitze r -H .Glöck ; Sozialer Wohnbau, Molden, Wien 1979~~

~~E. Gehmacher; VolwertigesWohnen , Teil 1 -Ergebnisse ,EFES , Wien 1988~~

~~H. Glöck; Hüherwertige Alternativen im Massenwohnbau durch wirtschaftliche Planungs und Konstruktionskonzepte, Dissertation TUInnsbruck , 1982~~

~~H. Glöck;Stadt und Lebensqualität in: I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt et al.; Stadt und Lebensqualität, Oesterreichischer Bundesverlag, Wien 1985,p.95-16 2~~

~~K.Hametne r -W Melzer; Hundertwasser-Haus, Orac,Wie n 1988~~

~~W. Schurian (Hg.); Friedensreich Hundertwasser: Schüne Wege, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag,Mönche n 1983- include s Verschimmelungsmanifest andLo s von Loos~~

~~A.G. Keul; Zur Oekopsychologie eines Salzburger Universitätsneubaus, Psychologie in Oesterreich, 8,4, (1988),p.128-13 5~~

~~A. Keul; Auftragsforschung ohne Theorie? - Zum methodologischen Dilemma der "Post- Occupancy Evaluations",Vortra gTöbingen , 11.5.1989,unpublishe d~~

~~G. Klaus - M. Buhr; Marxistisch-leninistisches Wüorterbuch der Philosophie, Rowohlt, Reinbek/Hamburg 1972~~

~~R. Klockhaus;Einstellun g zurWohnumgebung ,Hogrefe , Güottingen 1975~~

~~B.Lutsch ;De rStrei tum da s Schüne,De rArchitekt , 2/1989,p.84-9 1~~

~~Nachtstudio, ORF (Austrian Radio andTelevision) ;"Abou t Nature",8.5.198 9~~

~~K.Pitter ; Notstände,Promedia , Wien 1986~~

~~J.Pratscher ; Personal communication, Spring 1989~~

~~W.F.E.Preise r -H.Z . Rabinowitz -E.T .White ; Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Van Nostrand, New York 1988~~

~~A.Rapoport ; Human Aspects of Urban Form,Pergamon , Oxford 1977~~

~~133 G. Schneider;Primadonn a Pardiana, SalzburgerNachrichten , Salzburg4./5.10.1986 ,p.2 1~~

~~H. Sedlmayr; Der Verlust derMitte , 1948~~

~~R. Sommer; Social Design,Prentice-Hall ,Englewoo d Cliffs, N.J. 1983~~

~~H. Spada; Umweltbewusstsein in: L. Kruse et al.; Oekopsychologie, Urban & Schwarzenberg, Mönchen,i n press~~

~~D.U. Vestbro; History of Collective Housing in Sweden, paper, Wohnbund-Kongress, Hamburg, 5.-9.4.1989~~

~~134 6 ECOLOGICAL "CASE STUDIES'~~

"Modern man - in spite of his scientific and technological achievements - is still a biological creature and his existence is dependent on the viability of natural and agricultural bio-ecosystems. Therefore, also his techno-ecosystems also cannot survive without the biosphere, and their unrestricted growth is endangering not only the biosphere but also the technosphere. Asdependen tpart s of nature andit secologica l holarchy, we are biological creatures. But as independent wholes we tend to behave with the punishable hubris of human arrogance and ignorance.W ehav e torealiz e that not only our materialistic demands and expectations, but also our unrestrained scientific and technological knowledge, power, and skill still far exceed our ecological knowledge, wisdom and environmental ethics."

~~Z. Naveh~~

~~135 "A fool sees not the same tree that awis e man sees."~~

~~William Blake~~

~~("The Marriage ofHeave n andHell , from "Proverbs of Hell")~~

~~CONFLICT IN THE CAIRNGORMS: CONTRASTING ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE USE OFTH E MOUNTAINS~~

~~R. Goodier~~

~~1. Introduction~~

In 1981 apubli c inquiry tookplac e into aproposa l toexten d ski facilities in the Cairngorm Mountains of Scotland into a hitherto undeveloped area, Lurchers Gully and the Northern Carries, which mobilizedpubli c opinion on the appropriate use of mountain areas in awa y that hadneve r been achieved before.

The 1982 decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland pronounced against the development asthe n proposed, but did notunequivocall y rule out somefutur e expansiono f ski development within the contested area. In 1988 new development proposals for the Northern Corries emerged which have precipitated a renewed and unprecedented level of public debateo n the issues at stake.Th eleve l of the current debatereflect s theevolutio no f public attitudes towards environmental issues during the present decade and the present paper uses this as an opportunity to examine these current attitudes as exemplified in the arguments for andagains t thepresen t development proposals. /

~~2. The Landscape~~

~~The character of the Cairngorms isparticularl y well conveyed by the description given by the Scottish mountaineer, W.H. Murray:~~

"At a first sight they appear as a featureless mass.Th e flat tops and slopes lack distinctive shape. Our penetration to the interior changes that impression. Their eastern and northern faces are carved into great corries in which dark lochans are ringed by cliffs. The corries spread in ranges along the faces. Nowhere (in Scotland) outside Skye can be found so many or such variety within a like area... The wastes of shattered stone on the summit plateaux form the biggest area of high ground in Britain. Their appeal is not an obvious one. In the act of exploring them the immense scale on which the scene is set is gradually revealed, and this, with the vast corries, the massif slopes, the long passes, the wide skies, and the very bareness of the ground, where the elements work with a power not known at lower altitudes, gives to theseplateau x their distinctive quality - a majesty great enough to cast aspel l onman' s mind." (Murray 1962).

~~The Northern Corries fringe the central plateau of the Cairngorm massif, from whichrises its highest peak,Be n Macdhui,th e second highest mountain in Scotland.~~

~~3. The Antagonists~~

The new ski development proposals are supported by the Cairngorm Chairlift Company and its public agency landowner, the Highlands and Islands Development Board (HIDB), the Highland Regional Council, the Tourist Board, the Scottish Sports Council, and certain sectors of the skiing population.

139 The development is opposed by a consortium of voluntary organizations representing wildlife and landscape conservation and recreational interests - the "Save the Cairngorms Campaign", which includes the influential Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the North-East Mountain Trust, and the two main government-sponsored conservation organizations, the Countryside Commission for Scotland (CCS), and the Nature Conservancy Council. This line-up of interest is almost identical to that engaged in the 1981publi c inquiry.

~~4.Perception s of thePropose d Development Area~~

None of the participants deny that the general area subject to the proposals contains features of a high environmental quality, but the level of value and significance attributed to it varies substantially. Thus, the HIDB (supported by the Chairlift Company) have argued that only a very small part of the Cairngorm area-about 1.3% -is occupied by existing ski grounds, and that the new developments would only increase this to 2.4%.Th e HIDB argue further that while the upper part of the Northern Corries (ie the Corries and cliffs themselves) is environmentally important this would not be affected, while the lower land to bedevelope d is"fairl y common highland land".

The environmental quality of the undeveloped area is, naturally, made much more of by those opposed to the development. The Countryside Commission for Scotland hold that "the Cairngorm's landscape of forest, corrie and plateau are of the highest quality, ranked by the Commission as aNationa l Scenic Area, and Glenmore (the northern approach to the Cairngorms terminating in the Northern Corries) provides the most accessible entry for tourists and for those involved in outdoor recreation toenjo y this scenery... the easy access to high ground and the quality of recreational resources have led to the Northern Corries and their immediate hinterland becoming a mountain recreation area used for a range of outdoor activities".

The "Save the Cairngorms Campaign", which was formed with the backing of many of Scotland's foremost voluntary conservation organizations, believes that the Northern Corries, including Lurchers Gully, is too important in scenic, recreational, scientific, and educational terms to allow the downhill ski development which is being planned for it. They draw attention to the November 1988 declaration by the International Union of Alpine Associations who identified the Cairngorms as one of the five most important mountain areas inEurop e and Asia under threatfro m unsuitable development.

The Nature Conservancy Council, representing the science-based nature conservation interests, have emphasized both the intrinsic quality for nature conservation of the Northern Corries-particularly in relation to the relatively undisturbed sequence of near- natural habitats with their associated animals and plants-from the old pine forests to the mountain plateau, and also the damage which would be caused to the integrity of the Cairngorm massif as a whole by the development of the Northern Corries for mechanized skiing. They argued that the Cairngorms are the most important mountain area for nature conservation in Britain. Theyjudg e theful l succession of natural communities from natural pine woodland to high altitude fell-field to be outstanding. They also point out that the international interest of the Cairngorms has been attested in a number of ways. The World Conservation Strategy identified the ScottishHighland s as an area wherepriorit y should be

140 given to the protection of its biogeographical features. Two World Wilderness Congress resolutions urged more effective protection measures for the Cairngorm area, and Scottish Ministers are currently considering the possible nomination of the Cairngorms area as a WorldHeritag e Site.

~~5.Th e Arguments~~

The arguments for the development case are based on the demand for additional skiing space evidenced by the crowding of the existing ski areas, the perception that the Cairngorm area is big enough to accommodate the new proposals and that, using current improved techniques, they can be constructed with minimal environmental damage in the least valuable part of theNorther n Conies for other interests. The benefits of development are seen in terms of improved quality of skiing. It is argued that the present congestion of the ski slopes "poses a threat of permanent damage to the reputation of Cairngorm and Scottish skiing". The HIDB argue that "that threat, and the steady growth in national demand, can only be met by an extension to the ski grounds" (HIDB 1988). The development into Lurchers Gully, it is suggested, "would increase slope capacity by 20% andrais e visitor spending to something like £14,07 million (from £12million) .

The "Save the Cairngorms Campaign"point s out thatn o matter how well ski development is carried out, it damages plant communities and other wildlife. They argue that western expansion (of the ski facilities) would also "cause conflict with the many present users of the area. The buildings, the miles of pylons, snow-fencing and roads would damage the areas scenic qualities irreparably and intrude massively into its wildness". They consider that this "would seriously reduce the balance and diversity of recreational opportunity in theNorthe r Conies andth ebroade r area of the GlenmoreForest s Park.Eventuall y it would be impossible to approach the northern face of the central Cairngorms without passing through a ski resort". In addition, the "Save the Cairngorms Campaign" argues that it would "damage the educational and training value of the area, not least because it would damage the wild setting in which it presently takes place and which helps to make it effective", and that by causing this it would intensify the pressures on the more remote interior of the Cairngorms, both by displacing existing activities from the Northern Conies and by creating additional access routes. They finally argue that the Northern Conies are "an integral part of the Cairngorms which cannot be properly understood without also understanding that gradation of the landforms, wildlife and vegetation with altitude and of which the Northern Conies furnish the best example. Damage to the Northern Conies is thus significant damage toth eoveral l integrity of the Cairngorms".

The Countryside Commission for Scotland identifies the key landscape issue as "whether the development zone of the existing leased area (from the HIDB to the Chairlift Company) should be allowed to extend westward beyond the present containing ridge of the Fiacaill a Choire Cas." They acknowledge the improvement in the quality of development on Scottish ski fields over the years, but conclude that "whatever the case in design and implementation, and extension to the existing development cannot be achieved without materially altering the ambiance of the western sector of the Northern Conies amphitheatre". Speaking of the Glenmore and Northern Conies as a whole they stress that "the issues here are not the facts of change, but the quality of change and the continued losses toth e natural qualities of alandscap e of very high quality".

141 The Nature Conservancy Council has stressed the relevance, to the present proposals, of the conclusions that "it had been established that the Cairngorms were of national and international significance for the natural sciences and nature conservation and that the scientific interest of the Cairngorms as a whole is more important than it's individual parts". In announcing his decision against the 1981 proposal, the Secretary of State for Scotland accepted thereporter' s conclusion that the "site of the proposed development was of outstanding scientific, scenic and recreational importance" and agreed with the reporter that "the scheme would change the character of the site and diminish the qualities which are the basis of its importance beyond the measure which the benefits would justify". The NCCpoin t to arecen t assessment of thegeomorphologica l features of theNorther n Corries which concludes that "the transect from the plateau of Cairn Lochan (down) through the Northern Corries to the Glenmore basin provides a geomorphological transect of national and, in some respects international significance" and that this is accompanied by a mosaic and altitudinal zonation of plant communities with changing altitude andexposur e which is not duplicated elsewhere inth e Cairngorms.

~~6. Contrasting Attitudes~~

In this brief account of theCurren t debate Ihav e not attempted to explain the details of the development proposals or of the impact assessments which have been made and upon which the participants in the debate have based their conclusions. The proponents of development consider that their current proposals would have significantly less impact than those rejected by the Secretary of State following the 1981 Public Inquiry. The opposition judge them to be very similar and equally worthy of rejection on the basis of arguments which werefull y examined in 1981.

The current case for development has been much more carefully prepared than in 1981 when much of the evidence supporting the development, and attempting to minimize its impact, was uncon-vincingly presented. The arguments based on growth in demand resulting in periodic overcrowding of the existing facilities are being much more strongly made, and the viewpoint of the opposition is being implied as selfish in contrast to that of the developers whose linei s that"w e only want alittl emor e land for development and will willingly grant you all the rest". However, perhaps rather strangely in view of the experience of the 1981inquiry , it appears that the developers have again been taken rather by surprise at theexten t andintensit y of the opposition to their proposals.Likewise , among the opponents to the development there is some surprise that the developers should show such insensitivity as to persist with aproposa l that is so similar to that rejected in 1981 in an area of such high environmental quality.

That there should be such a dichotomy of perspective is not, of course, surprising because one is, generally speaking, dealing on the one hand with a development culture and on the other with a conservation culture and although, in Britain, these distinctions are not as sharp as they used to be they are still clearly distinguishable in Scotland. The tourism and recreation industry still appear to view the landscape primarily as a resource to be exploited rather than a basic heritage to be safeguarded. Of the three government agencies which have some out in favour of the development proposals, the Scottish Sports Council and the Tourist Board still appear particularly immune to the growth of environmental awareness over thepas t decade. At the time of the 1981publi c inquiry the Chairman of the latter likened the landscape of the Northern Corries to the surface of the moon (a

~~142 comparison notintende d asa compliment) .~~

~~7. Discussion~~

Having briefly outlined the arguments, some consideration will now be given to the character of these arguments rather than tothei r detailedconten t in the context of the often- expressed need for an appropriate ethic, based on a more holistic appreciation of what comprises theenvironment , onwhic h tofoun d arespons e toecologicall y defined issues.

In this connection there has been anongoin g debate inrecen t years as to what constitutes a "deep" as opposed to "shallow" ecological perspective. The distinction between these two positions was initially defined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in a paper published in 1973 and elaborated in a series of parallel maxims in a more recent paper published in 1986.

~~143 'Shallow Ecology" "Deep Ecology"~~

~~Natural diversity is valuable Natural diversity has its own asa resourc e for us. (intrinsic) value.~~

~~Iti s nonsense total k about Equatingvalu e with value for value except asvalu e for humans reveals aracia l mankind. prejudice.~~

~~Plant species should be saved Plant species should be saved because of their value as because of their intrinsic geneticreserve s for human value. agriculture and medicine.~~

~~Pollution should be decreased Decrease ofpollutio n has if itthreaten s economic priority over economic growth. growth.~~

Third Worldpopulatio n growth Worldpopulatio n atth epresen t threatens ecological equili level threatens ecosystems but brium. thepopulatio n and behaviouro f industrial states moretha n that of any others.Huma n population is today excessive.

~~"Resource"mean s resource for "Resource"mean s resource for humans. livingbeings .~~

~~People willno ttolerat ea People should nottolerat ea broaddecreas e in their broaddecreas e inth e quality standards of living. of life but inth e standard of living in overdeveloped countries.~~

~~Nature is cruel and Man iscrue l butno t necessarily so. necessarily so.~~

~~[From Naess 1986]~~

Whether we agree with the form of distinctions made in this dichotomy or not (and Naess emphasizes the provisional nature of the formulation), it certainly strikes a chord of recognition in those who are working in the resource management andconservatio n fields. The "shallow"positio n isth e traditional stance of those trying toameliorat e adverse effects of development and influence politicians, and those of us who have been educated and have worked within this tradition will generally argue for itsrealism . Its statements havea n objectivity that is more appealing to the scientist in us. To which a proponent of the "deeper" position will probably respond by arguing that the shallow position is merely

144 temporizing and that while it may win afe w battles it will undoubtedly lose the war. This is not an easy argument for anyone working in the conservation field to counter as we are conscious that soofte n victory consists in maintaining the status quo, and sometimes not as much as that, even not losing as much as we feared. More fundamentally the adherent of the deeper position may argue that the shallow position is quite often the public face of those, including many experts, who in their hearts subscribe to the deeper ecological principles. Naess would also claim that it is the duty of the expert, as citizen, to attempt articulation of these deeper concerns (1989).

If we compare the Northern Corries arguments quoted above with these maxims, we recognize that they are generally more closely related to the shallower than the deeper position, being firmly utilitarian and anthropocentric. They share this with most public expositions of conservation policy, such as "World Conservation Strategy" (1980), published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Nevertheless, as we have seen, arguments couched in this way can win -a s they did atth e 1981publi c inquiry.

However, two statements from the recent published cases by the two government conservation agencies do seem to reflect a move towards a deeper, if still not deep, ecological stance. Thus the Chairman of the CCS,i n his preface to theforma l submission, concludes that "development in this area (the Northern Corries) would mean an irreparable loss for both present and future generations who depend on these mountains for a very special kind of enjoyment, inspiration, challenge and self discovery. Webeliev e the greater public good would best be served byretainin g thewil d grandeur of theNorther n Corrieso f the Cairngorms".

~~TheNatur e Conservancy Council conclude their submission with the following paragraph:~~

"Nature conservation is concerned with the conservation of the elements of nature within particular localities, regionally and globally, but it is also concerned with preserving the opportunities for the high quality experience of nature. While the scientist may require the conservation of the wildlife community and the genetic diversity it contains for the value it has for science and future human welfare, the naturalist and members of the general public are concerned to ensure the preservation of the invaluable human experience that the perception of unspoilt nature can provide. Increasingly this is becoming a matter of concern, both to the specialist and tomember s of the general public alike, as aresul t of the awareness of theconsequence s of human intervention in the biosphere. There is increasing public condemnation of rain forest destruction and practices which lead to desertification to meet short term demand in tropical countries, and of environmentally detrimental industrial, agricultural and forestry practices in this country. There is widespread and growing public support to preserve the small but precious remnants of our high quality natural heritage against further attrition by any type of insensitive and destructive development, of which the proposals for the extension of ski development in the Northern Corries SSSIar e yet another example."

There are two phrases in these quoted submissions which are of particular note. The mention of "self discovery" in the first and of the "invaluable human experience that the perception of unspoilt nature can provide" in the second. Both of these indicate relationships to the environment which require going beyond the shallow ecological paradigm for their explication, this is not to say that either of these two statements

145 represent a conscious transition towards a "deeper" ecological position, rather do they suggest the influence of the "greening" of environmental awareness among the wider population which appears to reflect intuitions which are closer to the "deeper" than the "shallow" ecological stance. The conflict of interest described in this paper has not yet been resolved and it will be interesting to see how the arguments on both sides develop in themonth s ahead.

~~REFERENCES~~

~~Countryside Commission for Scotland 1985. Skiing at Cairngorm: A policy paper. Countryside Commission for Scotland. Perth.~~

~~Highlands and Islands Development Board 1988. The Living Land: Achieving a balance, Inverness.~~

~~Naess, A. 1973.Th e Shallow and the Deep Long Range Ecology Movement: A Summary Inquiry 16,95 100.~~

~~Naess, A. 1976. Identification as a source of deep ecological attitudes. In Tobias (ed). "Deep Ecology".~~

~~Naess, A. 1989.ECOSophy : Ah Attempt to Combine Philosophy and Practice. In Ecology and Human Responsibility Conference, Edinburgh 1987. Centre for Human Ecology, Edinburgh.~~

~~Nature Conservancy Council 1989.Natur e conservation in the Cairngorms:Defens e of the Northern Corries.Edinburgh .~~

~~Save the Cairngorms Campaign 1988.Th e Cairngorms are under threat again. Bulletin No. 1.Inverness .~~

~~146 POACHING INMURCHISO N FALLSNATIONA LPARK ,UGAND A~~

~~Michael Oneka~~

~~Introduction~~

Poaching (illegal hunting and fishing) has been a major management problem in Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP) since its inception in 1952. Most of the poachers came from the park surroundings and the main strategy to counter them has been a para military confrontation by park rangers (anti-poaching) patrols. Hunting and fishing in this region pre-date the park (Willock 1964; Aerni 1969) but their effects on big game became clear only recently (Laws, Parker and Johnstone 1975; Malpas 1978). Harassment by people restricted seasonal migration of the animals and confined them to thepar k (Brooks and Buss 1962). Wildlife attracted many tourists and brought in a lot of foreign currency (Jahnke 1972; Laws et al 1975). Since 1983 there has, however, been political instability, civil wars, and a decline in law and order with an increase in guns amongst local people. Poaching increased and decimated the elephant Loxodonta africana (Blumenbach) population and may have exterminated rhinoceroses, Diceros bicornis (L) and Ceratotherium simum (Burchell), in Uganda (Laws et al 1975; Eltringham and Malpas 1980;Malpa s 1980;Malpa s 1980;Edrom a 1984;Kayanj a andDouglas-Hamilto n 1985).

This study of poaching in Murchison Falls National Park wasconducte d in 1984.Thi s was a year of relative stability in Uganda, and the only one for which there were fairly complete and consistent records on poaching in the park since the 1979 war. It was possible to interview some poachers and to verify some of the information in the park records.

~~Objectives~~

~~'Thi s study wasundertake n to:~~

~~1. examine the spatial andtempora l differentiation ofpoachin g andrange rpatrol s in thepark ;~~

~~2. analyze thepopulatio n structure (sex,age ,occupation , education level, origin)o f thepoachers ;~~

~~3. assess theeffectivenes s of therange rpatrol s in conserving wildlife in the area;~~

~~4. explore thepossibilit y of using sucheasil y obtainablepar kdat a aspatro lrecord s in park management.~~

~~StudyAre a~~

Murchison Falls National Part (Figure 1) covers 3860 sq.km dominated by Hyparrhenia grasslands and undulating terrain (ca. 800m .asl.) .Ther e are several streams and rivers,th e watersheds ofwhic hhav ebee nuse dt odivid eth epar kint o8 easil y identifiable zones

~~147 (Figure 1).Th e climate is characterized by a bi-modal rainfall pattern with peaks in April- May and August-November. The dry seasons areDecember-Marc h andJune-July .~~

The park was administered from Paraa and Chobe with the help of about 16 outposts located at strategic positions in the park. A string of important human settlements (Dima, Kamdini, Karuma, Olwiyo, Pakwach, Panyimur, and Wanseko) existed along the park boundaries (Figure 1). Most of the people subsisted on farming and fishing (Aerni 1969; Wheather 1968).

~~BUNYORO~~

~~LEGEND~~

~~— Parkboundar y "—^' Waterfall s — Poaching zoneboundar y MF MurchisonFall s • Park Headquarters NABNil eabov eFall s o Human settlements NBFNil ebelo wFall s~~

~~Fig. 1. Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda.~~

~~148 Methods~~

All known poaching and anti-poaching patrols in thepar k wereplotte d in the zones (Figure 1) in which they took place. Patrol (date, place, number of rangers involved), poaching offence (hunting, fishing) and its intensity (number of poachers, type and number of animals killed, hunting or fishing gear used) were obtained from patrol and other park records. The poaching and patrol were expressed in terms of amount per unit-area (25 sq.km supposedly patrolled by onerange r in thepark) .

~~At Paraa and Chobe, records on the poachers (sex, home place, and exhibits) were examined. Some of these poachers were interviewed to find out their age, level of education andreason s for poaching.~~

~~Someoccasiona l observations were alsomad ei n thepar k neighbourhood.~~

~~Results~~

Most (59.5%) of the animals that died were killed by poachers (Table 1). Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius L.), buffalo (Syncerus caffer Sparrman), warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus Pallas) and kob (Kobus kob Neuman) were themos t poached. Animals which were destroyed (killed by themanagement ) often had lethal injuries caused by the poachers. Other animals also affected were hartebeest (Alcelaphus bucephalus Pallas), waterbuck (Kobus defassa Pallas), elephant, oribi (Ourebia ourebi Zimmermann), baboon (Papio anubis J.P. Fischer), pangolin (Uromanis longicaudata), leopard (Panthera pardus L.), rhinoceros, bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus Pallas), crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) andgiraff e (Giraffa camelopardalis Lydekker).

For most of the animals affected the gun was the most important (31.2%) hunting gear used (Table 2). Snares, traps, and ditches were common along the boundaries. The snares detected increased with the increase of patrols but thick vegetation may have concealed some.Ditche s were especially common where hippopotami grazed. The use of dogs,traps , nets, and fire in hunting was still widespread amongst the local people as described by Aerni (1969), but was not prominent in poaching. Early in the dry season local people set fires outside park boundaries to get lush forage regrowth. This was to attract game to where it could be killed outside park control. Within the park itself the poachers often avoided starting fires. Poisoning the animals as described by Edroma (1973) was not observed.

Patrols were few, irregular, and unevenly spread, whereas poaching was widespread and occurred throughout the whole year, with apea k in the dry season (Table 3 andFigur e 2). Known cases of poaching increased with the increase in patrols (Table 3). Rangers at Chobe detected and recorded some of thepoachin g across the Nile,bu t when rangers were stationed there the known cases more than trebled. Reports made by mobile ranger-patrols confirmed the seriousness of the poaching problem south of the Nile in rather sharp contrast toreport s from rangers stationed in theWaig a zone (Figure 1).

Patrols were fewest during September-December when the park had acute financial problems. Monthly subventions were late and very few tourists came, so that wages, dry rations, drugs, and vehicle maintenance were affected. Few patrols werepossibl e and most

~~149 Table 1. Schedule of known causes of animal deaths in Murchison Falls National Park, 1984~~

~~Percentage of animals~~

~~Species Number* Poached Preyed Natural Destroyed+~~

Hippopotamus 89 82.2 0.0 12.3 1.1 Buffalo 84 62.4 24.0 12.0 2.4 Kob 44 41.4 55.2 4.6 0.0 Warthog 26 57.0 41.8 0.0 0.0 Waterbuck 13 38.5 53.9 7.7 0.0 Hartebeest 13 15.4 77.0 7.7 0.0 Oribi 9 0.0 88.9 11.1 0.0 Elephant 5 60.0 0.0 40.0 33.3 Baboon 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 Pangolin 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Leopard 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rhinoceros 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bushbuck 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crocodile 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Giraffe 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Mean (293) 59.5 27.2 11.2 1.7

* Total number of animalsknow n dead + Animals destroyed were those killed by management because of, for example, bad wounds.

~~Table 2. Hunting gear known to have been used in poaching in Murchison Falls National Park, 1984~~

~~Percentagekille db y~~

~~Species Number Gun Spear Snare Others Unspecified~~

Hippopotamus 65 27.7 12.3 1.5 1.5 56.9 Buffalo 57 17.5 12.3 8.8 0.0 61.4 Kob 22 59.1 9.1 13.6 0.0 18.2 Warthog 15 46.7 6.7 6.7 0.0 20.0 Waterbuck 5 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 Hartebeest 4 50.0 0.0 O.O 0.0 25.0 Elephant 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 Mean - 31.2 11.8 5.9 0.6 48.8

~~150 Table 3. Known distribution of poaching and ranger patrols in Murchison Falls National Park, 1984~~

~~Intensity*o f~~

~~Zone Area(%) %Patro l Patrol Poaching~~

Ayago 6.8 18.9 4.3 24.0 Buligi 6.1 4.5 1.3 4.7 Chopi 4.6 13.6 19.7 64.4 NileAb .Fall s 27.6 15.1 6.9 33.4 Nile Be.Fall s 6.6 21.5 5.6 28.6 Tangi 12.0 7.9 1.1 3.7 Waiga 24.7 2.3 0.2 0.4 Zoila 11.6 0.8 0.1 0.9 Unspecified - 6.0 - -

* Intensify refers to amountpe runi t area (25sq.km )

~~(21.5%) were in the zone Nile below Falls, resulting in most (73.6%) of the poacher arrests.~~

Virtually all thepoacher s weremal e (98.0%),age d between 20-40year s (81.7%),generall y redundant (81.4%), and noteducate d beyond primary school.Publi c servants accounted for a rather high proportion of the poachers (army 9.5%, game guards 2.6%, park rangers 1.5%, androa d workers 1.5%).Th emea n sizeo fpoache r groups was five, most (63.2%)o f whom were fishermen from Wanseko and Panyimur. The number of poachers from Acholi andLang owa smuc h loweran dmor e seasonaltha nfro m the aboveplaces .

~~Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec~~

~~Month Fig. 2. Poaching andranger patrols inMFNP1984.~~

~~151 Discussion~~

The irregular and uneven deployment of anti-poaching patrols was attributed to the lack of rangers, supplies (dry ration and drugs), serviceable transport (vehicles, spares and fuel), poor communication systems, and the inaccessibility of somepart s of thepark . Most of the patrols were deployed in the zones Ayago, Chopi, Nile above Falls, and Nile below Falls (Table 3) because of their greater accessibility. Due to their proximity to the ranger posts these areas alsoreceive d most of thepatrol s provoked byreport s of poaching.

Regular and intensivepatrol s in the zone Nilebelo w Falls were intended to curb crocodile poaching (Cott 1968; Willock 1964), although only 3.2% of the cases of poaching in the area concerned crocodiles. As many as 95.3% of the people arrested in this zone were those fishing illegally in park waters. There was easy money (fines, bribes, sale of confiscated canoes and nets) tob e made by the waterpatrols . The financial gains from this strategy might explain why it took up most of the patrol efforts, despite lack of evidence that this was curbing crocodilepoaching .

Reports of serious poaching south of the Nile correlate with the fall in animal numbers in the area (Malpas 1980). Contradictions between the reports of mobile ranger-patrols and those from rangers stationed inWaig aquestio n the suitability of the outpost strategy. Itwa s apparent that rangers at such remote camps, lacking supplies and supervision, soon lost morale and a sense of duty and compromised on poaching. A lot of poaching may have gone unrecorded in suchremote ,les spatrolle d areas.

Although guns and spears were often used together, the gun undoubtedly caused the most damage since more animals can be killed by fewer people. Snares and ditches were common along boundaries where poachers could control them most easily. These ditches and snares posed a silent but permanent threat to animal survival close to the boundaries. To avoid being detected poachers rarely used fire because the smoke could be seen from far away.Net s wererathe r expensive and bulky if the poachers had to flee. Poison was not used sincemos to f theanimal s werekille d toge tmea t for human consumption.

Many hippopotami were killed because they live close to water where they can be easily located. Buffaloes, on the other hand, formed larger and more aggressive herds under the increasing hunting pressure, so fewer werekilled . The warthogs were a speciality amongst local people. If such selective hunting continues some of the species might bewipe d out.

Most of thepoacher s were unemployed, able-bodied, poorly educated and, because hunting and fishing were very risky and vigorous occupations, most of the poachers were thus people with no means of subsistence for whom such risks were worth taking. Poaching by public servants was due to their poor work benefits and lack of appreciation of the need to preserve the animals. The detection of relatively high numbers'of poachers from Wanseko and Panyimur areas was due to heavy water-patrols. The number of poachers from Acholi and Lango was therefore probably much lower because of fewer patrols. However, the seasonality of poachers from these areas was the result of post-harvest, dry-season redundancy. These findings underline the importance of an overall economic development in the park surroundings in the context of regional development as proposed by Wheater (1968). Unless the areas surrounding the park appreciate and gain from it, they could remain amajo r management problem.

!52 A park-wide aerial patrol is essential for effective coverage of the large, inaccessible parts of thepark . The number and themobilit y of wardens andranger s needs tob e stepped upt o enable a combination of patrols based on mobile forces as well as outposts. In the long term, gunfight s need tob e gradually replaced byconservatio n education.

A review of some of the broader conservation strategies, such as game harvesting, seems necessary. Special considerations should be given to thepossibilitie s of gameranching , for which there seems to be an immense market. The present serious poaching and resulting low animal numbers, coupled with logistic and administrative difficulties, preclude any cropping programmes in the park. If animal numbers recover, however, sustainable harvesting of the animals as is being tried in West Africa (Bie and Geerling 1988) might need tob e given serious consideration.

~~There is anee d to better understand the socio-cultural aspects of thepoachin g problem and work out socially- andpolitically-acceptabl e strategies to control it.~~

The study has shown that well-coordinated ranger patrols could help make routine observations useful in management decisions. To be more effective for this purpose, the rangers need relevant basic training in data collection and their deployment needs to be moreeven *

~~Acknowledgements~~

The data were collected when the author was employed by the Uganda Institute of Ecology. Data collection was facilitated by the active cooperation of park wardens D. Okech, M. Batamazire, J. Otekat, E. Akena, and C. Mayongo. The final report has been prepared with support from the Nature Conservation Department of the Agricultural University, Wageningen. The comments of S. de Bie and C. Geerling at various stages of therepor t have beenver y useful.

~~REFERENCES~~

~~Aerni, MJ. (1969) Man and Wildlife in Uganda. A study of poaching and attitudes of the local inhabitants towards wildlife inUganda .Unpublishe d report toth eUgand a NationalParks .~~

Bie, S.d e &Geerling , C. (1988) Sustainable Exploitation of Natural Resources. In: Geerling, C. & Diakite, M.D. (eds). Final Report of the Research on Rational Utilization of Resources in the Sahel. Forestry Service, Bamako, Mali, and Department of Nature Conservation, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

~~Brooks,A.C .& Buss ,I.O . (1962) Past and Present Status of the Elephant in Uganda. Journal of Wildlife Management, 26:38-50.~~

~~Cott,H.B . (1968) Nile Crocodile Faces Extinction in Uganda. Oryx, 9:330-2.~~

~~153 Edroma,E.L . (1973) Poaching andHuma n Pressure in Rwenzori National Park.Ugand a Journal, 37:9-18 .~~

Edroma,E.L . (1984) Drastic declines in numbers of animals in Uganda national parks. In Rangeland: A Resource under Siege. Proceedings of the 2nd International Rangeland Congress, Adelaide,Australia ; Australia Academyo f Science.

~~Eltringham, S.K. &Malpas .R.C . (1980) The Decline in Elephant Numbers in Rwenzori and Kabalega Falls National Parks, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 18:73-86.~~

~~Jahnke,H . (1972) Economics of Wildlife Conservation in Uganda. A report prepared for the Game Department. Economics Department, Makerere University, Kampala.~~

Kayanja, F.I.B.& Douglas-Hamilton , I. (1085) The Impact of the Unexpected on Uganda National Parks. In: National Parks, Conservation, and Development. Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, 11-12 October, 1982 McNeely, J.A. & Miller K.R.,(eds), Smithsonian Institute Press,Washington ,D.C. ,U.S.A .

~~Laws, R.M.; Parker, I.S.C. and Johnstone,R.C.B .(1975 ) Elephants and Their Habitats: the ecology of elephants in North Bunyoro, Uganda. Clarendon Press, Oxford.~~

~~Malpas,R.C . (1978) The ecology of the African Elephant in Rwenzori and Kabalega Falls National Parks, Uganda.Ph .D . Thesis,Universit y of Cambridge.~~

~~Malpas,R.C . (1980) Wildlife in Uganda: A survey. Report to the Minister of Tourism and Wildlife, Uganda, New YorkZoologica l Society andWWF/IUCN .~~

~~Wheater, R.J. (1968) Land-use proposals for Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda. East African Agricultural andForestr y Journal, 33: 19-22.~~

~~Willock, C. (1964) TheEnormou s Zoo.A profil e of theUgand a nationalparks . Collins,London .~~

~~154 COUNTRY SEATSI NA BROOK-VALLE Y SYSTEM~~

~~Landscapeoecological planning in cultural perspective in the catchment-area of the Baaksche Beek (The Netherlands)~~

~~ClaraSloet ,Julliett e Kuiper,René e Santema~~

~~Introduction~~

The competition "Landscape in Transition", for which the Society for Preservation of Nature Reserves in the Netherlands invited designs in 1988, was a remarkable challenge for ideas on the future of areas where ecological as well as landscape-historical qualities are still substantial. Thethre erequirement s for thedesig n were: a landscape-ecological background for theplannin g coherent management of nature areas andcultivate d parts of the landscape a contribution toidea s aboutfutur e development of similar landscapes elsewhere.

Among the five areas for which a design was asked, one area was considerably more complicated than the others with respect to its environmental and cultural-historical background: A series of castles and country seats with their properties,linke d to acomple x system of source-areas and lowland brooks, discharging into a large river. But it was this area which proved to be pre-eminently attractive as regards the cultural demands of the design. Here, environmental diversity and variety of forms of occupation are extremely high, not in the least by an age-long refined and refining mixture of agrarian and urban functions, resulting inintegrate dform s ofland-use .

The area is situated in the eastern part of the Netherlands (fig. 1 + 2), in a distinct zone within the northwest European lowlands, consisting of poor cover-sands on older fluvial deposits and, locally, bolder clay. The lowlands are intersected and drained by a complex system of brooks, which here discharge into the river IJssel. Mediaeval castles, 17th, 18th, and 19th century mansions and their estates, isolated farms, and (small) villages determine much of thelandscap e pattern.

The design was confined to an area of 10.000h a (scale 1:25.000) and adetai l of 800h ao n scale 1:5000. A considerable part of the area is owned by nature conservation agencies. Themai n objectives of thelandscap epla nwere : a draft of an administrative and management unity, the boundaries of which coincidewit hecologica l "boundaries", aprogramm e of measures for therestoratio n of watercourses and nutrient-balance, the design of a landscape structure which reflects natural soil diversity, expresses ecologically sound land-use forms, andincorporate s carefully chosen historical qualities.

~~Thepresen t article is afurthe r elaboration of the cultural aspects of the design.~~

~~The landscape-ecological context~~

~~The northwest European lowlands extending from Calais to far into Denmark and Poland show adistinc t zonation of marine andfluvia l deposits.Perpendicula r to theparalle l zones,~~

~~155 Äi Study area Baaksche Beek~~

~~Boundary between Middle-European Hills and Northwest-European Lowlands~~

~~•• •• Boundary between pleistocene sandy soils and holocene clayish soils Fig. 1. Zonationof Northwest European Lowlands.~~

~~• Country seats~~

~~H Hackfort Castle~~

~~Fig. 2.Situation of the Baaksche Beek Area: hierarchy of watercourses and settlements.~~

~~156 a series of rivers,runnin g roughly from southeast to northwest, separates-in the upper and middle courses-the adjacent plateau islands, which in turn are drained by lowland brooks, (fig-1)~~

Occupation of these lowlands during the Holocene period took place roughly along the same lines: it started from the fertile chalk- and lössplateaus in the southeast and the northwestern coastalarea , gradually dispersed along theborder s of thefertil e river-valleys, and finally moved into thepoo rcover-sand s andpea t areas.

These poor cover-sands were locally made less infertile by intersecting rivulets, brooks, underlying fluvial deposits and bolder clay. Here in particular a very differentiated occupation pattern was established.

Within the macro-ecological setting of northwest European lowlands, the environmental diversity isrelativel y high in the gradient of the poor cover-sands to the brook-valleys, and still higher in the transition zone of the cover-sands/brook-valley complex to the river- valley.Withi n theriver-valley , certain areas on the "crossroads"o f therive r and the brook- systems show a relatively high diversity where the intensity of the land-use is low to moderate. These areas have the potential to develop into very rich ecosystems, but then land-use would allow also forest and scrub patches and variety in grassland communities, (fig. 3a)

In our study area, the main brook, the Baaksche Beek, runs from the edge of the tertiary marine deposits near the border of the country through a 20 km wide cover-sands zone to therive r IJssel. It meets a great variety of both poor and rich soils,causin g many soil- and moisture-gradients, which are augmented and complicated by superficial and deep seepage-flows. Over the ages, land-use has further refined the ecological pattern. The main, relatively recent, detrimental interventions relate to the far-reaching drainage and over-fertilization of the area.

~~The landscape-historical context~~

~~Just as the environmental diversity is particularly high in the transition zone from cover- sands toriver-valleys ,th e settlement forms show aparticularl y great variety in this area.~~

Permanent rural settlement was established during the 8th-9th century. Land-use was very much adapted to the local environment. Hydrology and soil diversity became clearly reflected not only in the flora and fauna, but also in the landscape pattern, notably in the distribution of arable and grasslands, common grazing-grounds, hedges,roa d location, etc. A highly developed system of drainage and irrigation dealt with the numerous watercourses, and thechange s inthe m caused by deforestation and moor-cutting.

~~Because of landscape diversity, the farms were mostly isolated settlements or grouped together in small clusters. In some specific places, single farms expanded to become fortified castles.~~

Nature was respected as a directly essential natural resource for human existence. Farming was based on self-sufficiency and maximal recycling of nutrients. Remnants of this, in essence,pre - andearly-medieva l landscape are stillpresent .

~~157 51 Usael~~

~~5 ..fe.||l||mi Berkel~~

~~•(r*^ iiiiiiiliii~~

~~J. g«*--» x^Aw-^-JllllUlllL m -_*^ Baâksche Beek \ ill H 1 "' II Oude Usael IIIH! l =^TT^^S^-^ciîHs^otB i jp,. . i j I * 4«. !*"*>•t^ y ~ ""*"*" a Illlllr~~

© Crossroads of connection-zones >•«! Linear plantations along brooks «**» Connections along watercourses • Small woodlots in brook-valleys DD Poor sandy soil, coarse-grained pattern « Scrub development on river dunes CXI Gradients between course-grained and fine grained environments ""•" Baakse Goed boundary

Fig. 3. Landscape-ecological objectives, (a)Watercourses asecplogical connection-zones and soil-gradients, (b) Present environmental diversity,(c) Added plantations on environmental gradients, (d)Intended future environmental diversity.

~~158 In the following centuries a complicated differentiation in administrative and management unities and in the settlement of farmhouses, castles, villages, small and big towns developed.~~

Urbanization occurred along the navigable rivers:th e IJssel with theHanze-town s Zetphen and Deventer; the smaller Berkel with Lochern and the Oude IJssel with Doetinchem. Along the still smaller brooks, such as the Baaksche Beek, only the mediaeval castles Vorden and Ruurlo developed villages in their neighbourhood. Hackfort Castle, lying on a geological fault in the narrow transition zone of cover-sands/brook-valleys toIJsse l valley, remained isolated.

The prosperity of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, together with further exhaustion of local natural resources all left their traces on the landscape. On the one hand, the former biomass of forests and moors disappeared and turned into heathland and poor grasslands, and on the other hand, country seats, mansions along the brooks, surrounded by parks, gardens and estates from 100-800 ha, several with typical features on the farmhouses of their tenants, were the results of urban welfare. In the architecture of buildings and their surroundings thechangin g attitude of mantoward s naturebecam e apparent: The classical landscape with a dominant rectangular pattern has been imposed locally on the underlying structure of the slightly undulating landscape. Avenues lead from the castleindefinitel y outwards.Natur e is subservient toman . The English picturesque planning in which landscape appeals to romantic feelings and which, in a deeper sense, is based on the longing for re-establishment of a real connection between man and nature, was a reaction to—and has partly replaced—the classical landscape. Parks with clusters of trees, winding lanes, and rounded ornamental lakes are thereflectio n of "naturea sa friendl y andequa l partner". Nowadays, industrial rationalism of land-use is the main land-forming factor. Intensification of agriculture and water-management have great effects on all former landscape structures. Reacting to these disintegrating tendencies, nature conservation as a cultural expression came into being.I n the beginning, aesthetical qualities andethica l motives were the most important factors for the establishment of nature reserves and national parks, considered to be nature monuments. In that period, management practices were merely those of non-intervention, reverence being given to beauty and harmony, inspiration for artists, and information for teachers and their pupils. Later, more rational arguments were added toth e motivation for nature conservation.

Gradually, the notion penetrated that no part of the European landscape was fully natural and undisturbed. Thus, former agricultural and silvicultural practices had to be continued in order to conserve those communities and landscape features found at the time of the establishment of nature reserves. This management partly degenerated into fixation of a passed-by cultural landscape at the end of the 19th century, which in many regions was badly over-used; however, it was biologically very rich, compared to present-day species diversity.

With increasing environmental pressure and pollution, this kind of management had to be abandoned as too rigorous and fixed. At present, the concept of "nature development" is popular. According tothi s concept, therestoratio n of morecomplet eecosystem s and

~~159 natural landscapes is aimed at, and man is meant to withdraw as much as possible from these landscapes.~~

An example of this idea has been the surprising biological development of "the Oostvaardersplassen", an area in one of the IJsselmeerpolders in the central part of the Netherlands. This area was left alone after the last polder was established. Within 15-20 years it developed into a "nature reserve", worth a significant place on the list of internationally important wetlands.

However, the concept of man's withdrawal from nature as well as from artistic creation in the landscape is notrealistic ,particularl y not in a landscape that still bears so many traces of aric h historical development caused by man.

Landscape architects and nature conservationists—as the patrons of landscape and nature quality—are both caught between the extremes: rigid conservation of the past and withdrawal from dominant human, respectively nature forces. In the middle of this field of tension and suspense stands man's attitude towards nature as its challenge and appointed taskfo r landscape design and management.

~~Main problems~~

~~The interconnected problems, recognized in present-day landscapes in general, and specified for the study area,ca n be summarized as follows:~~

1. Landscape-ecological problems:Alread y decennia agoimpoverishmen t of flora and fauna, particularly thoseo f mesotrophican doligotrophi c moist environments, indicated the disturbance of hydrology and nutrient cycles. During the last two decades, thisproces s has been accelerated by the decapitation of the Baaksche Beek by the Veengoot, a canal draining a large part of the catchment area, and the rapid intensification of agriculture. Pollution and the poisoning of air, soil and water are now so aggravated that the deeper groundwater also is contaminated, forests and trees are seriously damaged and soil fertility diminishes. Fragmentation of landscape structure causes further detrimental effects on (micro)climate, water run-off, distribution and dispersion of wild plants and animals, and in a short time destroys the character of alandscape , which is formed by the interaction of biotic, abiotic, andanthropogeni cprocesse s overth ecenturies .

2. Social problems: Far-reaching disintegration of different land-use forms—such as water-management, agriculture, forestry, and nature conservation—has many social consequences. This disintegration is particularly distinct in the extremely industrialized countries of northwestern Europe, much less so in the so-called less developed parts of Europe and developing countries elsewhere. In the latter, the "nature-to-protect" is much more evidently the same as the "nature-to-live-from". In other words: the natural resources are directly essential for human survival; in industrial countries this relation is more indirect. In the over-populated parts of the world, the "nature-to-protect" is set aside in nature reserves, many of which can be considered as the remnants of formerly exhausting land-use, whereeconomicall y viable agriculture is nolonge rpossible . For instance, the extensive heathlands and drift-sands of the 19th century in the atlantic region became waste land after an age-long (over)use as a grazing resource. Agriculture withdrew from these areas,an dothe r forms of land-use,c.q . nature conservation, took over

160 theresponsibilit y for their management. Responsibility for nature in general seemingly has moved from the individual citizen and local community toal lkind s of (semi) governmental agencies.Agriculture , forestry, nature conservation, and many other forms of land-use are functionally and spatially separated activities, which hinder, rather than complement, each other with increasing disadvantages for all parties. Moreover, the legislation for the different land-use forms has become split up, is often contradictory, and is no more comprehensible for and manageable by the people wholiv eo n thelan d andus eit . The farms in the study area have an average area of 13 ha each - too little from an economic point of view. The farms intensify to industrial meat- and dairy-production and cut down small landscape elements for a relatively meagre enlargement of their area; Estate owners pay large amountso f moneyfo r maintaining nature and cultural monuments, and they get a low rent from their tenants. More and more estate owners have to sell their properties to (semi) governmental organizations.

3. Cultural problems: Natural phenomena-such as wild plants and animals, old trees, virgin forests, and undisturbed water courses—have disappeared as a natural reference. Man-made or man-induced landscape qualities—such as historical land-use patterns, buildings, and landscape-styles-tend to disappear as a reference to former skill, sense of beauty, and human artistic contribution to natural variety. Estate owners have delayed the process of destruction, but they could not avoid most of the negative influences of spatial scale-enlargement and intensification in agriculture, nor the too-heavy drainage of the whole catchment area, nor the killing of their trees by air pollution and drainage from elsewhere. Besides this materialistic decline, however, there is the cultural decay, caused by the underdevelopment of intuitive perception of the meaning of the visible world for man's spiritual development.

~~The need for a new vision by land-use planners and landscape architects is evident and cannot be expressed more clearly than in the planning for these varied landscapes with their rich history.~~

It is not sufficient to separate the options of industrialists, conservationists and agrarian functionalists spatially; further scale-enlargement and intensification of land-use in urban and agrarian landscapes is not a real long-term solution for the problems caused by disintegrated thinking,especiall y concerning therelationshi p between manan dnature .

~~Principles oflandscape-ecologica l planning incultura l perspective a. Cultural directives~~

As all problems in the landscape are caused by human action, and as they are the result of cultural development, their solution can only be brought about by mental changes and integrated thinking, irrespective of present-day disintegrating socio-economic and technical developments. These necessary changes will depend upon individual and collective free choice. Such a choice cannot be scientifically determined or proved, but only motivated byinne r conviction, based on one's stateo f spiritual maturity.

~~The sources from which the inspiration and insight come are non-material and lie "above" the earthly reality. They eventually will become expressed in the latter, when man, and not~~

~~161 only the professional artists, but also scientists and technicians, have learned to catch the "streams of thelivin g water".~~

Themai nprincipl e of thelandscap e plan isth e literal andfigurativ e "return toth e sources". The "Fountain of the Water of Life" is a sacred symbol in all world religions and former highly-developed civilizations. Returning toi t willb e theproverbia l expression for seeking the original source of renewing energy which purifies our sight and comprehension of the world around us andou rhuma npositio n init .

It will enlarge our view on the laws of nature, which lie behind all natural processes, not only governing thedevelopmen t of the biosphere and succession of vegetation, butals o the development of mankind within the limits of nature and the landscape we live in. And the enlarged view on natural laws will make us better realize the restrictions to which our actions are bound when we wish to survive, not for only one or two generations but for at least a "ThousandYears" .

There is still another image, also known as timeless, which is relevant for the future of landscapes with already such a lot of natural and cultural quality. That is the image of the Garden of Eden as areflectio n of heaven. Neither uncultivated nor wild, but cared for asa garden,providin g beauty,harmony , "information", and the needs for physical development, above all strict ecological laws to be kept. Therefore, a careful refinement of elevated forms of land-use,base d on scientific ecologicalknowledge , aconsciou s respons-ibility for spiritual development, and anartisti c senseo f beauty are imperative.

Even if this sounds too beautiful to become reality, it is worth thinking in this direction, because our thoughts form before any materialistic effect and can bring about total destruction aswel l asparadis e onearth .

When we understand the meaning of the "Fountain of the Water of Life" for humanity and of "Water" in its spiritual andphysica l working, asha s been expressed by artists in chalices on altars, and in fountains in squares, gardens and parks, then automatically we will give pure water—its courses and sources~a central position in landscape-ecological planning, and we will adjust all other water- dependent activities to hydrology. Source areas especially demand adistinc t shaping andmanagement .

Therefore, first of all the actual pollution and drainage of the sources in the planning will be decreased, and the process of restoration carefully carried out on springs in grassland and forests, which also in the long run need artistic management. The source areas are indicated by surrounding forests and hedges and they will get a varied function in ecological and educational respect (fig.4) . b. Social directives

To achieve a management unity "Baakse Goed" in which this central idea can be elaborated and can take shape in the landscape, a suitable sociocultural organization is prerequisite. This agency has to establish its own leases, independent as much as possible from thepresen t chaotic land-use legislation. Topu t alittl econfidenc e in this action: itwil l not be the first time in history that a drastic break-through in unworkable laws and restrictions occur.

162 The Baakse Goed will mediate between nature conservation organizations, private estate owners, foresters and farmers. Its main purpose is to establish integrated agriculture and silviculture,nature - and water-management.

The administrative and management boundaries of the Baakse Goed coincide with hydrological boundaries. A temporal isolation from the environment will be necessary in view of pollution and over-drainage. Perpendicular to the Baaksche Beek the boundaries coincide with watersheds. Because the design should not exceed 10.000 ha, a point in the Baaksche Beek has been chosen as the eastern "boundary", where at present the Baaksche Beek is decapitated by the Veengoot, bearing in mind that extension of the whole catchment area of the Baaksche Beek would be preferable. In the west, the river IJssel is theBaaks e Goedboundar y (fig. 4).

On a local level, management units of +/- 200 ha will be established, from min. 100 ha arable and productive grassland with 4 farmers and max. 100 ha forest and nature areas with one manager. These indications of this area result from the necessity for a reasonable income based on present-day economic circumstances and recent data about rentability of private estates. Besides the function of the production of food, the farms will have an important task in water-management, restoration of potentially rich environmental gradients, and forestry.

In this way the primary responsibility for land- and water-use and management will be returned to the regional and local community. External fund-raising will be motivated by the necessity for investment in stable,health y soil.

Fig. 4. Proposals for restoration of hydrology of themanagement area.1. Remove darn in Baaksche Beekand fill upconnection between Baaksche Beekand Veengoot. 2. Halveprofile of Veengoot. 3. Purification marshes.4. Reopeningof old meandersand enlargement of embankments. 5. Fill upcanals. 6.Reduce drainage ofsource-areas. 7.Drinking-water catch mentfrom surface-water.

~~163 c. Landscape-ecological directives on hydrology and nutrient economy~~

Landscape-ecological objectives aim at increasing environmental diversity and connecting areas which are potentially rich in species, for instance along environmental gradients and in brook- andriver-valley s (fig. 3b,c,d).

The restoration of the hydrology aims at optimal use of the water within the ares for drinking, agriculture, and natural communities. Therefore, water retention, water purification, and drinking water catchment from surface water are badly needed. See fig. 4 forpropose d measures.

Notably agriculture, horticulture, silviculture, recreation, and other forms of land-use have to accept and adjust to thenorm s of watercatchmen t areas andloca l soil diversity. d. Landscape-ecological directives on flora and fauna

When hydrology and nutrient economy recover, changes in flora and fauna will gradually follow, according to the hierarchy of ecological working-spheres. This process has to be accompanied by all kinds of "agrarian" measures such as grazing, cutting, mowing, ploughing, etc., to an extent that diversity on different scales can build up: diversity in age and diversity in spatial distribution of communities and species.Th edetail s will beworke d out in alandscap emanagemen tplan .

~~IJssel~~

GKnQ Fine-grainedcover-sand/brook-valle y ffJP Coarse-grained cover-sand/brook-valley im Course-grained river-valley y-X. Plantations alongwatercourse s 1Î3 Drinking-water catchment area V. Riverforelan d with grassland andscrub s

~~Fig.5 . Landscape-architectural directives for landscape structure.~~

~~164 e. Landscape-architectural directives for landscape structure (fig. 5)~~

Besides the rigid protection, distinct shaping and careful management of the source areas, the watercourses will be spatially accentuated by plantations in order to enlarge landscape diversity. In this way also the landscape-ecological coherence between the different landscape types will bejeinforced.

Along the Baaksche Beek, the fine-grained structure of the cover-sand, brook-valley landscape will be accentuated. The brook will be running through forest and meadows alternately. The moist and wet grasslands will be surrounded by scrub, and tree landscape elements in which the old ones around the arable fields will be incorporated. They will provide shadow and additional food for cattle, as well as being essential for wildlife. The arable fields will again be concentrated on the cover-sands ridges as the over-drainage of thelow-lyin g brook-valley grasslands diminishes.

The watercourses in the clayish, River IJssel landscape will be accentuated by at least 20 m. wide tree- and scrub- plantations; adapted to the soil properties they are considered to be "outposts" for future landscape development, when the land-use practices in this area will follow the tendency in the Baakse Goed. This landscape has fertile soil and a more coarse-grained pattern, andi s suitable for both agriculture andforest . '

In the meadows outside the dykes of theIJssel , scrub and forest will bedevelope d locally - firstly because hardly any natural forest is left in these areas, and secondly in order to form "stepping stones" between the hedges and forests on both sides of the river. The agricultural pressure in the meadows will be brought back in order to create a series of grasslands with high species-richness along theriver .

~~In the Bakerwaard—an area with former river-meadows now lying inside the dykes- purification marshes and many types of woody, marsh, and grassland communities will be developed.~~

All the castles, country seats and mansions along the brooks with their parks and gardens need a careful approach, not only because of their long history and remnants of former garden styles, but also for their important future functions as cultural centres for landscape development. For one of them, situated on the spot with the utmost environmental variety within the whole catchment area of the Baaksche Beek, a detailed plan has been worked out. (fig. 6).

Hackfort Castle, with its 800 ha property was, until recently, a typical example of the agrarian landed-nobility estate. It is now owned by the Society for the Preservation of Nature Reserves and is best suited for the function of the cultural, social, and management centre of the Baakse Goed.

~~Final remarks~~

Many questions remain, particularly concerning the practical execution of the landscape plan. However, there are many points of contact with the present situation. In today's economical and ecological circumstances the delineated perspectives are no less realistic than the perspectives of continuing over-production and pollution here, and exhaustion of

~~165 natural resources elsewhere Tt • •~~

~~chance,th emor e as it is inspired~~

m Existing/newforest s gA's-ar *

~~E3 Orchards ,., fonds ?^efPU?CaÜOnmarsh«~~

~~o Farmhouse — Roads — Bicycle-andfoot-path s — View~~

~~Fig- 6. Hackfortdetail 1:5000~~

~~166 LANDSCAPE-ECOLOGICAL PLANNING AS AN INTEGRAL PART BETWEEN THE HUMANBEIN G ANDIT SENVIRONMEN T INTH EDEVELOPIN G COUNTRIES~~

~~(Case study:Kathmand u Metropolitan Area, Nepal)~~

~~Florin Zigrai,Madha b P.Gauta m~~

Aprope r study of human society andit s environment is being made by the integration of various scientific disciplines such as geography, ecology, demography, sociology, economics, etc. At present, one of the most suitable interdisciplinary approaches to solve the complex and emerging problems of human ecology, is to work out the landscape ecologicalplans .

Landscape-ecological planning is not a simpletask .Fo r the sustainable development and for the long term benefit of the people, there is always a need for the properjudgemen t of the demand, availability of the resources, up-to-date evaluation of the resources, priority for theterritoria l conservation and development, limitation for development, constraints for achieving objectives, etc.Ecologica l planning and the allocation of the uses on the basiso f planning and investigation are essential if optimum use is to be made of available resources. Without them, the prospect of sustainable development will be impaired. (See Fig. 1)

~~- IENVIRONHENTAL PROBLEMS~~

LANDSCAPE AS A BASIC <" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT | HUMAN BEING PART OF ENVIRONMENT 1 LANDSCAPE REACTION *> AND SOCIETY -^ Ü Û J> '" LANDSCAPE ECOLOCÏ AS LANDSCAPE-ECOLOCICAL HUHAN ECOLOCI AS A BASIC SCIENCE AND APPLIED \. PLANNING AS A TOOL TO /APPLIED BASIC SCIENCE AND METHODICAL APPROACH RESEARCH/ SOLVE THE ENVIRONMEN \RESEARCH METHODICAL APPROACH y TAL PROBLEHS s INFORMATION BASE TOR LANDSCAPE-ECOLOCICAL FOR LANDSCAPE-ECO LOCICAL PLANHINC PLANHINO 1

~~Fig. 1.Landscape-ecological planning as an integral part between human beingand its environ ment (landscape).~~

167 Technological advancement accompanied by new forms of so-called modernization, increased rate of urbanization, etc. have led to a co-evolution of organisms. Increased technological input not only accelerated the cultural evolution, but also improved the ecological efficiency of human beings for a short period. Increased interaction of human beings and co-evolution of the organism within this cultural landscape could be simplified in thefollowin g ways:

~~Co-evolution andinteraction of God-Human being-Landscape.~~

~~SOME OF THE RESULTS MEANINGS OF THE CONFERENCE~~

~~STATEMENTS AT THE CLOSING SESSION OF THE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "CULTURAL ASPECTS OFLANDSCAPE "~~

~~CastleGroeneveld , June28-30,198 9~~

~~Christian G. Allesch~~

As Prof. Zonneveld has already said, an interdisciplinary approach to the subject "culture and landscape" has to face the problem every interdisciplinary approach has to face, namely that we-coming from different sciences-use different languages, different semantic systems, and we should not be under the illusion that using the same terms (like "landscape", "nature",o r "culture") means that we aretalkin g about the same concepts.I n interdisciplinary work and discussions we first have to learn each other's language, and I think this essential step in our interdisciplinary cooperation has been taken by this conference, andthi s is arespectabl e result.

On the other hand, we heard a lot about practical problems, ranging from the Cairngorms in Scotland toth eproblem s of the forced, intensive agriculture in theE C and, for example, the destruction of life-quality along the transitroute s in Austria.Thes e problems areurgen t and ought to be solved during the coming years, and our jeopardized ecosystems and landscapes cannot wait until we have finished our sophisticated discussions between deep ecologists and shallow ecologists. Wehav e tofac e reality andd o our work in our different countries, professions, and sciences, and we must not wait until some metatheoretical system shows us the exact place where we stand in the complex structure of the scientific network concerned with landscape and ecology. Nevertheless, the fact that we have been entangled in this kind of metatheoretical discussion is significant for our problems in finding a starting point for our ecological practice. It is like a mirror where we might reflect our position and widen our view to those aspects of things and subjects we are dealing with and which might have been overlooked from the specialized point of view that isforce d uponu s by ourdiscipline s in this timeo f specialization.

Theholisti c and integralistic point of view we claimed several times during the congress is an important prerequisite for solving problems, but we cannot expect to solve all the problems of our future by trained holists or-contradictory in itself-specialists for holism. Wenee d specialists, of course, but such specialists thatkno w how special their knowledge is. We need the biologist and the anthropologist, but the biologist who knows that man's nature is more than biology, and the anthropologist who knows that man is a part of the ecological andanthropologica l circuits.

Nor should weresor tt oprimitiv e stereotypes by saying,fo r example,tha ti ti s thebusines s of engineers to destroy nature and thebusines s of theecologist s toprotec t it. For that very reason we do not need more ecologists and fewer technicians, but we need more technicians used to ecological thinking and more ecologists qualified to develop technical solutions for ecologicalproblems .

171 Nature and culture are not antithetical in an absolute sense, but antithetical in a dialectical sense and in a dialectical process. Let me conclude these reflections by quoting Ernst Eduard Boesch, the nestor of German cultural psychology, who in his work "Kultur und Handlung" (Culture and Action) stated that "culture is the biotop of man" or-vice versa- man's biotop isculture .Thi s means thatth enatur e of man is cultural behaviour.

Culture started when man began to imagine, to change the world according to his imaginations, and to imagine further changes. Culture does notbegi n when you put awor k of arti n apond , as in thepar k atGroeneveld , andcultur e did notbegi n when the first brick was laid tobuil d this castle, but when the first stinging nettle was pulled outo f the ground. Culture began when there arose an organism which was ablet o imagine that therecoul d be something elseapar t from stinging nettles.

So we cannot, and should not, stop cultivation in order to be "more natural" again, but should proceed to cultivate in a more reflective way, in a way that is more suited to the peculiarities of nature and to thedynamic s of ecological systems.

~~Zev Naveh~~

The major value of this conference was, in my opinion, in bringing together those coming from the natural sciences, for whom landscapes have chiefly scientific, ecological, and geographical connotations, and those coming from the broad spectrum of the humanities, for which landscapes have chiefly sociological, psychological, historical, and aesthetic connotations. Scientists,professionals , and artists arerepresentative s of the "two cultures", for whom landscape ecology should serve as a bridge. We have laid the foundations for this bridge by generating a truly inter- and cross-disciplinary dialogue. I am confident that this has enriched all of us in our understanding of landscapes as the total natural and culturallivin g space -th e main aimo f landscape ecology.

The very fact that we did not have to split this meeting up into simultaneous sessions on different subjects, and that we could all participate in all the lectures and discussions, prevented us from falling into the trap of what Boulding has called "specialized deafness"; namely, not to listen to anything outside our own specialized competence. These lectures and their discussions have taught us that landscapes are more than their measurable and quantifiable components, and that their intrinsic, natural aesthetic and cultural values can be perceived only with the help of the creativity, inspiration, and consciousness of the human mind which is outside the realm of conventional scientific reasoning. But, at the same time, it has shown us in a convincing way that many of these landscapes are greatly endangered and that much more interdisciplinary research is required in order to find concise methodological tools and efficient practical ways in which all their tangible and intangible functions and values can be expressed together and ensured for further generations.Th e creation of an active working party within the IALE and further meetings of this kind can contribute towards this goal and make landscape ecology a truly transdisciplinary science of nature andculture .

~~172 JoanIverso n Nassauer~~

The first international conference on Cultural Aspects of Landscape Ecology reminded us of a key precept of landscape ecology as an emerging disciplinary approach: the need to integrate traditional disciplinary approaches aroundrea l ecological issues.I tals oclarifie d a critical task for those who investigate cultural aspects of landscape ecology; to enable people tomaintain , andi nman y cases,regai n their identity with place.

The urgency of real ecological issues has been a driving force behind the movement to establish landscape ecology as a valid scholarly paradigm. From the beginning, influential scholars have recognized that these issues cannot be addressed without insights from the traditions of many disciplines, ranging from basic science to applied management. The continuing challenge, apparent at this meeting, is how to combine these insights and approaches to investigation into novel, useful work that fits the problems at hand. Combination does notimpl y alevellin g oruniformit y of paradigms.C .Allesc h said itwell : We may need "specialists who know how special their knowledge is". At the same time, I think we must becourageou s ininnovatin g around theconvention s of our own disciplines. We must dare to borrow from what is useful in the approaches and knowledge of our colleagues in the arts, social sciences, and physical and biological sciences. We cannot afford to be sidetracked into critiques of old, traditional paradigms. Rainer, we should move ont oinven t what worksnow .

Judging from the papers and discussions at this conference, those of us whose work is rooted in cultural aspects of landscape ecology are confronted with understanding and building human identity with place. How can people care about ecological quality of the landscape if they feel nofundamenta l ownership of it?I . Grèveras suggests that the losso f local identity is related to the loss of ecological rationality, the responsible commitment to the dynamic equilibrium of any oikos. Several related questions emerged at this conference.

~~173 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS~~

~~Alberts,Wiebe ,Dr . Researcher -Environmenta l affairs Rijkswaterstaat Delft, The Netherlands~~

~~Allesch, Christian,Prof .Dr . Institute of Psychology University of Salzburg Salzburg,Austri a~~

~~Andresen,M.-Teresa , Doc.Dr . Dept.o f Landscape Architecture University of Aveiro Aveiro,Portuga l~~

~~Bosch,Elisabeth ,Doc .Dr . Dept. ofFrenc h Literature University of Leiden Leiden, The Netherlands~~

~~Bruns,Diedrich ,Dr. -Ing . Instituteo fLandscap e Planning University of Stuttgart Stuttgart,F R Germany~~

~~Bull, Gary Forester- graduat e student Faculty of Forestry University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada~~

~~Burgess,Jacquelin ,Dr . Dept. of Geography University CollegeLondo n London,Unite d Kingdom~~

~~Cao, Kunfang, MSc. Institute of Botany AcademiaSinic a Beijing, Peoples Republic of China~~

~~Coeterier,Freek ,Dr . Environmental psychologist Dept. ofLandscap e Planning Staring Centre Wageningen, The Netherlands~~

~~174 Crouch,David ,Dr . Anglia HigherEducatio n College Essex,Unite d Kingdom~~

~~Cudlin,Pavel ,Dr . Institute of Environmental Ecology Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences Prague, Czechoslovakia~~

~~Damme-Jongsten,Marijk e van Biologist Woerden, The Netherlands~~

~~Dekker,Jos ,Dr . Dept. of Science,Technolog y &Societ y University of Utrecht Utrecht, The Netherlands~~

~~Dinnebier,Antonia ,Dipl .-Ing . Dept. ófLandscap e Planning TechnicalUniversit y Berlin Berlin,F R Germany~~

~~Erzen,Jale ,Prof .Dr . Faculty of Architecture Middle-East TechnicalUniversit y of Ankara Ankara, Turkey~~

~~Fanta,Josef , Prof.Dr . Dept. of Landscape Ecology University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, The Netherlands~~

~~Gautam,Madha b P., Dr. Dept. of Ecology Tribhuvan University Kathmandu Kathmandu, Nepal~~

~~Giltai,Jeroen ,Dr . Curator of OldMaster s Paintings Museum Boymans-Van Beuningen Rotterdam, The Netherlands~~

~~Goodier,Rawdon ,Dr . Nature Conservation Council Edinburgh, United Kingdom~~

~~175 Greverus,Ina-Maria , Prof.Dr . Institute of Cultural Anthropology University of Frankfurt Frankfurt/M., FR Germany~~

~~Harrison, Carolyn,Dr . Dept. of Geography University College London London, United Kingdom~~

~~Höft, Martina Biologist Wageningen, The Netherlands~~

~~Hunter,Ia n Researcher andLandscap e Sculptor Manchester Polytechnic Manchester,Unite d Kingdom~~

~~Kabela,Miroslav ,Dr . Dept. of Psychiatry St.Elisabet h Hospital Haarlem,Th e Netherlands~~

~~Kamp,Liesbet h van der Biologist Amsterdam, The Netherlands~~

~~Kessel,Walte rvan ,MSc . Biologist Utrecht,Th e Netherlands~~

~~Keul,Alexande r G.,Dr . Environmental Psychologist Instituteo f Psychology University of Salzburg Salzburg, Austria~~

~~Kilian,Ute ,Dipl.-Ing . Forester Wiesbaden,F R Germany~~

~~Klijn,Jan ,Dr . Dept. ofLandscap e Planning Staring Centre Wageningen,Th e Netherlands~~

~~176 Koster,Jan ,Dr . Dept. of Theoretical Literature University of Leiden Leiden, The Netherlands~~

~~Kuiper,Juliette ,I n Landscape Architect -planne r Dept. of Landscape Architecture Agricultural University Wageningen, The Netherlands~~

~~Kollee,Peter ,Dr . Education Service Parks Department of the Cityo f Amsterdam Amsterdam,Th e Netherlands~~

~~Luz,Friedrich ,Prof .Dr . Institute of Landscape Planning University of Stuttgart Stuttgart,F R Germany~~

~~Mork, Erich,Dipl.-Ing . Forester Wiesbaden, FR Germany~~

~~Nassauer,Joan ,Prof .Dr . Dept.o f Landscape Architecture University of Minnesota St.Paul ,Minnesota , USA~~

~~Naveh,Zev ,Prof .Dr . Technological University of Haifa Haifa, Israel~~

~~Olwig,Kenneth ,Prof .Dr . Institute of Geography Copenhagen, Denmark~~

~~Oneka,Michael ,MSc . Rangeland researcher Murchison Falls National Park Murchison Falls,Ugand a~~

~~Patocka,Jiri ,Dr . Instituteo f Sociology Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences Prague, Czechoslovakia~~

~~177 Roos,Rolf ,Dr . NatureEnvironmen t Foundation Utrecht, The Netherlands~~

~~Ruff, Allan,Dr . Dept.o fLandscap e Studies University of Manchester Manchester, United Kingdom~~

~~Santema,Renée ,Ir . LandscapeArchitec t -planne r Dept.o fLandscap e Architecture Agricultural University Wageningen, The Netherlands~~

~~Schöfer,Jan Graduate Student TechnicalUniversit y Berlin Berlin,F R Germany~~

~~Selby,J . Ashley,Dr . TheFinnis h ForestResearc h Institute Helsinki,Finlan d~~

~~Sepänmaa, Yrjö,Dr . Institute for Aesthetics University of Helsinki Helsinki,Finlan d~~

~~Sinton,John ,Prof .Dr . Dept. of Environmental Studies Stockton State College Pomona, New Jersey,US A~~

~~Sloet, van Oldruitenborgh, ClaraJ.M. ,Dr . Dept. of Nature Conservation Agriculture University Wageningen, The Netherlands~~

~~Smidt,Ger a Biologist Amsterdam, The Netherlands~~

~~Spielmann, Peter,Dr . Director Historian of Art StateMuseu m Bochum Bochum, FR Germany~~

~~178 Sutherland,D. JJ . Landscape Ecologist Burn Side,Culgove r Sutherland,Unite d Kingdom~~

~~Swouden-Svobodova,Hana ,Dr . Sociologist ofLiteratur e &Cultur e Amsterdam, The Netherlands~~

~~Zigrai,Florin ,Dr . Institute for Landscape Planning TechnicalUniversit y Vienna Vienna, Austria~~

~~Zonneveld,le s S.,Prof .Dr . I.T.C.- Internationa l Institutefo r Aerospace Survey Enschede,Th eNetherland s~~

~~Zonneveld,Ja nLS. ,Prof .Dr . Professor of Physical Geography Zeist, The Netherlands~~

~~Zuviria,Marti n de,MSc . I.T.C. -Internationa l Institutefo r Aerospace Survey Enschede,Th e Netherlands~~

~~Zvolsky, Zdenek, Dipl.-Ing. Institute for Nature Conservation &Landscap e Planning Bonn-Bad Godesberg,F R Germany~~

~~Zvolsky,Jana Graduate Student Academy of Art Hamburg,F R Germany~~

~~Zwerver,Karen , Graduate Student Dept. ofLandscap e Ecology University of Amsterdam Amsterdam,Th e Netherlands~~

~~179 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS~~

~~Thanks are due to the following collaborators for their assistance: Nita de Jong, Molly Veenman, Jeremy Reyner, Heide Wibowo, Gordon Balfour, Trudi Faviér.~~

~~180~~