Do cultural landscapes have a susutainable future?

Wien

2007

S. 12-24

27 Lit. Ang.

Artikel aus einer ZeitschriftUnselbständiges Werk

200140280

Among landscaping traditions and landscape design principles, some are evidently naturalistic, others seemingly a product of artifice and cultural setting. However, the tradition of blended natural/cultural design is hallenged by the ascendant ecological aesthetic. This holds that land use imitating nature is [more] sustainable; that preferences deviating from it are transient; that ecological understanding will eventually establish stable preference for an ecological aesthetic. Against this stand diverse arguments. Economists might argue that the costs are immediate and benefits long-delayed, so represent a poor investment. Ecologists may incorrectly perceive what patterns are natural or sustainable. Human landscape preferences may be both stable and evolutionarily relevant. Studies claiming to reveal preference for naturalistic silviculture overlook the aesthetic value of mosaics of contrasting land use. If scenic and ecological aesthetics are opposed, the ecological pole need not dominate - and adequate food production requires that it does not. If trade-off is allowed in agriculture, then in principle it should be admissible in forestry. Without that, neither the material benefits nor the rich aesthetic values of human-modified landscapes will be sustained for future generations.