外文翻译边缘生态城乡景观生态.docx
- 文档编号:15100826
- 上传时间:2023-06-30
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:9
- 大小:24.26KB
外文翻译边缘生态城乡景观生态.docx
《外文翻译边缘生态城乡景观生态.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《外文翻译边缘生态城乡景观生态.docx(9页珍藏版)》请在冰点文库上搜索。
外文翻译边缘生态城乡景观生态
外文翻译---边缘生态:
城乡景观生态
Ecologyontheedge:
Landscapeandecologybetweentownandcountry
SybrandPTjallingii
Abstract
Thetrendsareworldwide:
peopleandgoodsareincreasinglymobile,compactcitiesdevelopintourbannetworks,industrializingagricultureisbecomingfootloose,rurallifebecomesurbanlifeinagreensetting.Socialsegregation,trafficnuisance,urbansprawlandotherunwantedimpactsofthesetrendschallengeurbanandregionalplanners.Thesearchforplanninganswerstotheseissuesisfurthercomplicatedbytheneedforsustainabledevelopmentataglobalscale.Whatistheroleofecologyinthecontextofthediscussionsonthefutureoftownandcountry?
Thetraditional,andstilldominant,approachisbasedonthepolarityofurbanandruralworlds.Inthisperspective,ecologyfocusesonthe‘nature’ofprotectedareasandbiodiversity.Thepapersinthisspecialissueexploretheprospectsofawiderperspectiveinwhichnaturalprocessesareseenasbasictoboth,ruralandurbandevelopment.Thisarticleisdiggingupthefundamental‘discourses’underlyingthetwoapproachestoecologyandnature.Firstly,the‘object-oriented’and‘process-oriented’discoursesareanalyzed.Secondly,theprospectsofaprocess-orienteddiscourseareillustratedwithplansfortheDutchRandstadandtheGermanRuhrarea.Then,somenewconceptsareintroducedthatmaystrengthentheinstitutionalconditionsfortheprocess-orientedapproach.Discourses,concepts,plansandprojectsallcirclearoundthecentralquestioninthisarticleabouttheroleofecologyinplanningtheedgeofthecity.
Keywords
Urbanandregionalplanning;
Ecology;
Discourses;
Cityedge
1.Introduction
Landscapeecologymaybetakeninastrictorinabroadsense.Thestrictinterpretation,mostpopularintheInternationalAssociationofLandscapeEcologyanditsassociatedorganizations,focusesonhabitatsandpopulationdynamicsofplantsandanimalsatthescaleoflandscapes.Thepapersinthisspecialissuecrosstheedgeofthisstrictinterpretationandengageinabroadapproachoftheclassicaldefinitionofecology:
theinteractionbetweenlivingorganismsandtheirenvironment.Thisbroadviewplaceseconomy,sociologyandecologyatthesamelevelascomplementaryapproachestothestudyofman–environmentinteractions.Asthepapersinthisissuedemonstrate,thebroadapproachoffersmeaningfulcontextstudies,bothtosocialandeconomicresearchersandtolandscapeecologist’ssensustricto.Firstofall,however,theneedforabroadapproachemergesfromlocalandregionalpractice,whereplannersarechallengedbythedynamicnatureofurban–ruralinteractions.
Thepapersinthisissuewerepresentedataworkshoponurban–ruralinteractionsduringthe1997conferenceoftheDutchAssociationforLandscapeEcologyandthisexplainstheemphasisontheRamstadHollandandotherDutchissuesinmost,butnotall,ofthearticles.
Theissueopenswithtworeflectionsonbasicdiscoursesframingtheoryandpracticeoftownandcountryplanning.Thefollowingthreepapersarebasedonanalyticalresearchandexplorebiological,psychologicalandeconomicaspectsofurbanizinglandscapes.Inthethirdandlastpartofthisissue,threeplanninganddesignstudiesdealwithplansatdifferentscales:
houseandgarden,built-upandgreenareasinacityand,finally,infrastructureplanningataregionalscale.
Amoreprominentroleofecologyisbecomingself-evidentinplanninganddesignofurbanandruralareas.Bynomeansevident,however,isthemeaningofecology.Tosome,thepresenceofgreenareasisthecentraltopic,toothersmanagingflowsandrecyclingistheheartofthematterandyetothersthinkthelifestyleofactorsistherealissue.Toarchitectsandtomanyothers,thefirstquestionaboutecologyis,perhaps:
isitformorfunction?
Thefocusofthispaperisontheedgeofthecityand,ingeneral,onurban–ruralinteractions.Here,thecentralquestionis:
whatdoesecologyhavetooffertothelocalplanner?
Moreprecisely:
howusefulisecologicalknowledgeinthecontextofaccommodatingandsteering指导urbanizationprocessesandruraldevelopment?
Thesituationisfarfromclear.Doesanecologicalapproachtoplanningleadtocompactcentralcities,astheCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities(CEC)statesinitsGreenpaperontheUrbanEnvironment’(CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,1990)?
Oristherealmessageofecology“thatthecitymustbeunmadebytheunmakingofitsboundaries,”implyingboth,greeningthecitiesandurbanizingthecountryside(NicholsonLord,1987:
p.211)?
Insearchforanswerstothesequestions,Iwillfirstturntoanunderlyinglayerofecologyinterpretationsanddescribetwoecologydiscourses.First,thefocusisonthetraditional,andstilldominant,discourseonecology,inwhichtownandcountryareconsideredasexpressionsoftheculture–naturepolarity.Inthisview,natureistakenasanobject,anareaoraspecies.Then,anemergingalternativediscourseisintroduced,thatmaybecalledecologicalmodernizationandtakesnaturalprocessesasitspointofdeparture.Ifnatureisanobject,thennatureissomethingtopossess.Ifnatureisaprocess,thennatureissomethingthatacts.
Idescribethetwoapproachesasdiscourses,toelucidatetheconceptual概念的andpracticalcontextofdifferentwaysofseeingthatleadtocontrastingactions.Inmodernsociologyandplanningtheory,discourseanalysisisdevelopedtounraveltheideas,conceptsandcategorizationscontainedandreproducedinlanguage(Hajer,1996:
44).TheapproachisrootedintheworkofFoucault,Giddensandothersandisbasedontheassumptionthatourunderstandingofthematerialrealityisconstructeddiscursively(Jacobs,1999:
p.203).Recently,discourseanalysishasbecomeanimportantinstrumentinresearchonurbanchange(Hastings,1999)andonurban–ruralinteractions(Hiddingetal.,2000).InHajer’sapproach(Hajer,1996:
pp.58–65),typically,differentactorswhomaysupportacollectionofideasfordifferentreasonformdiscoursecoalitions.Thesecoalitionsmaychange,asdiscoursesaresusceptibletochange.Inthisview,ontheonehand,discourseisnotmerelyafunctionofpower;itisnotapassivetoolinthehandsofvestedgroupinterests.Ontheotherhand,discourseisneitherafixedlanguagelinkedtodeeplyheldbeliefsystemssuchasconvictionsabouttheroleofthemarketorthestate.Discourseconstructionandreconstructionresultsfromtheinteractionbetweenhumanagencyandsocialstructuresinachangingworld.
Thetwoecologydiscourseshavedifferentpotentialsbothforproblemandsolutionfinding.Subsequentsectionsofthisarticlewillillustratethiswithanumberofcurrentissuesinurbanruralinteraction,andwithanumberofplansandprojectsfromtheRandstadandRuhrmetropolitanareas.AsIwilldemonstrate,theecologydiscoursethattakesnatureasanobjectisdeeplyrootedininstitutionalstructures,butitspotentialtoaddressfundamentalissuesislimited.Theprocess-orienteddiscourse,however,haspromisingprospects,butitsinstitutionalbaseisweak.
AftertheseexamplesIdiscusstwoconceptualtoolsaimingatimprovingtheinstitutionalstructureforaprocess-orientedapproachtoregionalplanning.Theforum–pilot-projectstrategyfocusesonthestructuralbasisforaprominentroleoflearningfromprojectsandplans.Thiscomprisesthestrategyofthetwonetworks.Thisstrategicconcepttakesthewaterandtrafficnetworksascarryingstructuresforthezoningoffunctionsusuallycalledurbanandrural.
InSection6,Iwillreturntothequestionsraisedatthestartandmakesomegeneralrecommendationsontheroleofecologyinurban–ruralplanningand,morespecificallyinplanningtheedgeofthecity.
2.Ecologydiscourses
2.1.Thetraditionaldiscourse:
natureasanobject
Accordingtoacommonview,naturestartswherethecityends.Here,ontheedgeofthecity,liestheboundarybetweencultureandnature,betweenredandgreen,thatis:
betweenthebuiltenvironmentanduntouchedlandscape.Ofcourse,therearetreesandparksinthecity,and,ofcourse,thecountrysideisnotaswildasitusedtobe,buttheseobservationsdonotseemtoaffectthedominantview:
thecityistheenemyofnatureandthefront-lineistheedgeofthecity.Inthislineofthinking,allbuildingisbad.Ifurbannaturehasameaning,itcouldonlyrefertothestudyofwildlifeinsomelessdenselybuilturbanenvironments.Thiswayofthinkinghaspracticaladvantagesforthosewhoshareit.Politiciansareattractedbytheideathatpayingattentiontoecologymeanscreatingaconcretenaturereservenearthecity.Architectsliketothinkinthepolaritybetweenthewildandthebeautifullydesignedanditseemslogicaltodiscussitasthepolaritybetweennatureandculture.Biologistsareattractedbytheideathattheyaretheprofessionalecologistswithnatureastheirobject.Environmentalistsareinclinedtousethislanguagetodefendthecountrysideagainsturbanization.
Inthistraditionaldiscourse,ecologyistiedtothenatureofprotectedareasandwildlifespecies.Inthisinterpretation,ecologyisobject-oriented.Inoperationalplanningtoo,theobjectcharacterofnatureisanadvantage.Natureareascanbeboughtandfencedandbudgetsformaintenancecanbeallocated.Wildspeciescanbeprotectedbyspecificmeasures,proposedbyspecialistsworkinginspecialdepartments.Thedivisionoflaborisclear:
thesectordepartmentsforsocialaffairs,economicaffairs,housingandnaturehavedifferentspecialists,whodefendtheirterritories.Thus,inthiscontextnatureispartofaspatiallyandfunctionally
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 外文 翻译 边缘 生态 城乡 景观