Freitas 2003 Paisagem

7/30/2019 Freitas 2003 Paisagem

1/8

ecebido em: 21/05/2003 HOLOS Environment, v.3 n.2, 2003 - P.

iberado para Publicao em: 22/10/2003 ISSN : 15

SHORT COMMUNICATION

LANDSCAPE: WHERE GEOGRAPHY ANDECOLOGY CONVERGE

Freitas, S.R.

Laboratrio de Vertebrados, Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade FederRio de Janeiro, C.P. 68020, CEP: 21941-590, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil - E-

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The word landscape is old and popular. It has many senses fromrritory to scenery. Geography uses this concept since Humboldt, which poiut its spatiality and its physical and cultural characteristics. The geographicpproach of landscape concept emphasizes relationships between natural andultural processes in a spatial portion. Depending on physical orultural/symbolic approaches, one of both processes will prevail. In ecologicpproach, the main characteristics to define landscape are spatiality,eterogeneity and relationship between elements, including men or not. Hereropose a unified landscape concept defining it as a heterogeneous space por

where relationship between natural and cultural processes occur.

Key-words: landscape, ecology, geography, nature, culture.

HE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT

The word landscape come from an ancient Indo-European idiomrought out of Asia by migrant peoples thousands of years ago, and became asis of almost all modern European languages (Latin, Celtic, Germanic, Sla

Greek). The word was introduced into Britain some time after the 5th centur

Holos Environment, v.3, n.2, 2003
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/8

y the Angles, Saxons and groups of Germanic speech. In addition to its Oldnglish variations - 'landskipe', 'landscaef', and others - there is the Germanandschaft', the Dutch 'landscap', as well as Danish and Swedish equivalentshey all come from the same roots, but they are not always used in the sameense (JACKSON, 1984). The German 'landschaft', for instance, can sometime a small administrative unit, corresponding to a district in size. As for the

quivalent word in Latin languages, it derives in almost every case from the agus' meaning a defined rural district. In fact, the French have several wordandscape, each with shades of meaning: 'terroir', 'pays', 'paysage', 'campagnJACKSON, 1984). The Old English 'landscipe' was used in the Dark Ages

meaning a district owned by a lord or inhabited by people (MIKESELL, 197hus, the ancient word to landscape was mainly associated to administrativeivision or territorial unit.

The modern uses of the word ('landskip', 'landscape') come fromnd of XVI century and beginning of XVII century, when the influence ofGerman and Dutch painters of landscape ('landschap') encouraged a recover edefinition of landscape to express scenery representations, especially ruralceneries, or a particular scene. A popular conception of landscape has been ortion of land or territory that eye can apprehend in a glance, or area or scens seen by a human observer (MIKESELL, 1972). Until now, this landscapeoncept has been the popular conception of Portuguese 'paisagem', derived french 'paysage': 1. terrain space that it is reached in a glance; 2. painting, pir drawing that represents a natural or urban landscape (FERREIRA, 1975).

HE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT IN GEOGRAPHY

In Geography, the landscape concept was matter of study since teginning of XX century. Following tradition of Humboldt and other romanaturalists, the word landscape was associated to relatively wide portions of isually characterized by physical and cultural features sufficiently homogeno assume individuality (HOLZER, 1999). Carl Sauer, an American geograpncorporated the word used in German geography, defining landscape as an aonstituted of a distinct association of shapes, physical and cultural in same tSAUER, 1998). The Sauer approach favored a morphological analysis ofandscape, considering only the material aspects of culture. Nowadays, the



3/8

ultural landscape considers subjective aspects of landscape, i.e., a meaningnalysis or the value of landscape (MELO, 2001; SANTOS, 2002). TROLL1997) considered landscape as a sector of earth's surface defined by a certaipatial configuration that results of an exterior aspect, of cluster of its elemennd its external and internal relationships, limited by natural thresholds of otistinct landscapes. This definition is characterized by the functional approac

mphasizing the relationship between landscape elements that constitute anarmonious and interdependent cluster. TUAN (1979; 1980) consideredandscape as an image, being a construction of mind and feelings. The Tuanpproach is a fusion of functional and moral-aesthetic perspectives. To COR

& ROSENDAHL (1998), cultural or geographic landscape results of action, he time, of the culture on the natural landscape presenting simultaneously, mimensions that each epistemologic matrix favors. So, landscape has a

morphological dimension, being a cluster of shapes created by nature and by

uman action; a functional dimension, presenting a spatial dimension; and aymbolic dimension, owner of meanings, expressing values, beliefs, myths atopies. Thus, a multiplicity of meanings and values of landscape makes itifficult to understand this concept in its totality (PENNING-ROWSELL &OWENTHAL, 1986).

In regards to the semantic plurality of the word 'landscape' alongistory, it is important to note that it always is associated to spatial sense (lanrovince, country, region, territory), as well as to notion of collection and grGOMES, 2001). After all, landscape has been considered a hybrid conceptimpregnated of nature and culture, natural and social processes (LUCHIARI001). Depending on the approach, landscape can be linked to social and cul

matters or to natural processes. The meanings and values given to 'landscapeoncept will favor one dimension more than others. However, it is possible dconcept of 'landscape' that fulfill all morphologic, functional and symbolic

imensions, without losing its identity. JACKSON (1984) defines 'landscapeomposition of spaces created or modified by men to be used as foundation oackground to our collective existence. Then, 'landscape' is a space created tccelerate or restrain natural processes. LUCHIARI (2001) supports this ideaaying that 'landscape' always represents a material expression of sense givennvironment by society. When JACKSON (1984) and LUCHIARI (2001)onsidered the interaction of men and nature, they approached a fundamentaandscape property of relationship between cultural and natural elements. Th



4/8

elationship between elements is the basis of landscape definition used byROLL (1997).

One use of 'landscape' concept in geography is to consider it as ynamic system with spatial structure formed by natural and cultural elemenBOBEK & SCHMITHSEN, 1998). In this sense, landscape is an imprint m

y civilization, and at the same time, a matrix because it participates inerception, conception and action schemes, i.e. of culture, that canalize theelation between society, space and nature (BERQUE, 1998). As BERQUE1998) said, landscape as an imprint must be described through methodologinstruments, if the subject which landscape relates to is abstracted. An examphese instruments is statistical quantification of landscape forms and the analf their relationships. To consider the direct relation of landscape with aollective subject, it is necessary to understand landscape in two ways. Land

an be seen by an observer, caught by a conscience, evaluated by an experienudged (and maybe reproduced) by an ethics and a moral, managed by a polin the other hand, landscape is a matrix, i.e., which determines this sight, th

onscience, this experience, this esthetics and moral, this politics. So, landsceceives symbolic value, for instance, the cultural meaning of the polar landsrises from its apparent invincibility by men (COSGROVE, 1998). This valuiven to landscape, which depends on its direct relation to subject, is calledandscape perception (BRUNET, 1982). The analysis of landscape perceptioses methods from social sciences because it depends on the subject (PALM997).

HE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT IN ECOLOGY

FORMAN & GODRON (1986) brought the landscape concept tcology based mainly on Trolls definition. They defined landscape as aeterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interactive units that areepeated in similar form throughout. These interactive units could be geologorms, types of soil, local fauna, natural disturbance regimes, land use, andatterns of human clusters (FORMAN, 1995). To FORMAN & GODRON (andscape has three basic characteristics: structure, function and change. Thiefinition favors the morphological and functional dimension, forgetting theymbolic dimension and the cultural and social matters inherent to landscape



5/8

oncept. Thus, they disagree with the vision that landscapes do not exist a prs a nature data, but solely in relation to society (LUCHIARI, 2001).

To ZONNEVELD (1995), landscape is a complex of relationshiystems, together forming a recognizable part of the earth's surface. He assumhat landscape is formed and maintained by the mutual action of abiotic and

orces as well as human action. Then he considers the role of men as an agenroduces and modifies a landscape. This definition is highlighted because alther ecological perspectives do not consider the human factor, a fundamentactor in the geographical perspective of landscape. NAVEH & LIEBERMA1994) also put humans into geosphere and biosphere. However, in ecologicaerspective generally the main characteristics to define landscape are spatialeterogeneity and interaction between elements (including men or not) (ALL

& HOEKSTRA, 1992; METZGER, 2001; TURNERet al., 2001). Landscap

e analyzed on multiple scales, so a bug in a leaf is in a landscape, as well asorest fragment in a city (ALLEN & HOEKSTRA, 1992; ALLEN, 1998). Amultiscale analysis favored by landscape can be the unique way to reduce thnfluence of change action of man, inherent to landscape. ALLEN &OEKSTRA (1992) argue on fractal and multiscale properties of landscape

howing that, in intermediate scales (for instance, forest fragments), humannfluence is larger than in continental scales, where topography is the maineterminant of landscape structure. Then, it is expected that, in smaller scalenstance, a bug landscape) and larger ones (for instance, global climate chanuman action should be weaker than in intermediate scales. In such case,elationships between natural and cultural processes constitute a gradient ofnfluence on landscape foundation. Landscape is a relationship between natund culture, but the more influent process will depend on the scale of study.

A UNIFIED LANDSCAPE CONCEPT As in Geography as in Ecology, landscape concept is associated

patiality, heterogeneity and relationships between natural and cultural procen different levels depending on approach used. The ecological approach focpatiality, heterogeneity and relationships between natural processes (includi

men or not). The physical geography approach is characterized by focusing opatiality and relationships between natural and cultural processes (mainly n



6/8

nes). The cultural and symbolic geography approach focus, at different leven relationships between natural and cultural processes (mainly cultural ones

Anyway, the difference between these approaches lies mainly on the perspecn morphological, functional or symbolic dimensions, used to study the sambject, landscape. Then, landscape concept can be defined as a heterogeneouortion of space where relationships between natural and cultural processes

ccur. So, landscape emerges as a reconciliation possibility to geographicalciencesper se and a contribution to represent natural and cultural elementsncompassed by these sciences (GOMES, 2001). When landscape conceptncompasses natural and cultural elements, it joins Natural and Social Sciennly in a spatial portion, and at the same time, with diverse approaches. In thense, the sciences that study landscape, such as Cultural Geography, Geoecnd Landscape Ecology, have an open multidisciplinary field to discuss and stablish relationships favoring studies on different dimensions of landscape

REFERENCES

ALLEN, T. F. H. The landscape "level" is dead: persuading the family to takff the respiration. In: PETERSON, D. L.; PARKER, V. T. Ecological scaleheory and applications. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. p. 3

ALLEN, T. F. H.; HOEKSTRA, T. W. Toward a unified ecology. New Yoolumbia University Press, 1992. 384 p.

ERQUE, A. Paisagem-marca, paisagem-matriz: elementos da problemticama geografia cultural. In: CORRA, R. L.; ROSENDAHL, Z. Paisagem,empo e cultura. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ, 1998. p. 84-91.

OBEK, H.; SCHMITHSEN, J. A paisagem e o sistema lgico da geograf

n: CORRA, R. L.; ROSENDAHL, Z. Paisagem, tempo e cultura. Rio deaneiro: EdUERJ, 1998. p. 75-83.

RUNET, R. Analisis de paisajes y semiologia. In: MENDOZA, J. G.;MNEZ, J. M.; CANTERO, N. O. El pensamiento geogrfico: estudio

nterpretativo y antologa de textos (de Humboldt a las tendencias radicMadrid: Alianza, 1982. p. 485-493.



7/8

ORR A, R. L.; ROSENDAHL, Z. Paisagem, tempo e cultura. Rio de JandUERJ, 1998. 124 p.

OSGROVE, D. A geografia est em toda parte: cultura e simbolismo nasaisagens humanas. In: CORRA, R. L.; ROSENDAHL, Z. Paisagem, temultura. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ, 1998. p. 92-122.

ERREIRA, A. B. H. Novo dicionrio da lngua portuguesa. Rio de Janeirditora Nova Fronteira, 1975. 1500 p.

ORMAN, R. T. T. Land Mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regionsambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 632 p.

ORMAN, R. T. T.; GODRON, M. Landscape ecology. New York: John W& Sons, 1986. 620 p.

GOMES, E. T. A. Natureza e cultura - representaes na paisagem. In:OSENDAHL, Z.; CORRA, R. L. Paisagem, imaginrio e espao. Rio d

aneiro: EdUERJ, 2001. p. 49-70.

OLZER, W. Paisagem, imaginrio, identidade: alternativas para o estudoeogrfico. In: ROSENDAHL, Z.; CORRA, R. L. Manifestaes da cultuo espao. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ, 1999. p. 149-168.

ACKSON, J. B. Discovering the vernacular landscape. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1984. 165 p.

UCHIARI, M. T. D. P. A (re)significao da paisagem no perodoontemporneo. In: ROSENDAHL, Z.; CORRA, R. L. Paisagem, imaginspao. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ, 2001. p. 9-28.

MELO, V. M. Paisagem e simbolismo. In: ROSENDAHL, Z.; CORRA, R.aisagem, imaginrio e espao. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ, 2001. p. 29-48.

METZGER, J. P. O que ecologia de paisagens? Biota Neotropica, v. 1, p. 001.

MIKESELL, M. W. Landscape. In: ENGLISH, P. W.; MAYFIELD, R. C. Mpace, and environment: concepts in contemporary human geography. N

York: Oxford University Press, 1972. p. 9-15.



8/8

AVEH, Z.; LIEBERMAN, A. S. Landscape ecology: theory and applicaew York: Springer-Verlag, 1994. 360 p.

ALMER, J. F. Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscapehange. Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 37, p. 109-113, 1997.

ENNING-ROWSELL, E. C.; LOWENTHAL, D. Landscape meanings analues. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1986. 137 p.

ANTOS, M. Por uma outra globalizao: do pensamento nico onscincia universal. Rio de Janeiro: Record, 2002. 174 p.

AUER, C. A morfologia da paisagem. In: CORRA, R. L.; ROSENDAHLaisagem, tempo e cultura. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ, 1998. p. 12-74.

ROLL, C. A paisagem geogrfica e sua investigao. Espao e Cultura, v-7, 1997.

UAN, Y.-F. Thought and landscape: the eye and the mind's eye. In: MEINI. W.; JACKSON, J. B.; LEWIS, P. F. et al.The interpretation of ordinar

andscapes: geographical essays. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979-102.

UAN, Y.-F. Topofilia: um estudo da percepo, atitudes e valores do mmbiente. So Paulo: Difel, 1980. 288 p.

URNER, M. G.; GARDNER, R. H.; O'NEILL, R. V. Landscape ecology iheory and practice: pattern and process. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004 p.

ONNEVELD, I. S. Land ecology: an introduction to landscape ecology

ase for Land Evaluation, Land Management and Conservation. AmsterPB Academic Publishing, 1995. 199 p.


Documents

Freitas 2003 Paisagem