当前位置:主页 > 代写essay > 代写新西兰essay >

新西兰essay代写|What has landscape architecture and in

浏览: 日期:2020-06-10

What has landscape architecture and industrialized society to learn from indigenous cultures and their symbiotic relationships with nature?

‘Despite nature’s many earlier warnings, the pollution and destruction of the natural environment has gone on, intensively and extensively, without awakening a sufficient reaction; it is only during the last century that any systematic effort has been made to determine what constitutes a balanced and self-renewing environment, containing all the ingredient’s necessary for man’s biological prosperity, social cooperation and spiritual stimulation.’ (Ian McHarg, Design With Nature)

At the dawn of the twenty-first century it becomes clearer and clearer daily to scientists, environmentalists, and landscape architects alike, what massive climatic and ecological devastation has been caused by one-hundred-and-fifty years of human industrial activity. Mankind can no longer avert its eyes from environmental catastrophe by pretending that the science behind such doom-full asseverations is unsound, that the results are ambiguous, that the evidence is dubious. As these delusions are blown away by ever more certain evidence, there appear in their place the horrific spectre of rivers and oceans sated with pollution and filth, rainforests ravaged by deforestation, deserts extending at unnatural speeds, and  the atmosphere a toxic and noxious fog filled by the vast emissions of our industrial societies. In less than two centuries, man’s industrial and technological acceleration has brought him to the brink of environmental collapse. It is now evident to all but the most blinkered or obstinate governments that comprehensive action is needed urgently to prevent our follies from going past the environmental ‘tipping-point’ that we have neared and whereafter we risk permanent and irreparable devastation. There have been  myriad suggestions from environmentalists as to which solutions must be implemented to reverse this damage of the past two centuries; there have likewise been many summits, conferences and treaties convened to discuss these issues – the most recent major one being the Kyoto Agreement ratified by all countries except the United States. This essay however examines what landscape architects and conservationists may learn from the relationship with nature and the environment known by indigenous peoples for tens of thousands of years.

It looks, in particular, at what may be understood from the ‘ways of life’ of the Bushmen of the Kalahari in Botswana and Namibia in particular, and also the aborigine peoples of Australia, the indigenous Indians of the Brazilian rainforest and the nomads of the Mongolian steppes. These peoples have lived in many instances, in a near perfectly harmonious and undisturbed relationship with nature for thousands of years -- in the case of the Kalahari Bushmen for over ten thousand years! The philosophies and mythologies of these peoples reveal how they understand and rejoice in the benevolence and fecundity of nature and the profound generosity of the gifts that she has continually bestowed upon them. Universally amongst these peoples there is an intense respect and gratefulness for nature and for what, in McHarg’s phrase, is the ‘glorious bounty’ that she provides. It seems almost too simple and too obvious to say that modern man, who has wreaked enormous damage in fifteen decades, might have a great deal to learn from peoples who lived without any such damage for more than one thousand decades!

 In this essay’s analysis the term ‘symbiotic’ will be a key criteria of investigation; the notion of two organisms (man and nature) feeding from each other and using each other for mutual benefit. After a section of historical reflection where it glances at the seminal and pioneering ideas of Ian McHarg and J.B. Jackson, this essay goes on to explore how the knowledge of indigenous cultures about the environment might be fused with modern technology to create an ideal, sustainable and environmentally-friendly form of landscape design and city-planning. Moreover, the essay studies the notion of ‘collective consciousness’ amongst society as to the planet we inhabit and our collective responsibilities towards it. Throughout these last sections references are made to modern examples of the themes under discussion, as well as contemporary designers such as James Corner, Mark Treib and Sebastian Marot.           

It is vital for students of landscape architecture to know something of the genesis of the theory and practice of landscape architecture; this historical orientation informs the student as to how landscape architecture can be a medium through which the understanding of nature by indigenous peoples may be fused with the technological advances of our own societies to form and develop environmentally friendly and sustainable sites for the future. Within this history, perhaps no one’s ideas are more seminal than those of the father of the discipline: Ian McHarg.   

Before the 1970’s mankind did not possess a comprehensive or total understanding of his relationship with nature and his environment; his knowledge was splinted and fragmented and so unification of environmental theories and ideas was a very rare event. Moreover, no detailed and systematic philosophy of environmental design had yet been conceived. The creation of this philosophy fell, above all, to Ian McHarg. Lewis Mumford’s eloquently tells us of the significance of McHarg’s, the ‘inspired ecologist’, for environmental studies and landscape architecture. Mumford says:  ‘. . . his is a mind that not only looks at all nature and human activity from the external vantage point of ecology, but likewise sees the world from within, and a participant and as an actor, bringing to the cold dry colourless world of science the special contribution that differentiates the higher mammals, above all human beings, from all other animate things: vivid colour and passion, insatiable curiosity, and a genius for creativity’. McHarg’s work was vital because he showed that man must conceive of his environment as a totality and respond to that totality with a dedication and awakened consciousness yet unparalleled in human history. McHarg opened man’s eyes to the destructive capabilities and tendencies of man with respect to his environment; he showed ‘. . . the way in which modern technology, through its hasty and unthinking application of scientific knowledge or technical facility, has been defacing the environment and lowering its habitability.’ McHarg nurtured a nascent consciousness amongst environmentalists and academics as to the threat of pesticides, herbicides, green-house gases etc; and his epoch-making book Design With Nature established the fundamental principles of a philosophy of landscape architecture and city-design that is harmonious with nature and seeks to benefit from nature’s generous fruits without consuming them exhaustively. McHarg’s philosophy had and has a practical aspect and a tremendous efficacy upon environmental renewal if people are willing to implement its advice. This knowledge must ‘. . . be applied to actual environments, to caring for natural areas, like swamps, lakes and rivers, to choosing sites for further urban settlements, to re-establishing human norms and life-furthering in metropolitan conurbations’. McHarg imbued landscape design and city-planning with a distinctive and previously all-together lacking moral and ethical dimension, and swung round the aesthetic sensibilities of these disciplines to exalt and revere the principle of harmonious inter-action and inter-dependence with the environment. In Mumford’s words, again: ‘McHarg’s emphasis is not on either design or nature herself, but upon the prepositionwith, which implies human cooperation and biological partnership’. By this philosophy a design is not imposed upon nature and does not therefore run the risk of being unsuccessful due to its incompatibility with the environment; but instead a design emerges out of the natural features of the landscape. By this approach, the meeting of design upon environment will be a natural and harmonious fit. To use a medical metaphor: the landscape will not reject the organ that is transplanted within it: the two are intimately joined. Perhaps, at bottom, there emerges out of the work and philosophy of McHarg, Jackson, Rachel Carson and all who have come after them, the conviction, that if done in the correct way and with the correct attitude, man can even ‘improve or ‘perfect’ nature by adding the element of himself to it.

 For more than ten thousand years the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, a vast 500,000 kilometre square area of southern Africa, have lived a lifestyle that has changed nearly nothing for this entire period. The Kalahari Desert appears to the softened Western observer as a barren, inhospitable and intolerably difficult place to survive – yet alone live continually! But the Bushmen have not only lived here amongst the dunes, plains and brush for countless millennia, but they have prospered also. At the heart of this ancient way of living is the harmonious and balanced relationship that the tribes of the Kalahari share with the environment that supports them. This is a ‘symbiotic’ relationship where man takes what he needs from nature, but only enough, so that nature in return profits by being treated respectfully. A useful analogy is the one Courtlander makes between the shark and the little fish that clean it: the shark is cleaned by these fish as they remove its parasites and in return the fish are fed by the parasites of the shark. The relationship between the Bushmen and nature is similar: the Bushmen feed from nature’s bounty and then nature benefits also to the extent that she is treated respectfully. This relationship is symbolised in the abodes and dwelling places of the Bushmen: their huts are made of materials taken from the immediate environment: grass, wood, animal skin, earth. These products are all used with maximum efficiency so that nothing is wasted and nothing in nature is harmed; these features are elaborated in the sacred places of worship of the Bushmen (mounds, mountains, watering-holes) where these materials are used more extensively. Klaus has shown in his three-volume work The Sacred Rituals and Magical Practices of the Bushmen of the Kalahari the Bushmen’s celebration of nature by way of numerous religious rituals and magical practicesOther cultures that share an such an intimate and delicate relationship, and such a direct reflection of this the style of their dwelling places, include the aborigine peoples of Australia who live a very similar lifestyle to the bushmen and venerate Ayres rock as the acme of nature’s munificence – as has been well documented by Kama’eleiwiha in Native Land and Foreign Desires; also, the myriad indigenous tribes of the Amazon basin in South America as recorded by Davies in his Indigenous Tribes of Brazil; and the nomadic peoples of the Mongolian steppes.

What then has the modern landscape architect to learn from the symbiotic relationship of indigenous peoples with nature? Landscape architects of 2005, often working on sites at the derelict fringes of society, on industrial waste-grounds, the edges of motorways, close to airports and so on are often forced to work with sites that are sated with pollution, toxins, scrap materials and waste products. The rejuvenation of sites as these by landscape architects must be in accordance with principles of sustainability and environmental balance. The Bushmen of the Kalahari, the aborigines of Australia and so on have, above all, a certain ‘control’ about the way they occupy and use their environment. The Bushmen will only kill as many animals as suffice to satisfy their hunger; by not hunting to excess the Bushmen ensure the stability of the livestock populations and the other species that depend upon them. The aborigines of Australia and the nomads of Mongolia are intimately aware of the maximum amount that they can take from nature without forcing deprivation upon her; there is a ‘collective consciousness amongst these peoples as to their responsibility towards nature and as to what the relationship is between nature and society. For an aborigine or South American Indian to do damage to or pollute his environment is tantamount to an act of self-harm and self-destruction; and as such acts of mass pollution are undocumented amongst such peoples. Landscape architects must adopt a similar collective consciousness and try to emit this through their designs so that their audiences and users come to take up a similar consciousness. Landscape architects must also learn something of the ‘control’ exhibited by indigenous peoples towards the environments, and do this by building their landscape creations with the same centrality of control. This has been shown particularly by the work of Martha Schwartz in the United State and the Schouwburgplein in Rotterdam.  Instead of vast landfill sites that forever plant more toxins and pollutants in the soil, designs must embrace the technologies of recycling, bioengineering and so on. Notable examples of attempts as such design include the, the Evergreen Estate in Chicago, USA, the BMW building in Berlin, and, less well-known but perhaps most persuasively of all, in the Plaza de Paz in Bogota, Colombia. In each of these designs the materials used for construction are environmentally friendly and were produced in an environmentally friendly manner; the energy used by these places is clean and comes from renewable sources. Every aspect of these designs is intended to foster harmony and equilibrium between man and his environment, and to promote amongst users of these sites a deeper environmental consciousness that they might then extend to their families and colleagues and thus, eventually, force the governments who represent them to take up similar attitudes also. It is almost needless to say, that future opportunities for such design are endless.             

In the final analysis, landscape architects of the twenty-first find that they have an immense amount to learn about their discipline from the ways of life and symbiotic relationship with nature that have been known and practised by indigenous and nomadic peoples for several millennia. A landscape architect might indeed conclude that buried within this intimate and intricate relationship with nature are the ideal principles with which to compensate the rapacious appetite for and consumption of the environment by modern industrial society. At the heart of the indigenous and nomadic attitude to nature are the concepts of ‘balance’ and ‘equilibrium’: it is by these principles that mankind may continue to enjoy the bountiful fruits of nature without exhausting her ability to produce them. It is this exhaustive, relentless and apparently inexorable ‘taking from nature’ by our economies and cultures without returning anything to nature that has disturbed the delicate balance cherished by indigenous and nomadic peoples. Nonetheless, it is impossible for our age to dispense with the sophisticated technologies and industries that we have developed and to return to a state of indigenous lifestyle; what is needed is to create an architectural philosophy of design that fuses the simplicity and balance of the indigenous relationship with nature, with the technological advances of our own age. The duty and responsibility of the twenty-first century landscape architect is to produce designs and structures that bring these two philosophies together. It is therefore essential that landscape architects work intimately with scientists, ecologists, botanists, businessmen and others so as to bring the greatest amount of environmental consideration and reflection to the development of a particular site or project. By convening all of the particular parties interested in a site in this way, a dialogue may be opened between them and therefore the greatest hope arises that action will be implemented to guarantee the environmental health of a site. It must always be in his mind that as the world races towards the environmental ‘tipping-point’ of no return, that this responsibility upon the landscape architect is a heavy one. The realization of such ambitious landscape architecture has begun with the works of James Corner, Sebastian Marot and Mark Treib.


Academic Books, Journals & Articles

-- Bachelard, Gaston (1994) The Poetics of Space; Beacon Press, Boston.

-- Casey, Edward (1993) Getting back into place - towards a new understanding ofthe place world; Indiana University Press

-- Courtlander, H. (1996). A Treasure of African Folklore. Marlowe & Company, New York.

-- Ed: Corney, James (1999) Recovering Landscape; Princetown

-- Davies, P. (1971). The Indigenous Tribes of Brazil. Farenheit Press, Preston. 

-- Heidegger, Martin (1977) 'Building/Dwelling/Thinking'; New York, ed: Krell 

-- Heizer, Michael (1999) Effigy Tumuli; New York, Harry N. Abrams

-- Heizer, Michael (1997) Cities & Natural Process; London & New York, Routledge.

-- Jackson. J.B. (1994) A Sense of Place, a Sense of Time; Yale.

-- Kame’eleiwiha, L. (1992). Native Land and Foreign Desires. Frontham Books, Sydney & London.

-- Klaus, Walter. (1951). The Sacred Rituals and Magical Practices of the Bushmen of theKalahari. Ford Books, Edinburgh. Ford Books.

-- Mathur, Anuradha, da Cunha, Dilip (2001) Mississippi Floods: Designing aShifting Landscape; Yale Univ. Press

-- McHarg, Ian L. (1971) Design with Nature; Doubleday/ Natural History Press

-- Mumford,L. ‘Introduction’ in McHarg, M.L. (1971). Design With Nature. Doubleday, Natural History Press.

-- Roy, Arundhati (1999) The Cost of Living; Flamingo

-- Smithson, Robert (1996) The Collected Writings; California Press

-- Ed: Swaffield, Simon (2002) Theory in Landscape Architecture - A Reader; Univ. of Penn Press

-- Weilacher, Udo (1996) Between Landscape, Architecture & Land Art; Birkhaüser


尽管自然界的许多早期警告的污染和破坏自然环境的消失上,深入,广泛,不觉醒足够的反应;它是只在上个世纪,任何系统性的努力已经被提出,以确定什么构成一个平衡的和自我更新的环境中,含有成分的所有必要的人的生物繁荣,社会合作和精神刺激。 “ (伊恩·麦克哈格,设计与自然)
在二十一世纪的曙光变得更加清晰和明确,每天的科学家,环保,景观设计师的一致好评,有什么巨大的气候和生态破坏已经造成一百五十多年的人类工业活动。人类可以不再从环境灾难避免其眼睛通过假装,科学背后这种厄运满的asseverations是不健全的,结果是含糊不清,证据是可疑的。由于这些妄想交口称赞越来越某些证据,出现在他们的地方可怕的幽灵心满意足的河流和海洋污染和藏污纳垢,肆虐的森林砍伐热带雨林,沙漠延伸非自然的速度,气氛有毒有害大雾弥漫我们的工业社会,受到了广大的排放。在不到两个世纪以来,人类的工业和技术的加速已经给他带来了环境崩溃的边缘。现在明显但最狭隘的或顽固的政府,迫切需要全面采取行动以防止我们的愚蠢,从过去对环境的'临界点' ,我们已经接近此后,我们的风险永久性的,无法挽回的破坏。已经有无数的建议,从环保的解决方案必须实现,扭转这种损害在过去两个世纪,也同样有许多首脑会议,会议和条约召开会议来讨论这些问题 - 最新的主要批准“京都协议”美国以外的所有国家。然而,这篇文章探讨景观建筑师和保育学会从自然和环境的关系,称为几万几千年的土著人民。
它的外观,尤其是可以理解从“生活的方式”,特别是在博茨瓦纳和纳米比亚布须曼人的喀拉哈里,原住民澳大利亚,巴西的热带雨林的土著印第安人和游牧民族人民蒙古大草原。这些人民生活在许多情况下,在几千年的一个近乎完美的和谐和不受干扰与自然的关系 - 在卡拉哈里沙漠的布须曼人的情况下,为超过万年!这些民族的哲学和神话,揭示他们如何在仁和繁殖力的性质和深刻慷慨的礼物,她不断赋予他们的理解和欢呼。这些民族之间普遍有一个强烈的尊重和对自然的感激之情和麦克哈格的话说,是为了什么, “辉煌的赏金,她提供。这似乎是太简单了,太明显了,说,现代的人,谁在15十年,造成了巨大的损害,可能有很大一千余十年的生活中没有任何此类损害人民学习!
 在这篇文章中的分析术语“共生” ,将是一个关键标准调查的概念,两个生物(人与自然)喂养彼此相互利用,互惠互利。一段历史反思后,伊恩·麦克哈格和JB杰克逊的开创性和开拓思路几眼,本文探讨如何关于环境的知识,土著文化与现代技术相融合,创造一个理想的,可持续的和环保形式的景观设计和城市规划。此外,文章研究我们居住的这个星球和我们的集体责任,朝它的社会之间的“集体意识”的概念。纵观这些最后部分引用现代的例子,讨论的主题,以及当代设计师如詹姆斯角,马克Treib和塞巴斯蒂安MAROT的。
之前1970年的人类与自然的关系和他的环境不具备全面的或总的理解,他的知识夹板和分散,所以​​环境的理论和思想的统一是一个非常罕见的事件。此外,没有详细和系统的环境设计理念尚未被设想。这一理念的创造下跌,高于一切,伊恩·麦克哈格。刘易斯·芒福德的雄辩地告诉我们麦克哈格的意义, “灵感的生态学家,环境研究和园林建筑。芒福德说:“ 。 。 。他又是一记,不仅着眼于从外部制高点生态所有自然界和人类活动,但同样看到了世界内,和参与者,作为一个演员,带来寒冷干燥的无色世界科学作出的特殊贡献区别于高等哺乳动物,上述所有人类,所有其他有生命的东西:生动的色彩和激情,永不满足的好奇心和创造力的天才' 。麦克哈格的工作是至关重要的,因为他表明,男人必须作为一个整体,并设想他的环境响应与奉献,但人类历史上前所未有的觉醒意识,总体。麦克哈格开人的眼睛与他的环境的破坏性能力和倾向的人,他表现出' 。 。 。现代科技,通过其草率和没头没脑的应用科学知识或技术设施,已经面目全非环境和降低其可居住的方式。麦克哈格孕育出新生的环保主义者和学者的意识当中的威胁杀虫剂,除草剂,绿色建立内部气体等;和他的划时代的书设计与自然景观建筑和城市设计是与自然的和谐,并寻求受益于大自然的慷慨的水果,而无需耗费他们详尽哲学的基本原则。麦克哈格的理念,拥有一支具有实际的方面和巨大的环境重建后的疗效,如果人们愿意来实现其意见。这方面的知识必须“ 。 。 。被应用到实际环境中,照顾的自然区域,如沼泽,湖泊和河流,进一步的城市住区选址,重新确立人的规范和推动生命在大都市大都市“ 。麦克哈格灌输景观设计和城市规划的一个独特的和以前都一起缺乏道德和伦理层面,转过身这些学科的美感尊崇和敬仰的和谐与环境相互作用和相互依存的原则。在芒福德的话,再次:“麦克哈格的重点是不是在设计风格或自己的性质,但在介词后,这意味着人类合作和生物伙伴关系” 。通过这种设计理念不强加于自然,因此不运行的风险,是不成功的,由于其与环境不兼容,但取而代之的是设计浮现出自然的景观功能。通过这种方法,设计的会议后,环境将是一个自然和谐的配合。要使用医疗的比喻:景观不会拒绝范围内移植的器官,两者紧密地结合。或许,在底部,浮现出工作麦克哈格,杰克逊,雷切尔·卡森和所有的人都在他们之后,如果以正确的方式进行,并以正确的态度,信念和哲学,男人甚至可以改善或“完美”的性质,加入自己的元素。
 万年以上,一个庞大的50万公里的正方形区域,南部非洲卡拉哈里沙漠的布须曼人的生活已经改变了一种生活方式,这整个期间几乎没有。卡拉哈里沙漠出现软化西方观察员作为一个贫瘠,荒凉和难以忍受的艰难生存的地方 - 但独居不断!但是,布须曼人不仅住在这里的沙丘之间,平原和刷数千年,但他们也繁荣。在这个古老的方式生活的心脏是卡拉哈里共享的环境,支持他们的部落的和谐和平衡的关系。这是一种“共生”关系人各取所需来自大自然,但只有足够的回报利润,让大自然被恭敬地对待。一个有用的类比是一个Courtlander使得之间的鲨鱼和小鱼,清洁:清洁鲨鱼,因为他们删除这些鱼的寄生虫和返回鱼喂鲨鱼的寄生虫。布须曼人与自然之间的关系是相似的:送布须曼人从大自然的恩惠,那么自然好处还她恭敬地对待的程度。这种关系是象征布须曼人的住所和居住的地方:他们的小屋从眼前的环境:草,木,动物的皮肤,土的材料。这些产品都以最高的效率,所以,没有什么是浪费,在本质上没有什么伤害,这些功能都阐述的布须曼人在神圣的礼拜场所(丘,山,浇水孔) ,这些材料被用于更广泛。克劳斯在他的三卷工作卡拉哈里沙漠布须曼人的庆祝方式,众多的宗教仪轨和神奇的做法自然的布须曼人的神圣的仪式和魔法实践。其他文化共享的这样一个亲密细腻的关系,和这样的一个直接反映他们的住处的风格,包括的原住民民族澳大利亚谁住一个非常相似的生活方式的布须曼人,并作为大自然的极致尊崇艾尔斯岩宽宏大量 - 已经有据可查由Kama'eleiwiha在本地土地和外国的欲望,也无数在南美洲的亚马逊河流域的土著部落所记录的戴维斯在他的巴西土著部落和蒙古草原游牧民族。
那么具有现代景观建筑师学习土著人民与自然的共生关系? 2005年,景观建筑师往往网站上在社会遗弃的边缘工作,对工业废水的理由,高速公路的边缘,靠近机场等往往被迫网站是吃饱污染,毒素,废料和废物。景观设计师,因为这些网站的复兴,必须按照可持续发展和环境的平衡原则。卡拉哈里沙漠的布须曼人,澳大利亚等国的原住民,高于一切,具有一定的“控制”的方式,他们占有和使用他们的环境。布须曼人只会就足够杀死尽可能多的动物,以满足他们的饥饿; ,由不狩猎过量的布须曼人确保牲畜种群的稳定性和其他物种依赖他们。澳大利亚和蒙古的游牧民族原住民是密切意识到,他们可以采取的最高金额不强制剥夺后,她从大自然中有一个'集体意识之间的这些人民作为自己的责任,对大自然的关系是什么自然和社会之间。南美印第安原住民或做损害或污染他的环境是无异于自我伤害和自我毁灭的行为和大规模污染等行为都是无证除这些人民。景观建筑师必须采取类似的集体意识,并尝试通过发出自己的设计,所以他们的观众和用户前来采取了类似的意识。景观建筑师还必须学习的东西土著人民对环境所表现出的“控制” ,做到这一点,他们的景观创作具有相同核心的控制。这已被证明,尤其是在美国国家和鹿特丹Schouwburgplein的玛莎舒瓦茨工作。巨大的垃圾填埋场,而是永远种植在土壤中的毒素和污染物,设计必须拥抱回收,生物工程等方面的技术。尝试为这样的设计的著名的例子包括,长青村在芝加哥,美国,柏林,宝马大厦,少闻名,但也许是最有说服力的,在广场在哥伦比亚波哥大,拉巴斯。在这些设计中,施工所用的材料是环保和生产环境友好的方式;是干净的,这些地方所使用的能源来自可再生能源。这些设计的每一个方面,旨在促进人与环境的和谐与平衡之间,并推动这些网站的用户之间更深的环保意识,他们可能会再延长他们的家人和同事,因此,最终迫使政府代表他们也采取了类似的态度。这几乎是不用说,这样的设计,未来的机会是无穷无尽的。
在最后的分析中,景观建筑师二十一发现他们有一个巨大的量,以了解他们的纪律,从生活和大自然的共生关系已经知道并实行由土著游牧民族几千年的方法。一个景观设计师可能确实得出结论,埋在这间亲密错综复杂与自然的关系是理想的原则与贪婪的食欲和消费对环境的现代工业社会,以弥补。在中心地带的游牧土著和自然的态度是“平衡”和“平衡”的概念:它是由人类的这些原则,可继续享受大自然的丰富多样的水果,没有用尽她的能力产生。它是详尽的,无情的,显然是必然的“取之于大自然,不返回任何东西自然不安由土著和游牧人民珍视的微妙平衡我们的经济和文化。然而,它是不可能免除我们这个时代的先进技术和产业,我们已经开发出并返回到一个国家的土著生活方式所需要的是建立一个建筑的设计理念,融合了简约和平衡的土著与自然的关系,我们这个时代的技术进步。二十一世纪景观设计师的职责和责任是设计和结构,使这两种哲学。因此,它是必不可少的景观建筑师的工作紧密地结合,从而带来最大的环境代价和反思的科学家,生物学家,植物学家,商人和其他特定站点或项目的发展。召集所有以这种方式在网站感兴趣的特定当事人,对话可以打开它们之间最大的希望,因此出现这一行动将实施保证健康环保的站点。必须始终在他的脑海里,作为世界比赛朝着对环境的'临界点'的不归路,后景观建筑师,这个责任是一个沉重的。实现如此雄心勃勃的建筑景观已经开始与詹姆斯·角,塞巴斯蒂安MAROT和马克· Treib的作品。
- 加斯东·巴什拉(1994年)的空间诗学;灯塔出版社,波士顿。
- 凯西( 1993年) ,爱德华放回原位 - 迈向一个新的认识OFTHE地方世界印第安纳大学出版社
- Courtlander , H. (1996) 。非洲民俗文化的瑰宝。马洛公司,纽约。
- 编者:科尼,詹姆斯(1999年)恢复景观;普林斯敦
- 戴维斯, P. (1971) 。巴西土著部落。华氏出版社,普雷斯顿。
- 海德格尔,马丁(1977) , “建筑/住宅/思维” ;纽约, ED : Krell的
- 海泽,迈克尔(1999)肖像吐含山纽约,哈里N.艾布拉姆斯
- 迈克尔·海泽( 1997年)城市与自然过程;伦敦及纽约,Routledge出版社。
- 杰克逊。 JB ( 1994)地方感,时间感;耶鲁。
- Kame'eleiwiha , L. (1992) 。土著土地及外国的欲望。 Frontham书籍,悉尼和伦敦。
- 克劳斯,沃尔特。 (1951) 。卡拉哈里沙漠的布须曼人的神圣的仪式和魔法实践。福特图书,爱丁堡。福特图书。
- 马瑟的Anuradha达库尼亚,迪利普(2001)密西西比洪水:设计aShifting景观;耶鲁大学。按
- 伊恩·麦克哈格, L. (1971)设计结合自然布尔迪/自然历史新闻
- 芒福德, L. “介绍”在麦克哈格,M.L. (1971) 。与自然的设计。道布尔迪,自然历史博物馆出版社。
- 罗伊,阿兰达蒂(1999年)的生活费用;火烈鸟
- 史密森,罗伯特(1996)的文集,加州大学出版社
- ED : Swaffield ,在园林绿化中的西蒙(2002)的理论 - 一个读写;大学。宾夕法尼亚大学出版社
- Weilacher , UDO( 1996 )山水之间,建筑与大地艺术; Birkhauser出版