外文翻譯邊緣生態(tài)城鄉(xiāng)景觀生態(tài)

1、Ecology on the edge: Landscape and ecology between town and countrySybrand P TjallingiiAbstractThe trends are world wide: people and goods are increasingly mobile, compact cities develop into urban networks, industrializing agriculture is becoming footloose, rural life becomes urban life in a green

2、setting. Social segregation, traffic nuisance, urban sprawl and other unwanted impacts of these trends challenge urban and regional planners. The search for planning answers to these issues is further complicated by the need for sustainable development at a global scale. What is the role of ecology

3、in the context of the discussions on the future of town and country? The traditional, and still dominant, approach is based on the polarity of urban and rural worlds. In this perspective, ecology focuses on the nature of protected areas and biodiversity. The papers in this special issue explore the

4、prospects of a wider perspective in which natural processes are seen as basic to both, rural and urban development. This article is digging up the fundamental discourses underlying the two approaches to ecology and nature. Firstly, the object-oriented and process-oriented discourses are analyzed.Sec

5、ondly, the prospects of a process-oriented discourse are illustrated with plans for the Dutch Randstad and the German Ruhr area. Then, some new concepts are introduced that may strengthen the institutional conditions for the process-oriented approach. Discourses, concepts, plans and projects all cir

6、cle around the central question in this article about the role of ecology in planning the edge of the city.KeywordsUrban and regional planning;Ecology;Discourses;City edge1. IntroductionLandscape ecology may be taken in a strict or in a broad sense. The strict interpretation, most popular in the Int

7、ernational Association of Landscape Ecology and its associated organizations, focuses on habitats and population dynamics of plants and animals at the scale of landscapes. The papers in this special issue cross the edge of this strict interpretation and engage in a broad approach of the classical de

8、finition of ecology: the interaction between living organisms and their environment. This broad view places economy, sociology and ecology at the same level as complementary approaches to the study of manenvironment interactions. As the papers in this issue demonstrate, the broad approach offers mea

9、ningful context studies, both to social and economic researchers and to landscape ecologists sensu stricto. First of all, however, the need for a broad approach emerges from local and regional practice, where planners are challenged by the dynamic nature of urbanrural interactions.The papers in this

10、 issue were presented at a workshop on urbanrural interactions during the 1997 conference of the Dutch Association for Landscape Ecology and this explains the emphasis on the Ramstad Holland and other Dutch issues in most, but not all, of the articles.The issue opens with two reflections on basic di

11、scourses framing theory and practice of town and country planning. The following three papers are based on analytical research and explore biological, psychological and economic aspects of urbanizing landscapes. In the third and last part of this issue, three planning and design studies deal with pl

12、ans at different scales: house and garden, built-up and green areas in a city and, finally, infrastructure planning at a regional scale.A more prominent role of ecology is becoming self-evident in planning and design of urban and rural areas. By no means evident, however, is the meaning of ecology.

13、To some, the presence of green areas is the central topic, to others managing flows and recycling is the heart of the matter and yet others think the lifestyle of actors is the real issue. To architects and to many others, the first question about ecology is, perhaps: is it form or function? The foc

14、us of this paper is on the edge of the city and, in general, on urbanrural interactions. Here, the central question is: what does ecology have to offer to the local planner? More precisely: how useful is ecological knowledge in the context of accommodating and steering指導(dǎo) urbanization processes and r

15、ural development? The situation is far from clear. Does an ecological approach to planning lead to compact central cities, as the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) states in its Green paper on the Urban Environment (Commission of the European Communities, 1990)? Or is the real message of

16、ecology “that the city must be unmade by the unmaking of its boundaries,” implying both, greening the cities and urbanizing the countryside (Nicholson Lord, 1987: p. 211)?In search for answers to these questions, I will first turn to an underlying layer of ecology interpretations and describe two ec

17、ology discourses. First, the focus is on the traditional, and still dominant, discourse on ecology, in which town and country are considered as expressions of the culturenature polarity. In this view, nature is taken as an object, an area or a species. Then, an emerging alternative discourse is intr

18、oduced, that may be called ecological modernization and takes natural processes as its point of departure. If nature is an object, then nature is something to possess. If nature is a process, then nature is something that acts.I describe the two approaches as discourses, to elucidate the conceptual概

19、念的 and practical context of different ways of seeing that lead to contrasting actions. In modern sociology and planning theory, discourse analysis is developed to unravel the ideas, concepts and categorizations contained and reproduced in language (Hajer, 1996: 44). The approach is rooted in the wor

20、k of Foucault, Giddens and others and is based on the assumption that our understanding of the material reality is constructed discursively (Jacobs, 1999: p. 203). Recently, discourse analysis has become an important instrument in research on urban change (Hastings, 1999) and on urbanrural interacti

21、ons (Hidding et al., 2000). In Hajers approach (Hajer, 1996: pp. 5865), typically, different actors who may support a collection of ideas for different reason form discourse coalitions. These coalitions may change, as discourses are susceptible to change. In this view, on the one hand, discourse is

22、not merely a function of power; it is not a passive tool in the hands of vested group interests. On the other hand, discourse is neither a fixed language linked to deeply held belief systems such as convictions about the role of the market or the state. Discourse construction and reconstruction resu

23、lts from the interaction between human agency and social structures in a changing world.The two ecology discourses have different potentials both for problem and solution finding. Subsequent sections of this article will illustrate this with a number of current issues in urban rural interaction, and

24、 with a number of plans and projects from the Randstad and Ruhr metropolitan areas. As I will demonstrate, the ecology discourse that takes nature as an object is deeply rooted in institutional structures, but its potential to address fundamental issues is limited. The process-oriented discourse, ho

25、wever, has promising prospects, but its institutional base is weak.After these examples I discuss two conceptual tools aiming at improving the institutional structure for a process-oriented approach to regional planning. The forumpilot-project strategy focuses on the structural basis for a prominent

26、 role of learning from projects and plans. This comprises the strategy of the two networks. This strategic concept takes the water and traffic networks as carrying structures for the zoning of functions usually called urban and rural.In Section 6, I will return to the questions raised at the start a

27、nd make some general recommendations on the role of ecology in urbanrural planning and, more specifically in planning the edge of the city.2. Ecology discourses2.1. The traditional discourse: nature as an objectAccording to a common view, nature starts where the city ends. Here, on the edge of the c

28、ity, lies the boundary between culture and nature, between red and green, that is: between the built environment and untouched landscape. Of course, there are trees and parks in the city, and, of course, the countryside is not as wild as it used to be, but these observations do not seem to affect th

29、e dominant view: the city is the enemy of nature and the front-line is the edge of the city. In this line of thinking, all building is bad. If urban nature has a meaning, it could only refer to the study of wildlife in some less densely built urban environments. This way of thinking has practical ad

30、vantages for those who share it. Politicians are attracted by the idea that paying attention to ecology means creating a concrete nature reserve near the city. Architects like to think in the polarity between the wild and the beautifully designed and it seems logical to discuss it as the polarity be

31、tween nature and culture. Biologists are attracted by the idea that they are the professional ecologists with nature as their object. Environmentalists are inclined to use this language to defend the countryside against urbanization.In this traditional discourse, ecology is tied to the nature of pro

32、tected areas and wildlife species. In this interpretation, ecology is object-oriented. In operational planning too, the object character of nature is an advantage. Nature areas can be bought and fenced and budgets for maintenance can be allocated. Wild species can be protected by specific measures,

33、proposed by specialists working in special departments. The division of labor is clear: the sector departments for social affairs, economic affairs, housing and nature have different specialists, who defend their territories. Thus, in this context nature is part of a spatially and functionally separ

34、ated world.2.2. An emerging discourse: nature as a processIn the 18th century, already, “the growth of towns had led to a new longing for the countryside for unsubdued nature” (Thomas, 1983). This led to the concept of nature as an object invented by citizens but separated from cities. In this disco

35、urse, that in the 20th century became the dominant way of seeing, man and nature are kept separate, both in the minds of people and in our landscapes. As a result, nature has also been separated from production economy and this leads to the paradox that nature has to be paid for from the revenues of

36、 a polluting economy. The chimney must smoke to save the forest! As we live in one world, however, there is no lasting prospect for this separation of functions. In other words: protecting islands of nature in a highly cultivated landscape is not a sustainable approach. This is not to say any functi

37、onal separation is to be rejected. “Good fences make good neighbors,” as a well-known saying goes. Alas, there are no good fences against air pollution or contaminated groundwater.邊緣生態(tài)：城鄉(xiāng)景觀生態(tài)森樸若安·恰林基摘要:全球趨勢:人與貨物的流動性越來越高，緊湊的城市發(fā)展成為城市網(wǎng)絡(luò)，農(nóng)業(yè)產(chǎn)業(yè)化變得越來越普及，農(nóng)村的生活成為一個綠色的城市生活環(huán)境。社會隔離，交通公害，和這些趨勢帶來的其他的未曾想到的影響挑

38、戰(zhàn)著城市區(qū)域規(guī)劃者們。在全球范圍內(nèi)實現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的需要，使得對于這些問題的解決方法的規(guī)劃研究進一步復(fù)雜化。在討論城市和鄉(xiāng)村的未來的背景下，生態(tài)學(xué)扮演怎樣的角色呢?傳統(tǒng)的、仍占主導(dǎo)地位的方式是基于城市和農(nóng)村的反向性。從這個角度來看，生態(tài)重點在于保護區(qū)的天然性和生物的多樣性。在這個特殊問題方面的論文，用更廣闊的視野探討將自然過程視為城鄉(xiāng)發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)這一前景。本文致力于挖掘出隱藏在自然生態(tài)背后的基本“模式”。第一，分析“實物導(dǎo)向”和“過程導(dǎo)向”性論述。第二，過程導(dǎo)向性的前景是以荷蘭任仕達和德國魯爾區(qū)的規(guī)劃為例進行的詳述。第三，引入一些新的概念，可以為“過程導(dǎo)向”方式增強制度條件。在這篇文章中，所有的論

39、述，概念，計劃和項目都是圍繞生態(tài)學(xué)在城市邊緣規(guī)劃中所起到的作用這一中心問題而展開的。關(guān)鍵詞：城市和區(qū)域規(guī)劃 生態(tài)學(xué) 論述 城市邊緣1.引言 景觀生態(tài)學(xué)有狹義和廣義兩方面的解釋。狹義的解釋，即景觀生態(tài)學(xué)國際協(xié)會和相關(guān)組織中最受推崇的是，在景觀范圍內(nèi)側(cè)重于植物和動物的棲息地和種群動態(tài)的研究。就這個特殊的問題，這篇論文跨過狹義的解釋，用更廣闊的視野研究生態(tài)學(xué)的經(jīng)典定義：生物與環(huán)境之間的相互作用。這個廣闊的視野將經(jīng)濟、社會和生態(tài)學(xué)放在同一水平下，作為互補的方式去研究人與環(huán)境之間的相互作用。在這個問題上，論文表明，廣義的方法提供了有意義的背景研究，嚴格的講是對社會和經(jīng)濟的研究人員和景觀生態(tài)學(xué)家來說。但是

40、首先，廣義的方法需要從地方和區(qū)域?qū)嵺`中獲得，也就是規(guī)劃師面臨城鄉(xiāng)之間相互作用的動態(tài)性質(zhì)的挑戰(zhàn)的地方。 在這個問題上的論文，是在城市農(nóng)村相互作用的一個專題研討會上，即1997年荷蘭景觀生態(tài)協(xié)會會議期間提出了的，解釋并強調(diào)任仕達荷蘭和其他荷蘭問題，但不是所有的條款這個問題以思考城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃基本的理論框架和實踐展開，接下來的文章以系統(tǒng)的研究為基礎(chǔ)，探索城市化過程中景觀的生物學(xué)，心理學(xué)和經(jīng)濟學(xué)層面的作用。這篇文章的第三段和最后一部分，就這個問題，提出了三個不同尺度方面的規(guī)劃設(shè)計研究解決方案：房屋與花園，城市建設(shè)與綠地面積，還有特定區(qū)域范圍內(nèi)的基礎(chǔ)建設(shè)規(guī)劃。在城鄉(xiāng)地區(qū)的規(guī)劃設(shè)計中，生態(tài)學(xué)的突出地位變得更顯而

41、易見。沒有所謂的證據(jù)，但是，這就是生態(tài)學(xué)的意義。一些人認為，綠地面積的呈現(xiàn)是中心話題，一些認為，治理流暢和循環(huán)利用是問題的關(guān)鍵，而另一些人認為人們的生活方式才是真正的關(guān)鍵點。對建筑師和很多其他人來說，關(guān)于生態(tài)，首要的問題可能是：它是作為一種功能還是只是擺設(shè)？這篇文章的焦點是城市的邊緣地帶，綜合的說，就是城鄉(xiāng)之間的相互作用。中心的問題是：生態(tài)學(xué)能為地區(qū)規(guī)劃者們提供什么？更準確的講：在幫助和指導(dǎo)城市化進程和農(nóng)村發(fā)展的背景中，生態(tài)學(xué)方面的知識有什么用？目前的形式還不是很明確。難道用生態(tài)學(xué)方法去規(guī)劃，能夠形成更簡化的中心城市？就像歐盟委員會在它的城市環(huán)境綠皮書上所陳述的那樣。（歐盟委員會，1990）或

42、者說是生態(tài)學(xué)的真正的使命 “城市一定會因城市邊界的瓦解而毀滅”有兩方面的意思，是城市鄉(xiāng)村化，鄉(xiāng)村城市化。為了尋找這些問題的答案，我首先去查找對生態(tài)學(xué)深層面的解釋，然后寫出了兩個生態(tài)學(xué)論述。第一，重點在傳統(tǒng)的并且仍占主導(dǎo)地位的，關(guān)于生態(tài)學(xué)方面的論述，城市和鄉(xiāng)村被視為文化與自然對立的表現(xiàn)。在這個觀點中，自然被看做一個對象，一片區(qū)域或者一個種類。第二，一個相關(guān)的論述被引進來，可以稱為生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化，把自然化進程作為它的出發(fā)點。如果自然是一個目標，那就意味著去擁有，如果自然是一個過程，那就需要去表現(xiàn)我把這兩種方式作為論點，來闡明概念的和實際環(huán)境中的不同方法，看看它們的功能對比。在現(xiàn)代社會學(xué)和規(guī)劃理論當中，論述分析已經(jīng)發(fā)展成為闡明思想，概念和包含語言的復(fù)制和分門別類。這個方法產(chǎn)生于?？?，吉登斯和其他人的作品，是基于這樣的假設(shè)：我們對物質(zhì)世界的理解是推論性的構(gòu)建出來的（雅各布斯，1990：p.203）。近年來，論述分析已經(jīng)成為研究城市變化（黑斯廷斯，1999）和城鄉(xiāng)之間相互作用的重要手段（海斯汀，2000）。用杰爾的