Advertisement

Beautiful and Safe Landscapes for Sustainable Disaster Risk Reduction

  • Fausto Marincioni
  • Cristina Casareale
  • Kenneth Byrne
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Hazards book series (ENHA)

Abstract

Landscapes are not merely physical resources to be catalogued and managed but are “places with a story, which people take care of and with whom they develop a sense of belonging” (Williams and Patterson, Soc Nat Resour 9:507–521, 1996). Efforts to transform environments to reduce disaster risk, if not integrated with the stories and social and emotional conditions of the community at risk, may face opposition, apathy, or lack of political or financial support. At the same time, in this period of dramatic climate change and increasing disaster risks, efforts to produce only comfortable and beautiful landscapes may create potentially dangerous ones. Drawing on studies, land use planning projects, and risk reduction efforts in Norway, the US, the Netherlands, Italy, Hong Kong, and Chile, this essay argues that integrating environmental aesthetics principles, nature conservation, ecologically oriented landscape design, and disaster risk reduction can help communities create and maintain sustainable, safe, and ecologically healthy environments.

Keywords

Mitigation Adaptation Landscape Design 

References

  1. Alexander, D. E. (1984). Housing crisis after natural disaster: The aftermath of the November 1980 southern Italian earthquake. Geoforum, 15(4), 489–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attolico, A. (2014). Building resilience through territorial planning: The experience of province of Potenza. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burton, I., Kates, R. W., & White, G. F. (1978). The environment as hazard. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Camuffo, M., & Soriani, S. (2015). Un ricordo: Gabriele Zanetto e gli studi ambientali a Venezia, Politica e gestione dell'ambiente; Attori, processi, esperienze. Pàtron Editore: Bologna.Google Scholar
  5. Carlson, A. (1977). On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landscape Planning, 4, 131–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castiglioni, B., Parascandolo, F., & Tanca, M. (a cura di) (2015). Landscape as mediator. Landscape as commons. International perspectives on landscape research. Padova: CLEUP.Google Scholar
  7. Council of Europe. (2000). European landscape convention. In Congress of the Council of Europe, Firenze.Google Scholar
  8. de Groot, M. (2012). Exploring the relationship between public environmental ethics and river flood policies in western Europe. Journal of Environmental Management, 93(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foster, D. R., & Motzkin, G. (1998). Ecology and conservation in the cultural landscape of New England: Lessons from nature’s history. Northeasten Naturalist, 5(2), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gambi, L. (1964). Questioni di geografia. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.Google Scholar
  11. Giuliani, M. V. Theory of attachment and place attachment. M. Bonnes, T. Lee, M. Bonaiuto, Psychological theories for environmental issues, Aldershot: Ashgate 2003, 137–170.Google Scholar
  12. Goudie, A. (2000). The human impact on the natural environment. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Islas, P. A. V., & Felsenhardt, R. S. C. (2015). El paisaje urbano de emergencia en Valdivia, Chile: contribuciones a la planificación y diseño urbano post-desastre para la restauración. Revista INVI, 30(83), 19–76.Google Scholar
  16. Kelly, G. (1991). The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. 457, 2nd ed.). London: Routledge. isbn:0415037980.Google Scholar
  17. Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lague, R., & Smith, K. (2013). Village master plan for Wilmington, Vermont (25pp). Conway School of Landscape Design, Conway. Accessible online at: http://wilmingtonvermont.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Village-Plan-for-Town-of-Wilmington.pdf
  19. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac, and sketches here and there; illustrated by Charles W. Schwartz. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Linehan, J. R., & Meir, G. (1998). Back to the future, back to basics: The social ecology of landscapes and the future of landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(2), 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lo, A. Y., & Jim, C. Y. (2010). Differential community effects on perception and use of urban greenspaces. Cities, 27(6), 430–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lo, A. Y., & Jim, C. Y. (2015). Community attachment and resident attitude toward old masonry walls and associated trees in urban Hong Kong. Cities, 42, 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lokocz, E., Ryan, L. R., & Sadler, A. J. (2011). Motivations for land protection and stewardship: Exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(2), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nassauer, J. I. (1997). Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. In J. Nassauer (Ed.), Placing nature: Culture and landscape ecology (pp. 65–83). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nohl, W. (1997). Halbierter Naturschutz. Nature conservation only half the job! Nature und Landschaft, 4, 221–232.Google Scholar
  26. Olwig, K. R. (2007). The practice of landscape ‘conventions’ and the just landscape: The case of the European landscape convention. Landscape Research, 32(5), 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2013). Changes in the traditional urban form and the social sustainability of contemporary cities: A case study of Iranian cities. Habitat International, 38, 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace, Expanding the geographical imagination. York: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Soja, E. W., Frixa, E., Di Blasi, A., & Farinelli, F. (2007). Dopo la metropoli: Per una critica della geografia Urbana e regionale. Bologna: Pàtron Editore.Google Scholar
  30. Tinacci Mossello, M. (2008). Politica dell’ambiente – Analisi, azioni, progetti. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  31. Troll, C. (1939). Luftbildplan and okologische bodenforschung (pp. 241–298). Berlin: Zeitschraft der Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde Zu.Google Scholar
  32. Walker, A. J., & Ryan, R. L. (2008). Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(2), 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams, D. R., & Patterson, M. E. (1996). Environmental meaning and ecosystem management: Perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography. Society & Natural Resources, 9(5), 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yuen, B. (2005). Searching for place identity in Singapore. Habitat International, 29(2005), 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zanetto, G., Vallerani, F., & Soriani, S. (1996). Nature, environment, landscape: European attitudes and discourses in the modern period the Italian case, 1920–1970. Padova: Univ. di Padova.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fausto Marincioni
    • 1
  • Cristina Casareale
    • 1
  • Kenneth Byrne
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly
  2. 2.Graduate Program in Sustainable Landscape Planning and DesignThe Conway SchoolNorthamptonUSA

Personalised recommendations