Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회지)

The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Establishing a Research Framework for Ecological Aesthetics: A Methodological Review

생태미학 연구의 개념화 및 방법론 탐구

  • Lee, Jong-Seon (Korean Institute of Public Affairs, Graduate School of Public Administration, Seoul National University)
  • 이종선 (서울대학교 행정대학원 한국행정연구소)
  • Received : 2017.02.13
  • Accepted : 2017.08.06
  • Published : 2017.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Landscape design pursues a balance among different values in our society, but aesthetic value and ecological value in landscapes must bring complex relationships into harmony. Ecological aesthetics can be defined as a domain of study that manages the relationship between landscape ecology and landscape aesthetics to create aesthetically attractive and ecologically beneficial landscapes. Despite the importance of the research area, there has been limited empirical research addressing ecological aesthetics. This article aspires to connect and expand the conceptual framework to the research methodologies of ecological aesthetics. First, this study suggests a conceptual framework that examines the relationship between landscape and perceptual process in the context of ecological aesthetics. This framework stresses the importance of information and design intervention as moderators in this relationship. From this framework, three key topics in ecological aesthetics arise: (1) correlation between ecological integrity and aesthetic preference, (2) "compromised" design and management intervention principles that enhance aesthetic pleasure and still have biodiversity, and (3) the impact of information intervention in aesthetic experience. The framework indicated three domains affect each other; thus, when one domain is studied, the other two need to be considered. Secondly, several theoretical and empirical studies on ecological aesthetics will be reviewed from a methodological point of view. This will help to consider ecological aesthetics research, which has primarily been limited to theoretical discourse in empirical research.

환경설계는 우리 사회의 생태적, 미적, 사회적 가치들의 조율을 추구하지만, 생태적 가치와 미적 가치는 쉽게 조율되기에는 복잡한 관계를 지닌다. 생태미학이라는 분야는 생태적으로 건강하고, 미적으로도 매력적인 경관설계를 그 목표로 경관의 지속가능성과 미학의 관계에 대해 탐구한다. 이러한 복잡한 관계를 다루는 학문 영역의 중요성에도 불구하고, 극히 일부의 연구들이 생태미학과 관련된 주제를 경험적 방법을 통해 연구했다. 본 연구는 생태미학의 기존 개념을 정리하고, 이를 연구방법론과 연결하고자 했다. 이를 위해 첫째, 경관과 대중의 인식과의 관계를 나타내는 개념적 틀을 생태 미학적 관점에서 재정의했다. 이 관계에서 특히 디자인 및 정보가 개입하여 나타나는 조절 효과에 대해 보여준다. 이 틀로부터 도출되는 세 가지 하위 주제는 다음과 같다. (1) 생태적 기능과 경관 선호도의 상호관계, (2) 경관중재: 생태적 기능도 보호하고, 미적 가치도 확보할 수 있는 절충된 디자인 전략, (3) 정보중재: 생태에 대한 정보가 미적 경험에 미치는 중재 효과가 그것이다. 세 가지 주제는 개념적 틀에서 보여지듯, 서로 영향을 주고받는 관계이며, 각 영역의 연구 시 다른 영역의 고려가 필요하다. 세 가지 하위 주제에 따라 기존의 이론적, 실증적 연구들을 방법론적 관점에서 검토하고, 한계를 지적하며, 보완 가능한 방법론 등을 제시하였다. 본 연구는 그 동안 해석적이고 이론적인 담론에 그쳐왔던 생태미학을 개념적 틀을 통해 정리하고, 각 영역을 넘어선 방법론적 고려를 제시함으로써 생태미학의 방법론을 보완하는데 그 의의가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Amtmann, L.(1996) Stakeholder Perspectives on wild and Scenic Rivers: A New Cognitive Tool for Enhancing Participation. Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
  2. Appleton, J.(1975) The Experience of Landscape. Wiley, London.
  3. Berleant, A.(2007) Aesthetics and environment reconsidered: Reply to Carlson. British Journal of Aesthetics 47(3): 315-318. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/aym010
  4. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), (1980) Visual Resource Management Program. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
  5. Carlson, A. (2006) Critical notice: Aesthetics and environment. British Journal of Aesthetics 46(4): 416-427. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayl024
  6. Carlson, A. and S. Lintott(2008) Nature, Aesthetics, and Environmentalism: From Beauty to Duty: Columbia University Press.
  7. Checkland, P.(2005) Webs of significance: The work of Geoffrey Vickers. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 22(4): 285-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.692
  8. Dunnett, N. and J. Hitchmough(2007) The Dynamic Landscape: Design, Ecology and Management of Naturalistic Urban Planting: Taylor & Francis.
  9. Eisenstein, W. A.(2005) Eco-Revelatory Design and the Values of the Residential Landscape. University of California, Berkeley.
  10. Gobster, P. H.(1999) An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal 18(1): 54-64. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.18.1.54
  11. Gobster, P. H., J. I. Nassauer, T. C. Daniel and G. Fry(2007) The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landscape Ecology 22(7): 959-972. doi: DOI 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
  12. Heft, H.(2015) Ecological Psychology in Context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy of William James's Radical Empiricism: Psychology Press.
  13. Irvine, K. N.(1997) Stewardship in the Management of Private Forests: Some Psychological Dimensions. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Michigan.
  14. Kaplan, S.(1979) Perception and Landscape: Conceptions and Misconceptions. Proceedings of a Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource, Incline Village, Nevada, April, 1979. U.S, D.A. Forest Service, Berkeley, CA, pp. 241-248.
  15. Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan(1989) The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective: CUP Archive.
  16. Kearney, A. R., G. Bradley, R. Kaplan, and S. Kaplan(1999) Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science 45(1): 62-73.
  17. Kearney, A. R. and R. De Young(1995) A knowledge-based intervention for promoting carpooling. Environment and Behavior 27(5): 650-678. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595275003
  18. Kearney, A. R. and S. Kaplan(1997) Toward a methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people the conceptual content cognitive map (3cm). Environment and Behavior 29(5): 579-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916597295001
  19. Lothian, A.(1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landscape and Urban Planning 44(4): 177-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5
  20. Min, B. W.(2012) An ecological aesthetic in sustainable landscape design. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 40(2): 38-48. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2012.40.2.038
  21. Mozingo, L. A.(1997) The aesthetics of ecological design: seeing science as culture. Landscape Journal 16(1): 46-59. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.16.1.46
  22. Nasar, J. L.(1997) New Developments in Aesthetics for Urban Design Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization. Springer. pp. 149-193.
  23. Nassauer, J. I.(1992) The Appearance of Ecological Systems as a Matter of Policy Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/49352
  24. Nassauer, J. I.(1993) Ecological Function and the Perception of Suburban Residential Landscapes. Managing Urban and High Use Recreation Settings. General Technical Report, USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN.
  25. Nassauer, J. I.(1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 14(2): 161-170. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.14.2.161
  26. Nassauer, J. I.(2004) Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands 24(4): 756-765. doi: Doi 10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0756:Mtsomw]2.0.Co;2
  27. Nassauer, J. I., Z. Wang and E. Dayrell(2009). What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning 92(3): 282-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010
  28. Nohl, W.(2001) Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception-preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1): 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00138-4
  29. SadeghI, A. R., M. Pourjafar, A. A. Taghvaee and P. Azadfallah (2014). Quality enhancement of environmental aesthetics experience through ecological assessment. Current World Environment 9(3): 877. https://doi.org/10.12944/CWE.9.3.39
  30. Saito, Y.(1998) The aesthetics of unscenic nature. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56(2): 101-111. https://doi.org/10.2307/432249
  31. Shafer, E.(1969) Perception of natural environment. Environ. Behav 1: 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391656900100105
  32. Smith, C., N. Dunnett and A. Clayden(2008) Residential Landscape Sustainability: A Checklist Tool: John Wiley & Sons.
  33. Spirn, A. W.(1988) The poetics of city and nature: Towards a new aesthetic for urban design. Landscape Journal 7(2): 108-126. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.7.2.108
  34. Steinitz, C. (1990). Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: The loop road in Acadia National Park, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 19(3): 213-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(90)90023-U
  35. Taylor, J. G., E. H. Zube and J. L. Sell(1987) Landscape Assessment and Perception Research Methods.
  36. Thayer, R. L.(1998) Landscape as an ecologically revealing language. Landscape Journal 17(Special Issue): 118-129. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.17.Special_Issue.118
  37. Tilt, J. H., A. R. Kearney and G. Bradley(2007) Understanding rural character: Cognitive and visual perceptions. Landscape and Urban Planning 81(1): 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.09.007
  38. Van der Ryn, S. and S. Cowan(1996) Ecological Design. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
  39. Vickers, G.(1965) The Art of Judgment: A Study of Policy Making: Basic Books.
  40. Ward Thompson, C. and P. Travlou(2009) A Critical Review of Research in Landscape and Woodland Perceptions, Aesthetics, Affordances and Experience. Report prepared for the Forestry Commission. Edinburgh: OPENspace research centre. Retrieved from http://www.openspace.eca.ac.uk/pdf/FORCOM_LitReview.pdf
  41. Wells, N. M.(2005) Our housing, our selves: A longitudinal investigation of low-income women's participatory housing experiences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25(2): 189-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.02.002