外文翻译---边缘生态：城乡景观生态.doc

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 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 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 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.Secondly, 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 circle 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 International 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 definition 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 meaningful 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 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 discourses 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 plans 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. 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 focus 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指导 urbanization processes and rural 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 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 ecology 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 introduced, 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 work 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 interactions (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 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 results 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 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, however, 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 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 and 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 city, 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 the 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 advantages 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 between 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 protected 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, 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 separated 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 discourse, 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 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 functional 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.边缘生态：城乡景观生态森朴若安恰林基摘要:全球趋势:人与货物的流动性越来越高，紧凑的城市发展成为城市网络，农业产业化变得越来越普及，农村的生活成为一个绿色的城市生活环境。社会隔离，交通公害，和这些趋势带来的其他的未曾想到的影响挑战着城市区域规划者们。在全球范围内实现可持续发展的需要，使得对于这些问题的解决方法的规划研究进一步复杂化。在讨论城市和乡村的未来的背景下，生态学扮演怎样的角色呢?传统的、仍占主导地位的方式是基于城市和农村的反向性。从这个角度来看，生态重点在于保护区的天然性和生物的多样性。在这个特殊问题方面的论文，用更广阔的视野探讨将自然过程视为城乡发展的基础这一前景。本文致力于挖掘出隐藏在自然生态背后的基本“模式”。第一，分析“实物导向”和“过程导向”性论述。第二，过程导向性的前景是以荷兰任仕达和德国鲁尔区的规划为例进行的详述。第三，引入一些新的概念，可以为“过程导向”方式增强制度条件。在这篇文章中，所有的论述，概念，计划和项目都是围绕生态学在城市边缘规划中所起到的作用这一中心问题而展开的。关键词：城市和区域规划 生态学 论述 城市边缘1.引言 景观生态学有狭义和广义两方面的解释。狭义的解释，即景观生态学国际协会和相关组织中最受推崇的是，在景观范围内侧重于植物和动物的栖息地和种群动态的研究。就这个特殊的问题，这篇论文跨过狭义的解释，用更广阔的视野研究生态学的经典定义：生物与环境之间的相互作用。这个广阔的视野将经济、社会和生态学放在同一水平下，作为互补的方式去研究人与环境之间的相互作用。在这个问题上，论文表明，广义的方法提供了有意义的背景研究，严格的讲是对社会和经济的研究人员和景观生态学家来说。但是首先，广义的方法需要从地方和区域实践中获得，也就是规划师面临城乡之间相互作用的动态性质的挑战的地方。 在这个问题上的论文，是在城市农村相互作用的一个专题研讨会上，即1997年荷兰景观生态协会会议期间提出了的，解释并强调任仕达荷兰和其他荷兰问题，但不是所有的条款这个问题以思考城乡规划基本的理论框架和实践展开，接下来的文章以系统的研究为基础，探索城市化过程中景观的生物学，心理学和经济学层面的作用。这篇文章的第三段和最后一部分，就这个问题，提出了三个不同尺度方面的规划设计研究解决方案：房屋与花园，城市建设与绿地面积，还有特定区域范围内的基础建设规划。在城乡地区的规划设计中，生态学的突出地位变得更显而易见。没有所谓的证据，但是，这就是生态学的意义。一些人认为，绿地面积的呈现是中心话题，一些认为，治理流畅和循环利用是问题的关键，而另一些人认为人们的生活方式才是真正的关键点。对建筑师和很多其他人来说，关于生态，首要的问题可能是：它是作为一种功能还是只是摆设？这篇文章的焦点是城市的边缘地带，综合的说，就是城乡之间的相互作用。中心的问题是：生态学能为地区规划者们提供什么？更准确的讲：在帮助和指导城市化进程和农村发展的背景中，生态学方面的知识有什么用？目前的形式还不是很明确。难道用生态学方法去规划，能够形成更简化的中心城市？就像欧盟委员会在它的城市环境绿皮书上所陈述的那样。（欧盟委员会，1990）或者说是生态学的真正的使命 “城市一定会因城市边界的瓦解而毁灭”有两方面的意思，是城市乡村化，乡村城市化。为了寻找这些问题的答案，我首先去查找对生态学深层面的解释，然后写出了两个生态学论述。第一，重点在传统的并且仍占主导地位的，关于生态学方面的论述，城市和乡村被视为文化与自然对立的表现。在这个观点中，自然被看做一个对象，一片区域或者一个种类。第二，一个相关的论述被引进来，可以称为生态现代化，把自然化进程作为它的出发点。如果自然是一个目标，那就意味着去拥有，如果自然是一个过程，那就需要去表现我把这两种方式作为论点，来阐明概念的和实际环境中的不同方法，看看它们的功能对比。在现代社会学和规划理论当中，论述分析已经发展成为阐明思想，概念和包含语言的复制和分门别类。这个方法产生于福柯，吉登斯和其他人的作品，是基于这样的假设：我们对物质世界的理解是推论性的构建出来的（雅各布斯，1990：p.203）。近年来，论述分析已经成为研究城市变化（黑斯廷斯，1999）和城乡之间相互作用的重要手段（海斯汀，2000）。用杰尔的方