“…All such sources pertaining to LCA since roughly 2000 were included in the study and analyzed for the following: (a) Employment of qualitative/quantitative data and subjective/objective methods and tools, (b) explicit or implicit analysis and/or discussion of the weight placed on the above data and methods/tools, as well as on their interrelationships, and (c) rating of the sources according to our 2-variable scheme. [78] This chapter describes the landscape character mapping and assessment process which was initiated in 2012 in Zanzibar, for the islands of Unguja and Pemba…”
Landscape character assessment (LCA) methods have been used in the past few decades to analyze, classify, and map landscape types, using objective and subjective approaches, with the aid of both quantitative and qualitative data. This paper addresses and critically evaluates the compromises and ways in which contemporary LCA methodologies employ (or profess they employ) objective versus subjective and quantitative versus qualitative data and analytical tools, in their conceptualization and implementation. It begins with an extensive literature review of the ways in which the objective/subjective and the quantitative/qualitative variables interweave in currently practiced or proposed versions of LCA. With the aid of meta-analysis, the paper traces and discusses the recent evolution, methods, concessions, and risks of such endeavors, and develops an integrative conceptual model for critical assessment, analysis, and negotiation of the interplay between objective-subjective and quantitative-qualitative constituent parts of existing LCA methodologies. It concludes by pointing to pitfalls and prospects, in the broader attempt towards a more concerted, integrative approach to LCA development and practice, both appropriate to its challenges and adaptable to time-space-culture-discipline landscape particularities and means of implementation.
“…All such sources pertaining to LCA since roughly 2000 were included in the study and analyzed for the following: (a) Employment of qualitative/quantitative data and subjective/objective methods and tools, (b) explicit or implicit analysis and/or discussion of the weight placed on the above data and methods/tools, as well as on their interrelationships, and (c) rating of the sources according to our 2-variable scheme. [78] This chapter describes the landscape character mapping and assessment process which was initiated in 2012 in Zanzibar, for the islands of Unguja and Pemba…”
Landscape character assessment (LCA) methods have been used in the past few decades to analyze, classify, and map landscape types, using objective and subjective approaches, with the aid of both quantitative and qualitative data. This paper addresses and critically evaluates the compromises and ways in which contemporary LCA methodologies employ (or profess they employ) objective versus subjective and quantitative versus qualitative data and analytical tools, in their conceptualization and implementation. It begins with an extensive literature review of the ways in which the objective/subjective and the quantitative/qualitative variables interweave in currently practiced or proposed versions of LCA. With the aid of meta-analysis, the paper traces and discusses the recent evolution, methods, concessions, and risks of such endeavors, and develops an integrative conceptual model for critical assessment, analysis, and negotiation of the interplay between objective-subjective and quantitative-qualitative constituent parts of existing LCA methodologies. It concludes by pointing to pitfalls and prospects, in the broader attempt towards a more concerted, integrative approach to LCA development and practice, both appropriate to its challenges and adaptable to time-space-culture-discipline landscape particularities and means of implementation.
“…Malek and Verburg, 2017) or in public or stakeholder participation processes (e.g. Käyhkö et al, 2018;Nogué et al, 2016). In the parametric approach, a set of basic landscape attributes or parameters are selected (usually in the form of raster or vector maps), which are then aggregated to larger spatial units (Antrop and Van Eetvelde, 2017).…”
Industrial heritage landscapes today are phenomena of extraordinary complexity, the study of which has been addressed belatedly by the scientific community in general, and to date no methodological trend has given priority to its study and management. There do exist, however, recent methodological approaches, such as Historic Landscape Characterisation, which, in recent years, have addressed the problems and opportunities presented by a wide diversity of landscapes, as is the case of the industrial landscape of Blaenavon. The aim of this article is to critically evaluate the validity of this methodology in terms of responding to the needs that these landscapes present with regard to their study, enhancement and intervention from a heritage and cultural perspective. This study concludes that, while this methodology is a valuable contribution to knowledge of the historical character of these landscapes, the importance of addressing their specific nature makes necessary the development of more solid, methodologically sophisticated approaches that respond to some of the theoretical and methodological weaknesses of this methodology. In this regard, this article advances in the definition of improvements and methodological innovations that attempt to address, among other issues, the complexity of these landscapes in terms of their establishment in the territory, the diversity of spatial and temporal scales in which they participate, their dynamic, highly anthropised character, and their uniqueness as landscapes that have been radically transformed by past industrial activity and which possess enormous cultural and heritage value.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.