00082 - f -post changes

00082 Landscape Perceptions – The Symbolic Meaning of Landscape and its Role in Mental Wellbeing Dóra Drexler Department of Landscape Planning and Development, Corvinus University of Budapest Abstract There are yet very few studies concerning the role of landscape and landscape planning in providing healthy places for people. The present paper outlines people’s psychological requirements towards their environment, derived from their dominant landscape perception. The French, German and Hungarian landscape perceptions were chosen as examples. The paper furthermore attempts to depict the general tendencies of changes in landscape perceptions and the role of landscape planning in enhancing the delight in life for the people in landscape. The aim of the paper is to suggest developing landscape planning methodologies that take people’s mental wellbeing into consideration and to induce further research on this topic.

Keywords: Landscape perception; landscape symbolism; common planning methods; role of landscape planning 1. Introduction – The Growing Importance of ‘Healthy Places’ Since the 1980s, the attention of researchers of both health and environment sectors has been growingly attracted by the relation between human health and environment. Policies aiming to build bridges between environment and health sectors have been drawn up not only at national but also at international and European levels (eg Environment and Health Process of the World Health Organisation/Europe). Several studies deal with the impacts of unfavourable environmental conditions on life qua lity, mostly from a strictly natural scientific point of view. These studies provide us with statistics stating that poor environmental quality contributes to 25-33 per cent of global ill health. In the Central European region, particularly in Hungary, statistics show that 12-15 per cent of mortality is caused by environment-triggered illnesses. This high percentage overlaps with the other major mortality caused by unhealthy way of living (circa. 10 per cent). The shocking statistics underline the importance of environment’s quality and so the importance of environmental planning in ensuring people’s health (Jakab 2004). Aside from the expansive natural scientific research of environment and health relations there are yet very few studies concerning the role of landscape and landscape planning in providing healthy places for people. It is undoubtedly much harder to deal with the subject of healthy environment from the interdisciplinary point of view of landscape planning, which takes not only natural scientific measures but also socio-cultural aspects into consideration. However, to keep up with society’s requirements and to develop an effective policy for healthy places it is essential to do research embracing all fields of people’s demands towards their environment. The aim of the present paper is to outline people’s psychological requirements towards their environment, derived from people’s dominant landscape perception. The results presented are

meant to give suggestions for developing landscape planning methodologies, which take people’s mental wellbeing into consideration and to induce further research on this topic. 2. Landscape – Complex Environmental System and Socio-cultural Phenomenon Landscape is not only the complex system of environmental elements such as air, water, soil etc. Landscape is also a mental institution, a symbol. In Europe, the concept of landscape was born with modern times (renaissance), when man freed himself from the tight bonds of nature. The earliest evidence of this process is the birth of landscape painting (Photographs 1-2).

Photographs 1-2. Claude Lorrain: Landscape with Peasants Returning with Their Herds, about 1637 and Nicolas Poussin: Bucolic Landscape, about 1627

We can speak about landscape as a mental depiction of reality in general, however, the question ‘what does landscape mean to people?’ cannot be generally answered. People’s landscape perception differs from individual to individual, according to their mentality, which is defined by their cultural surroundings. Thus, the interpretation of landscape by habitants of different countries depends mostly on the determinant cultural historic era of their homeland (Leuprecht 1996). This is the reason why major differences can be found between landscape perceptions and – deriving from that – between people’s psychological requirements towards landscape in most European countries. It can be undoubtedly stated that the perception of landscape defines people’s psychological demands towards their environment. These demands should be taken into consideration in the course of environment and landscape planning so as to ensure landscape’s long-range psychological conditioning effect and mental recreational role. The following comparison of the French, the German and the Hungarian landscape perception shows, for example, the different scale of values set by the French, German and Hungarian people considering the attributes of landscape (Table 1). The French and the German landscape perception differ from each other in two main respects. Firstly, in respect of the ontological status, that is in what (kind of thing) people in France and Germany understand under landscape, and secondly, in respect of the symbolic meaning of landscape. According to the French, Enlightenment-based perception landscape (paysage) is primarily a picture. Landscape as a unity evolves from the individual and is an aesthetic unity. This means that the French perceive the elements of landscape as reality, but the unity of landscape as a construction, that is, as a work of art. According to the German perception the whole of landscape (Landschaft) is real. This perception goes back to the philosophy of Herder which interpreted “the World as an evolving organism with a ‘body’ of ecological

nature and with an ‘intellectuality’ which is humanity” (Eisel 1982, 163). The respect of a picture is not relevant here. In France, landscape is a symbol of the ability of construction, the freedom of man and the linear development of humanity. In Germany, landscape represents the entwinement of nature with tradition and culture and symbolizes the route of the development to perfect harmony (Weil & Trepl 1998). From the two main differences of the French and the German landscape perception the different preferences of French and German people regarding the landscape aesthetics can be deduced. For instance, in Germany diversity is considered essential for landscape beauty, whereas in France there is no such criterion for the judgement of the aesthetic value of landscape, thus wide and plane areas are also considered beautiful, given that they evoke pleasure without any specific interest (Kant 1790). Considering the ontological status of landscape, the Hungarian perception is closer to the German one, because landscape (táj) in Hungary means firstly a concrete, cultivated area. The French aspect of landscape as a picture or a work of art shows itself in the Hungarian landscape interpretation only when we specifically speak about landscape-picture (tájkép). Regarding the symbolic meaning of landscape, it is important that landscape in Hungary represents national independence and development and thus freedom in a way, not in the sense of the French Enlightenment (the absolute creativeness of the individual) but according to the main view of the so-called Hungarian Reform era (1825-1848) in a united national sense. The Hungarian landscape represents national culture but it is not a symbol of the route to perfe ction as it is in the German landscape interpretation. According to the Hungarian perception, the harmony of human landscape forming processes with the principles of nature (ecology) is not so emphatic. Instead, the dominance of human activity, the presence of (broadly meant) agriculture – as an organic part of the independent national culture – is determinant. Furthermore, landscape means tradition and the affection towards one’s country and so landscape plays a major role in Hungarian people’s identity (Drexler 2004). From the fact that the Hungarian landscape perception differs from the French and the German interpretations in both ontological and symbolic respect follows that the aesthetic preferences of the Hungarians regarding landscape are also different to the French and the German taste. For example, landscape conservation is given more attention than landscape development in Hungary because it is more important to save landscapes of great relevance for people’s identity from major transformation than it is to create new landscape characteristics. The traditional landscape characteristics bear growing aesthetic value not only because of the cultural background but also because it is the unique basis of national development in the European Union. Table 1. Main differences of landscape perception in France, Germany and Hungary

France Ontological status Work of art, picture

Symbolic meaning

Germany Reality, object

Creativeness freedom, Nature, tradition, development culture, perfection

Hungary Reality, area National development, identity

3. General Tendencies of Changes in Landscape Perception It is clear that the principles of the Enlightenment still influence today’s French landscape perception and conceptions of the Romanticism can still be identified in the contemporary German landscape interpretation. In Hungary, the Reform era’s nationwide significant influence formed the basis of landscape perception. The different requirements of the French, the German and the Hungarian people towards an environment that assures mental wellbeing are also rooted in the counties’ determinant cultural-historic era. However, the perception of landscape is not static but changes dynamically with time. Today the general tendency of unification can also be observed in the case of landscape perceptions. The sites associated with the word ‘paradise’ eg in the 17th century, have carried undoubtedly more characteristics of a local landscape than they do today. A comparison of Jan Brueghel’s paintings with photos of a Polynesian Island demonstrates this fact very well (Photographs 3-4).

Photographs 3-4. ‘Paradise’ by Jan Brueghel the Younger, about 1620 and the picture of Bora Bora Eden Beach, Tahiti

Globalization is the explanation for the generalization of landscape symbolism. On the other hand, globalization also results in the upgrading of regional landscape values, which seems to be a contradiction but is explainable as a counterpoint and a defensive action against uniformity. The aim of the creation of common landscape planning methodologies for international planning purposes (eg INTERREG III.B L.O.T.O. Project) shows that landscape policies tend to encourage the co-operation between the representatives of different landscape perceptions. The European Landscape Convention sets both general and specific measures to achieve a Europe-wide common structure of landscape objectives. It is in my opinion very important to take the different landscape perceptions in the partner countries into consideration when laying down the specific landscape planning methodologies, because without a deliberate survey of people’s different (psychological) needs towards landscape the social acceptance of landscape planning – and so its main purpose of enhancing people’s life quality – will not be fulfilled. Besides the generalization of landscape symbolism and the advance of international landscape planning methods, a third tendency regarding the changes of landscape perceptions is peo-

ple’s changing order of values. Health as an essential element of good life quality became generally more and more important for people. 4. The Role of Landscape Planning Landscape always reflects the present socio-cultural state of a community. The material reality and the symbolic meaning of landscape develop dynamically but to a certain extent independently from each other. The symbolic meanings associated with landscape and so people’s psychological requirements of the landscape cannot accommodate rapid, uncontrolled changes of the environment. A decrease in life quality and thus in mental wellbeing can be the result of abrupt landscape processes. One of the major roles of landscape planning is to develop landscape in light of its changing perceptions and thus in light of its psychological conditioning effect in a way that the delight in life for the people in landscape becomes complete. Key Concluding Points • The attention paid to environmental attributes’ effect on human health is increasing. • Landscape as a socio-cultural phenomenon plays a major role in mental wellbeing. • People’s perception of landscape differs according to people’s cultural background. • Different landscape perceptions result in different requirements regarding landscape’s attributes. • Landscape perceptions are affected by worldwide tendencies and policies, thus they change dynamically with time. • To fulfil the role of landscape planning – namely to develop landscape in a way that the delight in life for people in the landscape becomes complete – it is indispensable to take the different landscape perceptions into consideration, especially in case of the newly developed international landscape planning methodologies. References Drexler, D. (2004) Landscape and Landscape Evaluation. Analysis of the Relation between the Symbolic Meaning of Landscape and the Methods of Landscape Evaluation based on the Comparison of France Germany and Hungary. Degree work at the Chair of Landscape Planning and Territorial Development, BKÁE. Budapest. Eisel, U. (1982) ‘Die schöne Landschaft als kritische Utopie oder als konservatives Relikt. Über die Kristallisation gegnerischer politischer Philosophien im Symbol der Landschaft’, in Soziale Welt, 33 (2), 133-288. Jakab, F. (2004) Hungary’s environmental health status in Jakab, F. (ed.) IV. European Environment and Health Ministers’ Conference Budapest, 2004. Budapest. Kant, I. (1790) Kritik der Urteilskraft. Budapest: Osiris (2003). Leuprecht, M. (1996) Paysage and Landschaft. Linguistic and cultural historical analysis of the landscape concept in France and Germany. Degree work at the Institute for Landscape protection and Botany, Landscape Protection specialization, Technische Universität München. Weihenstephan. Mocsényi, M. (1996) The essence of landscape planning, in Csemez, A. (ed.) Landscape planning – Landscape design. Budapest: Mezogazda Kiadó, pp125. Weil, A. and Trepl, L. (1998) ‘Warum ist das Heimische schön? Landschaftswahrnehmung in aufklärerischer und gegenaufklärerischer Tradition’ in Stadt und Grün, 47 (2), 95-104.