外文翻譯---邊緣生態(tài)城鄉(xiāng)景觀生態(tài)

1、<p><b>　　中文3138字</b></p><p><b>　　單詞1750字</b></p><p>　　Ecology on the edge: Landscape and ecology between town and country</p><p>　　Sybrand P Tjallingii&

2、lt;/p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　The trends are world wide: people and goods are increasingly mobile, compact cities develop into urban networks, industrializing agriculture is beco

3、ming 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 planni

4、ng answers to these issues is further complicated by the need for sustainable development at a global scale. What is the role of eco</p><p><b>　　Keywords</b></p><p>　　Urban and regio

5、nal planning;</p><p><b>　　Ecology;</b></p><p>　　Discourses;</p><p><b>　　City edge</b></p><p>　　1. Introduction</p><p>　　Landscape e

6、cology 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 dyna

7、mics 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

8、between living organisms and their environment. T</p><p>　　The papers in this issue were presented at a workshop on urban–rural interactions during the 1997 conference of the Dutch Association for Landscape

9、Ecology and this explains the emphasis on the Ramstad Holland and other Dutch issues in most, but not all, of the articles.</p><p>　　The issue opens with two reflections on basic discourses framing theory an

10、d 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

11、 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.</p><p>　　A more

12、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 o

13、thers 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

14、function? The focus of this paper is on the edge of t</p><p>　　In search for answers to these questions, I will first turn to an underlying layer of ecology interpretations and describe two ecology discourse

15、s. First, the focus is on the traditional, and still dominant, discourse on ecology, in which town and country are considered as expressions of the culture–nature polarity. In this view, nature is taken as an object, an

16、area or a species. Then, an emerging alternative discourse is introduced, that may be called ecological modernization and takes natural </p><p>　　I describe the two approaches as discourses, to elucidate the

17、 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 categorizatio

18、ns 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 &

19、lt;/p><p>　　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 in

20、teraction, 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,

21、but its potential to address fundamental issues is limited. The process-oriented d</p><p>　　After these examples I discuss two conceptual tools aiming at improving the institutional structure for a process-o

22、riented approach to regional planning. The forum–pilot-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 stra

23、tegic concept takes the water and traffic networks as carrying structures for the zoning of functions usually called urban and rural.</p><p>　　In Section 6, I will return to the questions raised at the start

24、 and make some general recommendations on the role of ecology in urban–rural planning and, more specifically in planning the edge of the city.</p><p>　　2. Ecology discourses</p><p>　　2.1. The tr

25、aditional discourse: nature as an object</p><p>　　According 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 g

26、reen, 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

27、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 th</p><p>　　In this traditional discourse, ecology is tied to the nature of protected

28、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 maintenan

29、ce 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, ec</p>&l

30、t;p>　　2.2. An emerging discourse: nature as a process</p><p>　　In the 18th century, already, “the growth of towns had led to a new longing for the countryside… for unsubdued nature” (Thomas, 1983). This l

31、ed 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

32、of people and in our landscapes. As a result, nature has also been separated from production economy and this leads to the paradox that nat</p><p>　　邊緣生態(tài)：城鄉(xiāng)景觀生態(tài)</p><p><b>　　森樸若安·恰林基&l

33、t;/b></p><p>　　摘要:全球趨勢:人與貨物的流動性越來越高，緊湊的城市發(fā)展成為城市網(wǎng)絡(luò)，農(nóng)業(yè)產(chǎn)業(yè)化變得越來越普及，農(nóng)村的生活成為一個綠色的城市生活環(huán)境。社會隔離，交通公害，和這些趨勢帶來的其他的未曾想到的影響挑戰(zhàn)著城市區(qū)域規(guī)劃者們。在全球范圍內(nèi)實現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的需要，使得對于這些問題的解決方法的規(guī)劃研究進(jìn)一步復(fù)雜化。在討論城市和鄉(xiāng)村的未來的背景下，生態(tài)學(xué)扮演怎樣的角色呢?傳統(tǒng)的、仍占主導(dǎo)地位的方

34、式是基于城市和農(nóng)村的反向性。從這個角度來看，生態(tài)重點在于保護(hù)區(qū)的天然性和生物的多樣性。在這個特殊問題方面的論文，用更廣闊的視野探討將自然過程視為城鄉(xiāng)發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)這一前景。本文致力于挖掘出隱藏在自然生態(tài)背后的基本“模式”。第一，分析“實物導(dǎo)向”和“過程導(dǎo)向”性論述。第二，過程導(dǎo)向性的前景是以荷蘭任仕達(dá)和德國魯爾區(qū)的規(guī)劃為例進(jìn)行的詳述。第三，引入一些新的概念，可以為“過程導(dǎo)向”方式增強制度條件。在這篇文章中，所有的論述，概念，計劃和項目都是圍

35、繞生態(tài)學(xué)在城市邊緣規(guī)劃中所起到的作用這一中心問題而展開的。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：城市和區(qū)域規(guī)劃 生態(tài)學(xué) 論述 城市邊緣</p><p><b>　　1.引言</b></p><p>　　景觀生態(tài)學(xué)有狹義和廣義兩方面的解釋。狹義的解釋，即景觀生態(tài)學(xué)國際協(xié)會和相關(guān)組織中最受推崇的是，在景觀范圍內(nèi)側(cè)重于植物和動物的棲息地和種群動態(tài)的研究

36、。就這個特殊的問題，這篇論文跨過狹義的解釋，用更廣闊的視野研究生態(tài)學(xué)的經(jīng)典定義：生物與環(huán)境之間的相互作用。這個廣闊的視野將經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會和生態(tài)學(xué)放在同一水平下，作為互補的方式去研究人與環(huán)境之間的相互作用。在這個問題上，論文表明，廣義的方法提供了有意義的背景研究，嚴(yán)格的講是對社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)的研究人員和景觀生態(tài)學(xué)家來說。但是首先，廣義的方法需要從地方和區(qū)域?qū)嵺`中獲得，也就是規(guī)劃師面臨城鄉(xiāng)之間相互作用的動態(tài)性質(zhì)的挑戰(zhàn)的地方。</p>&

37、lt;p>　　在這個問題上的論文，是在城市–農(nóng)村相互作用的一個專題研討會上，即1997年荷蘭景觀生態(tài)協(xié)會會議期間提出了的，解釋并強調(diào)任仕達(dá)荷蘭和其他荷蘭問題，但不是所有的條款</p><p>　　這個問題以思考城鄉(xiāng)規(guī)劃基本的理論框架和實踐展開，接下來的文章以系統(tǒng)的研究為基礎(chǔ)，探索城市化過程中景觀的生物學(xué)，心理學(xué)和經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)層面的作用。這篇文章的第三段和最后一部分，就這個問題，提出了三個不同尺度方面的規(guī)劃設(shè)計研究

38、解決方案：房屋與花園，城市建設(shè)與綠地面積，還有特定區(qū)域范圍內(nèi)的基礎(chǔ)建設(shè)規(guī)劃。</p><p>　　在城鄉(xiāng)地區(qū)的規(guī)劃設(shè)計中，生態(tài)學(xué)的突出地位變得更顯而易見。沒有所謂的證據(jù)，但是，這就是生態(tài)學(xué)的意義。一些人認(rèn)為，綠地面積的呈現(xiàn)是中心話題，一些認(rèn)為，治理流暢和循環(huán)利用是問題的關(guān)鍵，而另一些人認(rèn)為人們的生活方式才是真正的關(guān)鍵點。對建筑師和很多其他人來說，關(guān)于生態(tài)，首要的問題可能是：它是作為一種功能還是只是擺設(shè)？這篇文章的

39、焦點是城市的邊緣地帶，綜合的說，就是城鄉(xiāng)之間的相互作用。中心的問題是：生態(tài)學(xué)能為地區(qū)規(guī)劃者們提供什么？更準(zhǔn)確的講：在幫助和指導(dǎo)城市化進(jìn)程和農(nóng)村發(fā)展的背景中，生態(tài)學(xué)方面的知識有什么用？目前的形式還不是很明確。難道用生態(tài)學(xué)方法去規(guī)劃，能夠形成更簡化的中心城市？就像歐盟委員會在它的城市環(huán)境綠皮書上所陳述的那樣。（歐盟委員會，1990）或者說是生態(tài)學(xué)的真正的使命 “城市一定會因城市邊界的瓦解而毀滅””有兩方面的意思，是城市鄉(xiāng)村化，鄉(xiāng)村城市化。&

40、lt;/p><p>　　為了尋找這些問題的答案，我首先去查找對生態(tài)學(xué)深層面的解釋，然后寫出了兩個生態(tài)學(xué)論述。第一</p><p>　　，重點在傳統(tǒng)的并且仍占主導(dǎo)地位的，關(guān)于生態(tài)學(xué)方面的論述，城市和鄉(xiāng)村被視為文化與自然對立的表現(xiàn)。在這個觀點中，自然被看做一個對象，一片區(qū)域或者一個種類。第二，一個相關(guān)的論述被引進(jìn)來，可以稱為生態(tài)現(xiàn)代化，把自然化進(jìn)程作為它的出發(fā)點。如果自然是一個目標(biāo)，那就意味著去擁

41、有，如果自然是一個過程，那就需要去表現(xiàn)</p><p>　　我把這兩種方式作為論點，來闡明概念的和實際環(huán)境中的不同方法，看看它們的功能對比。在現(xiàn)代社會學(xué)和規(guī)劃理論當(dāng)中，論述分析已經(jīng)發(fā)展成為闡明思想，概念和包含語言的復(fù)制和分門別類。這個方法產(chǎn)生于福柯，吉登斯和其他人的作品，是基于這樣的假設(shè)：我們對物質(zhì)世界的理解是推論性的構(gòu)建出來的（雅各布斯，1990：p.203）。近年來，論述分析已經(jīng)成為研究城市變化（黑斯廷斯，1

42、999）和城鄉(xiāng)之間相互作用的重要手段（海斯汀，2000）。用杰爾的方法，通常情況下，不同的演員可能會主張思想的集合，因為不同的理由形成論述的聯(lián)盟。這些連接可能會改變，因為論述很容易改變。從這個方面看，一方面論述不僅僅是權(quán)力的功能。在掌控既定的群體利益中，它并不是一個消極的工具。另一方面，論述既不是連接根深蒂固的信仰體系的固定語言，如對市場的作用或國家的信念。話語的構(gòu)建與重建是在變化中的世界，人類能動性與社會結(jié)構(gòu)融合的結(jié)果。</p&

43、gt;<p>　　這兩種生態(tài)論述對發(fā)現(xiàn)問題和尋找解決方法具有不同的潛在力量。本文的后續(xù)部分將會用城鄉(xiāng)互動下的一些當(dāng)下問題來結(jié)束這個結(jié)論，包括任仕達(dá)和魯爾都市地區(qū)的一些計劃和項目。我將證明，生態(tài)話語，把自然作為對象是深深植根于制度結(jié)構(gòu)，但是它解決基本問題的潛力是有限的。然而，面向過程的論述是具有廣闊的發(fā)展前景的，但是其制度基礎(chǔ)薄弱。在這些例子之后，我將討論兩個概念工具，針對目前面向過程的區(qū)域規(guī)劃方法的制度結(jié)構(gòu)。論壇–試點項目

44、的戰(zhàn)略重點從項目和計劃學(xué)習(xí)重要的作用的結(jié)構(gòu)基礎(chǔ)。這包括兩網(wǎng)絡(luò)策略。這一戰(zhàn)略的概念，以水和交通網(wǎng)絡(luò)作為承載結(jié)構(gòu)的通常稱為農(nóng)村和城市功能區(qū)劃。</p><p>　　在第6部分，我將回到開始時提出的問題，對城市–農(nóng)村規(guī)劃的生態(tài)作用和一些一般性的建議，特別是在規(guī)劃城市的邊緣</p><p><b>　　2.生態(tài)學(xué)論述</b></p><p>　　2.1

45、傳統(tǒng)的觀點：自然作為目標(biāo)</p><p>　　根據(jù)普遍的觀點，自然開始于城市結(jié)束的地方。這里，在城市的邊緣，存在著文化和自然的邊界，紅色與綠色的邊界，那就是：在建筑環(huán)境與未被開發(fā)的景觀之間。當(dāng)然，城市中有樹木和公園，而且鄉(xiāng)村也不想它以前那樣原生態(tài)，但是這些觀察到的似乎并不影響主要的視野：城市是自然的敵人，戰(zhàn)線就是城市的邊緣。在這個界限中思考，所有的建筑都是不好的。如果城市的性質(zhì)有一個意義，他可能只涉及到在不那么密

46、集的城市建設(shè)環(huán)境中研究野生生物。這種思考方式對一些享受這樣環(huán)境的人們來說有現(xiàn)實性的優(yōu)點。政治家被這樣的觀點所吸引，關(guān)注生態(tài)意味著在城市附近制造一個具體的自然保護(hù)區(qū)。建筑師們可能會想未開發(fā)的地方與設(shè)計漂亮的地方的對立，這個似乎會聯(lián)想到把它作為自然與文明之間的對立的討論。生物學(xué)家持有這樣的觀點，他們是把自然作為他們的對象的專業(yè)的生態(tài)學(xué)家。環(huán)境學(xué)家傾向于使用他們的語言去攻擊城市捍衛(wèi)鄉(xiāng)村。</p><p>　　在這樣的傳

47、統(tǒng)論述中，生態(tài)學(xué)與保護(hù)地區(qū)自然和野生生物物種聯(lián)系在一起。這樣的解釋，生態(tài)學(xué)是目標(biāo)導(dǎo)向的。在操作性規(guī)劃中也是這樣的，自然的對象特性是一個優(yōu)勢。自然地區(qū)可以購買然后用圍起來，維護(hù)的預(yù)算費用可以分?jǐn)?。在相關(guān)部門工作的專家提議，野生物種可以通過具體的措施進(jìn)行保護(hù)。勞動分工是明確的：社會事務(wù)部門，經(jīng)濟(jì)事務(wù)部門，住房和自然部門都有自己的專家來捍衛(wèi)他們的領(lǐng)土。因此，在這種情況下，自然是一個空間和功能分離的世界的一部分。</p><

48、p>　　2.2新的論述：自然是過程</p><p>　　早在18世紀(jì),“ 城鎮(zhèn)的發(fā)展導(dǎo)致了對新農(nóng)村的渴望…渴望一個未被征服的自然”。這導(dǎo)致了自然的概念被作為一個對象，由城市產(chǎn)生又從城市中分離出來。在本文的研究中，20世紀(jì)的主要觀察方式就是：人與自然是分開的。在我們的思想中和我們的景觀中。結(jié)果，自然也已經(jīng)從生產(chǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)中分離，這導(dǎo)致了自然要由污染經(jīng)濟(jì)的收入來支出的悖論。煙囪必須吸煙來拯救森林！我們生活在一個世界，