Premium
Planning and landform: geomorphological authenticity or incongruity in the countryside?
Author(s) -
Gray J Murray
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
area
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.958
H-Index - 82
eISSN - 1475-4762
pISSN - 0004-0894
DOI - 10.1111/j.1475-4762.1997.tb00033.x
Subject(s) - landform , optimal distinctiveness theory , natural (archaeology) , context (archaeology) , nature conservation , perspective (graphical) , rural area , environmental planning , geography , environmental ethics , environmental resource management , geology , archaeology , ecology , political science , cartography , environmental science , computer science , psychology , philosophy , artificial intelligence , law , psychotherapist , biology
Summary The conservation movement has recently attempted to extend its remit from concern for ‘special’ sites/habitats or listed buildings towards embracing the value of the wider natural or historic environment. Geomorphological conservation has been the Cinderella of nature conservation, but has now added Regionally Important Geological/geomorphological Sites (RIGS) to the earth science related Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). However, it has yet to embrace the need for a wider perspective on landform conservation. Too many topographic changes in the countryside show little respect for local topographic distinctiveness or geomorphological concepts. This is illustrated by many recent golf course designs, low‐level pit restoration schemes, landraising schemes and screening by bunding. However, there are some signs of changes in policy and practice in designing within the existing topographical context, rather than undertaking incongruous land remodelling. The paper concludes by advocating a greater understanding of geomorphology amongst landscape architects, planners and the wider public, so as to achieve greater geomorphological authenticity in developments in the countryside.