In this article, Carl Steinitz describes the research methods used to determine the appropriate areas for conservation or intervention in the landscape. What I found particularly interesting is that it actively engaged the stakeholders of the surrounding community and users of the park. Through several survey methods the researchers were able to determine, in a general sense, the visual preferences of their user group. Then data was collected concerning the areas of ecological integrity within the park by using three indicator species, black bear, ruffed grouse, and river otter, as surrogates for more comprehensive or complex data. Once these two sets were mapped based on value (high visual preference to low visual preference and high ecological integrity to low ecological integrity) they were combined so that areas of greater value could be conserved and areas of low value could be developed or improved in some fashion.
Enjoy Vaping With Amazing Vape Juice Flavors
4 years ago
3 comments:
The title sounds like a buck abbey article although this is the new hype in the design profession. Um hmmm.
The system of overlapping the ranked data would allow designers to visualize which areas are of highest and lowest interests. These areas would then be ever more valuable to our clients because the encompase all of their wants within one specific location. Site analysis maps are prepared in a manner similar to this as well. Once a collection of material is known, we can then overlap "vegetation, slope, and hydrology" maps together to reference specific areas we need for different aspects of design.
This is also why we do case studies to see who potentially uses our sites we design and in what way will they be using it.
Post a Comment