HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
63
ment” (Holford, 1970); and, I might add, an environment comfortable
exciting, suitable for occupance by that strange and changeable creature
man.
3. Landscupe architecture as applied human ecology
The landscape architect is blessed (cursed) with somewhat the same
tradition as architecture: an almost exclusive focus on design for clients
that are able to afford such service. In fact, many of the generalizations
developed in the foregoing section on architecture could fairly be
presented here. There are, however, some important differences. First,
the landscape architect is, of necessity, more concerned with ecological
concepts (see Hackett, 1956). His traditional design work requires that
he approximate a natural system in order to meet the environmental
demands of his plants. Second, a stronger case can be made for the early
entry of landscape architects into planning, both in Great Britain and in
the United States. Third, several of the soundest and most successful
ecologically based environmental consultant firms are essentially converted landscape architecture firms, e.g. Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and
Todd in Pennsylvania or Steinitz and Rogers in Massachusetts.
This latter trend presents a difficulty in trying to distinguish an
ecological method specifically for landscape architecture; most of its
more prominent practitioners, at least those in print, tend not t o
separate it from the field of planning and generally make little attempt
to distinguish method. McHarg (1967) for example, in presenting his
ecological method for landscape architects, presents a “method which
has been tested empirically at many scales from a continent, a major
region, a river basin, physiographic regions, sub-regional amas, and a
metropolitan region town to a single city”, but not evidently tested a t
the scale a t which most landscape architects do most of their work.
A bit of arrogance shows in this assumption that landscape architecture is planning and, moreover, a claim is laid to the ecological
method in planning. As McHarg would have it, “where the landscape
architect commands ecology he is the only bridge between the natural
sciences and the planning and design profession, the proprietor of the
most perceptive view of the natural world which science or art has
provided”. McHarg has long been good for ecology, the prophet with
the brogue and the salt-and-pepper beard, a prophet that attracted
attention but one that also talked sense and solutions. But such a claim
can only run counter to what can ultimately be the only answer in
human ecology, applied or otherwise : cooperative interdisciplinary
research and application of that research to the solution of problems in
the relationships between man and his environment. Turned around, his
argument is acceptable. I would accept that “the ecological method is
C
63
ment” (Holford, 1970); and, I might add, an environment comfortable
exciting, suitable for occupance by that strange and changeable creature
man.
3. Landscupe architecture as applied human ecology
The landscape architect is blessed (cursed) with somewhat the same
tradition as architecture: an almost exclusive focus on design for clients
that are able to afford such service. In fact, many of the generalizations
developed in the foregoing section on architecture could fairly be
presented here. There are, however, some important differences. First,
the landscape architect is, of necessity, more concerned with ecological
concepts (see Hackett, 1956). His traditional design work requires that
he approximate a natural system in order to meet the environmental
demands of his plants. Second, a stronger case can be made for the early
entry of landscape architects into planning, both in Great Britain and in
the United States. Third, several of the soundest and most successful
ecologically based environmental consultant firms are essentially converted landscape architecture firms, e.g. Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and
Todd in Pennsylvania or Steinitz and Rogers in Massachusetts.
This latter trend presents a difficulty in trying to distinguish an
ecological method specifically for landscape architecture; most of its
more prominent practitioners, at least those in print, tend not t o
separate it from the field of planning and generally make little attempt
to distinguish method. McHarg (1967) for example, in presenting his
ecological method for landscape architects, presents a “method which
has been tested empirically at many scales from a continent, a major
region, a river basin, physiographic regions, sub-regional amas, and a
metropolitan region town to a single city”, but not evidently tested a t
the scale a t which most landscape architects do most of their work.
A bit of arrogance shows in this assumption that landscape architecture is planning and, moreover, a claim is laid to the ecological
method in planning. As McHarg would have it, “where the landscape
architect commands ecology he is the only bridge between the natural
sciences and the planning and design profession, the proprietor of the
most perceptive view of the natural world which science or art has
provided”. McHarg has long been good for ecology, the prophet with
the brogue and the salt-and-pepper beard, a prophet that attracted
attention but one that also talked sense and solutions. But such a claim
can only run counter to what can ultimately be the only answer in
human ecology, applied or otherwise : cooperative interdisciplinary
research and application of that research to the solution of problems in
the relationships between man and his environment. Turned around, his
argument is acceptable. I would accept that “the ecological method is
C