Decentring landscape: rethinking landscape analysis with a relational ontology

References

• Antonson, H., & Åkerskog, A. (2015). 'This is what we did last time’. Uncertainty over landscape analysis and its procurement in the Swedish road planning process. Land Use Policy, 42, 48–57. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauregard, R. (2015). Planning Matter: Acting with Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Büscher, M. (2006). Vision in motion. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(2), 281–299. doi:10.1068/a37277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemetsen, M., & Schibbye, B. (2016). Regional landscape characterization in Sweden: Bridging field of competence in place. In K. Jørgensen, M. Clemetsen, K. Halvorsen Thorén, & T. Richardson (Eds.), Mainstreaming landscape through the European landscape convention (pp. 94–107). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, G., Sarlöv Herlin, I., & Swanwick, C. (2018). Landscape character approaches in global, disciplinary and policy context, an introduction. In G. Fairclough, I. Sarlöv Herlin, & C. Swanwick (Eds.), Routledge handbook of landscape character assessment: Current approaches to characterisation and assessment (pp. 3–20). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grasseni, C. (2004). Skilled landscapes: mapping practices of locality. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22(5), 699–717. doi:10.1068/d398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunn, W. (2020). Making places. In Snøhetta: RSA Metzstein architecture discourse. Edinburgh: Royal Scottish Academy of Art and Architecture. https://doi.org/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3543976
   Google Scholar
• Hedegaard Møller, C. (2018). New Nørrebro Park’s invisible co-designers. Architecture and Culture, 6(1), 81–98. doi:10.1080/20507828.2017.1399739
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (2004). The active interview. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (Second edition, pp. 140–161). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Joks, S., Østmo, L., & Law, J. (2020). Verbing meahcci: Living Sámi lands. The Sociological Review Monographs, 68(2), 305–321. doi:10.1177/0038026120905473
   Google Scholar
• Jones, M. (1991). The elusive reality of landscape. Concepts and approaches in landscape research. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift [Norwegian Journal of Geography], 45(4), 229–244. doi:10.1080/00291959108552277
   Google Scholar
• Jones, M., & Daugstad, K. (1997). Usages of the 'cultural landscape’ concept in Norwegian and Nordic landscape administration. Landscape Research, 22(3), 267–281. doi:10.1080/01426399708706515
   Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2007). Rethinking maps. Progress in Human Geography, 31(3), 331–344. doi:10.1177/0309132507077082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale, S. (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. (2002). Objects and spaces. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5–6), 91–105. doi:10.1177/026327602761899165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think (4th edition). Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Löfgren, S., Nilsson, K., & Johansson, C. (2018). Considering landscape in strategic transport planning. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 65, 396–408. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2018.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meinig, D. W. (1979). The beholding eye: Ten versions of the same scene. In D. W. Meinig (Ed.), The interpretation of ordinary landscapes: geographical essays (pp. 33–48). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. The Sociological Review, 47(1_suppl), 74–89. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03483.x
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morillo-Rodríguez, M. J., Fuster, N., Mesa-Pedrazas, Á., & Susino-Arbucias, J. (2023). All is land, but not all is landscape: Social discourses around the landscape. Landscape Research, 48, 691–703. doi:10.1080/01426397.2023.2175805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murdoch, J. (2006). Post-structuralist geography: A guide to relational space. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Nadaï, A., & Labussière, O. (2015). Wind power and the emergence of the Beauce Landscape, Eure-et-Loir, France. Landscape Research, 40(1), 76–98. doi:10.1080/01426397.2013.784732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• November, V., Camacho-Hübner, E., & Latour, B. (2010). Entering a risky territory: Space in the age of digital navigation. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(4), 581–599. doi:10.1068/d10409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olwig, K., Dalglish, C., Fairclough, G., & Herring, P. (2016). Introduction to a special issue: The future of landscape characterisation, and the future character of landscape – between space, time, history, place and nature. Landscape Research, 41(2), 169–174. doi:10.1080/01426397.2015.1135321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opdam, P., Westerink, J., Vos, C., & de Vries, B. (2015). The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(1), 63–78. doi:10.1080/14649357.2014.997786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qviström, M. (2018). Farming ruins: a landscape study of incremental urbanisation. Landscape Research, 43(5), 575–586. doi:10.1080/01426397.2017.1353959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schibbye, B., & Pålstam, Y. (2001). Landskap i fokus: Utvärdering av metoder för landskapsanalys. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. (2017). How was it for you? The interview society and the irresistible rise of the (poorly analyzed) interview. Qualitative Research, 17(2), 144–158. doi:10.1177/1468794116668231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simensen, T., Halvorsen, R., & Erikstad, L. (2018). Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: A systematic review. Land Use Policy, 75, 557–569. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Söderström, O., & Geertman, S. (2013). Loose threads: The translocal making of public space policy in Hanoi. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 34(2), 244–260. doi:10.1111/sjtg.12027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahlschmidt, P., Swaffield, S., Primdahl, J., & Nellmann, V. (2017). Landscape analysis: Investigating the potentials of space and place. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Valve, H., Lazarevic, D., & Pitzén, S. (2022). The co-evolution of policy realities and environmental liabilities: Analysing the ontological work of policy documents. Geoforum, 128, 68–77. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Brink, M., van den Brink, A., & Bruns, D. (2022). Boundary thinking in landscape architecture and boundary-spanning roles of landscape architects. Landscape Research, 47(8), 1087–1099. doi:10.1080/01426397.2022.2091121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicenzotti, V., Jorgensen, A., Qviström, M., & Swaffield, S. (2016). Forty years of landscape research. Landscape Research, 41(4), 388–407. doi:10.1080/01426397.2016.1156070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wylie, J. (2007). Landscape. Oxdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Yaneva, A. (2017). Five ways to make architecture political. An introduction to the politics of design practice. New York: Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
   Google Scholar
• Yaneva, A., & Mommersteeg, B. (2020). How does an ANT approach help us rethink the notion of site? In A. Blok, I. Farías, & C. Roberts (Eds)., The Routledge companion to actor-network theory (pp. 305–317). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar