More than Landscape: Toward Cosmophanic Diversity in Environmental Planning and Governance

References

• Allen, C. J. 2019. Righting imbalance: Striving for well-being in the Andes. Science, Religion and Culture 6 (1):6–14. doi:10.17582/journal.src/2019.6.1.6.14.
   Google Scholar
• Antrop, M. 2006. Sustainable landscapes: Contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (3–4):187–97. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balvanera, P., R. Calderón-Contreras, A. J. Castro, M. Felipe-Lucia, I. Geijzendorffer, S. Jacobs, B. Martín-López, U. Arbieu, C. Ifejika Speranza, B. Locatelli, et al. 2017. Interconnected place-based social–ecological research can inform global sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 29:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beresford, M., and A. Phillips. 2000. Protected landscapes: A conservation model for the 21st century. The George Wright Forum 17 (1):15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Berque, A. 2013. Thinking through landscape. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Berque, A. 2017. La cosmophanie des réalités géographiques. Cahiers de Géographie du Québec 60 (171):517–30. doi:10.7202/1041220ar.
   Google Scholar
• Berque, A. 2019. An enquiry into the ontological and logical foundations of sustainability: Toward a conceptual integration of the interface ‘Nature/Humanity. Global Sustainability 2:E13. doi:10.1017/sus.2019.9.
   Google Scholar
• Blaser, M. 2009. Notes towards a political ontology of ‘environmental’ conflicts. In Contested ecologies: Nature and knowledge, ed. L. Green, 13–27. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bloch, M. 1995. People into places: Zafimaniry concepts of clarity. In The anthropology of landscape perspectives on place and space, ed. E. Hirsch and M. O’Hanlon, 63–77. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bobek, H., and J. Schmithüsen. 1949. Die Landschaft im logischen System der Geographie. Erdkunde 3 (2):112–20. doi:10.3112/erdkunde.1949.02.05.
   Google Scholar
• Branca, D. 2020. Humanity in/of the anthropocene. An anthropological perspective. In Environment, social justice, and the media in the age of the anthropocene, ed. E. Dobbyns, M. L. Piga, and L. Manca, 15–28. Lanham: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Branca, D., A. Haller, B. Blanco-Gallegos, and V. Alanoca-Arocutipa. 2021. Mediating mind-sets: The Cerro Khapía landscape reserve in the Peruvian Andes. Eco.mont Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research and Management 13 (2):52–7. doi:10.1553/eco.mont-13-2s52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brondízio, E. S., and J.-F L. Tourneau. 2016. Environmental governance for all. Science 352 (6291):1272–3. doi:10.1126/science.aaf5122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brondízio, E. S., Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Bates, J. Carino, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, M. Farhan Ferrari, K. Galvin, V. Reyes-García, P. McElwee, Z. Molnár, et al. 2021. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 46 (1):481–509. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127.
   Google Scholar
• Burenhult, N., and S. C. Levinson. 2008. Language and landscape: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences 30 (2–3):135–50. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canessa, A. 2012. Intimate indigeneities. Race, sex, and history in the small spaces of Andean life. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castree, N. 2019. Perspectives on the nature of environmental planning. In The Routledge Companion to Environmental Planning, ed. S. Davoudi, R. Cowell, I. White, and H. Blanco, 21–31. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chakrabarty, D. 2000. Provincializing Europe Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chanteloup, L., F. Joliet, and T. M. Herrmann. 2019. Learning and insights from a participatory photography project with Cree and Inuit about the land (Nunavik, Canada). Polar Geography 42 (2):125–43. doi:10.1080/1088937X.2019.1578291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cockburn, J., G. Cundill, S. Shackleton, A. Cele, S. F. Cornelius, V. Koopman, J.-P. Le Roux, N. McLeod, M. Rouget, S. Schroder, et al. 2020. Relational hubs for collaborative landscape stewardship. Society & Natural Resources 33 (5):681–93. doi:10.1080/08941920.2019.1658141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cosgrove, D. 1985. Prospect, perspective and the evolution of the landscape idea. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 10 (1):45–62. doi:10.2307/622249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang.
   Google Scholar
• de la Cadena, M. 2015. Earth beings. Ecologies of practice across Andean worlds. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• de la Cadena, M., and M. Blaser, eds. 2018. A world of many worlds. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• del Amo-Rodríguez, S., M. d C. Vergara-Tenorio, J. M. Ramos-Prado, and L. Porter-Bolland. 2010. Community landscape planning for rural areas: A model for biocultural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 23 (5):436–50. doi:10.1080/08941920802537781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Descola, P. 2013a. Anthropologie de la nature. L’annuaire du Collège de France 112 (112):649–69. doi:10.4000/annuaire-cdf.737.
   Google Scholar
• Descola, P. 2013b. Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Escobar, A. 2015. Territorios de diferencia: La ontología política de los ‘derechos al territorio. Cuadernos de Antropología Social 41:25–38. doi:10.34096/cas.i41.1594.
   Google Scholar
• Escobar, A. 2017. Designs for the pluriverse. Radical interdipendence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Escobar, A. 2019. Thinking-feeling with the earth. Territorial struggles and the ontological dimension of the Epistemologies of the South. In Knowledges Born in the Struggle Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South, ed. B. de Sousa Santos and M. Paula Meneses, 41–57. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Floress, K., and S. Sachdeva. 2019. Novel and controversial methods in the social sciences: introduction to special issue. Society & Natural Resources 32 (10):1077–9. doi:10.1080/08941920.2019.1627731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Förster, F.,. R. Großmann, K. Iwe, H. Kinkel, A. Larsen, U. Lungershausen, C. Matarese, P. Meurer, O. Nelle, V. Robin, et al. 2012. What is landscape? Towards a common concept within an interdisciplinary research environment. e-Topoi Journal for Ancient Studies 3:169–79.
   Google Scholar
• Gehring, K., and R. Kohsaka. 2007. Landscape’ in the Japanese language: Conceptual differences and implications for landscape research. Landscape Research 32 (2):273–83. doi:10.1080/01426390701231887.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haller, A. 2017. Urbanites, smallholders, and the quest for empathy: Prospects for collaborative planning in the periurban Shullcas Valley, Peru. Landscape and Urban Planning 165:220–30. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haller, A., and D. Branca. 2020. Montología: una perspectiva de montaña hacia la investigación transdisciplinaria y el desarrollo sustentable. Revista de Investigaciones Altoandinas 22 (4):312–22. doi:10.18271/ria.2020.193.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 2015. Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environmental Humanities 6 (1):159–65. doi:10.1215/22011919-3615934.
   Google Scholar
• Hard, G. 1969. Die Diffusion der „Idee der Landschaft“: Präliminarien zu einer Geschichte der Landschaftsgeographie. Erdkunde 23 (4):249–64. doi:10.3112/erdkunde.1969.04.01.
   Google Scholar
• Hirsch, E. 1995. Introduction, landscape: Between place and space. In The Anthropology of Landscape. Perspectives on Place and Space, ed. E. Hirsch and M. O’Hanlon, 1–30. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. 1999. Consensus building as role playing and bricolage. Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65 (1):9–26. doi:10.1080/01944369908976031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishizawa, M. 2017. Landscape change in the terraces of Ollantaytambo, Peru: an emergent mountain landscape between the urban, rural and protected area. Landscape Research 42 (3):321–33. doi:10.1080/01426397.2016.1267132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, W. 1909. A pluralistic universe: Hibbert lectures at Manchester College on the present situation in philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Jon, I. 2020. Deciphering posthumanism: Why and how it matters to urban planning in the anthropocene. Planning Theory 19 (4):392–420. doi:10.1177/1473095220912770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, F. 2000. Antropologia del paesaggio. Rome: Carocci.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2010. Coming out as a philosopher. Social Studies of Science 40 (4):599–608. doi:10.1177/0306312710367697.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leichenko, R., and K. O’Brien. 2008. Environmental Change and Globalization: Double Exposures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Metzger, J., 2019. A more-than-human approach to environmental planning. In The Routledge companion to environmental planning, ed. S. Davoudi, R. Cowell, I. White, and H. Blanco. 190–9. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Minca, C. 2007. The tourist landscape paradox. Social & Cultural Geography 8 (3):433–53. doi:10.1080/14649360701488906.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neimanis, A., C. Åsberg, and J. Hedrén. 2015. Four problems, four directions for environmental humanities: Toward critical posthumanities for the anthropocene. Ethics and the Environment 20 (1):67–97. doi:10.2979/ethicsenviro.20.1.67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olwig, K. R. 1996. Recovering the substantive nature of landscape. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 86 (4):630–53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1996.tb01770.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opdam, P., J. Nassauer, Z. Wang, C. Albert, G. Bentrup, J.-C. Castella, C. McAlpine, J. Liu, S. Sheppard, and S. Swaffield. 2013. Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecology 28 (8):1439–45. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9925-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rössler, M. 2006. World Heritage cultural landscapes: A UNESCO flagship programme 1992 – 2006. Landscape Research 31 (4):333–53. doi:10.1080/01426390601004210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandercock, L. 2004. Commentary: Indigenous planning and the burden of colonialism. Planning Theory & Practice 5 (1):118–24. doi:10.1080/1464935042000204240.
   Google Scholar
• Sarmiento, F. O. 2020. Montology manifesto: echoes towards a transdisciplinary science of mountains. Journal of Mountain Science 17 (10):2512–27. doi:10.1007/s11629-019-5536-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauer, C. O. 1925. The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in Geography 2 (2):19–53.
   Google Scholar
• Sayer, S.,. T. Sunderland, J. Ghazoul, J.-L. Pfund, D. Sheil, E. Meijaard, M. Venter, A. K. Boedhihartono, M. Day, C. Garcia, et al. 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (21):8349–56. doi:10.1073/pnas.1210595110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schirpke, U., F. Timmermann, U. Tappeiner, and E. Tasser. 2016. Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: Modelling the aesthetic value. Ecological Indicators 69:78–90. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selman, P. 2008. What do we mean by sustainable landscape? Sustainability: Science. Practice and Policy 4 (2):23–8. doi:10.1080/15487733.2008.11908019.
   Google Scholar
• Takeuchi, K. 2010. Rebuilding the relationship between people and nature: the Satoyama Initiative. Ecological Research 25 (5):891–7. doi:10.1007/s11284-010-0745-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tola, M. 2018. Between Pachamama and mother earth: Gender, political ontology and the rights of nature in contemporary Bolivia. Feminist Review 118 (1):25–40. doi:10.1057/s41305-018-0100-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troll, C. 1971. Landscape ecology (geoecology) and biogeocenology — a terminological study. Geoforum 2 (4):43–6. doi:10.1016/0016-7185(71)90029-7.
   Google Scholar
• van Putten, S., C. O'Meara, F. Wartmann, J. Yager, J. Villette, C. Mazzuca, C. Bieling, N. Burenhult, R. Purves, and A. Majid. 2020. Conceptualisations of landscape differ across European languages. PLoS One 15 (10):e0239858. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239858.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watsuji, T. 2006. Antropología del paisaje: climas, culturas y religiones. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme.
   Google Scholar