Dr. Ingrid Sarlöv Herlin
Assistant Professor
Department of Landscape Architecture
SLU, PO Box 58
SE-230 53 Alnarp
Sweden

The diverse and inter-disciplinary character of landscape architecture means that there are many disciplines which potentially have a close relationship to landscape architecture and vice versa. This diversity is reflected by the structure of twelve ‘working groups’ which have been established within the context of the LE:NOTRE Project as a means of focussing the work of the many members around the main ‘sub-disciplines’ of landscape architecture.
During the first phase of the LE:NOTRE Thematic Network Project in Landscape Architecture,
12 authors from Neighbouring disciplines were invited in 2004 to prepare an a review paper focusing on the relationship between landscape architecture and its neighbouring disciplines. During this phase of the project; further five authors were invited, in order to give an even more complete picture of the wide range of Neighbouring Disciplines for the field of landscape architecture. .
The main purpose of the new review papers has just for the previous 12 have been to;
inform members of the various LE:NOTRE Project working groups in their discussions on course content, learning outcomes and curriculum development;
provide an overview of aspects of the discipline common interests
identify approaches and methods of research useful for researchers in landscape architecture, to contribute to the development of a European PhD Programme in landscape architecture,
point up areas of common interest and generally stimulate the dialogue between landscape architecture and your discipline; to form part of one of the formal outputs of year two of the LE:NOTRE Project

to provide an important contribution to the process of developing a common
European academic and professional profile for landscape architecture.
The project aims for the review papers were focused on two major issues: o the common areas of knowledge, skills and understanding, with which undergraduate landscape architecture students should be familiar in the introductory part of their education; and o the research approaches, methods and culture characteristic of the disciplines in question, with which landscape architecture graduates should become familiar in order to be able to participate in fruitful collaborative research with these disciplines.
In 2004, during the first phase of the LE:NOTRE Thematic Network Project in Landscape
Architecture, 12 authors representing 12 different Neighbouring disciplines were suggested and nominated by the Le Notre steering committee. These papers have been presented and summarised in the Report and review of Output 2.3. Reflecting on the
Interface between Landscape Architecture and its Neighbouring Disciplines (by Sarlöv-
Herlin, 2006). These were the papers in the first phase;
1.
Fine Arts
2.
Landscape Ecology
3.
Art History
4.
Historical Geography
Knut Asdam
Bob Bunce
Erik de Jong
Klaus Dieter Kleefeld
5.
Hydrology and Water management
6.
Regional planning
7.
Agriculture & Rural Development
8.
Dendrology
9.
Sociology
10.
Landscape Archaeology
11.
Psychology (Environmental)
12.
Urban Design
Frank Tönsmann
Marco Venturi
Jan Diek von Mansvelt
Gabor Schmidt
Detlev Ipsen
Graham Fairclough
Kai Schuster
Thomas Sieverts
For this new briefing; the following five more disciplines have been added;
13.
Economics
14.
Cultural Anthropology
15.
Forestry
Colin Price
Robert Rotenberg
João Bento , Domingos Lopes, Carlos
Machado and Jorge Machado
16.
Cultural Geography
17.
Architectural theory
Stephen Daniels
Kari Jormakka
Just as previously, a briefing was sent out to inform the authors on suggested structure and issues to be issued In order to ensure that each contributing authors were working from the

same broad picture of landscape architecture, a definition of landscape architecture was sent out with the briefing. “Generically, (landscape architecture is) the discipline concerned with mankind’s conscious shaping of his external environment … (it) involves planning, design and management of the landscape to create, maintain, protect and enhance places so as to be both functional, beautiful and sustainable (in every sense of the word).”
The suggested structure included the following points (For detailed instructions see
Appendix).:
1.
Introductory remarks about the discipline and its general actual and potential relationship towards the discipline of landscape architecture
2.
Overview of main subject areas from the neighbouring discipline of which landscape architecture students should gain a basic appreciation within the context of their introductory education
3.
Review of the main research approaches and methods associated with the neighbouring discipline within which landscape architecture research students should be familiar in order to be able to engage in collaborative research programmes and projects;
4.
Concluding general remarks regarding the relationship between the two existing or potential disciplines
5.
References and further suggested reading (with as many books and articles, as possible in English).
Table 1. Length and languages for the article by the different authors from Neighbouring disciplines.
Discipline Representative Pages Words language
13 Economics
14 Cultural
Anthropology
15 Forestry
Colin Price
Robert Rotenberg
26 16214 English
27 13694 English
João Bento , Domingos Lopes, Carlos
Machado and Jorge Machado
Stephen Daniels
23 7825 Portuguese
16 Cultural
Geography
17 Architectural
Theory
Kari Jormakka
9 5021 English
16 11955 English
All the new authors have presently handed in their articles. The number of pages for the submitted articles varied from 7to 27pages (Table 1). One of the submitted papers has been in Portuguese, the others in English. The next table, (table 2) presents an overview of how different points of the task are covered up by the papers.

Table 2. How the authors had responded to the briefing.
13
DISCIPLINE
Economics
1. INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS ABOUT
THE DISCIPLINE
AND
RELATIONSHIP
WITH LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
YES
2.OVERVIEW OF
THE SUBJECT
AREA RELATED
TO LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
TEACHING
YES
3. RESEARCH
APPROACHES
RELATED
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
RESEARCH
YES
YES YES 14
15
Cultural
Anthropology
Forestry
YES
Yes but must be translated from
Portuguese
YES 16
17
Cultural
Geography
Architectural
Theory
YES
Yes but must be translated from
Portuguese
YES
Yes but must be translated from
Portuguese
YES
YES YES
4.CONCLUDING
REMARKS
REGARDING
JOINT
APPROACHES
5.REFERENCES.
YES
YES
Yes but must be translated from
Portuguese
YES
YES yes, a complete list yes, a complete list
Yes but must be translated from
Portuguese
Yes, can be completed yes, a complete list
The paper discusses economics, as the subject is presented in introductory economics texts, and in introductory school and university courses. Price argues that there is a bias away from the financial institutions, that often grab the economic headlines, and towards the natural resources which are the basis of all real production. The paper considers economists views about resources and wants, with emphasis on aspects that have particular importance for landscape architects. A historical overview of modern economics for “outsiders” is presented. Economics is according to Price, concerned with the production of goods and services, and with the conditions that affect that production. The introductory texts consider these factors in relation to industrial production, and sometimes by reference to agriculture.
But they are also according to Price, equally relevant to the creation of new landscapes.
Terms such as labour, capital, labour specialisation, demand, markets (and the lack of them, common property, public goods, investment and cost benefit analyses are all discussed in relation to landscape architecture. Price also discusses concepts such as distribution, intervention, spatial economics, macroeconomics and accounting in relationship to landscape architecture. Also teaching the subject of economics in landscape architecture is discussed, as well as research methods and approaches that are relevant to landscape architecture. In a later part, Price elaborates further thinking from his long experience of the

field of landscape economics. The paper concludes that concerned with similar issues, yet from very different perspectives, landscape architects and economists have great scope for disagreement. Yet in practice different approaches may lead towards common conclusions.
The paper provides a thought provoking and well written essay and would be very valuable,
(after peer- review) as teaching material for students and PhD students.
Robert Rotenberg summarises fifty years of research on a complex facet of the human experience: the meaning people derive from their experience with specific spaces and places. Rotenberg argues that the landscape designer decides how much of the design responds to the issues and concerns in the professional community or the community of users, and how much derives from creativity. Collaboration is possible between the landscape architect and cultural anthropologist. When landscape architects take the time to engage in ethnographic research themselves, their designs become more deeply rooted to the locality. This is a tool for discovering how a community will interact with a design, and a process for evaluating a design after it is built. It is a path to self-knowledge for the designer who is open to discovering the spatial discourses and practices that have shaped the work.
What anthropology can contribute to the study of landscape is first and foremost the unpacking of the Western landscape concept, but also a theorising of landscape as a cultural process that is dynamic, multi-sensual and constantly oscillating between a ‘foreground’ of everyday experience and a ‘background’ of social potential. Also the issue of research approaches is brought up in the essay. Designers have effectively teamed with social scientists in the past. Since 1969 professional association in North America known as the
Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) and in Europe as the International
Association for People-Environment Studies (IAPS) has brought together landscape architects, architects, regional planners, preservationists, environmental psychologists, geographers and cultural anthropologists to share research ideas and techniques. Rotenberg concludes that all landscape architects to take advantage of the potential for such collaboration. Just as for the previous essay, this paper is very valuable, (after peer- review) as teaching and discussion materials on different levels in education and research.
To be translated from Portuguese shortly.
Stephen Daniels summarises his paper in the following way; “The conversation between cultural geography and landscape architecture is potentially a highly creative one. So far it has been conducted largely at the level of research, in terms of cultural geography’s concerns with the theory and history of landscape, and more recently with that of urban space and mobility. New developments in cultural geography, as set out on its leading

journal Cultural Geographies promise a closer and wider engagement (including with
Channels of LE:NOTRE beyond the four I initially identified) on questions of science, technology and materials, and of practice. Practice-led research is becoming more central to arts and humanities research. One of the liveliest sections in Cultural Geographies is titled
‘Cultural Geographies in Practice’ and includes shorter, more informal pieces on a variety of work, including architecture and design among film making, dance, curating, installation art and urban walking, some projects which bring together academic and action research. What would enhance the exchange between cultural geography and landscape architecture is more joint participation collaborative projects, in which polite conversation could be sharpened by practical experience of the limits as well as opportunities of interdisciplinary work, and students, at all levels, have a key role to play in this.” Also his paper has got a high potential to be publishable in a book after peer review.
The term Architectural theory has, according to Jormakka, been used to refer to at least three radically different kinds of writing – and, occasionally, non-verbal projects and buildings. Jormakka characterises these three as design theory, criticism, and the philosophy of architecture. Examples are Le Corbusier’s literary output that can be called design theory and Colin Rowe’s observations about the resemblance of Corbusian villas to Palladian ones.
Finally, architectural theory as the philosophy of architecture investigates the possibility of formulating design theories) as well as the relationship between a theory and a building or the intentions of the author. Jormakka summarizes six points on what what students of landscape architecture can learn from architectural theory according to. Firstly, they have to appreciate that everything they are working with is a contingent construction that could be made otherwise if need arises. Secondly, these constructions are usually neither radically subjective nor random. Instead, they are collective conceptualizations that pertain to particular interests and specific discourses. Thirdly, it is within these discursive contexts with regard to the relevant interests that we can understand the values experts and laymen attribute to the designs. Fourthly, different contexts produce different evaluations. While the design of public space is ultimately a matter of managing a conflict of interests, there may be conflicts that cannot be rationally resolved. Fifthly, the education of an architect or a landscape architect involves not just the transmission of knowledge and skills but the initiation of the student into a particular value system which may even be necessarily opposed to that of large sectors of society. Sixthly, the disciplinary structures that determine what we understand as a design, what we recognize as a problem to be solved through design, or what we consider to be a good solution, may need to be critically examined.
Embedded in design theories, paradigmatic examples, representational methods, work habits, legal and financial structures etc. are ontological assumptions that may limit the range of design options without ever reaching the level of consciousness. Opening up some of these restricted territories may be the best service theory can offer to landscape architecture, according to Jormakka. Also this paper is thought provoking and interesting and can well serve as material to be used in teaching and research after peer review procedure.

The three here presented, most recent submitted papers for Neighbouring Disciplines to the
LE NOTRE project, are all well completed shape and with though provoking and interesting content. I recommend that they will now will go on for a qualified peer-review by experts, and consequently after possible revision will be published as soon as possible. I also anticipate translation and hopefully as soon as possible submission of the two remaining papers.
The issue of how to proceed with the output of review papers from Neighbouring disciplines has been discussed on several steering committee meetings within the LENOTERE network.
Two major options have lately been discussed;
A special edition of a printed book (for example by Callwey)
Publication of the papers online.
With promising good quality of the newer papers and recent resubmission and completion of some earlier papers (for example by Graham Fairclough) the first option is now more achievable.
Briefing document.
The submitted papers.
Report and review of Output 2.3. Reflecting on the Interface between Landscape
Architecture and its Neighbouring Disciplines. (Sarlöv Herlin 2006)