Geografie 2009, 114, 145-155

https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2009114020145

Landscape in Czech geography and the problem of relevance of Anglo-American human geography approaches

Zdeněk Kučera

Katedra sociální geografie a regionálního rozvoje Přírodovědecké fakulty Univerzity Karlovy v Praze, Albertov 6, 128 43 Praha 2, Czechia

References

1. ANDREWS, M. (1999): Landscape and Western Art. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 248 s.
2. ANTROP, M. (2006): From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape management. In: Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G., Opdam, P. (eds.): From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application. Wageningen UR Frontis Series, 12, Springer, New York, s. 27–50.
3. BAKER, A. R. H. (2003): Geography and History: Bridging the Divide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 279 s.
4. BASTIAN, O. (2001): Landscape ecology: towards a unified discipline? Landscape Ecology, 16, s. 757–766. <https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014412915534>
5. BIČÍK, I. (2008): Geografie ve studiu krajiny. Reakce na stejnojmenný příspěvek doc. Hynka. Geografie–Sborník ČGS, 113, č. 1, s. 85–88.
6. BIRD, J. (1993): The Changing Worlds of Geography. A Critical Guide to Concepts and Methods. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 307 s.
7. BROOKFIELD, H. C. (1969): On the environment as perceived. In: Board, Ch., Chorley, R. J., Haggett, P., Stoddart, D. R. (eds.): Progress in Geography: International Reviews of Current Research. Volume 1, Edward Arnold, London, s. 51–80.
8. COSGROVE, D. (1978): Place, landscape, and the dialectics of cultural geography. Canadian Geographer, 22, č. 1, s. 66–72. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1978.tb01218.x>
9. COSGROVE, D. (1985): Prospect, perspective and the evolution of the landscape idea. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 10, s. 45–62. <https://doi.org/10.2307/622249>
10. COSGROVE, D. E. (1998): Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (Wisconsin), 293 s.
11. DAVIS, W. M. (1919): Passarge’s principles of landscape description. Geographical Review, 8, č. 4/5, s. 266–273. <https://doi.org/10.2307/207841>
12. DUNCAN, J. S. (1980): The superorganic in American cultural geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 70, č. 2, s. 181–198. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01306.x>
13. DUNCAN, J. S. (1990): The City as Text: The Politics of Landscape Interpretation in the Kandyan Kingdom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 229 s.
14. Evropská úmluva o krajině (přijata ve Florencii 20. října 2000 a jménem České republiky podepsána ve Štrasburku dne 28. listopadu 2002, viz Sbírka mezinárodních smluv č. 13/2005, Částka 6).
15. FORMAN, R. T. T., GODRON, M. (1993): Krajinná ekologie. Academia, Praha, 583 s.
16. GARCIA-RAMON, M.-D. (2003): Globalization and international geography: the questions of languages and scholarly traditions. Progress in Human Geography, 27, č. 1, s. 1–5. <https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132503ph409xx>
17. GRANÖ, J. G. (1929/1997): Pure Geography. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (Maryland), 191 s.
18. GROENING, G. (2007): The “Landscape Must Become the Law” – Or Should It? Landscape Research, 32, č. 5, s. 595–612. <https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552746>
19. GUTIÉRREZ, J., LÓPEZ-NIEVA, P. (2001): Are international journals of human geography really international? Progress in Human Geography, 25, č. 1, s. 53–69. <https://doi.org/10.1191/030913201666823316>
20. HAMPL, M. (1998): Realita, společnost a geografická organizace: hledání integrálního řádu. Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta, Praha, 110 s.
21. HARTSHORNE, R. (1939): The nature of geography: A critical survey of current thought in the light of the past. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 29, č. 3 a 4, s. 173–658. <https://doi.org/10.2307/2561063>
22. HAVLÍČEK, T., HUPKOVÁ, M. (2008): Religious landscape in Czechia: new structures and trends. Geografie–Sborník ČGS, 113, č. 3, s. 302–319.
23. HYNEK, A. (2008): Geografie ve studiu krajiny. Geografie–Sborník ČGS, 113, č. 1, s. 79–85.
24. CHROMÝ, P., KUČERA, Z. (2009): Religiózní krajina Česka. Geografie–Sborník ČGS, 114, č. 1, s. 80–81.
25. CHROMÝ, P., KUČEROVÁ, S., KUČERA, Z. (2008): Regional identity, contemporary and historical regions and the issue of relict borders – The case of Czechia. Regions and Regionalism (v redakci).
26. JANČÁK, V., HAVLÍČEK, T., CHROMÝ, P., MARADA, M. (2008): Regional differentiation of selected conditions for the development of human and social capital in Czechia. Geografie–Sborník ČGS, 113, č. 3, s. 269–284.
27. JOHNSTON, R. J. (1983): Philosophy and Human Geography: An Introduction to Contemporary Approaches. Edward Arnold, London, 152 s.
28. JOHNSTON, R. J. (1997): Geography and Geographers. Anglo-American Human Geography Since 1945. Arnold, London, 475 s.
29. JOHNSTON, R. J. (1998): Fragmentation around a defended core: the territoriality of geography. Geographical Journal, 164, č. 2, s. 139–147. <https://doi.org/10.2307/3060365>
30. JOHNSTON, R. (2003): Geography: a different sort of discipline? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 28, s. 133–141. <https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5661.00083>
31. JOHNSTON, R. (2006): The politics of changing human geography’s agenda: textbooks and the representation of increasing diversity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 31, s. 286–303. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00215.x>
32. JOHNSTON, R., SIDAWAY, J. D. (2004): The trans-Atlantic connection: ‘Anglo-American’ geography reconsidered. GeoJournal, 59, s. 15–22. <https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GEJO.0000015434.52331.72>
33. JONES, M. (1991): The elusive reality of landscape: concepts and approaches in landscape research. Norsk Geografisk Tiddskrift, 45, s. 229–244. <https://doi.org/10.1080/00291959108552277>
34. KEISTERI, T. (1990): The study of changes in cultural landscapes. Fennia, 168, č. 1, s. 31–115.
35. KOLEJKA, J. (2008): Reakce na diskusní příspěvek doc. Hynka. Geografie–Sborník ČGS, 113, č. 1, s. 89–90.
36. LIPSKÝ, Z., ROMPORTL, D. (2007): Typologie krajiny v Česku a zahraničí: stav problematiky, metody a teoretická východiska. Geografie–Sborník ČGS, 112, č. 1, s. 61–83.
37. LOWENTHAL, D. (1968): The American Scene. Geographical Review, 58, č. 1, s. 61–88. <https://doi.org/10.2307/212832>
38. LOWENTHAL, D. (2003). Postscript. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93, č. 4, s. 885. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2003.09304010.x>
39. LOWENTHAL, D. (2007): Living with and looking at landscape. Landscape Research, 32, č. 5, s. 635–656. <https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552761>
40. LOWENTHAL, D., PRINCE, H. C. (1964): The English landscape. Geographical Review, 54, č. 3, s. 309–346. <https://doi.org/10.2307/212656>
41. LOWENTHAL, D., PRINCE, H. C. (1965): English landscape tastes. Geographical Review, 55, č. 2, s. 186–222. <https://doi.org/10.2307/212710>
42. MARKUSEN, A. (1999): Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: the case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies. Regional Studies, 33, č. 9, s. 869–884. <https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409950075506>
43. MARTIN, R. (2001): Geography and public policy: the case of the missing agenda. Progress in Human Geography, 25, č. 2, s. 189–210. <https://doi.org/10.1191/030913201678580476>
44. MAZÚR, E., DRDOŠ, J. (1988): Landscape ecology – geographical research direction or an interdisciplinary research programme? Geografický časopis, 40, č. 1–2, s. 3–11.
45. MEINIG, D. W. (1979): The beholding eye: Ten versions of the same scene. In: Meinig, D. W. (ed.): The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. Oxford University Press, New York–Oxford, s. 33–48.
46. MINCA, C. (2007): Humbolt’s compromise, or the forgotten geographies of landscape. Progress in Human Geography, 31, č. 2, s. 179–193. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507075368>
47. MITCHELL, D. (1996): The Lie of the Land: Migrant Workers and the California Landscape. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 245 s.
48. OLWIG, K. R. (1996): Recovering the substantive nature of landscape. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 86, č. 4, s. 630–653. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1996.tb01770.x>
49. OLWIG, K. R. (2002): Landscape Nature and the Body Politic: From Britain’s Renaissance to America’s New World. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (Wisconsin), 299 s.
50. OLWIG, K. R. (2005): Editorial: Law, polity and the changing meaning of landscape. Landscape Research, 30, č. 3, s. 293–298. <https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390500165369>
51. OLWIG, K. R. (2007): The practice of landscape ‘conventions’ and the just landscape: The case of the European Landscape Convention. Landscape Research, 32, č. 5, s. 579–594. <https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552738>
52. PAASI, A. (2005): Globalisation, academic capitalism, and the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning A, 37, s. 769–789. <https://doi.org/10.1068/a3769>
53. PEET, R. (1996): Discursive idealism in the „landscape-as-text“ school. Professional Geographer, 48, č. 1, s. 96–98. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1996.00096.x>
54. PENNING-ROWSELL, E. C. (1975): Constraints on the application of landscape evaluations. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 66, s. 149–155. <https://doi.org/10.2307/621630>
55. PENNING-ROWSELL, E. C. (1982): A public preference evaluation of landscape quality. Regional Studies, 16, č. 2, s. 97–112. <https://doi.org/10.1080/09595238200185091>
56. PHELPS, N. A., TEWDWR-JONES, M. (2008): If geography is anything, maybe it’s planning’s alter ego? Reflections on policy relevance in two disciplines concerned with place and space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 33, č. 4, s. 566–584. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2008.00315.x>
57. PRICE, M., LEWIS, M. (1993): The reinvention of cultural geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 83, č. 1, s. 1–17. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1993.tb01920.x>
58. RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. (2006): Commentary: Is there an ‘Anglo-American’ domination in human geography? And, is it bad? Environment and Planning A, 38, s. 603–610. <https://doi.org/10.1068/a38280>
59. SAUER, C. O. (1925): The Morphology of Landscape. Reprinted in: Leighly, J., ed. (1983): Land and Life: A Selection From the Writings of Carl Ortwin Sauer. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, s. 315–350.
60. SELMAN, P. (2006): Planning at the Landscape Scale. Routledge, Abingdon, 213 s.
61. SCHAMA, S. (1995): Landscape and Memory. Vintage Books, New York, 652 s.
62. SCHENK, W. (2002): „Landschaft“ und „Kulturlandschaft“ – „getönte“ Leitbegriffe für aktuelle Konzepte geographischer Forschung und räumlicher Plannung. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, 146, č. 6, s. 6–13.
63. WIDGREN, M. (1985): Archaeology and geography in Sweden. Common research themes and contrasting views in the last twenty years. Archaeology and Environment, 4, s. 155–162.
64. WIDGREN, M. (2004): Can landscapes be read? In: Palang, H., Sooväli, H., Antrop, M., Setten, G. (eds.): European Rural Landscapes: Persistence and Change in a Globalising Environment. Springer, London, s. 455–465.
65. WYLIE, J. (2007): Landscape. Routledge, Abingdon, 246 s.
front cover

ISSN 1212-0014 (Print) ISSN 2571-421X (Online)

Archive