Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • ASLA Research Grant
  • Other Publications
    • UWP

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Landscape Journal
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Landscape Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • ASLA Research Grant
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Visit uwp on Facebook
Research ArticleArticles

Environmental Design, Systems Thinking, and Human Agency: McHarg’s Ecological Method and Steinitz and Rogers’s Interdisciplinary Education Experiment

Moa Karolina Carlsson
Landscape Journal, February 2017, 36 (2) 37-52; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.36.2.37
Moa Karolina Carlsson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

This article discusses two models of environmental simulation that emerged in landscape architecture with the rise of the environmental movement in the United States: Ian McHarg’s (1969) ecological method and Carl Steinitz and Peter Rogers’s (1968) systems analysis model of urbanization and change.1 Attempting to integrate a spectrum of environmental factors, both models reflect a wider use of systems thinking in design. In this way, the models exemplify tools to visualize (not control) complex environmental interactions. The models attempt not to obtain equilibrium but to insert a planning mechanism that could evolve with environmental conditions, allowing users a participatory and performative role in the computation. The models are compared based on explicit assumptions each makes about the human role in evaluating environmental information. By combining systematic and automated processing with human judgment, the models appear objective. The article argues that this appearance of objectivity was intended to validate the planning outcome(s) from each model (a matter of reassurance) and may have served, intentionally or unintentionally, as a means of promoting the changing landscape architecture profession in the 1960s and 1970s.

  • Environmental simulation
  • interdisciplinary design
  • participatory design
  • environmental models
  • © 2018 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?

Log in through your institution

You may be able to gain access using your login credentials for your institution. Contact your library if you do not have a username and password.
If your organization uses OpenAthens, you can log in using your OpenAthens username and password. To check if your institution is supported, please see this list. Contact your library for more details.

Purchase access

You may purchase access to this article. This will require you to create an account if you don't already have one.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Landscape Journal: 36 (2)
Landscape Journal
Vol. 36, Issue 2
1 Feb 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Landscape Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Environmental Design, Systems Thinking, and Human Agency: McHarg’s Ecological Method and Steinitz and Rogers’s Interdisciplinary Education Experiment
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Landscape Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Landscape Journal web site.
Citation Tools
Environmental Design, Systems Thinking, and Human Agency: McHarg’s Ecological Method and Steinitz and Rogers’s Interdisciplinary Education Experiment
Moa Karolina Carlsson
Landscape Journal Feb 2017, 36 (2) 37-52; DOI: 10.3368/lj.36.2.37

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Environmental Design, Systems Thinking, and Human Agency: McHarg’s Ecological Method and Steinitz and Rogers’s Interdisciplinary Education Experiment
Moa Karolina Carlsson
Landscape Journal Feb 2017, 36 (2) 37-52; DOI: 10.3368/lj.36.2.37
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Tribute to Robert B. Riley 1931–2019
  • Fluid or Fixed? Processes that Facilitate or Constrain a Sense of Inclusion in Participatory Schoolyard and Park Design
  • Diversity and Inclusion by Design: A Challenge for Us All
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Environmental simulation
  • interdisciplinary design
  • participatory design
  • environmental models
UWP

© 2023 Landscape Journal

Powered by HighWire