Authors: Miloslav Lapka, Eva Cudlinova, Sandy Rikoon, Jaroslav Bohac
Addresses: Institute of Landscape Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Na Sadkach 7, 37005 Ceskd Budejovice, Czech Republic. Institute of Landscape Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Na Sadkach 7, 37005 Ceskd Budejovice, Czech Republic. Department of Rural Sociology, 108 Sociology Building, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. Institute of Landscape Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Na Sadkach 7, 37005 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
Abstract: This article presents a general comparative analysis of two kinds of approach - linear ||disciplinary|| and non-linear ||trans-disciplinary|| - used in the assessment of marginal areas. These approaches reflect different kinds of thinking about marginal areas more than describe specific modelling techniques. The analysis emphasises the key characteristics of each approach, as well as major advantages and disadvantages of each approach|s application to define and resolve issues of planning in marginal areas. As a case example for contextualising our discussion of the two approaches, we use our experiences and data from the Sumava Mountains, an environmentally wealthy and sensitive area along the southern boundary of the Czech Republic. Understanding the particular nuances of linear and non-linear approaches in practice will help planners to develop successful solutions to problems in marginal areas.
Keywords: cultural capital; linearity; marginality; national park; non-linearity.
International Journal of Sustainable Development, 2001 Vol.4 No.2, pp.157-176
Available online: 04 Jul 2003 *Full-text access for editors Access for subscribers Purchase this article Comment on this article