The last forty years of landscape design and planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapter discusses the distinct branches of landscape architecture: landscape design of gardens, parks, urban open spaces, design of registered historic gardens, landscape planning, planning of local green space networks and spatial planning. Landscape design and planning, like architecture, responds to and is fundamentally dependent on the needs and expectations of society. It is therefore important to outline the main social processes of the last forty years.The chapter focuses on the landscape projects realised rather than on the plans, since it is the result of the design process, the completed project, that is most important. It tells us almost everything, about the times in which it was conceived and in which the designer, the client, the constructor and the users existed. The results and social impact of landscape design can be seen mainly in the completed work. There is usually a narrow professional interest in the plans that remain in the drawer.The results of landscape planning and green space planning at local level and spatial planning are only visible many years later, making it more difficult to follow the social impact. Therefore, in the case of landscape planning and green space planning at local and regional level, the chapter is limited to outlining only the trends over four decades.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".