Content uploaded by John R. Gold
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John R. Gold on Sep 29, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Oxford Brookes University]
On: 22 January 2013, At: 14:20
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Landscape Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20
Landscapes of defence
John R. Gold a & George Revill a
a School of Social Sciences and Law, Oxford Brookes
University, Gipsy Lane, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9PU, UK
Phone: + 44 (0)1865 483784 Fax: + 44 (0)1865 483784 E-mail:
Version of record first published: 25 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: John R. Gold & George Revill (1999): Landscapes of defence, Landscape
Research, 24:3, 229-239
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426399908706561
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The
accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused
arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this
material.
Landscape Research, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1999 229
Landscapes of Defence
JOHN R. GOLD & GEORGE REVILL
ABSTRACT
This paper introduces a set of four papers that deal with aspects of
'landscapes of defence'--landscapes shaped or otherwise materially affected by formal or
informal defensive strategies to achieve recognizable social, political or cultural goals. It
comprises three main sections. The first surveys various ways in which strategies to
achieve defence against other people or against nature have shaped the landscape. The
second section surveys research on human territoriality, a kindred area of inquiry, to see
what lessons can be learned about the nature of defended spaces and places in human
affairs. The final section introduces the four papers in this theme issue. These deal
respectively with the landscapes associated with four 'nuclear oases' (Blowers), current
planning and urban design approaches to security in the urban environment (Oc and
Tiesdell),
children's fears and concerns about places in the city centre (Woolley et al.),
and the spatial significance of military defence landscapes in the UK (Tivers).
KEY
WORDS:
landscapes, defence, security, fear, territoriality, symbolism
Introduction
Mack, with a piece of chalk, drew five oblongs on the floor, each seven
feet long and four feet wide, and in each square he wrote a name. These
were the simulated beds. Each man had property rights inviolable in
his space. He could legally fight a man who encroached on his square.
The rest of the room was property common to all. (Steinbeck, 1945/
1978,
p. 136)
'Defence', as the extensive entries in the Oxford English
Dictionary
make clear, is
a word with rich connotations. It can apply equally to prevention of physical
attack, response to symbolic threat and presentation of a response to legal
prosecution. It is conceptually related to security and control, to minimization of
risk and maintenance of privacy, to preservation of status and projection of
power. It can apply equally to the actions of an individual in warding off direct
aggression or the operation of culturally-derived rules that regulate grounds for
dispute so thoroughly that they are scarcely noticed in everyday life. Defence
can imply creating divisions between insider and outsider, civilization and
John
R.
Gold
&
George Revill, School of
Social
Sciences and Law, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy
Lane, Headington, Oxford OX3 9PU, UK. Tel:
+
44 (0)1865 483784; Fax: + 44 (0)1865 483937;
Email:
jrgold@brookes.ac.uk
0142-6397/99/030229-11
© 1999 Landscape Research Group Ltd.
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
230 /. R. Gold & G. Revill
wilderness, order and chaos, self and other; but the meaning of each of these
dichotomies can and does change over time. Depending on the prevailing
circumstances, the hard-fought battlefield of one era can easily become a
forgotten name on a changing political map, an ecological treasure, a mytholo-
gized site for rallying nationalism or a heritage centre for a booming tourist
industry.
Not surprisingly, strategies to achieve defence against other people or
against nature have long figured prominently in shaping the landscape. Dykes
and other works designed to defend communities from flooding were imple-
mented as long as 6000 years ago to allow settlements to flourish in the
otherwise hazardous bottom lands of the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, Indus and
Yangtze valleys (Forbes, 1965; Postgate, 1992). The archaeological record also
provides ample evidence of military defence. The dogged survival of relict walls,
ditches, ramparts, castles and garrisons, sometimes in a well-preserved state of
repair, reflects the effort once expended upon their construction. Some were
undoubtedly designed to protect early communities from their natural or human
enemies. Equally, many served the additional function of defending the interests
of an imperial power, serving to establish a presence and create an image of
power that might impress indigenous populations or rival colonists.
The need for security from environmental hazards continues to make
demands on the landscape. Long-standing research by US geographers inter-
ested in so-called natural hazards (for example, Burton et al., 1978; Hewitt, 1997;
Palm, 1990; White, 1942) and by sociologists interested in human response to
disaster (for example, Baker & Chapman, 1962; Hanson et al, 1979; Rattien, 1990)
collectively show the enormous range of defensive strategies involved. These
include direct prevention measures such as, inter alia, earthworks, drainage
channels, earthquake-proof building designs, snow fencing and tidal barriers.
Added to these are a range of indirect measures that include appropriate
land-use policies (e.g. creating buffer zones or encouraging afforestation), social
responses (e.g. creating networks for hazard observation or self-help in case of
disaster), and establishing insurance schemes that supply the confidence to allow
development of hazard-prone zones. Application of such measures, however, is
related to the stage of economic development (Blaikie et ah, 1994; Cardenas,
1990).
As Baird et al. pointed out: "As the under-developed population attempts
to discover alternative strategies of production on the edges of the imposed
system that has controlled the traditional indigenous resource base, it is forced
to accept strategies that contain fewer insurance or adoptive mechanisms for
survival" (1975, p. 29). Expensive hazard prevention measures are less likely in
such circumstances apart from in areas occupied by the elite or essential to their
interests. By default, the urban and rural poor of such societies become increas-
ingly vulnerable to the vagaries of the environment.
The modern townscape displays its own expressions of security and defens-
ive considerations. Responding to the needs for prevention against crimes of
opportunity and sometimes counter-terrorism, city authorities worldwide
protect key financial, retail and entertainment districts by introducing surveil-
lance equipment and new measures in building design (Crang, 1996; Ellin, 1997;
Fyfe,
1996; Fyfe & Bannister, 1998; Goodey & Gold, 1984). New office and
shopping developments may be designed from the outset as defensive com-
pounds, where: "security provisions are directed at maintaining the preferred
'user mix' by preventing non-professionals and the obviously less affluent
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
Landscapes of Defence 231
from becoming so prevalent on site as to intimidate tenant office workers and
executives" (Flusty, 1994; quoted in Ellin, 1996, p. 73). In extreme circumstances,
barriers have been created to restrict entry to entire districts deemed 'targets' for
political activists, with the capacity to monitor the presence of those wishing to
enter the restricted area and exclude those deemed not to have reason for being
there (Coaffee, forthcoming; Smith, 1996). Here too, defensive measures are often
introduced primarily to protect the property of elite groups. High-quality
housing developments in the central and inner city commonly operate exclusion-
ary strategies through surveillance, especially closed-circuit television (CCTV),
and by employing the services of private security agencies. In a similar way,
there is a marked tendency for middle-class communities in affluent countries to
cluster together in defended suburbs. This may simply mean taking measures to
improve surveillance and policing of the suburban street (Doeksen, 1997), or
may entail the construction of new 'gated' or 'enclave' communities, with a
single point controlling entry from the outside world (Blakely & Snyder, 1998;
Luymes, 1997).
The need to have the capability of mounting defence imposes further
demands on urban and rural landscapes. The armed forces and related defence
institutions are themselves major owners and users of land. Woodward (1996),
for example, estimates that around 2% of the land area of the UK is controlled
or used in some way by the Ministry of Defence. This includes barracks,
encampments, parade grounds, firing ranges, airfields, naval harbours, and land
used with varying frequencies for training purposes, each with their own direct
and indirect impact on the landscapes (see Tivers, 1999). The continued use of
such land, particularly after the end of the Cold War, is increasingly contested.
Wright (1996), for example, studied the history of the Dorset village of Tyneham,
which was evacuated along with surrounding land in 1943 to make way for a
firing range. Although the inhabitants were promised that they could return to
their homes after the war, the village remains under the control of the Ministry
of Defence. Examining the campaigns to restore the village to its former
inhabitants, Wright shows how protesters represent Tyneham and its physical
fabric as symbols of an essential rural Englishness. The British war effort had
required the sacrifice of the village and all it stood for in what was depicted as
the fight of civilization against barbarism. Wright shows how increasing distrust
of government authority during the 1960s and 1970s was mapped onto the
continued refusal of the army to give the village back. The army and its military
objectives came to be represented as uncaring, uncivilized and having commit-
ted a barbaric act by making false promises. For its part, the army responded by
stressing the environmental benefits of its continuing occupancy. They argued
that the craters made by exploding shells, the absence of agricultural chemicals
and strictly controlled access have allowed floral and faunal species to flourish
to an extent not possible on densely settled or agriculturally productive areas.
The army, therefore, have represented themselves as defenders of a different
form of English civilization, one of natural ecological diversity in the face of
commercial agribusiness (a view which receives significant support from conser-
vation bodies).
This complex overlayering of symbolism and contested values helps to
convey the point that defence is not only associated with fear and insecurity. In
many instances, defence is concerned with threats that are primarily symbolic
(see,
for example, Firey, 1947). Groups may band together to defend the
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
232 /. R. Gold & G. Revill
'character' of areas, resorting to planning mechanisms and controls to retain the
appearance of a neighbourhood or conserve its physical fabric (e.g. Duncan,
1981).
Communities that once clustered together through fear or discrimination
now act to preserve the distinctiveness of their neighbourhoods, reintroducing
building designs or materials that support shared values. Markers in the
landscape become less concerned with proclaiming a place of refuge than with
reinforcing ideas of ethnicity, social status and identity (see, for example,
Driedger, 1977; Woon, 1985).
These examples, along with many others, underline the pervasiveness of
defence as a factor shaping the landscape. What remains far less clear is whether
landscapes shaped by defensive considerations, or by the activities associated
with the implementation of defence, are produced by similar processes in all
cultural contexts or whether similarities of pattern mask major differences in
underlying processes. When attempting to unravel this issue, it is instructive to
consider the example of research on human territoriality, an area of inquiry that
examines the rationale for the creation and maintenance of defended spaces in
human affairs.
Territoriality: Analogies and Illusions
Originally developed to interpret the spatial underpinnings of avian life (see, for
example, Howard, 1920; Mayr, 1935; Moffat, 1903), the concept of territoriality
has enjoyed sporadic popularity since it was applied to analysis of human
behaviour in the 1960s by Robert Ardrey (1966) and Edward Hall (1966).
Territoriality, defined as any form of behaviour designed to establish and defend
specific bounded portions of space or 'territories', is not an invariable rule of
animal behaviour, but is found in all major vertebrate and several major
invertebrate phyla (Gold, 1982, pp. 44 47). Theories of human territoriality start
with the observations that many human activities are organized on a territorial
basis and that a significant part of human behaviour is directed, explicitly and
implicitly, towards partitioning space and defending the territories and
boundaries so formed. To these observations are added the assertion that a set
of notions derived from ethological research on the socio-spatial organization of
animal species can assist our understanding of human spatial behaviour. In
ethological contexts it is clear that territories held permanently or temporarily,
whether by solitary animals or packs acting together, are instinctively-based
mechanisms that help address fundamental needs for food, shelter, security and
reproduction (Barnett, 1979; Cranach et ah, 1979). The question is whether the
parallels in human behaviour are homologous or merely analogous.
The evidence points heavily towards the latter. Although there remain
theorists who believe that human beings are biologically predisposed towards
territoriality (see, for example, Malmberg, 1980), the overwhelming evidence is
that it is a culturally-derived and transmitted answer to particular problems
rather than the operation of instinct. Quite apart from flaws in the relevant
instinct theories (see, for example, Eisenberg, 1972), there is little to support the
contention that contemporary human society simply perpetuates the behaviour
patterns of atavistic groups. Moreover, human territoriality is complicated by the
existence of complex cultural constructions such as property laws. Animals may
defend territory, but there is no reason to suggest that they view it as their own
property, certainly not in the sense that it can be passed on to others of their
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
Landscapes of Defence 233
species. Finally, anthropological and archaeological evidence on pre-industrial
societies—of the type that might be expected to express a territorial imperative
more strongly than modern urbanized societies—points to widely disparate
degrees of adoption of territoriality in social organization (see, for example,
Casimir & Rao, 1991; Gold, 1982; Harvey, 1997; Hill & King, 1983).
Territoriality, then, is primarily learned and therefore best regarded as an
analogy when applied to human beings. As an analogy, it provides a framework
whereby similar patterns of behaviour, though relating to widely varying scales
and social settings, can be brought together for comparative analysis even if the
underlying processes giving rise to the territories might well be different. By the
same token, the analogy has its limits. Failure to recognize this can only lead to
the 'territorial illusion', in which human attributes and behaviours are ruthlessly
oversimplified in order to fit frameworks best reserved for animals (Rieser,
1973).
Robert Sack, a critic of the behaviourist and ethological legacy bound up
with the concept of territoriality, provided a useful step forward by viewing it
in terms of social and political dynamics, noting that:
Territoriality for humans is a powerful geographic strategy to control
people and things by controlling area. Political territories and private
ownership of land may be its most familiar forms but territoriality
occurs to varying degrees in numerous social contexts. It is used in
everyday relationships and in complex organisations. Territoriality is a
primary geographical expression of social power. (1986, p. 5)
The author argues that spaces associated with territoriality are intimately
related to how people use the land, how they organize themselves in space, and
how they give meaning to place, adding that: "Clearly these relationships
change, and the best means of studying them is to reveal their changing
character over time" (Sack, 1986, p. 2). Yet Sack himself falls foul of his own call
for a historically and geographically sensitive approach. Developing 'ten tenden-
cies of territoriality', he works towards an abstract functionalist definition which
itself becomes merely a set of empty and ahistorical categories when divorced
from specific historical settings (Sack, 1986, pp. 28-51). Moreover, although Sack
examines manifestations of 'territoriality' in specific historical and geographical
settings, the idea of territoriality as some form of social necessity is accepted as
given. The papers in this issue reflect the idea that territoriality has its own
cultural politics which, when deployed, serve the interests of certain groups
rather than, and at the expense of, others. Historically groups who do not accept,
agree or understand the conventional and accepted views of territory shared by
socially dominant groups have suffered persecution and dispossession. This is as
true for medieval peasants experiencing agricultural enclosure as it is for
indigenous peoples subjected to Western colonization. Thus Sibley (1988, p. 409)
has argued that territoriality, as a process of 'purifying' residential space,
separating social groups, and making and enforcing social order, should be the
subject of critical investigation. Much the same thinking has led philosophers,
social and political theorists to argue that nomadic, mobile or anti-territorial
behaviour can be politically revolutionary, in that it undermines the taken-for-
granted basis of society (see, for example, de Certeau, 1984; Deleuze & Guattari,
1987,
pp.
380-381;
Virilio, 1986).
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
234 /. R. Gold & G. Revill
Perhaps the key point to emphasize if we are to understand territoriality
fully as an expression of social organization rather than its antithesis (Greenbie,
1975,
p. 75) is the recognition of the prevalent bias in research. To date most
studies have focused on territoriality as a manifestation of social conflict or
urban pathology, viewing geographical space as being partitioned into mutually
hostile units. Boal's extensive research on Belfast (Boal, 1969,1971, 1995; Boal &
Livingstone, 1983), Ley's early research on Philadelphia (Ley, 1974; Ley &
Cybriwsky, 1974), recent work by Davis and others on 'Fortress LA' (Davis,
1990,1995,1998; also Christopherson, 1994; Crawford, 1995; Scott & Soja, 1997),
and by Caldeira (1996a, 1996b) and de Souza (1996) on Brazil, all deal with cities
cleft into contested spaces. Oscar Newman (1972) and others (see, for example,
Coleman, 1985; Roncek, 1981; but see also Poyder, 1983; Tijerino, 1998) built their
analyses of the failings of public-sector housing estates on the ways in which
physical design may deny defensible space. Numerous writers (Brown, 1985;
Convington & Taylor, 1991; Herbert, 1996,1998; Merry, 1981; Taylor, 1988) focus
on territoriality in relation to issues of crime and crime prevention, often
concentrating on strategies for regaining control of public spaces (Oc & Tiesdell,
1997,1999). The message of conflict and contained animosity seems inescapable.
Yet powerful as the findings and rhetoric of such research might be, their
subject matter may well be special cases that throw little light on the everyday
living and working environments of the majority of the population. It is often
the case that, once established, territories and their boundaries are rarely
challenged or transgressed; rather, they are part of the reliable background for
everyday life. In this important, if neglected, view, territoriality is primarily a
question of symbolic interaction (Ericksen, 1980) in which important statements
about the self and identity are conveyed by the manipulation of controlled space
and artefacts within that space (e.g. Cooper, 1974; Crowhurst-Lennard & Len-
nard, 1977; Greenbie, 1982; Janz, 1992).
An illustration of this perspective can be found in Hirschon and Gold's
study of the way in which the built form was created and modified by ethnic
Greek refugees who settled in the Yerania area of Piraeus, Greece (Hirschon &
Gold, 1982; also Gold, 1994). Driven out by a process that we would now
recognize as ethnic cleansing, more than one million people were forced to leave
Asia Minor in 1920 and seek resettlement in mainland Greece (Hirschon, 1998).
Although predominantly rural people, the main resettlement centres were
hutted encampments of emergency housing on the fringes of cities throughout
Greece. Some would migrate further to find their way back to agricultural
regions, while others created proto-urban communities that would be assimi-
lated into their host city. Yerania was an example of the latter, being progres-
sively absorbed by urban growth to become a constituent neighbourhood of
Piraeus.
The study used ethnographic data to examine the way in which this
community used territorial mechanisms to preserve identity and meet cultural
responsibilities, particularly dowry provision. At the outset all housing was
identical: simple single-storey dwellings with standardized layouts. The need to
provide any newly-married daughter with a dwelling that internally had its own
kitchen and externally had a separate threshold led over time to complex
redivision and extension of the houses. In the process, the housing density rose,
but without associated territorial conflict. Redevelopment took place according
to culturally accepted rules without encroachment on the space of other families.
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
Landscapes of Defence 235
Once established, these new dwellings became part of the taken-for-granted
world of everyday life, and fitted quickly into the wider frameworks of locality
and city. They were in no sense contested spaces.
Linked to this was the question of control. Families assumed responsibility
for the semi-public external spaces adjacent to the dwelling. Steps, kerbs and
pavements were all treated as part of the house, even though not directly owned
by the household, and were swept, cared for and maintained on a daily basis.
Control was also expressed by a silent language of symbolic forms. Artefacts,
street signs and colours on the buildings expressed a distinct language of space
and place that was shared by the people of Yerania. The language could convey
many different ideas, including ownership, restricted access, identity, continuity,
hospitality, sociability and privacy. However indecipherable the language might
be to the outsider, it was intrinsic to the daily life of the area.
The findings from Yerania are qualitatively different from the conflict
interpretations that normally characterize research on territoriality. Yet the
virtue of regarding territoriality as a flexible analogy is readily apparent.
'Territoriality' becomes what the anthropologist James Clifford might label a
'translation term': "a word of apparently general application used for compari-
son in a strategic and contingent way" (1992, p. 8). It allows connections to be
made between disparate strands of research with common terminology and
consistent threads of analysis, without needing to make any assumptions that
the phenomena under investigation are the product of similar processes that
apply regardless of cultural context.
Landscapes of Defence
Precisely the same may be said for the term 'landscapes of defence', which
represents the focus of this theme issue. 'Landscapes of defence' are regarded as
landscapes shaped or otherwise materially affected by formal or informal
defensive strategies to achieve recognizable social, political or cultural goals. As
with territories, they may be seen in terms of a rich diversity which extends from
the loci of violently contested conflict to places heavily invested with symbolic
meaning that helps to provide a reliable background to everyday life. Land-
scapes of defence include, among others: military landscapes and disputed
frontier zones; places at risk from natural hazards or from industrial accident;
contested public spaces in the city and special places facing environmental
threat; and long-established neighbourhoods protected from change by their
inhabitants and new suburban estates where similar processes may just be
beginning. Landscapes of defence, therefore, can act as containers for rich social
and cultural life as well as serve as the sites of its destruction.
Used in this manner, the term was coined as focus for a symposium held at
Oxford Brookes University in May 1998. The aim of the symposium was to
provide a framework within which a multidisciplinary set of contributors could
meet to analyse shared issues of theoretical and applied concern (see Gold &
Revill, forthcoming). The four ensuing papers in this issue present something of
the flavour, diversity and vitality of that meeting. They link into key debates
concerning contemporary landscapes of defence: issues of environmental risk,
the governance of public urban spaces, urban fear, and the cultural position of
military landscapes in the period after the end of the Cold War.
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
236 J. R. Gold & G. Revill
For Blowers, in the first of those papers, the term 'landscapes of defence' is
related to material differences in the distribution of environmental hazards. His
paper recognizes that the possible impacts arising from the deliberate, accidental
or routine releases of radioactivity generate greater anxiety than perhaps any
other socially induced risk in the modern world. It is hence not surprising that
the sites where nuclear wastes are managed are places far removed from the
main centres of population and economic activity. Using data relating to four
'nuclear oases' in Western Europe and North America and a conceptual position
informed by the theory of ecological modernization and Ulrich Beck's Risk
Society thesis (see, for example, Beck, 1992), Blowers evaluates the resolution of
conditions relating to 'landscapes of risk'. He concludes that these landscapes
reflect a process of inequality which must be redressed if acceptable and lasting
solutions to conflicts over the future of the nuclear industry are to be found.
In the next paper, Taner Oc and Steven Tiesdell are concerned with
planning and urban design approaches to management of public space in the
city centre. Their paper opens with discussion of different approaches to crime
and to fear of crime, arguing that city-centre managers, planners, urban design-
ers and other built-environment professionals have greatest scope for positive
action in respect of crimes of opportunity. The authors then review four
fundamental, but not mutually exclusive approaches to making city centres
safer, which they term the fortress, the panoptic, the regulated and the animated.
After weighing up the advantages of the different approaches, however, their
conclusion points to the eventual limitations of planning and design in solving
wider social problems.
Helen Woolley and her associates focus more on the symbolic construction
of landscapes of defence than on their morphology, reminding us that age is a
key factor in perceptions of danger. They present evidence about the fears and
concerns that children may have about the city centre, drawing on a large-scale
questionnaire survey of children in British towns and cities and subsequent
in-depth interviews through discussion groups. Making considerable use of the
children's own words, the authors show that many children do perceive urban
centres as harbouring considerable dangers. They note that parents and fellow
children have already instilled such concerns before children directly tackle the
centre for themselves; that direct experience of threatening individuals and
places qualifies this hearsay; and that part of the process of growing up in cities
consists of learning to evaluate and handle such threats.
The symbolic construction of landscape also permeates Jacqueline Tivers'
study of military defence landscapes in the UK, with its case study of an area of
south-east England around Aldershot known as 'the Home of the British Army'.
She argues that landscapes of military defence are iconic and discusses the
reading of such landscapes as texts by both insiders to the military and
outsiders. The iconography of such landscapes is considered, with a theoretical
framework based on Ley's work on the existential dimensions of meaning (Ley,
1983).
Tivers concludes from her case study that the creation of landscapes of
defence reflects practical and historic considerations, but gives rise to a set of
iconic meanings that can be used, inter alia, to enhance the notion of power,
control and security from attack. Her explorations of the interplay between
morphology and symbol again highlight the complexities and challenges in-
volved in building an understanding of the meaning and significance of land-
scapes of defence.
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
Landscapes
of
Defence
237
References
Ardrey, R. (1966) The
Territorial
Imperative
(New
York,
Delta).
Baird, A., O'Keefe, P., Westgate, K. & Wisner, B. (1975)
Towards
an
Explanation
and
Reduction
of
Disaster
Proneness,
Occasional Paper 11 (Bradford, Disaster Research
Unit,
University of Bradford).
Baker, G.W. & Chapman, D.W. (Eds) (1962) Man and
Society
in
Disaster
(New
York,
Basic Books).
Barnett,
S.A. (1979)
Modern
Ethology
(New
York,
Oxford University Press).
Beck, U. (1992) Risk
Society:
towards
a new
modernity
(London, Sage).
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. & Wisner, B. (1994) At Risk: natural
hazards,
people's
vulnerability
and
disasters
(London, Routledge).
Blakely,
E.J. & Snyder, M.G. (1998) Forting up: gated communities in the United States,
Journal
of
Architectural
and
Planning
Research,
145, pp. 61-72.
Boal, F.W. (1969) Territoriality on the Shankill-Falls divide,
Irish
Geography,
6, pp. 30-50.
Boal, F.W. (1971) Territoriality and class: a study of two residential areas in Belfast,
Irish
Geography,
6, pp. 229-248.
Boal, F.W. (1995)
Shaping
a
City:
Belfast
in the
late
twentieth
century
(Belfast, Institute of Irish Studies).
Boal, F.W. & Livingstone, D. (1983) The international frontier in microcosm: the Shankill-Falls
divide, Belfast, in: Kliot, N. & Waterman, S. (Eds)
Pluralism
and
Political
Geography,
pp.
138-158
(London,
Croom
Helm).
Brown, B.B. (1985) Residential territories: cues to burglary vulnerability,
Journal
of
Architectural
and
Planning
Research,
2, pp. 231-244.
Burton,
I., Kates, R.W. & White,
G.F.
(1978)
The
Environment
as
Hazard
(New
York,
Oxford University
Press).
Caldeira, T.P.R. (1996a) Building up.
walls:
the new pattern of spatial segregation in Sāo Paolo,
International
Journal
of
Social
Science,
48, pp. 55-66.
Caldeira, T.P.R. (1996b) Fortified enclaves: the new urban segregation,
Public
Culture,
8, pp. 303-328.
Cardenas,
J.J. (1990) Natural disasters and urban
struggle
for housing,
Architecture
and
Behaviour,
6,
pp.
171-192.
Casimir, M.J. & Rao, A. (Eds) (1991)
Mobility
and
Territoriality:
social
and
spatial
boundaries
among
foragers,
fishers,
pastoralists
and
peripatetics
(New
York,
Berg).
Christopherson,
S. (1994) The fortress city: privatised spaces, consumer citizenship, in: Amin A. (Ed.)
Post-Fordism:
a
reader,
pp.
409-427
(Oxford, Blackwell).
Clifford, J. (1992)
Routes:
travel
and
translation
in the
late
twentieth
century
(Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press).
Coaffee, J. (forthcoming) Fortification, fragmentation and the threat of terrorism in the city of London
in
the
1990s,
in: Gold, J.R. & Revill, G. (Eds)
Landscapes
of
Defence
(Harlow, Addison
Wesley
Longman).
Coleman,
A. (1985)
Utopia
on Trial:
vision
and
reality
in
planned
housing
(London, Hilary Shipman).
Cooper,
C. (1974) The house as a symbol of the
self,
in: Lang, J., Burnette, C., Moleski, W. & Vachon,
O. (Eds)
Designing
for Human
Behaviour,
pp.
130-146
(Stroudsburg, PA, Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross).
Covington, J. & Taylor, R.B. (1991) Fear of crime in urban residential neighbourhoods: implications
of between-neighbourhood and within-neighbourhood sources for current models,
Sociological
Quarterly,
32, pp. 231-250.
Cranach,
M. von, Foppa, K., Lepenier, W. & Ploeg, D. (Eds) (1979) Human
Ethology
(Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
Crang,
P. (1996) Watching the city: video, surveillance and resistance, Environment and
Planning
A,
28,
pp. 2099-2104.
Crawford, M. (1995) Contesting the public realm:
struggles
over public space in Los
Angeles,
Journal
of
Architectural
Education,
49, pp. 4-9.
Crowhurst-Lennard,
S.H. & Lennard, H.L. (1977) Architecture: effect of territory, boundary and
orientation
on family functioning,
Family
Process,
16, pp. 49-66.
Davis, M. (1990)
City
of
Quartz:
excavating
the
future
in Los
Angeles
(London, Verso).
Davis, M. (1995) Fortress Los
Angeles:
the militarisation of urban space, in: Kasinitz, P. (Ed.)
Metropolis:
centre
and
symbol
of our
times
(London, Macmillan).
Davis, M. (1998)
Ecology
of
Fear:
Los
Angeles
and the
imagination
of
disaster
(New
York,
Henry
Holt),
de Certeau, M. (1984) The
Practice
of
Everyday
Life (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press).
Deleuze,
G. & Guattari, F. (1987) A
Thousand
Plateaus
(Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota
Press),
de Souza, M.J.L. (1996) The fragmented metropolis: drug traffic and its territoriality in Rio de Janeiro,
Geographische
Zeitschrift,
83, pp. 238-249.,
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
238 J. R. Gold & G. Revill
Doeksen, H. (1997) Reducing crime and the fear of crime by reclaiming New Zealand's suburban
street, Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, pp. 243-252.
Driedger, L. (1977) Toward a perspective on Canadian pluralism: ethnic identity in Winnipeg,
Canadian Journal of Sociology, 2, pp. 77-95.
Duncan, J. (Ed.) (1981) Housing and Identity: cross-cultural perspectives (London, Croom Helm).
Eisenberg, L. (1972) The human nature of human nature, Science, 176, pp. 123-128.
Ellin, N. (1996) Postmodern Urbanism (Oxford, Blackwell).
Ellin, N. (Ed.) (1997) Architecture of Fear (New York, Princeton Architectural Press).
Ericksen, E.G. (1980) The Territorial Experience: human ecology as symbolic interaction (Austin, TX,
University of Texas Press).
Firey, W. (1947) Land Use in Central Boston (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
Flusty, S. (1994) Building Paranoia: the proliferation of interdictory space and the erosion of spatial justice
(Los Angeles, CA, Forum for Architecture and Urban Design).
Forbes, R.J. (1965) Irrigation and Power (Leiden, Bull).
Fyfe,
N.R. (1996) City watching: closed circuit television surveillance in public spaces, Area, 28, pp.
37-46.
Fyfe,
N.R. & Bannister, J. (1998) "The eyes upon the street": closed-circuit television surveillance and
the city, in: Fyfe, N.R. (Ed.) Images of the Street: planning, identity and control in public space, pp.
254-267 (London, Routledge).
Gold, J.R. (1982) Territoriality and human spatial behaviour, Progress in Human Geography, 6, pp.
44-67.
Gold, J.R. (1994) Los limites ha la limitado: el lenguaje del espacio y del lugar, Historia y Fuente Oral,
12,
pp. 69-76.
Gold, J.R. & Revill, G. (Eds) (forthcoming) Landscapes of Defence (Harlow, Addison Wesley Longman).
Goodey, B. & Gold, J.R. (1984) Some qualitative aspects of the urban environment in developed
countries, Geoforum, 15, pp. 433-445.
Greenbie, B.B. (1975) Design for Diversity (Amsterdam, Elsevier).
Greenbie, B.B. (1982) The landscape of social symbols, Landscape, 7(3), pp. 2-6.
Hall, E.T. (1966) The Hidden Dimension (New York, Doubleday).
Hanson, S., Vitek, J.D. & Hanson, P.O. (1979) Natural disaster: long-range impact on human response
to future disaster threats, Environment and Behaviour, 11, pp. 268-284.
Harvey, D. (1997) The evolution of territoriality and societal transitions, Landscape History, 19, pp.
13-23.
Herbert, S. (1996) Policing Space: territoriality and the Los Angeles Police Department (Minneapolis, MN,
University of Minneapolis Press).
Herbert, S. (1998) Policing contested space: on patrol at Smiley and Hauser, in: Fyfe, N.R. (Ed.)
Images of the Street: planning identity and control in public space, pp. 225-235 (London, Routledge).
Hewitt, K. (1997) Regions of
Risk:
a geographical introduction to disasters (Harlow, Addison Wesley
Longman).
Hill, K. & King, B.J. (1983) On territoriality in hunter-gatherers, Current Anthropology, 24, pp. 534-536.
Hirschon, R.B. (1998) Children of the Greek Catastrophe, 2nd edn (Oxford, Berg).
Hirschon, R.B. & Gold, J.R. (1982) Territoriality and the home environment in a Greek urban
community, Anthropological Quarterly, 55, pp.
63-73.
Howard, H.E. (1920) Territory in Bird Life (London, Murray).
Janz, W.R. (1992) The extension of identity into home fronts: two Milwaukee, Wisconsin neighbour-
hoods, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 9, pp.
48-63.
Ley, D. (1974) The Black Inner City as Frontier Outpost (Washington, DC, Association of American
Geographers).
Ley, D. (1983) A Social Geography of the City (New York, Harper & Row).
Ley, D. & Cybriwsky, R. (1974) Urban graffiti as territorial markers, Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 64, pp. 491-505.
Luymes, D. (1997) The fortification of suburbia: investigating the rise of enclave communities,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, pp. 187-203.
Malmberg, T. (1980) Human Territoriality: a survey of the behavioral territories of man with preliminary
analysis and discussion of meaning (Chicago, IL, Aldine).
Mayr, E. (1935) Bernard Altum and the territorial theory, Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of New
York, 45(6), pp. 24-38.
Merry, S.E. (1981) Urban Danger: life in a neighborhood of strangers (Philadelphia, PA, Temple
University Press).
Moffat, C.B. (1903) The Spring rivalry of birds, Irish Naturalist, 12 pp. 156-166.
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
Landscapes
of
Defence
239
Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space (New York, Macmillan).
Oc,
T. & Tiesdell, S. (Eds) (1997) Safer City Centres: reviving the public realm (London, Paul Chapman).
Oc,
T. & Tiesdell, S. (1999) The fortress, the panoptic, the regulatory and the animated: planning and
urban design approaches to safer city centres, Landscape Research, 24, pp. 265-286.
Palm, R.I. (1990) Natural Hazards: an integrative framework for research and planning (Baltimore, MD,
Johns Hopkins University Press).
Postgate, J.N. (1992) Early Mesopotamia (London, Routledge).
Poyder, B. (1983) Design against Crime: beyond defensible space (London, Butterworth).
Rattien, S. (1990) The role of the media in hazard mitigation and disaster management, Disasters, 14
(1),
pp. 36-15.
Rieser, R. (1973) The territorial illusion and the behavioural sink: critical notes on behavioural
geography, Antipode, 5, pp. 52-57.
Roncek, D.W. (1981) Dangerous places: crime and residential environment, Social Forces, 60, pp.
74-96.
Sack, R.D. (1986) Human Territorially (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Scott, A.J. & Soja, E.W. (Eds) (1997) The City: Los Angeles and urban theory at the end of the twentieth
century (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press).
Sibley, D. (1988) Purification of space, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 6, pp.
409-421.
Smith, N.J. (1996) Social justice and the new American urbanism: the revanchist city, in: Merrifield,
A. & Swyngedouw, E. (Eds) The Urbanization of Injustice, pp. 117-136 (London, Lawrence &
Wishart).
Steinbeck, J. (1978, originally published 1945) Cannery Row (Harmondsworth, Penguin).
Taylor, R.B. (1988) Human Territorial Functioning (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Tijerino, R. (1998) Civil spaces: a critical perspective of defensible space, Journal of Architectural and
Planning Research, 15, pp. 321-337.
Tivers, J. (1999) 'The Home of the British Army': the iconic construction of military defence
landscapes, Landscape Research, 24, 303-319.
Virilio, P. (1986) Speed and Politics: an essay on dromology, trans. Polizzotti, M. (New York, Columbia
University Press/Semiotext(e).
White, G.F. (1942) Human Adjustment to
Floods:
a
geographical
approach to the flood problems in the United
States, Research Paper 29 (Chicago, IL, Department of Geography, University of Chicago).
Woodward, R. (1996) Green or Khaki Spaces? An Exploration of the Relationships Between the Armed
Forces and Rural Areas in Britain, Working Paper 19 (Newcastle, Centre for Rural Economy,
University of Newcastle).
Woon, Y.F. (1985) Ethnic identity and ethnic boundaries: the Sino-Vietnamese in Victoria, British
Columbia, Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 22, pp. 534-558.
Wright, P. (1996) The Village that Died for England: the strange case of Tyneham (London, Vintage
Books).
Downloaded by [Oxford Brookes University] at 14:20 22 January 2013
