Knowing your audience: the contingency of landscape design interpretations

References

• Baugh, Bruce. 1997. “Making the Difference: Deleuze's Difference and Derrida's Différance.” Social Semiotics 7 (2): 127–146. doi:10.1080/10350339709360376.
   Google Scholar
• Biddulph, Mike. 2014. “Drawing and Thinking: Representing Place in the Practice of Place-Making.” Journal of Urban Design 19 (3): 278–297. Routledge doi:10.1080/13574809.2014.890045.
   Google Scholar
• Cederström, Carl, and André Spicer. 2013. “Discourse of the Real Kind: A Post-Foundational Approach to Organizational Discourse Analysis.” Organization 21 (2): 178–205. doi:10.1177/1350508412473864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, Adele. 2003. “Situational Analyses: Grounded Theory Mapping after the Postmodern Turn.” Symbolic Interaction 26 (4): 553–576. doi:10.1525/si.2003.26.4.553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, Adele. 2005. Situational Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA [etc.]: SAGE.10.4135/9781412985833
   Google Scholar
• de Jonge, Jannemarie. 2009. Landscape Architecture between Politics and Science : An Integrative Perspective on Landscape Planning and Design in the Network Society. Blauwdruk / Techne: Wageningen. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204616000037.
   Google Scholar
• Dorling, Daniel, and Benjamin Hennig. 2015. “Visualizing Urban and Regional Worlds: Power, Politics, and Practices.” Environment and Planning a 47 (6): 1346–1350.10.1177/0308518X15594915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duineveld, Martijn, Kristof Van Assche, and Raoul Beunen. 2017. “Re-Conceptualising Political Landscapes after the Material Turn: A Typology of Material Events.” Landscape Research 42 (4): 375–384. doi:10.1080/01426397.2017.1290791.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eco, Umberto. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-15849-2
   Google Scholar
• Eco, Umberto. 1990. The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington [etc.]: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eco, Umberto. 1992. “Overinterpreting Texts.” In Interpretation and Overinterpretation, edited by S. Collini, 45–66. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511627408
   Google Scholar
• Fleming, Billy. 2016. “Lost in Translation: The Authorship and Argumentation of Resilience Theory.” Landscape Journal 35 (1): 23–36. http://lj.uwpress.org/content/35/1/23.abstract.10.3368/lj.35.1.23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gailing, Ludger, and Markus Leibenath. 2015. “The Social Construction of Landscapes: Two Theoretical Lenses and Their Empirical Applications.” Landscape Research 40 (2): 123–138. doi:10.1080/01426397.2013.775233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaspard, Jeoffrey. 2015. “Discourse Analysis with Peirce? Making Sense of Discursive Regularities: The Case of Online University Prospectuses.” Semiotica 207: 551–565. doi:10.1515/sem-2015-0042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaspard, Jeoffrey. 2016. “Discourse Genres as Determiners of Discursive Regularities: A Case of Semiotic Predictability?” Sign Systems Studies 44 (3): 355–367.10.12697/SSS.2016.44.3.03
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glynos, Jason, and David Howard. 2007. Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jappy, Tony. 2013. Introduction to Peircean Visual Semiotics. London [etc.]: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London[etc.]: Sage.10.4135/9781849208871
   Google Scholar
• Kallus, Rachel. 2016. “Citizenship in Action: Participatory Urban Visualization in Contested Urban Space.” Journal of Urban Design 21 (5): 616–637. Routledge doi:10.1080/13574809.2016.1186490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 2014. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy : Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Marttila, Tomas. 2016. Post-Foundational Discourse Analysis : From Political Difference to Empirical Research. Houndmills [etc]: Palgrave Macmillan. http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781137538406.
   Google Scholar
• MIT-CAU, ZUS, and Urbanisten. 2014. The New Meadowlands. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2016. Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) Meeting #1. Accessed December 28, 2017. http://www.nj.gov/dep/floodresilience/docs/rbdm-cag-20160323-presentation.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ovink, Henk. 2017. Rebuild by Design: New Approaches to Climate Change. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers. https://books.google.nl/books?id=MP0gMQAACAAJ.
   Google Scholar
• Peirce, Charles Saunders. 1958. Collected Papers of Charles Saunders Peirce. Edited by C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss. MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peirce, Charles Saunders. 1992. “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” In The Essential Peirce, Volume 1: Selected Philosophical Writings (1867–1893), edited by N. Houser and C. Kloesel, 124–141. Bloomington [etc]: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pojani, Dorina, and Dominic Stead. 2016. “Post-Rational Planning and the Shifting Role of Planning Imagery.” Journal of Urban Design 21 (3): 353–385. Routledge. doi:10.1080/13574809.2016.1167590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raaphorst, Kevin, Ingrid Duchhart, Wim van der Knaap, Gerda Roeleveld, and Adri van den Brink. 2017. “The Semiotics of Landscape Design Communication: Towards a Critical Visual Research Approach in Landscape Architecture.” Landscape Research 42 (1): 120–133. doi:10.1080/01426397.2016.1257706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raaphorst, Kevin, Gerda Roeleveld, Ingrid Duchhart, Wim van der Knaap, and Adri van den Brink. Forthcoming. “Reading Landscape Design Representations as an Interplay of Validity, Readability, and Interactivity: A Framework for Visual Content Analysis.” Visual Communication.
   Google Scholar
• Rebuild by Design. 2015. Rebuild by Design. New York: Fergus.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, Ernest. 1996. “A Case of Iconographic Competition: The Building Industry and the Postmodern Landscape.” Journal of Urban Design 1 (2): 145–163. Routledge. doi:10.1080/13574809608724378.
   Google Scholar
• Swords, Jon, and Xingjian Liu. 2015. “Visualizing Urban and Regional Worlds: Power, Politics, and Practices.” Environment and Planning a 47 (6): 1235–1240.10.1177/0308518X15594895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thering, Susan, and Victoria Chanse. 2011. “The Scholarship of Transdisciplinary Action Research: Toward a New Paradigm for the Planning and Design Professions.” Landscape Journal 30 (1): 6–18. doi:10.3368/lj.30.1.6.
   Google Scholar
• Tobias, Silvia, Tobias Buser, and Matthias Buchecker. 2015. “Does Real-Time Visualization Support Local Stakeholders in Developing Landscape Visions?” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 43 (1): 184–197. doi:10.1177/0265813515603866.
   Google Scholar
• Torfing, Jacob. 2005. “Discourse Theory: Achievements, Arguments, and Challenges.” In Discourse Theory in European Politics, edited by David Howarth and Jacob Torfing, 1–32. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Törrönen, Jukka. 2002. “Semiotic Theory on Qualitative Interviewing Using Stimulus Texts.” Qualitative Research 2 (3): 343–362. doi:10.1177/146879410200200304.
   Google Scholar
• Van Assche, Kristof, Martijn Duineveld, Harro De Jong, and Aart Van Zoest. 2012. “What Place is This Time? Semiotics and the Analysis of Historical References in Landscape Architecture.” Journal of Urban Design 17 (2): 233–254.10.1080/13574809.2012.666207
   Google Scholar
• van den Brink, Adri, and Diedrich Bruns. 2014. “Strategies for Enhancing Landscape Architecture Research.” Landscape Research 39 (1): 7–20. doi:10.1080/01426397.2012.711129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Stoep Hetty, Noelle, Aarts, and Adri van den Brink. 2016. “Shifting Frames: Mobilizing Policy Attention for Landscape Values in a Dutch Urban–Rural Fringe.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, December: 1–15. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2016.1265884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dijk, Terry. 2011. “Imagining Future Places: How Designs Co-Constitute What is, and Thus Influence What Will Be.” Planning Theory 10 (2): 124–143. doi:10.1177/1473095210386656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Leeuwen, Theo. 2005. Introducing Social Semiotics. New York. vol. 415249430. London: Routledge. http://orca.cf.ac.uk/3739/.
   Google Scholar
• Vannini, Phillip. 2007. “Social Semiotics and Fieldwork: Method and Analytics.” Qualitative Inquiry 13 (1): 113–140. doi:10.1177/1077800406295625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar