Citizen Discourse on Contaminated Water, Superfund Cleanups, and ...

Thus, whereas landscapes are assemblages of material objects, unified in space and time, our interpretations are drawn from an array of personal and cultural perspectives (Latour, 2005). The assemblages and the interpretations are “inseparable” from one another (Cosgrove, 1978, p. 70).

Further, when considered as textual material, landscapes can be deconstructed as systems of thought (Duncan & Duncan, 1988; Willard, 2007). Indeed, the robust analytical work of political ecologists, Marxist theorists, and cultural critics demonstrate that landscape change is convincingly explained by overarching economic, political, and cultural forces (Cosgrove, 1984; Daniels, 1989; Robbins, 2004; Walker, 2003). One can assert with reasonable certainty that landscapes are both shaped and reinforced by these forces, and that changes, such as the emergence of amenity landscapes out of productive landscapes, are generally explained when they are taken into account.

Notably, it is via theoretical distance from particular details that theories regarding changes in the landscape gain momentum; they are successful in drawing attention to obdurate and seemingly inescapable large-scale forces. These theories illuminate processes that link local communities to global economies, to regional, national, and international politics, and to emerging and shifting ideologies. In doing so, they offer legitimate and insightful explanations for notable and widespread change. For example, while the size of the average family in the United States decreased considerably over the last decades of the 20th century, the average size of newly constructed single-family homes increased more than 1000 square feet (National Association of Home Builders, 2010). The resulting suburban landscapes reflected the effects of both global financial markets and wholesale cultural changes.

In contrast to the theoretical perspectives mentioned previously, built environments are especially particular. Undoubtedly, they are also evidence of place making. We define place making as any activity purposefully designed to situate the self or others in a tangible assemblage. These are actions that organize environmental possibilities. One might argue about the identity of the landscape author and consider the extent to which the particulars reflect cultural hegemony. However, such questions fail to