A processual landscape is what continuously results from this kind of ongoing dynamics, and it generates what we call places, spaces and landscapes. The integrative notion of processual landscape allows us to take into consideration the connection with health and our well-being on the basis of the simple, yet often under-theorized, idea that we are perceiving organisms cultural and biological agents in the environment.
Their life, body and perception grounded in the theory of affordance cannot be detached from landscape. Consequently, we cannot discuss our health and well-being without mentioning, considering, and implementing our landscape. In section on Research Focused on Restorative Environments we state that health and the space of the agent are considered inseparable concepts; accordingly, the determinants of health can be divided into three categories: 1 individual, 2 social, 3 environmental. We provided a brief summary of the contemporary definitions of health as a connecting agency and a set of social determinants.
In the analysis of social determinants, we consider landscape as pivotal. Unfortunately, current accounts of landscape tend to underestimate the agential dimension, and it is this shortcoming that our framework aims to redress. We propose a way to address the relationship between health and well-being not just through the medical, sociological and psychological evidence produced by decades of studies, but rather through a common factor in the debate about health and therefore about landscape: agency.
The agential dimension of the processual landscape provides the missing link with health and well-being. The concept of agency, firstly developed by Anscombe and Davidson , currently presents various approaches and different applications in philosophy, psychology, biology, and cognitive sciences Schlosser, It is thanks to Gibson, and also to the philosophical phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, that in this paper the idea of agency can play a pivotal role for the definition of both landscape and health.
All human beings involved in the perception of landscape and in its mutual creation can be considered as agents; thus perceiving does not imply a landscape as a collection of given data, but rather it involves an actual experience and interaction Hamlyn, , p. On the other side, the most recent theories of health affirm that it is agency-based. The very idea of our paper consists thus in introducing the term agency in the theory of landscape perception, by naturalizing landscape, even though we do not eliminate the cultural approach to space and place, but rather we broaden and complete it.
Agency appears to be the bridging concept between landscape and health: an ecological approach to landscape implies agency; on the other side, a systemic vision of health involves agency. The aim of this paper is not to produce an exhaustive theory of perception and agency, but to show we become agents when we perceive a landscape. This act is at the same time the result of our cultural background and our direct and mutual apprehension of affordances of a place.
The relationship with landscape based on the concept of culture and affordance ecological psychology is the theoretical tool which allows us to understand the bond between health and the environment. After an overview of the literature on the health-landscape relationship from the psychological, medical and biological points of view we propose some fundamental theoretical steps:.
The concept of processual landscape is therefore the theoretical demonstration of the health-landscape relationship. We propose a framework potentially capable of explaining the reason for our link with landscape. In order to complete this picture, we need a theoretical framework explaining how the perception of landscape works. Perception is the key to explaining the casual relationship which exists between us and our landscape. We perceive landscape as we build it, and at the same time we are in a co-determinant relationship with it.
This is the preliminary result of our research, which may be completed by studying the practical consequences of our framework. Insofar as health is greatly affected by landscape, this construction represents something more than just part of our heritage or a place to be preserved for the aesthetic pleasure it provides.
Rather, we can begin to talk about the right to landscape Egoz et al. LM gathered the main body of data, provided the basic framework of research, draw all the diagrams, wrote the first draft of all sections except Evidence of the Health-Landscape Relationship: Toward a New Definition of Health, and rewrote a full version. Both authors discussed the general outline of the article and contributed with comments and revisions. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The authors wish to thank Leonardo Bich for his careful reading of and useful remarks regarding a previous version of this paper. The authors also thank Hanne de Jaegher for her valuable feedback. The debate arouses in epistemology Quine, , and has been developed for instance by recurring to neuroscience in philosophy of mind see Godfrey-Smith, The naturalization of perception of landscape can involve evolutionary theory, theory of mind, evolutionary psychology and, specifically for our purpose, ecological psychology.
Even though we focus here on landscape perception, we should not forget that embodiment theory was first introduced by Varela et al. On the other side, Neisser , , while trying to bring together ecological and cognitive psychology, develops the idea of perceptual cycle. This concept implies the fact that information picked up through perception activates what he calls schemata , which in turn guide attention and action leading to the search for additional information. Neisser , p.
Namely, what Neisser , p. Debate in philosophy of science and cognitive science shows that agency is possible even without representational mental states, both in human-being and generally in organisms e. In addition, the thesis that our perception and esthetical judgment are agency-based has been recently supported by neurological literature and recent neuroimaging experiments Di Dio et al.
National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Front Psychol v. Front Psychol. Published online May 3. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. This article was submitted to Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology. Received Jan 18; Accepted Apr 6. The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract In this paper we address a frontier topic in the humanities, namely how the cultural and natural construction that we call landscape affects well-being and health. Keywords: affordance, agency, ecological psychology, health, landscape, naturalistic aesthetics, well-being, perception. Introduction It is common to hear that contact with nature, in its many and diverse forms, promotes human health.
Main Theoretical Issues and Approaches Many papers in contemporary literature analyze data series related to how well-being could be effectively improved by exposure to natural landscapes see Coles and Millman, Research Focused on Restorative Environments Psychology and philosophy stress the importance of the relationship between health and landscape in different ways. Attention Restoration Theory Psychology The Experience of Nature Kaplan and Kaplan, examines the qualities that characterize restorative environments, that is to say, environments that help restore our attention.
Evidence of the Health-Landscape Relationship: Toward a New Definition of Health Over recent decades much evidence — mostly medical — of the health-landscape relationship has been provided. What is Landscape? The Cultural Approach and Beyond In this section of the paper we provide a comprehensive definition of landscape which connects both the cultural and ecological dimensions. A Step Toward Biology and Ecology: Naturalization of Landscape The next step in providing a broader account of landscape is its naturalization 2 in connection with ecology.
Open in a separate window. Affordances as the Possibilities Offered to Living Organisms In order to specify the moment of perception and exemplify the relationship between perceiver and medium, Gibson introduces the concept of affordance : in the flow of perception the human perceiver directly picks up affordances. Processual Landscape: A Framework Connecting Health and Landscape We see the theory of affordance as fundamental to our proposal of a landscape incorporating both naturalistic and ecological features in our perception of the space around us.
Cultural theory considers landscape to be a cultural product, in which the perceiver plays an important role in determining landscape through their collective history, personal stories and, in short, cultural background. The relationship between landscape and the cultural perceiver is based on the recognition of cultural invariants of landscape, which are considered important in order to safeguard places and space.derivid.route1.com/aqui-el-yugo-a-la-tumba.php
Testing References - The History of Software Testing
The cultural approach analyses the emergence and history of the concept of landscape from its pictorial and visual beginnings in 15th century Europe right up to the evolution of a more contemporary and comprehensive idea of a perceived landscape existing in close relation with the life of its inhabitants. Contemporary literature on landscape moves beyond the mere visual definition of landscape to provide a more comprehensive view in line with the Council of Europe Specifically, we agree with the main contribution of the Convention: landscape is not just outstanding places, but rather includes everyday environments also.
The idea of a perceiver as a whole body originally stems from phenomenology, in particular Merleau-Ponty. Here, however, we focus on the role of the physical agent through ecological perception, which introduces a more complex approach both in the theory of perception and the definition of landscape. In this sense, landscape becomes the embodied relationship between the agent and the possibilities offered by the environment to the living organism. Thanks to ecological psychology and to the consequent theory of affordance, it is possible to naturalize landscape and to introduce the contributions from the scientific domain into a literature that has remained for decades merely cultural.
Thus, in this more comprehensive perspective, landscape is not just the cultural product of our society, but rather also the result of our ongoing encounter with ecology and the physical realm, which has traditionally been studied exclusively from the point of view of scientific theories. Rather, it is a continuous process of construction, emerging from the mutual determination of the agent cultural and physical and the structure the environment, the landscape and its manifestation as place and space.
Perception can be thus understood as a relationship between the perceiver and the affordances, which are the possibilities offered by the environment to the organism, rather than as a mediated elaboration of stimuli. Affordance Gibson, allows perception, but also motion, life and survival: it is therefore adaptive. According to this view, affordances are relational properties: they are the basic invariant in the construction of the built environment and built landscapes.
It is not a mere epistemological construction by human beings. For this reason, the relationship between ecology and aesthetics, humanities and natural science, is crucial if we are to describe landscape as a process of codetermination between the agent the perceiver and the structure the environment. This means that perception is not merely visual, but rather involves our cultural and biological background also. At the same time, while perceiving, the organism builds its own landscape. We demonstrate that we perceive because we are organisms moving in a specific landscape that we ourselves build see also the idea of Umwelt.
For this reason, our perception and thus our life are connected with landscape. We live in it because we are in a causal relationship with it. Author Contributions LM gathered the main body of data, provided the basic framework of research, draw all the diagrams, wrote the first draft of all sections except Evidence of the Health-Landscape Relationship: Toward a New Definition of Health, and rewrote a full version. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
- African American Autobiography and the Quest for Freedom: (Contributions in Afro-American and African Studies).
- Top Authors!
- inheritance relationships for disciplined software construction distinguished dissertations Manual;
- The Kundalini Yoga Experience: Bringing Body, Mind, and Spirit Together.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Leonardo Bich for his careful reading of and useful remarks regarding a previous version of this paper. References Anscombe G. Basil: Blackwell. The Experience of Landscape. Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity Eng. Defining agency: individuality, normativity, asymmetry, and spatio-temporality in action. Adaptive Behav. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health?
A multi-study analysis. From environmental connectedness to sustainable futures: topophilia and human affiliation with Nature. Sustainability 7 — Paris: Hazan. Paris: Belin. Mouvance II. Soixante-dix Mots Pour dire le Paysage. Paris: Ed. La Villette. Feenberg-Dibon New York: Routledge;. Defining health by addressing individual, social, and environmental determinants: new opportunities for health care and public health. Public Health Policy 35 — Place-focused physical activity research, human agency, and social justice in public health: taking agency seriously in studies of the built environment.
Bertrand Meyer: publication list, by date
Health Place 18 — Amsterdam: Elsevier; 93— A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Naturalizing aesthetics: brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. Neuroimage 58 — All health is local: biodiversity, ethics, and human health. Ethics Policy Environ. London: Routledge. Getting Back into Place. Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. The Fate of Place. A Philosophical History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Representing Space. Landscape Paintings and Maps. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. An outline of a theory of affordance. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. The process dynamics of normative function. Monist 85 3— Naturalizing Aesthetics Krakow: Libron. Landscape, Well-Being and Environment.
Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Theory Psychol. A Short Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Urban Plan. Wither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Actions, reasons, and causes.
The Practice of Everyday Life. Art as Experience. Human, nature, dynamism: the effects of content and movement perception on brain activations during the aesthetic judgment of representational paintings. Towards an embodied science of intersubjectivity: widening the scope of social understanding research. Philosophical aesthetics.
A naturalist definition of art. Art Crit. The Right to Landscape. Contesting Landscape and Human Right. Farnham: Ashgate. Comprender la realidad sin representaciones. Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Healthy places: exploring the evidence. Public Health 93 — Therapeutic landscapes: medical issues in light of the new cultural geography. Therapeutic landscapes: theory and a case study of Epidauros, Greece. The Sense Considered as Perceptual System. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York, NY: Psychology. The shared landscape.
What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Theory and Reality. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago University Press: Chicago. Space, time and the human being. Perception and agency. Monist 61 — Nature and health. Besides, this approach does not allow the designer to introduce errors that could propagate afterwards in such a way that after their detection it would be too late to correct them easily. On the other hand, it has a disadvantage: the lack of flexibility - sometimes, imposed restrictions can become annoying.
The reason that determined us to impose this rigor was the desire to stop as much as possible the introduction of a chain of errors difficult to detect later. On the other hand, this type of approach increases the tools' teaching qualities. Moreover the chosen variant greatly simplifies operations that must be carried out in the event of a global checking.
Explicit checking is executed when it is desired to use the project for a certain purpose like: code generation, state chart diagram architecture validation, etc. Such checking has the advantage that error detection is not blocking. The main disadvantage of this approach is the time necessary for correction, greatly influenced by the side effects leading to the domino phenomenon of errors propagation.
Implicit checks allow the user a certain flexibility absolutely necessary in case some late decisions must be made. The designer can assign entities the "pseudotype" Undefined and postpone the type declaration until just before automatic code generation or even after, if there are good reasons for this decision. Operations that can be carried out on the ROCASE metamodel are: adding, deleting, modifying updating entity properties.
Module directory 12222-20
Operations referring to textual annotations are carried out with the help of dialog boxes. Implicit checks - carried out when adding an entity, do not allow the user to execute operations that may lead to conflicts or inconsistencies in the system. For example, we present a few operations that are realized when adding an entity:. The operation of declaring an entity's type, descendent from RCSProperty is assisted by the tool.
In this case, a project instance can only receive a type visible in the respective domain, which is shown in a list. The freedom necessary to the user in the analysis phase or sometimes even in the design one is offered by the Undefined "pseudotype", whose presence is always signaled in the final checking phase or before a code generation operation. In this paragraph we will refer to the checks performed when adding entities to the model through its interface.
1. Computational Artifacts
For a correct representation and the complete use of information concerning this relationship, we must specify that it can have two different meanings. If the user adds such a relationship in the analysis phase, this means that permission is granted to the client module's entities to use the server module's entities. Normally, this permission is materialized when a client module entity calls on the services of a entity of the server module.
After materialization, the line style used for rendering changes.
The solution we have chosen offers another advantage too. If the user declares a utilization relationship that will not be materialized, he can be warned after performing a checking. In the situation when between two modules a use relationship has not been declared, but the user declares a client-server relationship between two entities defined in different based modules, the tool automatically creates the use module relationship, introduces it in the metamodel and shows it on the diagram.
Information referring to an entity visibility is stored into an enumeration type attribute. Is one of the most important decisions taken when designing a system and later when transforming the design model into the code written in a typed programming language. In order to take advantage of the project management mechanism implemented with the help of the module concept and of the visibility property existent both at module and class level, the type that can be assigned to a project entity must satisfy visibility constraints.
The tool implemented by us provides effective support to the designer, placing at his disposition the set of visible types in each module. Because of this, we are interested in the set of visible types in such a module, that we will call viz M p '. Due to the role they can play, elements of visible type sets are also known as potential server types. In the first, we will not take into consideration generic types. Then the set of visible types in the module M p will be made up of the conjunction of the type set defined in this module with the type set imported in M p.
The set of types imported in a module M p satisfies the following definition:. Let: M p , M q , M r be three modules of a system having the following signification:. M p the basic module for which imp M p is determined,. M q a basic module any from which types can be imported,.
M r parent module of M q ,. Then, the set of types imported in the module M p noted imp M p , is given by the reunion of the set of types with visibility interface , declared in the basic module M q. Figure 5. M p and M q have a common parent module, different from MainModule - M n. The visibility of M n and of the modules in which it is contained does not matter. M p and M q do not have a common parent module, different from MainModule. The visibility of all modules in which M q is included must be interface. In a basic module, are imported all the types with visibility value interface , declared in the basic modules other than the one in which the import is performed, on condition that the visibility of these basic modules and of those composed in which they are included up to the nested level of the module that is "the smallest common parent" for M p and M q , is interface.
In the first step, we have considered that all generic types are part of the potential server types of each module entity, which is correct only in the situation when the type is implemented through a generic class RCSTemplateClass. In the case when we deal with a type implemented through RCSSimpleClass or through RCSInstantiatedClass irrespective of whether it is partial or total instantiation , dummy types , generic types and part of the partially instantiated types must be eliminated. We call the types that must be eliminated types introducing dummy dependencies.
We will have to compute, for each type T , the set of dummy dependencies, given by:. The set of dummy dependencies of a type T noted dep T , is given by:. GetFormalGenericArguments , the set of types constituting formal generic arguments of that class if T is implemented through a generic class T.
The set of potential server types of a T p type descendent of RCSInheritableType defined in the basic module M p , is given by the equation:. In other words, the set of potential server types of a T p type is obtained by eliminating from the visible type sets at the M p module level of the types whose set of dummy dependencies is different from the set of dummy dependencies for T p. A similar constraint exists in the Eiffel language, to which we have decided to relate considering it the most representative language for the implementing manner of object-oriented concepts.
Taking into account the fact that any new ROCASE project must be able to use basic standard types and Collection types defined in OCL and used in UML for specifying multiple associations, we have decided that in any project, basic types be implemented in a basic module, named BasicTypes , and the Collection types in another basic module named CollectionTypes. These basic modules have visibility interface and are defined at project level, that is:. The instances of the enumeration and subdomain types, can be defined at the level of each module. If it is desired that some of them be global, to allow their referral from anywhere in the system, they can be defined in MainModule.
While previous checks support the designer in building a semantically correct system, the role of the checks performed when deleting entities are to ensure preserving system consistency. A first criterion to be taken into account is that if the entities that are to be deleted from the system are used as servers in other locations, different from the one in which the deletion is to be performed, the user must be warned. Let A be a type defined in the basic module M 1. Suppose that besides the relationships in which it is involved as server, relationship declared in the class diagram where the modification is carried out for example: class B inherits from class A , or in the class B we have an attribute declaration of the form A a1 ; etc , in another module of the project - M i , we have another similar relationship in which A is server.
In this case, the effect of deleting A will reflect in all the modules in which it is used as server. To offer additional flexibility in the deletion operations category, ROCASE allows the user to change the module in which a class was defined with another module in which the respective class is used. This operation is called Main set. In this case, it is possible to carry out the operation of deleting the class in the module in which the entity was initially defined, its effects being limited only to the graphically represented entities, directly bound with the deleted class.
This case refers to deleting attributes, methods, parameters or generic arguments declared in some classes. If the respective attributes or methods are used in formal annotations class or state invariants, assertions referring to methods , events in state transition diagrams or messages in object diagrams, their deletion involves updating the contexts in which deleted elements are used as servers, either by deleting them, or by replacing them with Undefined. The general rule is respected in this case too, in the sense that when deleting a server is desired, the user is informed about its current clients, in order to take the correct decision.
Deleting generic parameters can cause some problems when at least one of the parameters that are to be deleted are used as server for declaring the attributes, methods or parameters' type. In these cases, the user must be informed in order to take decisions that would avoid such situations. The checking operation involves determining the respective entity's list of clients, displaying the list and warning the user - if the list is not empty.
The graphical diagrams editor allows only operations of introducing or deleting components. After carrying out such checks, the tool can automatically update information regarding the modified server in all its clients or forbid performing any modifications in the event that these should introduce inconsistencies and to present the user the list of clients of the entity that is to be modified. This way, the user can take the needed decisions so that the modification that are to be carried out on the server be possible. In most cases, the checks performed depend on the entity on which modifications are to be done.
Because of this, the modifications of each entity will be presented separately. In the thesis, the situations that may arise are presented as well as the solutions for solving them when modifying:. Like in the case of the other kind of diagrams, the most consistent checks that can be effectuated refer to the design stage. Most of them are referring to keeping concordance between information in existing class diagrams and the information in object diagrams.
Types that can be assigned to objects in an object diagram are part of the visible and instantiable type set at module level for which the respective diagram is built. Links between objects must be instances of the class diagram associations, for which compliance with the multiplicity order is verified.
Messages sent are selected from those available in the receiver's interface. Thus, if methods from the receiver's class are implemented, the tool can automatically render the chain of messages generated after executing a method. If the methods' body will be implemented after the scenario building or if modifications have been carried out in the body of those methods, the object diagram can be automatically updated by the tool. The tool checks the values of the current methods' parameters. Establishing a correspondence between the concepts used in states transition diagrams: state, event, transition, entry and exit operations, and those used in programming languages: attribute instance variable and method.
Designating a suitable language expressive and minimal for specifying formal textual annotations that would allow a complete behavior description. It is desirable that this language possibly with small extensions allow the description of non-reactive objects' behavior, also known as transformational objects. State must be determined exclusively by boolean expressions whose operands are class' attributes.
Related work. Communication overheads due to input data. Inter-tile communication overheads. Communication-free scheduling. Wavefront block scheduling. Iterative scheduling. Reduction scheduling. Recurrence scheduling. Scheduling broadcast loop nests. Data dependence analysis. Potential parallelism identification. Data and computation partitioning. Communication and synchronisation generation. Performance analysis. A two-phase strategy for loop nest parallelisation. BSPscheduler: an architecture-independent loop paralleliser.
Matrix-vector and matrix-matrix multiplication. LU decomposition. Algebraic path problem. Finite difference iteration on a Cartesian grid. Future work directions. Learn about new offers and get more deals by joining our newsletter.