Argument för grönska
This essay examines what some of the Swedish authorities’ argument are for vegetation, what their grounds are for the arguments and why vegetation is important for the human health and experience. I have examined publications and reports from 6 different authorities on state- , regional and communal...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | First cycle, G2E |
| Lenguaje: | sueco sueco |
| Publicado: |
2011
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/2699/ |
| _version_ | 1855570468353867776 |
|---|---|
| author | Gunnarsson, Emma |
| author_browse | Gunnarsson, Emma |
| author_facet | Gunnarsson, Emma |
| author_sort | Gunnarsson, Emma |
| collection | Epsilon Archive for Student Projects |
| description | This essay examines what some of the Swedish authorities’ argument are for vegetation, what their grounds are for the arguments and why vegetation is important for the human health and experience. I have examined publications and reports from 6 different authorities on state- , regional and communal level. The authorities which publications I have studied are Boverket, Naturvårdsverket, Folkhälsoinstitutet, Miljödepartementet, Länsstyrelsen Skåne och Malmö Kommun. The publications has been analyzed by different themes; Children and young peoples influence of vegetation, Elderly and sick’s influence of vegetation, Human health, wellbeing and experience of vegetation, Vegetation at work, The influence of vegetation on stress and The effect of vegetation in the city.
Besides this I have identified the authorities’ references of science and then put together which reference that has been used the most. Boverket was the authority and Patrik Grahns science were the two references that had been referenced the most.
My goal with this essay is to contribute to strength the arguments that already exist and promote the green side and to find argument you can use as a landscape architect both as a student and when you work as a landscape architect.
During this work I have found very many arguments who speak for the green side and that many of the authorities’ often use the same source of research results but the authorities’ are not equally when it comes to references. The authorities’ are overall pretty good at argument for vegetation.
|
| format | First cycle, G2E |
| id | RepoSLU2699 |
| institution | Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences |
| language | swe swe |
| publishDate | 2011 |
| publishDateSort | 2011 |
| record_format | eprints |
| spelling | RepoSLU26992012-04-20T14:19:53Z https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/2699/ Argument för grönska Gunnarsson, Emma Human medicine, health, and safety Landscape architecture This essay examines what some of the Swedish authorities’ argument are for vegetation, what their grounds are for the arguments and why vegetation is important for the human health and experience. I have examined publications and reports from 6 different authorities on state- , regional and communal level. The authorities which publications I have studied are Boverket, Naturvårdsverket, Folkhälsoinstitutet, Miljödepartementet, Länsstyrelsen Skåne och Malmö Kommun. The publications has been analyzed by different themes; Children and young peoples influence of vegetation, Elderly and sick’s influence of vegetation, Human health, wellbeing and experience of vegetation, Vegetation at work, The influence of vegetation on stress and The effect of vegetation in the city. Besides this I have identified the authorities’ references of science and then put together which reference that has been used the most. Boverket was the authority and Patrik Grahns science were the two references that had been referenced the most. My goal with this essay is to contribute to strength the arguments that already exist and promote the green side and to find argument you can use as a landscape architect both as a student and when you work as a landscape architect. During this work I have found very many arguments who speak for the green side and that many of the authorities’ often use the same source of research results but the authorities’ are not equally when it comes to references. The authorities’ are overall pretty good at argument for vegetation. 2011-06-01 First cycle, G2E NonPeerReviewed application/pdf swe https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/2699/1/gunnarsson_e_110601.pdf Gunnarsson, Emma, 2011. Argument för grönska : ur människans hälso- och upplevelseperspektiv. First cycle, G2E. Alnarp: (LTJ, LTV) > Landscape Architecture (until 121231) <https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/view/divisions/4813.html> urn:nbn:se:slu:epsilon-s-206 swe |
| spellingShingle | Human medicine, health, and safety Landscape architecture Gunnarsson, Emma Argument för grönska |
| title | Argument för grönska |
| title_full | Argument för grönska |
| title_fullStr | Argument för grönska |
| title_full_unstemmed | Argument för grönska |
| title_short | Argument för grönska |
| title_sort | argument för grönska |
| topic | Human medicine, health, and safety Landscape architecture |
| url | https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/2699/ https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/2699/ |