| Abstract: | These costs and benefits may be more easily noticed or precisely defined by different persons. Some are seen by the landscape architect but not by the economist, and the other way round. This implies that a reasonably adequate enumeration of the benefits and costs, each considered in a very wide sense, can be achieved only if a proposal is viewed from the standpoints of different disciplines. It may very well be that the mere enumeration of these costs and benefits will either convince the economist that the proposed scheme is ‘on’ or convince the landscape architect that it is ‘off’. In the latter case the landscape architect may say that while it would be wonderful to proceed with the scheme he can see that it would, in the wide ‘opportunity’ sense of the phrase, cost too much. But there may come a stage where the enumeration of costs and benefits leaves the landscape man wanting Scheme A and the social scientist wanting Scheme B. It is here that, first of all, adjustment must be tried. But if it fails then compromise may be needed, in which one side or the other, or both, reluctantly sacrifices some feature of his favoured scheme. If agreement cannot be reached, then the difference of opinion ought to be put to the client, who can reach his own decision. |
