Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design

The twenty-first century global population will be increasingly urban-focusing the sustainability challenge on cities and raising new challenges to address urban resilience capacity. Landscape ecologists are poised to contribute to this challenge in a transdisciplinary mode in which science and research are integrated with planning policies and design applications. Five strategies to build resilience capacity and transdisciplinary collaboration are proposed: biodiversity; urban ecological networks and connectivity; multifunctionality; redundancy and modularization, adaptive design. Key research questions for landscape ecologists, planners and designers are posed to advance the development of knowledge in an adaptive mode.     

Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development

Landscape ecology is in a position to become the scientific basis for sustainable landscape development. When spatial planning policy is decentralised, local actors need to collaborate to decide on the changes that have to be made in the landscape to better accommodate their perceptions of value. This paper addresses two prerequisites that landscape ecological science has to meet for it to be effective in producing appropriate knowledge for such bottom-up landscape-development processes—it must include a valuation component, and it must be suitable for use in collaborative decision-making on a local scale. We argue that landscape ecological research needs to focus more on these issues and propose the concept of landscape services as a unifying common ground where scientists from various disciplines are encouraged to cooperate in producing a common knowledge base that can be integrated into multifunctional, actor-led landscape development. We elaborate this concept into a knowledge framework, the structure–function–value chain, and expand the current pattern–process paradigm in landscape ecology with value in this way. Subsequently, we analyse how the framework could be applied and facilitate interdisciplinary research that is applicable in transdisciplinary landscape-development processes.     

Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: An idiosyncratic synthesis

Landscape ecology has made tremendous progress in recent decades, but as a rapidly developing discipline it is faced with new problems and challenges. To identify the key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology, a special session entitled “Top 10 List for Landscape Ecology in the 21st Century” was organized at the 16th Annual Symposium of the US Regional Association of International Association of Landscape Ecology, held at Arizona State University (Tempe, Arizona, USA) during April 25–29, 2001. A group of leading landscape ecologists were invited to present their views. This paper is intended to be a synthesis, but not necessarily a consensus, of the special session. We have organized the diverse and wide-ranging perspectives into six general key issues and 10 priority research topics. The key issues are: (1) interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity, (2) integration between basic research and applications,(3) Conceptual and theoretical development, (4) education and training, (5)international scholarly communication and collaborations, and (6) outreach and communication with the public and decision makers. The top 10 research topics are: (1) ecological flows in landscape mosaics, (2) causes, processes, and consequences of land use and land cover change, (3) nonlinear dynamics and landscape complexity, (4) scaling, (5) methodological development, (6) relating landscape metrics to ecological processes, (7) integrating humans and their activities into landscape ecology, (8) optimization of landscape pattern, (9)landscape sustainability, and (10) data acquisition and accuracy assessment. We emphasize that, although this synthesis was based on the presentations at the“Top 10 List” session, it is not a document that has been agreed upon by each and every participant. Rather, we believe that it is reflective of the broad-scale vision of the collective as to where landscape ecology is now and where it may be going in future. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm

Landscape ecological science has produced knowledge about the relationship between landscape pattern and landscape processes, but it has been less effective in transferring this knowledge to society. We argue that design is a common ground for scientists and practitioners to bring scientific knowledge into decision making about landscape change, and we therefore propose that the pattern–process paradigm should be extended to include a third part: design. In this context, we define design as any intentional change of landscape pattern for the purpose of sustainably providing ecosystem services while recognizably meeting societal needs and respecting societal values. We see both the activity of design and the resulting design pattern as opportunities for science: as a research method and as topic of research. To place design within landscape ecology science, we develop an analytic framework based on the concept of knowledge innovation, and we apply the framework to two cases in which design has been used as part of science. In these cases, design elicited innovation in society and in science: the design concept was incorporated in societal action to improve landscape function, and it also initiated scientific questions about pattern–process relations. We conclude that landscape design created collaboratively by scientists and practitioners in many disciplines improves the impact of landscape science in society and enhances the saliency and legitimacy of landscape ecological scientific knowledge.     

Can a problem-solving approach strengthen landscape ecology’s contribution to sustainable landscape planning?

The need to avert unacceptable and irreversible environmental change is the most urgent challenge facing society. Landscape ecology has the capacity to help address these challenges by providing spatially-explicit solutions to landscape sustainability problems. However, despite a large body of research, the real impact of landscape ecology on sustainable landscape management and planning is still limited. In this paper, we first outline a typology of landscape sustainability problems which serves to guide landscape ecologists in the problem-solving process. We then outline a formal problem-solving approach, whereby landscape ecologists can better bring about disciplinary integration, a consideration of multiple landscape functions over long time scales, and a focus on decision making. This framework explicitly considers multiple ecological objectives and socio-economic constraints, the spatial allocation of scarce resources to address these objectives, and the timing of the implementation of management actions. It aims to make explicit the problem-solving objectives, management options and the system understanding required to make sustainable landscape planning decisions. We propose that by adopting a more problem-solving approach, landscape ecologists can make a significant contribution towards realising sustainable future landscapes.     

Landscape ecology as a foundation for sustainable conservation

Landscape ecology and conservation share a common focus on places, but they differ in their perspectives about what is important about those places, and the integration of landscape ecology into conservation is far from complete. I consider four ways in which landscape ecology can contribute to conservation. First, protected areas that are established for conservation are not stand-alone isolates. They exist in the context of broader landscape mosaics, which may encourage or discourage movements of individuals into and out of an area. Second, the landscape surroundings of a preserve may contain threats to the biodiversity within the preserve, many of them consequences of human activities. In combination, these relationships with the surroundings may make the “effective area” of a preserve different from that shown on a map. Third, the scale of an administrative area or of management action may not coincide with the scales of populations, disturbances, or ecological processes, creating challenges to both landscape ecology and conservation. Finally, landscapes encompass people and their activities; sustainability of conservation requires consideration of the tradeoffs between human uses and the biodiversity values of a landscape. I illustrate these four themes with a case study of the management of prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) in the Great Plains of North America, where the tensions between conservation and human land uses are particularly high. Ecologists and conservationists consider prairie dogs as keystone species in these grassland ecosystems and primary targets for conservation, but many private landowners regard them as varmints that consume valuable livestock forage and degrade rangeland condition. Effective conservation of functioning grasslands must include prairie dogs, and this in turn requires that the issues be addressed in terms of the biological, social, and cultural features of entire landscapes. Important as they are, areas protected for conservation cannot by themselves stem the tide of global biodiversity loss. The perspective must be broadened to include the landscapes where people live and work, recognizing the dynamic nature of landscapes and the factors driving land-use change. Landscape ecologists must work together to overcome the cultural differences between their disciplines, and between academic science and conservation practice and management. It can, and must, be done.     

Sustainable landscape architecture: implications of the Chinese philosophy of ‘‘unity of man with nature’’ and beyond

As the world population continues to grow and as global urbanization continues to unfold, our ecosystems and landscapes will be increasingly domesticated and designed. Developing and maintaining sustainable landscapes have become one of the most challenging and imperative tasks for scientists and stakeholders of all sorts. To accomplish this task, landscape ecology and landscape architecture can and must play a critical role. Landscape architects intentionally modify and create landscapes, and their imprints and influences are pervasive and profound, far beyond the physical limits of the designed landscapes. As an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary enterprise that integrates the science and art of studying and influencing the relationship between spatial pattern and ecological processes, the theory, methods, and applications of landscape ecology are directly relevant to sustainability. However, neither landscape ecology nor landscape architecture is likely to achieve its expected goal if they are not truly integrated to produce a sustainable landscape architecture. In this paper, we argue that the ancient Chinese philosophy of “unity of man with nature” and its associated design principles can provide useful guidelines for this integration as well as for the development of a sustainable landscape architecture. We discuss several principles and models of Chinese landscape architecture, including “unity of man with nature” philosophy, “peach blossom spring” ideal, “world-in-a-pot” model, and Feng–Shui theory, and their implications for developing a sustainable landscape architecture. Although differences in the philosophical roots and design traditions between Eastern and Western landscape architecture will continue to exist, interactions and integration between the two will continue to increase under the theme of sustainability. To promote the translation of scientific knowledge into practice, we urge landscape ecologists to work proactively with landscape architects to integrate pattern–process–scale and holistic perspectives into the design and planning of landscapes.     

Addressing the interplay of poverty and the ecology of landscapes: a Grand Challenge Topic for landscape ecologists?

We argue for the landscape ecology community to adopt the study of poverty and the ecology of landscapes as a Grand Challenge Topic. We present five areas of possible research foci that we believe that landscape ecologists can join with other social and environmental scientists to increase scientific understanding of this pressing issue: (1) scale and poverty; (2) landscape structure and human well-being; (3) social and ecological processes linked to spatial patterns in landscapes; (4) conservation and poverty, and (5) applying the landscape ecologist’s toolkit. A brief set of recommendations for landscape ecologists is also presented. These include the need to utilize broad frameworks that integrate social and ecological variables, build capacity to do this kind of work through the development of strong collaborations of researchers in developed and developing countries, create databases in international locations where extreme poverty exists, and create a new generation of researchers capable of addressing this pressing social and environmental issue.     

Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure

Modern landscape ecology is based on the patch mosaic paradigm, in which landscapes are conceptualized and analyzed as mosaics of discrete patches. While this model has been widely successful, there are many situations where it is more meaningful to model landscape structure based on continuous rather than discrete spatial heterogeneity. The growing field of surface metrology offers a variety of surface metrics for quantifying landscape gradients, yet these metrics are largely unknown and/or unused by landscape ecologists. In this paper, we describe a suite of surface metrics with potential for landscape ecological application. We assessed the redundancy among metrics and sought to find groups of similarly behaved metrics by examining metric performance across 264 sample landscapes in western Turkey. For comparative purposes and to evaluate the robustness of the observed patterns, we examined 16 different patch mosaic models and 18 different landscape gradient models of landscape structure. Surface metrics were highly redundant, but less so than patch metrics, and consistently aggregated into four cohesive clusters of similarly behaved metrics representing surface roughness, shape of the surface height distribution, and angular and radial surface texture. While the surface roughness metrics have strong analogs among the patch metrics, the other surface components are largely unique to landscape gradients. We contend that the surface properties we identified are nearly universal and have potential to offer new insights into landscape pattern–process relationships. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Associations between soil carbon and ecological landscape variables at escalating spatial scales in Florida,USA

The spatial distribution of soil carbon (C) is controlled by ecological processes that evolve and interact over a range of spatial scales across the landscape. The relationships between hydrologic and biotic processes and soil C patterns and spatial behavior are still poorly understood. Our objectives were to (i) identify the appropriate spatial scale to observe soil total C (TC) in a subtropical landscape with pronounced hydrologic and biotic variation, and (ii) investigate the spatial behavior and relationships between TC and ecological landscape variables which aggregate various hydrologic and biotic processes. The study was conducted in Florida, USA, characterized by extreme hydrologic (poorly to excessively drained soils), and vegetation/land use gradients ranging from natural uplands and wetlands to intensively managed forest, agricultural, and urban systems. We used semivariogram and landscape indices to compare the spatial dependence structures of TC and 19 ecological landscape variables, identifying similarities and establishing pattern–process relationships. Soil, hydrologic, and biotic ecological variables mirrored the spatial behavior of TC at fine (few kilometers), and coarse (hundreds of kilometers) spatial scales. Specifically, soil available water capacity resembled the spatial dependence structure of TC at escalating scales, supporting a multi-scale soil hydrology-soil C process–pattern relationship in Florida. Our findings suggest two appropriate scales to observe TC, one at a short range (autocorrelation range of 5.6 km), representing local soil-landscape variation, and another at a longer range (119 km), accounting for regional variation. Moreover, our results provide further guidance to measure ecological variables influencing C dynamics.     

Landscapes in Time and Space

Landscape ecology has a temporal dimension, and the role of past processes in shaping landscapes is increasingly recognised. To date, the interface between landscape ecology and palaeoecology has proved most productive in understanding the impacts of climate change and in discovering the extent of past human impacts on ecosystems. Further areas of synergy are emerging. This Perspective gives selected examples of five main areas of synergy between palaeoecology and landscape ecology: dynamic landscape mosaics; resilience and thresholds; biocomplexity; adaptive cycles; and in the landscape ecology of invasive spread.     

Combining farmers’ decision rules and landscape stochastic regularities for landscape modelling

Landscape spatial organization (LSO) strongly impacts many environmental issues. Modelling agricultural landscapes and describing meaningful landscape patterns are thus regarded as key-issues for designing sustainable landscapes. Agricultural landscapes are mostly designed by farmers. Their decisions dealing with crop choices and crop allocation to land can be generic and result in landscape regularities, which determine LSO. This paper comes within the emerging discipline called “landscape agronomy”, aiming at studying the organization of farming practices at the landscape scale. We here aim at articulating the farm and the landscape scales for landscape modelling. To do so, we develop an original approach consisting in the combination of two methods used separately so far: the identification of explicit farmer decision rules through on-farm surveys methods and the identification of landscape stochastic regularities through data-mining. We applied this approach to the Niort plain landscape in France. Results show that generic farmer decision rules dealing with sunflower or maize area and location within landscapes are consistent with spatiotemporal regularities identified at the landscape scale. It results in a segmentation of the landscape, based on both its spatial and temporal organization and partly explained by generic farmer decision rules. This consistency between results points out that the two modelling methods aid one another for land-use modelling at landscape scale and for understanding the driving forces of its spatial organization. Despite some remaining challenges, our study in landscape agronomy accounts for both spatial and temporal dimensions of crop allocation: it allows the drawing of new spatial patterns coherent with land-use dynamics at the landscape scale, which improves the links to the scale of ecological processes and therefore contributes to landscape ecology.     

A landscape perspective on sustainability of agricultural systems

Agricultural sustainability considers the effects of farm activities on social, economic, and environmental conditions at local and regional scales. Adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices entails defining sustainability, developing easily measured indicators of sustainability, moving toward integrated agricultural systems, and offering incentives or imposing regulations to affect farmer behavior. Landscape ecology is an informative discipline in considering sustainability because it provides theory and methods for dealing with spatial heterogeneity, scaling, integration, and complexity. To move toward more sustainable agriculture, we propose adopting a systems perspective, recognizing spatial heterogeneity, integrating landscape-design principles and addressing the influences of context, such as the particular products and their distribution, policy background, stakeholder values, location, temporal influences, spatial scale, and baseline conditions. Topics that need further attention at local and regional scales include (1) protocols for quantifying material and energy flows; (2) standard specifications for management practices and corresponding effects; (3) incentives and disincentives for enhancing economic, environmental, and social conditions (including financial, regulatory and other behavioral motivations); (4) integrated landscape planning and management; (5) monitoring and assessment; (6) effects of societal demand; and (7) integrative policies for promoting agricultural sustainability.     

Identifying future research needs in landscape genetics: where to from here?

Landscape genetics is an emerging interdisciplinary field that combines methods and concepts from population genetics, landscape ecology, and spatial statistics. The interest in landscape genetics is steadily increasing, and the field is evolving rapidly. We here outline four major challenges for future landscape genetic research that were identified during an international landscape genetics workshop. These challenges include (1) the identification of appropriate spatial and temporal scales; (2) current analytical limitations; (3) the expansion of the current focus in landscape genetics; and (4) interdisciplinary communication and education. Addressing these research challenges will greatly improve landscape genetic applications, and positively contribute to the future growth of this promising field. Participants of the Landscape Genetics Research Agenda Workshop, held at the 2007 World Congress of the International Association of Landscape Ecologists (IALE), in Wageningen, The Netherlands: Paul Arens, Pascal Campagne, Virginia H. Dale, Alfredo G. Nicieza, Marinus J. M. Smulders, Edoardo Tedesco, Hongfang Wang, Tzeidle Wasserman.     

The representation of landscapes in global scale assessments of environmental change

Landscape ecology has provided valuable insights in the relations between spatial structure and the functioning of landscapes. However, in most global scale environmental assessments the representation of landscapes is reduced to the dominant land cover within a 0.5 degree pixel, disregarding the insights about the role of structure, pattern and composition for the functioning of the landscape. This paper discusses the contributions landscape ecology can make to global scale environmental assessments. It proposes new directions for representing landscape characteristics at broad spatial scales. A contribution of landscape ecologists to the representation of landscape characteristics in global scale assessments will foster improved information and assessments for the design of sustainable earth system governance strategies.     

The ecology and culture of landscape sustainability: emerging knowledge and innovation in landscape research and practice

Landscape researchers and practitioners, using the lens of sustainability science, are breaking new ground about how people’s behaviors and actions influence the structure, function, and change of designed landscapes in an urbanizing world. The phrase—the scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability—is used to describe how sustainability science can contribute to translational landscape research and practice about the systemic relationships among landscape sustainability, people’s contact with nature, and complex place-based problems. In the first section of this article, important definitions about the scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability are reviewed including the six Es of landscape sustainability—environment, economic, equity, aesthetics, experience, and ethics. A conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes is introduced. The interrelatedness, opportunities, contradictions, and limitations of the conceptual framework are discussed in relation to human health/security, ecosystem services, biodiversity, and resource management. The conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes follows the tradition in which landscape researchers and practitioners synthesize emerging trends into conceptual frameworks for advancing basic and applied activities.     

Effects of agroecosystem landscape complexity on small mammals: a multi-species approach at different spatial scales

Landscape Ecology - The effect of landscape complexity on biodiversity is an important topic in landscape ecology, and spatial scale is key to understand true species-landscape relationships. We...