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.     

Spatial resilience: integrating landscape ecology,resilience, and sustainability

Landscape ecology has a high potential to contribute to sustainability in the interactions of people and nature. Landscape ecologists have already made considerable progress towards a more general understanding of the relevance of spatial variation for ecosystems. Incorporating the complexities of societies and economies into landscape ecology analyses will, however, require a broader framework for thinking about spatial elements of complexity. An exciting recent development is to explicitly try to integrate landscape ecology and ideas about resilience in social–ecological systems through the concept of spatial resilience. Spatial resilience focuses on the importance of location, connectivity, and context for resilience, based on the idea that spatial variation in patterns and processes at different scales both impacts and is impacted by local system resilience. I first introduce and define the concepts of resilience and spatial resilience and then discuss some of their potential contributions to the further interdisciplinary integration of landscape ecology, complexity theory, and sustainability science. Complexity theorists have argued that many complex phenomena, such as symmetry-breaking and selection, share common underlying mechanisms regardless of system type (physical, social, ecological, or economic). Similarities in the consequences of social exclusion and habitat fragmentation provide an informative example. There are many strong parallels between pattern–process interactions in social and ecological systems, respectively, and a number of general spatial principles and mechanisms are emerging that have relevance across many different kinds of system. Landscape ecologists, with their background in spatially explicit pattern–process analysis, are well placed to contribute to this emerging research agenda.     

生态设计在城市景观设计中的应用

概述生态设计理念发展历程,讨论我国景观设计中的生态问题与解决方法,以及当代景观设计的生态设计原则、常用手法。     

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.     

The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?

This collaborative essay grows out of a debate about the relationship between aesthetics and ecology and the possibility of an “ecological aesthetic” that affects landscape planning, design, and management. We describe our common understandings and unresolved questions about this relationship, including the importance of aesthetics in understanding and affecting landscape change and the ways in which aesthetics and ecology may have either complementary or contradictory implications for a landscape. To help understand these issues, we first outline a conceptual model of the aesthetics–ecology relationship. We posit that: 1. While human and environmental phenomena occur at widely varying scales, humans engage with environmental phenomena at a particular scale: that of human experience of our landscape surroundings. That is the human “perceptible realm.” 2. Interactions within this realm give rise to aesthetic experiences, which can lead to changes affecting humans and the landscape, and thus ecosystems. 3. Context affects aesthetic experience of landscapes. Context includes both effects of different landscape types (wild, agricultural, cultural, and metropolitan landscapes) and effects of different personal–social situational activities or concerns. We argue that some contexts elicit aesthetic experiences that have traditionally been called “scenic beauty,” while other contexts elicit different aesthetic experiences, such as perceived care, attachment, and identity. Last, we discuss how interventions through landscape planning, design, and management; or through enhanced knowledge might establish desirable relationships between aesthetics and ecology, and we examine the controversial characteristics of such ecological aesthetics. While these interventions may help sustain beneficial landscape patterns and practices, they are inherently normative, and we consider their ethical implications.     

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.     

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.     

The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: A conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability

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.     

Changing landscapes to accommodate for climate change impacts: a call for landscape ecology

Predictions of climate change suggest major changes in temperature, rainfall as well as in frequency and timing of extreme weather, all in varying degrees and patterns around the world. Although the details of these patterns changes are still uncertain, we can be sure of profound effects on ecological processes in and functioning of landscapes. The impact of climate change will affect all types of land use, ecosystem services, as well as the behavior of humans. The core business of Landscape Ecology is the interaction of landscape patterns and processes. Most of these interactions will be affected by changing climate patterns, so clearly within the focus of our science. Nevertheless, climate change received little attention from landscape ecologists. Are we missing the boat? Why is it that our science does not contribute to building a knowledge base to help solving this immense problem? Why is there so little attention paid to adaptation of landscape to climate change? With this editorial article IALE would like to receive inputs from the Landscape Ecology scientific community in related research on adaptation of landscapes to climate change, on tools or approaches to help landscape planners and stakeholders to this new challenge where landscape ecology can play a key role.     

Landscape Diagnosis on Different Space and Time Scales – A Challenge for Landscape Planning

Landscape diagnosis provides a bridge between scientific knowledge and socio-economic issues that is needed to meet the demands of sophisticated landscape planning and management. The diagnostic assessment of landscape functions (capacities, goods and services supported by the landscape) at different spatio-temporal scales is a valuable tool that can solve the transformation problem. A variety of landscape classification systems – including biophysical and landscape units – can be applied as a spatial reference system. Examples are described from the multitude of approaches to assess landscape functions that can be employed in landscape diagnosis. The theoretical and methodological aspects of the approach are illustrated using examples both from Germany and the Czech Republic. The examples focus on landscape functions such as groundwater recharge, regulation of water balance, and resistance to wind erosion. In addition, the rarity of and threats to landscape types, landscape aesthetic values, and the landscape character and landscape persistence are discussed.     

Spatial Concepts in Landscape Analysis and Policy: Some Implications of Globalisation

Globalisation accelerates the dynamics of the network society and economy, in which distant relationships become functionally more significant than local landscape relationships. This presents challenges and opportunities for landscape analysis. Using social scientific concepts of global and local space, and ecological concepts of hierarchy, two qualitative case studies are undertaken of urban fringe landscapes in Copenhagen, Denmark, and Christchurch, New Zealand. They reveal a convergence of landscape pattern over time, but this disguises significant differences in underlying socio-economic process and institutional response. There are several implications for landscape analysis and policy. First, there is a need for studies grounded in particular landscapes that acknowledge both local spatial landscape relationships and non spatial ‘global’ processes. Second, the transformation of landscapes through urbanisation provides a useful focus for the connection of landscape ecological understanding of landscape systems with social scientific understanding of human agency and social structure. Third, there is a significant challenge in how to develop local and regional institutions and policies that have the capacity to utilise and apply these diverse analytical perspectives.     

The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy

Environmental policy should explicitly address the appearance of the landscape because people make inferences about ecological quality from the look of the land. Where appearances are misleading, failing to portray ecological degradation or ecological health, public opinion may be ill-informed, with consequences for environmental policy. This paper argues that while ecology is a scientific concept, landscape perception is a social process. If we do not recognize this difference, we have problems with the appearance of ecological systems. Three influential problems are discussed: 1) the problem of the false identity of ecological systems, 2) the problem of design and planning as deceit about ecological systems, and 3) the problem of invisible ecological systems. These problems for environmental policy may be resolved in part if landscape planners and policy-makers use socially-recognized signs to display human intentions for ecological systems. Specifically, planning and policy can include socially-recognized signs of beauty and stewardship to display human care for ecological systems. An example in United States federal agricultural policy is described.     

Integrating social and ecological knowledge for planning sustainable land- and sea-scapes: experiences from the Great Barrier Reef region,Australia

The integration of social and ecological knowledge has been identified as one of the key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology. However, research into the tools and processes that support knowledge integration for planning sustainable land- and sea-scapes is largely lacking. To fill this gap, Bohnet and Smith (Landsc Urban Plan 80:137–152, 2007) developed a social-ecological planning framework based on a holistic landscape concept which I applied in the Tully–Murray basin to test the framework’s transferability and effectiveness for knowledge integration in a water quality improvement planning context in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) region, Australia. In this paper I present the context in which the Tully Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) was developed, the tools and processes applied during the three planning stages to achieve knowledge integration, and the results from this exercise. I then discuss the transferability and effectiveness of the framework using criteria identified to assess collaborative planning processes, outputs and outcomes, such as collaborative science and social and political capital. While many social outcomes such as the creation of partnerships between multiple-stakeholders, including Traditional Owners, local farmers, industry, government, community groups, schools, and the wider public, have been achieved, the research also highlights some of the challenges related to multiple-stakeholder relations. Further research into the roles and responsibilities of multiple-stakeholders for knowledge integration in developing and managing sustainable land- and sea-scapes is recommended.     

Twenty-five years into “our common future”: are we heading in the right direction?

For a quarter of a century, sustainable development has been on the political and research agendas. Within the field of landscape ecology, a wide array of research has documented the effects of alternative land uses, analysed driving forces of land use change and developed tools for measuring such changes, to mention but a few developments. There have also been great advances in technology and data management. Nevertheless, unsustainable land use continues to occur and the science of landscape ecology has had less influence on landscape change than aimed for. In this paper we use Norwegian examples to discuss some of the reasons for this. We examine mismatches in the spatial and temporal scales considered by scientists, decision-makers and those who carry out land use change, consider how this and other factors hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners, and urge for a stronger focus on what it is that motivates people to action. We suggest that the concept of landscape services can be useful not only for researchers but also provide valuable communication and planning tools. Finally, we suggest more emphasis on applying adaptive management in landscape ecology to help close the gaps, both between researchers and policy and, even more crucially, between researchers and practitioners.     

庐山博物馆绿地改造与生态旅游探讨

通过对庐山博物馆绿地改造论述,结合生态旅游资源,强调植物景观与科普宣传历史、文化知识相结合,提升庐山博物馆的生态旅游品位,从而打造出庐山博物馆的旅游品牌。     

Developing a complementary framework for urban ecology

Cities are characterized by dynamic interactions between socio-economic and biophysical forces. Currently more than half of the global population reside in cities which influence the global biogeochemical cycles and climate change, substantially exacerbating pressures on urban pollution, water quality and food security, as well as operating costs for infrastructure development. Goods and services such as aesthetic values, water purification, nutrient recycling, and biological diversity, that urban ecosystems generate for the society, are critical to sustain. Urban planners are increasingly facing the considerable challenges of management issues for urban ecosystems. Poor understanding of the complementary roles of urban ecology in urban infrastructure, and the functioning of ecosystems and ecological resilience of a complex human-dominated landscape has impeded effective urban planning over time, resulting in social disharmony. Here a complementary framework for urban ecology is proposed, in which ecosystems interact with land use, architecture and urban design – “E-LAUD” – affecting ecosystem and human health, and building on the concept that land uses in urban green areas, road-strips, wetlands, ‘habitat islands’ and urban architecture could synergistically benefit when clustered together in different combinations of urban landscapes. It is proposed that incorporation of the E-LAUD framework in urban planning forms the context of a new interdisciplinary research programme on ecological resilience for urban ecosystems and helps promote ecosystem services.     

Designing agricultural landscapes for natural pest control: a transdisciplinary approach in the Hoeksche Waard (The Netherlands)

The green–blue network of semi-natural non-crop landscape elements in agricultural landscapes has the potential to enhance natural pest control by providing various resources for the survival of beneficial insects that suppress crop pests. A study was done in the Hoeksche Waard to explore how generic scientific knowledge about the relationship between the spatial structure of the green–blue network and enhancement of natural pest control can be applied by stakeholders. The Hoeksche Waard is an agricultural area in the Netherlands, characterized by arable fields and an extensive network of dikes, creeks, ditches and field margins. Together with stakeholders from the area the research team developed spatial norms and design rules for the design of a green–blue network that supports natural pest control. The stakeholders represented different interests in the area: farmers, nature and landscape conservationists, water managers, and local and regional politicians. Knowledge about the spatial relationship among beneficial insects, pests and landscape structure is incomplete. We conclude that to apply scientific knowledge about natural pest control and the role of green–blue networks to stakeholders so that they can apply it in landscape change, knowledge transfer has to be transparent, area specific, understandable, practical and incorporate local knowledge.     

Challenges in marine,soft-sediment benthoscape ecology

The thematic resolution of mapped data determines the amount of detail of geospatial information, and influences various aspects of landscape classification and the relevance of derived pattern attributes to particular ecological questions. Here we show that changing thematic resolution may significantly affect landscape metrics and in turn their ability to detect landscape changes. The effects of thematic resolution on many landscape metrics tend to show consistent general patterns, but the details of these patterns are likely to be dependent on specific landscape patterns and classification criteria. Thus, the effects of thematic resolution, like those with regard to grain and extent, must be considered in landscape pattern analysis.     

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.