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.     

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.     

Landscape ecology meets landscape science

Landscape ecology is a broad field in a patchwork of related disciplines. Giving landscape ecology a definition and delimiting it from related research areas is both a challenge and a necessity. Past endeavors have focused on expert opinions, analyses of published papers, and conference proceedings. We used a mix of all three, including a unique keyword analysis in two leading landscape-related journals, to highlight latest developments in landscape ecology between 2010 and 2013. Our analysis confirms the key topics of Wu (Landscape Ecol 28(1):1–11, 2013), and suggests that of those connectivity is dominating in terms of research output. However, we also found evidence that the borders of the journal Landscape Ecology are fuzzier than sketched in recent publications. There is a large overlap with the journal Landscape and Urban Planning, and in general a growing weight of conservation, landscape management, and planning related issues in the landscape ecology community. We conclude by encouraging the continued inclusion and strengthening of socio-ecological hot topics such as urban studies and landscape-human interactions in landscape ecological studies and subsequently in the journal landscape ecology.     

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.     

Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent developments

Landscape Ecology - Landscape ecology as an interdisciplinary science has great potential to inform landscape planning, an integrated, collaborative practice on a regional scale. It is commonly...     

Integrating landscape ecology into landscape practice in Central African Rainforests

Context

We describe how large landscape-scale conservation initiatives involving local communities, NGOs and resource managers have engaged with landscape scientists with the goal of achieving landscape sustainability. We focus on two landscapes where local people, practitioners and landscape ecologists have co-produced knowledge to design conservation interventions.

Objective

We seek to understand how landscape ecology can engage with practical landscape management to contribute to managing landscapes sustainably.

Methods

We focus on two large tropical landscapes: the Sangha Tri-National landscape (Cameroon, Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic) and the Batéké-Léfini Landscape (Gabon and Republic of Congo). We evaluate (1) a participatory method used in the Sangha Tri-National landscape that embeds interdisciplinary researchers and practitioners within a landscape to apply transdisciplinary learning to landscape conservation and (2) a participatory landscape zoning method where interdisciplinary teams of conservation practitioners analyse local land and resource use in the Batéké-Léfini landscape.

Results

We find that landscape ecology’s tradition of understanding the historical context of resource use can inform landscape conservation practice and natural resource mapping. We also find that the Sangha Group provides an example for landscape ecology on how to integrate local people and their knowledge to better understand and influence landscape processes.

Conclusions

Place-based engagement as well as the uptake of co-produced knowledge by policy makers are key in enabling sustainable landscapes. Success occurs when researchers, local communities and resource managers engage directly with landscape processes.

     

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.     

From landscape ecology to forest landscape restoration

Landscape Ecology - Forest landscape restoration (FLR) was first defined in 2000 and has emerged from several disciplines, including conservation biology and landscape ecology. As it has gained in...     

How landscape ecology can promote the development of sustainable landscapes in Europe: the role of the European Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE-Europe) in the twenty-first century

In Europe, landscape research has a long tradition of drawing on several disciplines. ‘National schools’ of landscape research developed, which were related to the characteristic landscapes found in the different countries and to specific linguistic meanings and legal traditions when using landscape related concepts. International co-operation demands a certain harmonization of these concepts for better mutual understanding. The 2000 European Landscape Convention provided an important momentum to rethink research, policy and management of landscapes from the perspective of sustainable development and participatory planning. Landscape ecology as a transdisciplinary science with a dynamic and holistic perspective on landscape offers a great potential for an integrative approach. The specificity of the European landscape research rests on its long history and on integration based on the great diversity of the landscapes, characterised by an intimate relationship between the varied natural environment and the different cultural traditions which define the identity of countries, regions and people. Within a unified Europe, with increasing international and trans-border co-operation and increasing common environmental problems, the creation of a specific European Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE-Europe), in addition to the existing international association and its national chapters, became justified by the need for a collaborative endeavour to address the specific problems of landscapes in Europe and to stimulate co-operation between landscape ecologists in research, education and practice.     

Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the Allerton Park workshop

This year marks the 30th anniversary of a momentous meeting in the history of landscape ecology—the Landscape Ecology Workshop held in Allerton Park, Illinois, USA in 1983. On this special occasion, I am inspired to make some observations and comments on the state-of-the-science of landscape ecology as a tribute to this historic event. One may argue that the workshop galvanized a shift in paradigm and the development of an “identity” for landscape ecology. The field has advanced swiftly and productively during the past three decades, and reviewing the publications in the flagship journal Landscape Ecology indicates that the Allerton Park vision has been amazingly influential in shaping the direction of the field. Based on a synoptic analysis of the literature, I discuss the core questions, key topics, and future direction of landscape ecology.     

对景观设计方法的研究与分析

景观设计与规划林,生态,地理等多种学科交叉融合,在不同的学科中具有不同的意义,"景观设计"(又叫做景观建筑学)是指在建筑设计或规划设计的过程中,对周围环境要素的整体考虑和设计包括自然要素和人工要素。使得建筑(群)与自然环境产生呼应关系,使其使用更方便,更舒适,提高其整体的艺术价值。     

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.     

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.     

Modelling and simulating change in reforesting mountain landscapes using a social-ecological framework

Natural reforestation of European mountain landscapes raises major environmental and societal issues. With local stakeholders in the Pyrenees National Park area (France), we studied agricultural landscape colonisation by ash (Fraxinus excelsior) to enlighten its impacts on biodiversity and other landscape functions of importance for the valley socio-economics. The study comprised an integrated assessment of land-use and land-cover change (LUCC) since the 1950s, and a scenario analysis of alternative future policy. We combined knowledge and methods from landscape ecology, land change and agricultural sciences, and a set of coordinated field studies to capture interactions and feedback in the local landscape/land-use system. Our results elicited the hierarchically-nested relationships between social and ecological processes. Agricultural change played a preeminent role in the spatial and temporal patterns of LUCC. Landscape colonisation by ash at the parcel level of organisation was merely controlled by grassland management, and in fact depended on the farmer’s land management at the whole-farm level. LUCC patterns at the landscape level depended to a great extent on interactions between farm household behaviours and the spatial arrangement of landholdings within the landscape mosaic. Our results stressed the need to represent the local SES function at a fine scale to adequately capture scenarios of change in landscape functions. These findings orientated our modelling choices in the building an agent-based model for LUCC simulation (SMASH–Spatialized Multi-Agent System of landscape colonization by ASH). We discuss our method and results with reference to topical issues in interdisciplinary research into the sustainability of multifunctional landscapes.     

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.     

Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes

The future of humanity depends on whether or not we have a vision to guide our transition toward sustainability, on scales ranging from local landscapes to the planet as a whole. Sustainability science is at the core of this vision, and landscapes and regions represent a pivotal scale domain. The main objectives of this paper are: (1) to elucidate key definitions and concepts of sustainability, including the Brundtland definition, the triple bottom line, weak and strong sustainability, resilience, human well-being, and ecosystem services; (2) to examine key definitions and concepts of landscape sustainability, including those derived from general concepts and those developed for specific landscapes; and (3) to propose a framework for developing a science of landscape sustainability. Landscape sustainability is defined as the capacity of a landscape to consistently provide long-term, landscape-specific ecosystem services essential for maintaining and improving human well-being. Fundamentally, well-being is a journey, not a destination. Landscape sustainability science is a place-based, use-inspired science of understanding and improving the dynamic relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes under uncertainties arising from internal feedbacks and external disturbances. While landscape sustainability science emphasizes place-based research on landscape and regional scales, significant between landscape interactions and hierarchical linkages to both finer and broader scales (or externalities) must not be ignored. To advance landscape sustainability science, spatially explicit methods are essential, especially experimental approaches that take advantage of designed landscapes and multi-scaled simulation models that couple the dynamics of landscape services (ecosystem services provided by multiple landscape elements in combination as emergent properties) and human well-being.     

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.     

Rigor and transparency in statistical analyses can help to ensure valid research

Adherence to important assumptions of statistical methods has significant ramifications for development of new knowledge in landscape ecology for two fundamental reasons: these methods will continue to be used widely and will thus affect much of the research on which advances in landscape ecology will be founded; and the degree to which statistical methods are applied appropriately will influence the statistical validity of that research. Rigorous statistical analyses are essential because no discipline can efficiently advance scientifically if one of its primary approaches for generating new knowledge is used incorrectly. Assessing and communicating compliance with statistical assumptions should be standard practice in confirmatory analyses. Better understanding of the robustness of statistical methods to deviations from assumptions can improve investigators’ decisions about which methods to apply. Explanations about the consequences of actual or possible violations of assumptions can clarify the validity of results. Many of the papers in a sample of 215 research articles published in Landscape Ecology during 2004–2013 exhibited substantial lack of clarity about adherence to statistical assumptions. Brief author statements about whether important statistical assumptions were adequately met would improve confidence in results. Ultimately, rigor and transparency in confirmatory statistical analyses will help to ensure the validity of landscape ecology research.     

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.