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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Science for action at the local landscape scale

For landscape ecology to produce knowledge relevant to society, it must include considerations of human culture and behavior, extending beyond the natural sciences to synthesize with many other disciplines. Furthermore, it needs to be able to support landscape change processes which increasingly take the shape of deliberative and collaborative decision making by local stakeholder groups. Landscape ecology as described by Wu (Landscape Ecol 28:1–11, 2013) therefore needs three additional topics of investigation: (1) the local landscape as a boundary object that builds communication among disciplines and between science and local communities, (2) iterative and collaborative methods for generating transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable change, and (3) the effect of scientific knowledge and tools on local landscape policy and landscape change. Collectively, these topics could empower landscape ecology to be a science for action at the local scale.     

A collaborative design to adaptively manage for landscape sustainability in north Australia: lessons from a decade of cooperative research

Approaches to manage for the sustainable use of natural and cultural resources in a landscape can have many different designs. One design is adaptive collaborative landscape management (ACLM) where research providers and users work closely together on projects to develop resources while adaptively managing to sustain or maintain landscapes in the long term. We propose that collaborative projects are more useful for achieving outcomes than integrative projects where participants merely join their separate contributions. To foster collaborative research projects to adaptively manage landscapes in northern Australia, a Tropical Savannas Cooperative Research Centre (TSCRC) was established in 1995. The TSCRC is a joint venture of major organizations involved in research and land management. This paper is our perspective on the four most important ‘lessons learned’ after using a ACLM-type approach for over 10 y. We learnt that collaboration (working in combination) not necessarily integration (combining parts into a whole) achieved sustainable outcomes. We found that integration across culturally diverse perspectives seldom achieved sustainable solutions because it devalued the position of the less empowered participants. In addition, positive outcomes were achieved when participants developed trust and respect for each other by embracing and respecting their differences and by sharing unifying concepts such as savanna health. Another lesson learned was that a collaborative organization must act as an honest broker by resisting advocacy of one view point over another. Finally, we recognized the importance of strongly investing in communication and networking so that people could adaptively learn from one another’s experiences, understand each other’s challenges and respect each other’s choices. Our experience confirms the usefulness of the ACLM approach and highlights its role in the process of sustaining healthy landscapes.     

Aesthetic landscapes: an emergent component in sustaining societies

A revival in the concept of sustainability is appreciated as Earth’s human population continues to increase and its related global concerns in disease ecology, energy resource management, environmental literacy, food production, genetic diversity, and landscape vitality continue to magnify. Sustain is defined within this paper as to keep in existence or to supply with resources or necessities to prevent from falling below a given threshold of health or vitality. Barrett et al. (Bioscience 47:531–535, 1997) illustrated how seven (7) processes (behaviour, development, diversity, energetics, evolution, integration, regulation) transcend eleven (11) levels of ecological organization, ranging from the ecosphere to the cellular. Comprehension of how these processes transcend all levels of ecological organization allow programs and initiatives (e.g. preserving biotic diversity) to be defined by informed incentive, rather than regulatory mandate, within societal systems. We describe how the integration of an eighth transcending process—aesthetics—is essential in the approach to and managing of market and nonmarket capital necessary in sustaining societies.     

Developing a multi-scale visualisation framework for use in climate change response

Climate change is predicted to impact countries, regions and localities differently. However, common to the predicted impacts is a global trend toward increased levels of carbon dioxide and rising sea levels. Governments and communities need to take into account the likely impacts of climate on the landscape, both built and natural. There is a growing and significant body of climate change research. Much of this information produced by domain experts for a range of disciplines is complex and difficult for planners, decision makers and communities to act upon. The need to communicate often complex scientific information which can be used to assist in the planning cycle is a key challenge. This paper draws from a range of international examples of the use of visualisation in the context of landscape planning to communicate climate change impact and adaptation options within the context of the planning cycle. Missing from the literature, however, is a multi-scalar approach which allows decision makers, planners and communities to seamlessly explore scenarios at their special level of interest, as well as to collectively understand what is driving these at a larger scale, and what the implications are at ever more local levels. Visualisation tools such as digital globes provide one way to bring together multi-scaled spatial–temporal datasets. We present an initial development with this goal in mind. Future research is required to determine the best tools for communicating particular complex scientific data and also to better understand how visualisation can be used to improve the landscape planning process.     

A review of the concept ‘management’ in relation to urban landscapes and green spaces: Toward a holistic understanding

The management of urban landscapes concerns existing urban open spaces such as public parks, playgrounds and residential green spaces. It involves many different actors and organizations and its practice is of importance for the sustainable development of cities. As a research field, it needs further theoretical development and common definitions. For example, the central term ‘management’ is seldom defined in the relevant literature regarding an urban landscape context, and public participation in management processes is unusual. This paper introduces urban landscape management as an overarching concept that brings together knowledge about management of urban landscapes from fields such as urban forestry, park management and landscape planning. Based on a literature review, a common understanding of management in an urban landscape context is proposed, including organizational and strategic aspects of managerial activities. Our approach is that urban landscapes are ultimately managed to provide user benefits. Urban landscape management can be viewed as a complex process that includes a number of different actors, elements and relationships, mutually affecting each other. This view supports future studies of urban landscape management and its role in sustainable urban development.     

Accessibility as a determinant of landscape transformation in western Honduras: linking pattern and process

This study evaluates the relationship between landscape accessibility and land cover change in Western Honduras, and demonstrates how these relationships are influenced by social and economic processes of land use change in the region. The study area presents a complex mosaic of land cover change processes that involve approximately equal amounts of reforestation and deforestation. Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery of 1987, 1991 and 1996 was used to create three single date classifications and a land cover change image depicting the sequence of changes in land cover between 1987–1991–1996. An accessibility analysis examined land cover change and landscape fragmentation relative to elevation and distance from roads. Between 1987 and 1991, results follow ‘expected’ trends, with more accessible areas experiencing greater deforestation and fragmentation. Between 1991 and 1996 this trend reverses. Increased deforestation is found in areas distant from roads, and at higher elevations; a result of government policies promoting expansion of mountain coffee production for export. A ban on logging, and abandonment of marginally productive agricultural fields due to agricultural intensification in other parts of the landscape, has led to increased regrowth in accessible regions of the landscape. Roads and elevation also present different obstacles in terms of their accessibility, with the smallest patches of cyclical clearing and regrowth, relating mostly to the agricultural fallow cycle, found at the highest elevations but located close to roads. This research highlights the need to locate analyses of land cover change within the context of local socio-economic policies and land use processes. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Valuing ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: introducing a wellbeing-based approach

The challenge of incorporating the concept of ecosystem services in landscape planning has been widely acknowledged, yet values of ecosystem services are not well considered in current landscape planning and environmental governance. This is particularly the case when local stakeholders are strongly involved in decision making about adapting the landscape to future demands and challenges. Engagement of stakeholders introduces a variety of interests and motives that result in diverging value interpretations. Moreover, participative planning approaches are based on learning processes, implying that the perceptions of value evolve during the planning process. Current valuation approaches are not able to support such process. Therefore we argue that there is a need for a novel view on the mechanism of integrating valuation in the different stages of community-based landscape planning, as well as for tools based on this mechanism. By revisiting the original conception of ecosystem services and redefining the value of an ecosystem service as its comparative importance to human wellbeing, we develop a conceptual framework for incorporating ecosystem service valuation that captures the full spectrum of value and value changes. We acknowledge that in the social interactions during the planning process values are redefined, negotiated and reframed in the context of the local landscape. Therefore, we propose a valuation mechanism that evolves through the phases of the cyclic planning process. We illustrate the use of this mechanism by proposing a tool that supports stakeholder groups in building a value-based vision on landscape adaptation that contributes to all wellbeing dimensions.     

Residential landscapes—Garden design,urban planning and social formation in Belgium

This paper aims at providing a historical understanding of the role of gardens and green spaces in urbanization and urban planning, as well as in processes of social formation and social mobility that took place on the background of a changing spatial, socio-economical and political context in Belgium in the period 1889–1940. The research is based on a number of case studies, which represent different stages and themes in the evolution of garden design, urban planning and society: 1) vernacular versus designed gardens and landscapes; 2) the popularization of the garden and the development of a new framework for urban planning; 3) the garden city versus private arcadia and 4) modern garden design and the rise of the middle class (1930–1940). Through an analysis of designs and discourses of, amongst others, leading landscape architects/urban planners Louis Van der Swaelmen, Jules Buyssens and Jean Canneel-Claes, the paper exposes a number of ambiguities and tensions, for example between the ‘vernacular garden’ and the ‘garden of the establishment’ and between the deep-rooted dream of a privately owned house and garden, and attempts to create new social and spatial frameworks that surpass the individual lot. The paper concludes that these tensions can still be traced in the context in which landscape designers and urban planners work today. This historical awareness, however, can help them to set out strategic goals for the contemporary garden as a place of both production and consumption, and as a place where social identity is shaped.     

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.     

Landscapes Toolkit: an integrated modelling framework to assist stakeholders in exploring options for sustainable landscape development

At present, stakeholders wishing to develop land use and management change scenarios at the landscape scale and to assess their corresponding impacts on water quality, biodiversity and economic performance, must examine the output of a suite of separate models. The process is not simple and presents a considerable deterrent to making such comparisons and impedes the development of more sustainable, multifunctional landscapes. To remedy this problem, we developed the Landscapes Toolkit, an integrated modelling framework that assists natural resource managers, policy-makers, planners and local communities explore options for sustainable landscape development. The Landscapes Toolkit links spatially-explicit disciplinary models, to enable integrated assessment of the water quality, biodiversity and economic outcomes of stakeholder-defined land use and management change scenarios. We use the Tully–Murray catchment in the Great Barrier Reef region of Australia as a case study to illustrate the development and application of the Landscapes Toolkit. Results show that the Landscapes Toolkit strikes a satisfactory balance between the inclusion of component models that sufficiently capture the richness of some key aspects of social-ecological system processes and the need for stakeholders to understand and compare the results of the different models. The latter is a prerequisite to making more informed decisions about sustainable landscape development. The flexibility of being able to add additional models and to update existing models is a particular strength of the Landscapes Toolkit design. Hence, the Landscapes Toolkit offers a promising modelling framework for supporting social learning and adaptive management through participatory scenario development and evaluation as well as being a tool to guide planning and policy discussions at the landscape scale.     

Global biodiversity scenarios and landscape ecology

The composition of ecological communities is both cause and consequence of landscape pattern. Predicting biodiversity change involves understanding not only ecology and evolution, but also complex changes in human societies and economies. Scenarios offer a less rigid approach to thinking about biodiversity change in a policy and management context. They shift the focus of research and management from making singular predictions and developing single ‘best’ strategies to exploring uncertainties and assessing the outcomes of alternative policies. The four Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) biodiversity scenarios illustrate current approaches to biodiversity estimation in global scenarios. The MA biodiversity scenarios are built around the species–area relationship and the magnitudes of a few area-dependent processes such as nitrogen deposition and climate change. Some of the most obvious landscape-related omissions from the MA scenarios are pattern-process feedbacks, scale dependencies, and the role of landscape configuration. While the MA has set a new standard for biodiversity scenarios, future exercises would benefit from a more multi-scale and more mechanistic framework. I use examples from research on the landscape ecology and biogeography of African ticks to illustrate how a hypothesis-based approach can be used to analyse the multi-scale, multi-level drivers of change in patterns of species occurrences. Two of the most important challenges for the future development of both landscape ecology and biodiversity scenarios are to become more mechanistic (less pattern-based) and more general (applicable across different landscapes).     

Assessing and coping with uncertainties in landscape planning: an overview

Context

Although uncertainties are ubiquitous in landscape planning, so far, no systematic understanding exists regarding how they should be assessed, appropriately communicated and what impacts they yield on decision support. With increasing interest in the role of uncertainties in science and policy, a synthesis of relevant knowledge is needed to further promote uncertainty assessment in landscape planning practice.

Objectives

The aim of this paper is to synthesize knowledge about types of uncertainties in landscape planning, of methods to assess these uncertainties, and of approaches for appropriately coping with them.

Methods

The paper is based on a qualitative literature review of relevant papers identified in the ISI Web of Knowledge and supplemented by frequently cited publications. The identification and synthesis of relevant information was guided by a developed framework concerning uncertainty in landscape planning.

Results

The main types of uncertainties identified in landscape planning are data-, model-, projection- and evaluation uncertainty. Various methods to address these uncertainties have been identified, including statistical methods for the assessment of uncertainties in planning approaches that help to cope with uncertainties. The integration of uncertainty assessments into landscape planning results is lacking.

Conclusions

The assessment of uncertainties in landscape planning have been addressed by science, but what is missing are considerations and ideas on how to use this knowledge to foster uncertainty analysis in landscape planning practice. More research is needed on how the application of identified approaches into landscape planning practice can be achieved and how these results might affect decision makers.

     

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.     

Landscape analysis and tsunami damage in Aceh: comment on Iverson and Prasad (2007)

Data presented in Iverson and Prasad (2007), Using landscape analysis to assess and model tsunami damage in Aceh province, Sumatra. Landscape Ecology 22: 323–331 do not justify their conclusion that tree belts provided an effective defence against the Indian Ocean tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia. The mitigation hypothesis is not explicitly tested, and their modelling approach to predict areas susceptible to tsunami damage ignores many variables known to be important in the area studied.     

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.