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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Aspects influencing the selection of representative urbanization measures to quantify urban–rural gradients

The quantification of urban–rural gradients using urbanization measures has become standard practice in many urban ecological studies. Nonetheless, the choice of urbanization measures for a specific urban gradient still remains problematic. Increasing numbers of papers stress the importance of comparative urban ecological research, in an attempt to contribute to an understanding of the ecology ‘of’ cities. This implies that research in diverse urban areas globally should be comparable. This study follows an approach to quantify the urban–rural gradient in Klerksdorp previously followed in Melbourne, Australia with the goal to help elucidate the viability of creating a standard set of urbanization measures that is useful across continents. Satellite imagery and spatial analysis were used to calculate the values of 12 urbanization measures across a 900 km² landscape grid. Principal components analysis is commonly used to identify smaller subsets of measures to quantify urban–rural gradients. The results of this study indicate that factor analysis is more suitable than principal components analysis and ideal in identifying these independent measures of urbanization. The factor analysis revealed that landscape structure and demographic attributes are both essential characteristics of a city that needs to be accounted for in the choice of urbanization measures. Additionally, we identified seven aspects influencing the direct comparison of cities, namely: scale of analysis, spatial resolution, classification typology, accuracy of input data, specific measure equations, the type of statistical analysis and the habitat context. These aspects must be taken into consideration and resolved before effective comparative gradient research between cities can be achieved.     

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.     

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.     

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).     

Predicting the assembly of novel communities in urban ecosystems

Context

Ecological communities in urban ecosystems are assembled through ecological processes, such as species interactions, dispersal, and environmental filtering, but also through human factors that create and modify the landscape. These complex interactions make it difficult to untangle the relationships between social–ecological dynamics and urban biodiversity.

Objectives

As a result, there has been a call for research to address how human activities influence the processes by which ecological communities are structured in urban ecosystems. We address this research challenge using core concepts from landscape ecology to develop a framework that links social-ecological dynamics to ecological communities using the metacommunity perspective.

Methods

The metacommunity perspective is a useful framework to explore the assembly of novel communities because it distinguishes between the effects of local environmental heterogeneity and regional spatial processes in structuring ecological communities. Both are shaped by social–ecological dynamics in urban ecosystems.

Results

In this paper, we define social, environmental, and spatial processes that structure metacommunities, and ultimately biodiversity, in cities. We then address how our framework could be applied in urban ecosystem research to understand multi-scalar biodiversity patterns.

Conclusions

Our framework provides a theoretical and empirical foundation for transdisciplinary research to examine how social-ecological dynamics mediate the assembly of novel communities in urban ecosystems.

     

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.     

Ecological contributions to human health in cities

Context

Ecological research, from organismal to global scales and spanning terrestrial, hydrologic, and atmospheric domains, can contribute more to reducing health vulnerabilities. At the same, ecological research directed to health vulnerabilities provides a problem-based unifying framework for urban ecologists.

Objective

Provide a framework for expanding ecological research to address human health vulnerabilities in cities.

Methods

I pose an urban ecology of human health framework that considers how the ecological contributions to health risks and benefits are driven by interacting influences of the environment, active management, and historical legacies in the context of ecological self-organization. The ecology of health framework is explored for contrasting examples including heat, vector borne diseases, pollution, and accessible greenspace both individually and in a multifunctional landscape perspective.

Results

Urban ecological processes affect human health vulnerability through contributions to multiple hazard and well-being pathways. The resulting multifunctional landscape of health vulnerability features prominent hotspots and regional injustices. A path forward to increase knowledge of the ecological contributions to health vulnerabilities includes increased participation in in interdisciplinary teams and applications of high resolution environmental sensing and modeling.

Conclusions

Research and management from a systems and landscape perspective of ecological processes is poised to help reduce urban health vulnerability and provide a better understanding of ecological dynamics in the Anthropocene.

     

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.     

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.     

城市湿地公园的生态性研究——以四川遂宁市生态湿地公园为例

生态在景观设计中的应用为城市发展指明方向,却带来新一轮难题,即如何才是真正的生态,以及怎样做到生态。文章对生态的概念进行介绍,并结合实际案例分析,得出湿地景观的生态性表现在于社会和自然全面协调的结论。     

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.     

Clarifying Integrative Research Concepts in Landscape Ecology

Integrative research approaches are intensely discussed in landscape ecology, in academia and in research policy. However, confusion over the terminology hampers communication. Many current landscape ecological research projects have difficulties to agree on a common understanding of the core concepts associated with different forms of integrative research. This is also evidenced by the lack of discussion of integrative research concepts in published papers. This hinders integration in research projects and makes the comparison and evaluation of the outcomes of different research concepts impossible. This paper discusses and defines the meanings of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary (= integrative) research approaches to ease discourse on their application in landscape ecological research. It reviews definitions of the concepts found in the research literature and develops definitions of integrative and associated research concepts (disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity) based on their degree of disciplinary integration and involvement of non-academics. Integrative concepts are viewed as a continuum rather than as fixed categories. The paper discusses the need to develop integrative theory and methods and argues that we should be more explicit when using integrative research concepts in project proposals, project work and publications. Finally, the paper reflects on the ongoing discussion in landscape ecology concerning whether it is developing from an integrative research field towards a discipline in its own right.     

Influence of biophysical factors and differences in Ojibwe reservation versus Euro-American social histories on forest landscape change in northern Wisconsin,USA

Landscape ecology studies have demonstrated that past modifications of the landscape frequently influence its structure, highlighting the utility of integrating historical perspectives from the fields of historical ecology and environmental history. Yet questions remain for historically-informed landscape ecology, especially the relative influence of social factors, compared to biophysical factors, on long-term land-cover change. Moreover, methods are needed to more effectively link history to ecology, specifically to illuminate the underlying political, economic, and cultural forces that influence heterogeneous human drivers of land-cover change. In northern Wisconsin, USA, we assess the magnitude of human historical forces, relative to biophysical factors, on land-cover change of a landscape dominated by eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.) forest before Euro-American settlement. First, we characterize land-cover transitions of pine-dominant sites over three intervals (1860–1931; 1931–1951; 1951–1987). Transition analysis shows that white pine was replaced by secondary successional forest communities and agricultural land-covers. Second, we assess the relative influence of a socio-historical variable (“on-/off-Indian reservation”), soil texture (clay and sand), and elevation on land-cover transition. On the Lake Superior clay plain, models that combine socio-historical and biophysical variables best explain long-term land-cover change. The socio-historical variable dominates: the magnitude and rate of land-cover change differs among regions exposed to contrasting human histories. Third, we developed an integrative environmental history-landscape ecology approach, thereby facilitating linkage of observed land-cover transitions to broader political, economic, and cultural forces. These results are relevant to other landscape investigations that integrate history and ecology.     

Integrative approach for landscape-based graph connectivity analysis: a case study with the common frog (Rana temporaria) in human-dominated landscapes

Graph-based analysis is a promising approach for analyzing the functional and structural connectivity of landscapes. In human-shaped landscapes, species have become vulnerable to land degradation and connectivity loss between habitat patches. Movement across the landscape is a key process for species survival that needs to be further investigated for heterogeneous human-dominated landscapes. The common frog (Rana temporaria) was used as a case study to explore and provide a graph connectivity analysis framework that integrates habitat suitability and dispersal responses to landscape permeability. The main habitat patches influencing habitat availability and connectivity were highlighted by using the software Conefor Sensinode 2.2. One of the main advantages of the presented graph-theoretical approach is its ability to provide a large choice of variables to be used based on the study’s assumptions and knowledge about target species. Based on dispersal simulation modelling in potential suitable habitat corridors, three distinct patterns of nodes connections of differing importance were revealed. These patterns are locally influenced by anthropogenic barriers, landscape permeability, and habitat suitability. And they are affected by different suitability and availability gradients to maximize the best possible settlement by the common frog within a terrestrial habitat continuum. The study determined the key role of landscape-based approaches for identifying the “availability-suitability-connectivity” patterns from a local to regional approach to provide an operational tool for landscape planning.