encyclopedia of ecology || landscape planning

11
sets for model output comparisons with observational data, as well as the use of both hard (quantitative) and soft (qualita- tive) data for model evaluation. See also: Lake Models; Land-Use Modeling. Further Reading Austin MP (2007) Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecological Modelling 200: 1–19. Baker WL (1989) A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecology 2: 111–131. Bascompte J and Sole RV (1996) Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds in spatially explicit models. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 465–473. Cale WG, Jr., O’Neill RV, and Shugart HH (1983) Development and application of desirable ecological models. Ecological Modelling 18: 171–186. Costanza R, Wainger L, Folke C, and Maler K-G (1993) Modeling complex ecological economic systems. BioScience 43: 545–555. Fortin MJ and Dale MRT (2005) Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gardner RH and Gustafson EJ (2004) Simulating dispersal of reintroduced species within heterogeneous landscapes. Ecological Modelling 171: 339–358. Guisan A and Zimmerman NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135: 147–186. Irwin EG and Geoghegan J (2001) Theory, data, methods: Developing spatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 85: 7–23. Keane RE, Cary GJ, Davies ID, et al. (2004) A classification of landscape fire succession models: Spatial simulations of fire and vegetation dynamics. Ecological Modelling 179: 459–469. Lookingbill TR and Urban DL (2005) Gradient analysis, the next generation: Towards more plant-relevant explanatory variables. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 1744–1753. Mladenoff DJ and Baker WL (eds.) (1999) Spatial Modeling of Forest Landscape Change: Approaches and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pressey RL (1994) Ad hoc reservations – forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems. Conservation Biology 8: 662–668. Scott JM, Davis F, Csuti B, et al. (1993) Gap analysis: A geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monograph 123: 1–41. Sklar FH and Costanza R (1990) The development of dynamic spatial models for landscape ecology: A review and prognosis. In: Turner MG and Gardner RH (eds.) Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, pp. 239–288. New York: Springer. Tague CL and Band LE (2004) RHESSys: Regional hydro-ecologic simulation system – an object-oriented approach to spatially distributed modeling of carbon, water, and nutrient cycling. Earth Interactions 8: 1–42. Landscape Planning U ¨ Mander, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia ª 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Introduction Landscape Definition Landscape Functions Landscape Diversity and Coherence Landscape Fragmentation and Its Ecological Consequences Landscape Evaluation and Landscape Indicators Main Ecological Engineering Principles of Landscape Planning Levels and Steps in Landscape Planning Territorial Ecological Networks Further Reading Introduction This article presents a scientific overview of the basic implementation of the principles of ecological engineer- ing in landscape planning. The first two sections discuss the landscape definition, landscape functions, and multi- functionality. The subsequent sections give an overview of the landscape diversity and coherence, landscape frag- mentation and its ecological consequences, landscape evaluation and landscape indicators, the levels and steps Model inaccuracy Systematic bias Measurement error Model complexity Error Figure 4 Tradeoffs associated with the level of complexity included in landscape models. Error associated with omitting key system process might be reduced at the cost of including new errors associated with estimation of parameters and mathematical relationships of unknown importance. 2116 Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning

Upload: ue

Post on 22-Feb-2017

224 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

Modelinaccuracy

Systematicbias

Measurementerror

Model complexity

Err

or

Figure 4 Tradeoffs associated with the level of complexity

included in landscape models. Error associated with omitting keysystem process might be reduced at the cost of including new

errors associated with estimation of parameters and

mathematical relationships of unknown importance.

2116 Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning

sets for model output comparisons with observational data, aswell as the use of both hard (quantitative) and soft (qualita-tive) data for model evaluation.

See also: Lake Models; Land-Use Modeling.

Further Reading

Austin MP (2007) Species distribution models and ecological theory: Acritical assessment and some possible new approaches. EcologicalModelling 200: 1–19.

Baker WL (1989) A review of models of landscape change. LandscapeEcology 2: 111–131.

Bascompte J and Sole RV (1996) Habitat fragmentation and extinctionthresholds in spatially explicit models. Journal of Animal Ecology65: 465–473.

Cale WG, Jr., O’Neill RV, and Shugart HH (1983) Development andapplication of desirable ecological models. Ecological Modelling18: 171–186.

Costanza R, Wainger L, Folke C, and Maler K-G (1993)Modeling complex ecological economic systems. BioScience43: 545–555.

Fortin MJ and Dale MRT (2005) Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gardner RH and Gustafson EJ (2004) Simulating dispersal ofreintroduced species within heterogeneous landscapes. EcologicalModelling 171: 339–358.

Guisan A and Zimmerman NE (2000) Predictive habitat distributionmodels in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135: 147–186.

Irwin EG and Geoghegan J (2001) Theory, data, methods: Developingspatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment 85: 7–23.

Keane RE, Cary GJ, Davies ID, et al. (2004) A classificationof landscape fire succession models: Spatial simulationsof fire and vegetation dynamics. Ecological Modelling179: 459–469.

Lookingbill TR and Urban DL (2005) Gradient analysis, the nextgeneration: Towards more plant-relevant explanatory variables.Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 1744–1753.

Mladenoff DJ and Baker WL (eds.) (1999) Spatial Modeling of ForestLandscape Change: Approaches and Applications. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Pressey RL (1994) Ad hoc reservations – forward or backward steps indeveloping representative reserve systems. Conservation Biology8: 662–668.

Scott JM, Davis F, Csuti B, et al. (1993) Gap analysis: A geographicapproach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monograph123: 1–41.

Sklar FH and Costanza R (1990) The development of dynamicspatial models for landscape ecology: A review andprognosis. In: Turner MG and Gardner RH (eds.) QuantitativeMethods in Landscape Ecology, pp. 239–288. New York:Springer.

Tague CL and Band LE (2004) RHESSys: Regional hydro-ecologicsimulation system – an object-oriented approach to spatiallydistributed modeling of carbon, water, and nutrient cycling. EarthInteractions 8: 1–42.

Landscape PlanningU Mander, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

ª 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Landscape Definition

Landscape Functions

Landscape Diversity and Coherence

Landscape Fragmentation and Its Ecological

Consequences

Landscape Evaluation and Landscape Indicators

Main Ecological Engineering Principles of Landscape

Planning

Levels and Steps in Landscape Planning

Territorial Ecological Networks

Further Reading

Introduction

This article presents a scientific overview of the basic

implementation of the principles of ecological engineer-

ing in landscape planning. The first two sections discuss

the landscape definition, landscape functions, and multi-

functionality. The subsequent sections give an overview

of the landscape diversity and coherence, landscape frag-

mentation and its ecological consequences, landscape

evaluation and landscape indicators, the levels and steps

Page 2: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning 2117

of landscape planning, ecologically compensating areas inthe landscape, as well as of the leading principle inecological landscape planning – the concept and imple-mentation of territorial ecological networks (greenwaynetworks) at the landscape level.

Landscape Definition

Landscapes as dynamic and characteristic expressions ofthe interaction between the natural environment andhuman societies can be considered in very differentways: from the scenery and ‘‘total character of theEarth’’ (Alexander von Humboldt cit. Zonneveld,1995) to the complexity of ecosystems. Depending onthe degree of human interaction, landscape character-istics can be dominated by natural aspects on the onehand or human management on the other. In thisarticle, we consider landscape as a geosystem or geo-complex, a comprehensive complex of natural (physical,chemical, biological) and anthropogenic factors distin-guished at various hierarchical levels (i.e., micro-,meso-, and macrochores). The main natural factors insuch a complex landscape system are water, topogra-phy, soil, geology, and climate conditions, as well asplants (vegetation cover) and animals (fauna). Likewise,the ecosystem approach deals with the same factors asecosystem components, but in contrast to ecosystems,where all of the relations are considered via biota, thegeosystem/landscape concept considers all of the rela-tionships. However, different factors at differenttemporal and spatial scales play different roles in deter-mining landscape character. Climatic and geologicalconditions cause the basic natural character of a land-scape, whereas topography, soil, and vegetation coverare important in the formation of the detailed characterof a landscape, and are influenced by humanmanagement.

Landscape Functions

Traditionally, the concept of landscape functions hasbeen considered in the landscape planning system ofGermany and German-speaking countries. According tothat concept, landscape has the following functions:(1) Production (economic) functions (biomass production,water supply, suitability of nonrenewable resources);(2) Regulatory (ecological) functions (regulation of mate-rial and energy fluxes, hydrological and meteorologicalfunctions, regulation and regeneration of populations andbio(geo)coenoses, habitat (genetical) function); (3) Socialfunctions (psychological (esthetic and ethical) functions,information functions, human-ecological, and recrea-tional functions).

This approach is very similar to the concept of eco-system services and natural capital, which has recently

gained extensive popularity. According to this concept,

the typology of landscape functions includes four cate-

gories: (1) provisioning functions; (2) regulation functions;

(3) habitat functions; and (4) cultural and amenity func-

tions (see Table 1).

1. Provisioning functions comprise functions that sup-ply ‘physical services’ in terms of resources or space. This

category has been divided into two classes: production

and carrier functions. Production functions reflect

resources produced by natural ecosystems, for example,

the harvesting of fish from the ocean, pharmaceutical

products from wild plants and animals, or wood from

natural forests. Carrier functions reflect the goods and

services that are provided through human manipulation

of natural productivity (e.g., fish from aquaculture or

timber from plantations). In these cases, the function

offered by nature is the provision of a suitable substrate

or space for human activities, including agriculture,

mining, transportation, etc.2. Regulation functions result from the capacity of

ecosystems and landscapes to influence (‘regulate’) cli-

mate, hydrological and biochemical cycles, Earth surface

processes, and a variety of biological processes. These

services often have an important spatial (connectivity)

aspect; for example, the flood control function of an

upper watershed forest is only relevant in the flood zone

downstream of the forest.3. Habitat functions comprise the importance of

ecosystems and landscapes in maintaining natural pro-

cesses and biodiversity, including the refugium and

nursery functions. The refugium function reflects the

value of landscape units in providing habitats to

(threatened) fauna and flora, and the nursery function

indicates that some landscape units provide a particu-

larly suitable location for reproduction and thereby

have a regulating impact on the maintenance of popu-

lations elsewhere.4. Cultural and amenity functions relate to the ben-

efits people obtain from landscapes through recreation,

cognitive development, relaxation, and spiritual reflec-

tion. This may involve actual visits to the area,

indirectly enjoying the area (e.g., through nature

movies), or gaining satisfaction from the knowledge

that a landscape contains important biodiversity or

cultural monuments. The latter may occur without

having the intention of ever visiting the area. These

services have also been referred to as ‘information

functions’.

The evaluation of landscapes for planning and manage-

ment purposes, as well as landscape synthesis and decision

making, is based on landscape functions.

Page 3: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

Table 1 Typology of ecosystem/landscape functions, goods, and services

EntryEcosystemfunctions Short description

Biophysical indicators (examples) (i.e.,ecosystem properties providing the goodsor service)

Goods and services(examples)

1 Provisioning

Production

functions

Resources from

unmanipulated

ecosystems

Biomass (production and stock)

Biochemical properties

Freshwater

Food (e.g., fish, bush meat)

Raw materials (wood, fodder)Carrier

functions

Use of space to

(enhance) supply

resources or other

goods and services

Depending on the specific land use type,

different requirements are placed on

environmental conditions (e.g., soil

stability and fertility, air and water quality,hydrology, topography, climate, geology)

Cultivation (e.g., agriculture,

plantations, aquaculture)

Energy conversion (e.g., wind,

solar)Mining (ore, fossil fuels)

Transportation (esp. on

waterways)

2 Regulation

functions

Direct benefits from

ecosystem processes

Role of ecosystems in biogeochemical

cycles (e.g., CO2/O2 balance,

hydrological cycle)

Role of vegetation and biota in removal orbreakdown of nutrients and toxic

compounds

Physical properties of land cover

Climate regulation

Maintenance of soil fertility

Waste treatment (e.g., waterpurification)

Maintenance of air quality

Water regulation (e.g.,buffering runoff)

Erosion prevention

Storm protection and flood

preventionPopulation control through tropic-dynamic

relations

Biological control (of pests

and diseases)

Pollination

3 Habitat

functions

Maintenance of

biodiversity and

evolutionary

processes

Presence of rare/endemic species; species

diversity

Reproduction habitat for migratory species

Refugium for wildlife

Nursery function (for

commercial species)

4 Cultural and

amenity

functions

Nonmaterial benefits Landscape (or ecosystem) properties with

esthetic, recreational, historical, spiritual,

inspirational, scientific, or educationalvalue

Enjoyment of scenery (e.g.,

scenic roads)

Ecotourism and recreationHeritage value/cultural

landscapes

Spiritual or religious sites

Cultural expressions (use oflandscapes as motif in

books, film, painting,

folklore, advertising)

Research and education

Adapted from De Groot RS and Hein L (2007) Concept and valuation of landscape functions at different scales. In: Mander U, Wiggering H, andHelming K (eds.) Multifunctional Land Use. Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services, pp. 15–36. Berlin: Springer.

2118 Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning

Landscape Diversity and Coherence

One of the basic characteristics of landscapes is the diver-

sity or heterogeneity of the landscape pattern (mosaic).Hundreds of landscape metrics have been proposed by

various researchers to analyze the landscape pattern.

Most of these are covered by the computer

program FRAGSTATS. The most typical use of the

FRAGSTATS-based landscape metrics is for the predic-

tion of species diversity. Also, several researchers have

used FRAGSTATS-based landscape metrics as indicators

of various landscape changes (management activities and

natural disturbances) such as the change in the spatial

structure of landscapes, forest planning and management,

landscape destruction and rehabilitation, and landscape

disturbances by fire and road construction. This demon-

strates that temporal (time-series-based) indicators are

inseparably related to spatial indicators. In order to con-

trol how landscape metrics respond to changing grain

size, extent, the number of zones, the direction of analysis,

etc., landscape simulators are applied. Gardner et al. intro-

duced the concept of neutral models into landscape

ecology. The aim of a neutral model is to have an

expected pattern in the absence of specific landscape

Page 4: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4R

A

A

A

III

I (II)

II

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ΔI (

%)

I

Figure 1 Recommended change limits (�I) of actual

landscape diversity (R) according to the dynamic coherence

concept. A is area of diversity change at which undesirableanthropogenic processes (erosion, deflation, clogging of

drainage, etc.) occur. The curve indicates the generalized

coherence limit. II and III are the coherence levels for

landscapes of resistance groups II and III, respectively.Adapted from Mander U and Murka M (2003) Coherence of

cultural landscapes: A new criterion for evaluating impacts of

landscape changes. In: Mander U and Antrop M (eds.)Advances in Ecological Sciences 16: Multifunctional

Landscapes, Vol. III: Continuity and Change, pp. 15–32. Boston:

WIT Press.

Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning 2119

processes. In order to have a random pattern, the firstapplication of this concept stemmed from the percolationtheory, but different types of regular artificial landscapesare also used.

Landscape coherence has been considered one of thecriteria for the development of sustainable rural land-scapes. Proceeding from Bockemuhl’s concept oflandscape identity and perception, which was devel-oped in biodynamic farms, van Mansvelt classifies theecological coherences of rural landscape in threegroups: vertical (on site), horizontal (landscape-level),and cyclical (temporal) coherences. The first type canbe referred to as coherence between biodiversity andthe local abiotic environmental conditions. For instance,soil-bound agricultural production would be an exam-ple of vertically coherent biodiversity management.The horizontal type of ecocoherence is ‘‘that betweencoherence within a habitat (biotope or mini-ecosystem)and that of habitats in a landscape (macro-ecosystem)’’(van Mansvelt, 1997). This coherence refers to thefunctional (ecophysiological) interdependency of spe-cies within the ecosystems, but also to therelationships of habitats within the larger system.According to Kuiper, horizontal coherence is character-ized by the connectivity between similar ecosystems ina landscape. Cyclical (temporal) coherences are char-acterized not only by the full life cycles of species andsystems, but also by the self-production of species andbiotopes, and season-compliant management (e.g., sow-ing, mowing, coppicing, etc.).

From the methodological point of view, vanMansvelt’s concept of landscape coherence is rather hol-istic and is used in the context of landscape perceptionand visual characteristics, with no studies that quantifythis category in landscape validation. The most commonestimates of different ecological coherences are theirappearance or absence or relative scores. Another attemptto estimate coherence refers to the connectivity betweenlandscape components. However, as in the case of variousanalogous indices that have been developed to describelandscape connectivity, this approach does not considerthe quantification of coherence.

Wascher (2000) defines landscape coherence as the‘‘adequacy of land use according to biophysicalconditions.’’

Mander and Murka developed a dynamic landscapecoherent concept which links issues of landscape diversityand landscape change. This concept refers to thecorrespondence between changes in actual (cultural orman-made) landscape diversity caused by land ameliora-tion or transformation of landscape pattern (e.g., due tochanging socioeconomic conditions) and potential (bio-physically determined) landscape diversity. According tothis concept, the homogenization of landscape diversitycaused by amelioration or other anthropogenic

disturbances and determined on the basis of ecotonelength per area unit can be lowest in the most sensitive(less resistant) landscapes. These are landscapes with bothvery simple and very complicated potential (biophysical)diversity, determined by heterogeneity of soil cover(Figure 1).

Landscape Fragmentation and ItsEcological Consequences

One of the main impacts of human activities on land-scapes worldwide is the fragmentation of habitats andwhole landscapes. Habitat fragmentation is the main rea-son for biodiversity decrease. It provides a familiarexample of a critical threshold, that is, transition rangesacross which small changes in spatial pattern produceabrupt shifts in ecological responses. As the landscapebecomes dissected into smaller parcels of habitat, land-scape connectivity – the functional linkage among habitatpatches – may suddenly become disrupted, having impor-tant consequences for the distribution and persistence ofpopulations. Landscape connectivity depends not only onthe abundance and spatial patterning of habitat, but alsoon the habitat specificity and dispersal abilities of species.Habitat specialists with limited dispersal capabilitiespresumably have a much lower threshold to habitat frag-mentation than highly vagile species, which may perceive

Page 5: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

2120 Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning

the landscape as functionally connected across a greaterrange of fragmentation severity.

The composition of habitat types in a landscape andthe physiognomic or spatial arrangement of those habi-tats are the two essential features that are required todescribe any landscape. As such, these two featuresaffect four basic ecological processes that can influencepopulation dynamics or community structure. The firsttwo of these processes, landscape complementation andlandscape supplementation, occur when individualsmove between patches in the landscape to make useof nonsubstitutable and substitutable resources. Thethird process, source–sink dynamics, describes the con-sequences of having different individuals in the samepopulation occupy habitat patches of different qualities,and is part of the metapopulation concept. The fourthprocess, the neighborhood effect, describes how land-scape effects can be amplified when the criticalresources are in the landscape immediately surroundinga given patch.

In generalizing from several studies, one can concludethat there is an optimum of landscape fragmentation atwhich biodiversity is the highest. For instance, in openpatches, large natural (relatively) homogeneous forestscaused by natural disturbances or human activities thatcan support various species with different ecologicalrequirements can exist. On the other hand, excessivelysmall patches in fragmented landscapes are unable toprovide enough space and resources for variousmetapopulations.

Landscape planning measures, especially theimplementation of territorial ecological networks, canprovide greater connectivity and biodiversity inlandscapes.

Landscape Evaluation and LandscapeIndicators

The evaluation of nature is an inseparable part of theprocess of environmental/landscape planning, manage-ment, and decision making. In recent decades, itsimportance has reached the global level. At local andregional levels, landscape assessment for planning anddecision-making processes is a key issue in sustainablelandscape management.

One of the well-known conceptual frameworks forecological/environmental indicators is the driving forces(drivers) ! pressures ! state ! impact ! responses(DPSIR) approach, which treats the environmental man-agement process as a feedback loop controlling a cycleconsisting of these five stages.

Regarding the EU policy in biological and landscapediversity management (e.g., PEBLDS, the Pan-European

Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy), it is useful

to follow the DPSIR framework in reporting environmen-

tal issues. This approach treats the environmental

management process as a feedback loop that controls a

cycle consisting of these five stages. In addition, this

introduces the term ‘pressures’ and adds ‘impacts’ – a

concept that implies the cause–effect link.The nitrogen cycle can be used as an example of the

DPSIR approach in the intensification of agriculture:

• Driving force. Intensive agriculture;

• Pressure. Use of mineral fertilizers;

• State. Intensive loss of nitrogen from agriculturalfields, high nitrogen concentration in rivers and

groundwater, intensive gaseous N flux into the

atmosphere, high excess nitrogen loading in

ecosystems;

• Impact. Loss of biodiversity, eutrophication of waterbodies, methemoglobinaemia, cancer risk, decreasing

biodiversity, lower esthetical value of landscapes;

• Response. (1) Less mineral fertilizers and optimization ofcrop rotations with leguminous plants, especially in

sensitive and potential core areas, (2) establishment of

riparian buffer zones, (3) establishment of riverine and

riparian wetlands.

On the other hand, the influence of marginalization (land

abandonment) can also be characterized using the DPSIR

approach (Figure 2):

• Driving force. marginalization (abandonment ofagriculture);

• Pressure. change of existing management scheme;

• State. loss of open landscapes, loss of various (grassland)biotopes;

• Impact. loss of biodiversity, loss of scenic values oflandscape;

• Response. (1) subsidies for farmers to support traditionallow input or ecological agriculture, (2) restoration and

rehabilitation of valuable biotopes (wooded meadows,

alvars), (3) (re-)establishment of wetland biotopes in

agricultural landscapes.

Using the DPSIR approach as a conceptual background,

we consider landscape indicators as a system of struc-

tural and functional parameters that can be used to

evaluate landscape pressure, state, and responses. The

structural indicators are related to landscape structure

(both temporal and spatial), whereas functional indica-

tors can be divided according to landscape functions

(Table 1). Although there are several classifications of

landscape functions and services, they can generally be

classified according to the main themes of production

(economic), living space or sociocultural (psychological,

esthetic, ethical, and historical), and regulatory (ecologi-

cal) processes.

Page 6: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

0

2

4

6

8

10

1970 1980 1990 1999

%

Estonia Latvia Lithuania

Protected landscape areas

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1951-1955

1956-1960

1961-1965

1966-1970

1971-1975

1976-1980

1981-1985

1986-1990

1991-1995

1996-1999

103 ha

Estonia Latvia Lithuania

Area drained

Change inenvironmentaland agriculturalpolicy

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

%

Estonia Latvia Lithuania

Forest clear cutting0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

%

Estonia Latvia Lithuania

Abandoned land

Porijõgi whole catchment

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Run

off (

kg/h

a/yr

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cul

tivat

ed a

rea

(%)

TIN BOD5 Cultivated (%)

Less nutrient losses

Increase inclear-cuttingareas

Change inbiodiversity

??

Drivers

Pressures

State

Impact

Responses

Figure 2 The DPSIR framework for reporting on environmental issues: an example of the change in the political and socioeconomic

system in Central and Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s followed by changes in environmental and

agricultural policy, as a possible basis for indicator classification and landscape assessment. Adapted from Mander U and Kuuba R

(2004) Changing landscapes in Northeastern Europe based on examples from Baltic countries. In: Jongman RHG (ed.) The NewDimensions of the European Landscape, pp.123–134. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning 2121

Main Ecological Engineering Principles ofLandscape Planning

Jørgensen presents 19 ecological engineering principles

for application in landscape management:

• Ecosystem structure and functions are determined bythe forcing functions of the system.

• Energy inputs to the ecosystems and available storageof matter are limited.

• Ecosystems are open and dissipative systems.

• Attention to limiting factors is strategic and useful inpreventing pollution or restoring ecosystems.

• Ecosystems have a homeostatic capability that resultsin the smoothing out and depressing effects of strongly

variable inputs.

• Match recycling pathways to the rates to ecosystems toreduce the effect of pollution.

• Design for pulsing systems wherever possible.

• Ecosystems are self-designing systems.

• Ecosystem processes have characteristic temporal andspatial scales that must be accounted for in environ-

mental management.

• Biodiversity should be championed to maintain anecosystem’s self-design capacity.

• Ecotones and transition zones are as important to eco-systems as membranes are for cells.

• Coupling between ecosystems should be utilized wher-ever possible.

• The components of an ecosystem are interconnectedand interrelated and form a network, implying that the

direct as well as indirect effects of ecosystem develop-

ment need to be considered.

• An ecosystem has a history of development.

• Ecosystems and species are most vulnerable at theirgeographical edges.

• Ecosystems are hierarchical systems and are parts of alarger landscape.

• Physical and biological processes are interactive. It isimportant to know both physical and biological inter-

actions and to interpret them.

• Ecotechnology requires a holistic approach that inte-grates all interacting parts and processes as much as

possible.

• Information in ecosystems is stored in structures.

The following five recommendations are implicitly

embedded in the 19 principles: (1) know the natural and

man-made ecosystems that make up a landscape and the

corresponding ecological properties and processes; (2) use

Page 7: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

2122 Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning

this ecological knowledge in landscape management;(3) develop models and use ecological indicators to enablea thorough overview of the many interacting components,the ecological networks, and the most crucial ecologicalprocesses; (4) maintain high biodiversity and a high-diversity pattern of ecosystems, zones, ecotones, corri-dors, ditches, ecological niches, etc.; the overloadingfrom man-made ecosystems can be reduced and bufferedconsiderably by planning a landscape with a mosaic ofdifferent man-made and natural ecosystems; (5) every-thing is linked to everything else in an ecosystem, and theentire system is more than the sum of its parts. Theseprinciples should underlie all ecological managementdecisions.

Levels and Steps in Landscape Planning

Typically, landscape planning provides informationabout the existing qualities of the landscape and nature,which are considered to be nature or landscape potentials,and their value as well as their sensitivity toimpacts, the existing and potential impacts on these poten-tials, and the objectives and guidelines for the developmentof the landscape and nature, upon which proposed measuresand development plans can be measured.

With this information, landscape planning providesevaluation guidelines for the impact regulations and forthe part of the environmental impact assessment whichis concerned with the landscape and nature. In thebeginning phases of planning projects, landscapeplanning offers a background for the evaluation of alter-natives, for example, in the placement of transportationcorridors. Landscape planning provides a basis forpreliminary opinions about proposed projects, even forprojects which were proposed after the completion of thelandscape plan.

Bastian and Schreiber describe four main steps incomprehensive landscape planning:

• definition of problem (determination of: planning con-text, planning priorities, planning prerequisites);

• inventory, analysis, and diagnosis (determination of thenatural potentials: inventory, impact, protection;

Table 2 Scales of landscape planning in Germany

Planning area Spatial comprehensive pla

State State spatial planRegion (regional district or county) Regional plan

Community Land-use plan

Part of the community Master plan

Adapted from Kiemstedt H (1994) Landscape Planning – Contents and ProcMinister of Environment.

evaluation of the ecological and esthetic suitability ofthe existing and proposed lands);

• planning concept (elaboration of: objectives for natureprotection and landscape management, alternatives);

• plan of action (definition of requirements and measuresnecessary to achieve the objectives);

• product: landscape planning program, regional land-scape plan, landscape plan;

• implementation (the realization of planning measuresthrough nature protection authorities, nature protec-tion organizations, other planning agencies, localgovernments, public institutions, and individuals);

• review (evaluation of: implementation, planning objec-tives, necessary alterations).

Landscape analysis involves the evaluation of elemental,spatial, and temporal pattern of landscape, as well as ofdynamics of landscape and land-use pattern. The landscapediagnosis provides a comparison of landscape potential withsocial requirements (stability and load analyses).

As the products of this comprehensive multilevel hier-archical system, a landscape program, regional landscapeplan, landscape plan, and open space master plan will beelaborated (Table 2).

Territorial Ecological Networks

The concept and implementation of territorial ecologicalnetworks (greenway networks) at the landscape level isconsidered to be the leading principle in ecological land-scape planning. The widely used European-levelapproach defines territorial ecological networks as coher-ent assemblages of areas representing natural andseminatural landscape elements that need to be con-served, managed, or, where appropriate, enriched orrestored in order to ensure the favorable conservationstatus of ecosystems, habitats, species, and landscapes ofregional importance across their traditional range.

In addition to this approach, there are a wide range ofnames worldwide given to such ‘patch and corridor’ spatialconcepts: greenways in the USA, Australia, and NewZealand, ecological infrastructure, ecological framework,extensive open space systems, multiple use nodules,

nning Landscape planning Scale

Landscape program 1:500 000–1:200 000Regional landscape plan 1:50 000–1:25 000

Landscape plan 1:5000–1:2500

Open space master plan 1:2500–1:1000

edures, 124pp. Bonn: Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety, the Federal

Page 8: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

Core area

Restoration area

Stepping-stonecorridor

Linearcorridor

Buffer zone

Landscape corridor

Core area

Core area

Figure 3 Schematic example of an ecological network.Adapted from Bouwma IM, Jongman RHG, and Butovsky RO

(eds.) (2002) Indicative map of the pan-European ecological

network for Central and Eastern Europe. Technical background

document. ECNC Technical Report Series, 101ppþ annexes.Tilburg, The Netherlands/Budapest: ECNC and Mander U,

Kulvik M, and Jongman R (2003) Scaling in territorial ecological

networks. Landschap 20(2): 113–127.

Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning 2123

wildlife corridors, landscape restoration network, habitatnetworks, territorial systems of ecological stability, frame-work of landscape stability. In Estonia, a concept of ‘‘thenetwork of ecologically compensating areas’’ (Mander et al.,1988) has been developed since the early 1980s. This net-work can be seen as a landscape’s subsystem – an ecologicalinfrastructure – that counterbalances the impact of theanthropogenic infrastructure in the landscape. In compar-ison with the traditional biodiversity-targeted approach,this concept also considers the material and energy cycling,socioeconomic and socio-cultural aspects.

According to the broader concept, ecological networkspreserve the main ecological functions in landscapes, suchas (1) accumulating material and dispersing human-induced energy, (2) receiving and rendering unsuitablewastes from populated areas, (3) recycling and regenerat-ing resources, (4) providing wildlife refuges andconserving genetic resources, (5) serving as migrationtracts for biota, (6) serving as barriers, filters, and/orbuffers for fluxes of material, energy, and organisms inlandscapes, (7) serving as support frameworks for regionalsettlements, (8) providing recreation areas for people,and, consequently, and (9) compensating and balancingall inevitable outputs of human society.

A network of ecologically compensating areas is a func-tionally hierarchical system with the following components:(A) core areas, (B) corridors; functional linkages betweenthe ecosystems or resource habitat of a species, enabling thedispersal and migration of species and resulting in a favor-able effect on genetic exchange (individuals, seeds, genes)as well as on other interactions between ecosystems; corri-dors may be continuous (linear), interrupted (stepping-stones), and/or landscape (scenic and valuable culturallandscapes between core areas), (C) buffer zones of coreareas and corridors, which support and protect the networkfrom adverse external influences, and (D) nature develop-ment and/or restoration areas that support resources,habitats, and species (Figure 3).

The size of network components serve as another criter-ion of the network’s hierarchy on three levels: (1) themacroscale: large natural core areas (>1000 km2) separatedby buffer zones and wide corridors or stepping-stoneelements (width >10 km); (2) mesoscale: small core areas(10–1000 km2) and connecting corridors between theseareas (e.g., natural river valleys, seminatural recreation areasfor local settlements; width 0.1–10 km); (3) microscale: smallprotected habitats, woodlots, wetlands, grassland patches,ponds (<10 km2) and connecting corridors (stream banks,road verges, hedgerows, field verges, ditches; width <0.1 km).

Megascale ecological networks can be considered atthe global level. The human footprint map can serve as abasis for determining global ecological networks(Figure 4). The macroscale of ecological networks isrepresented by regional-level activities such as the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN) or national-level

projects. In the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, andthe Netherlands, territorial ecological networks are imple-mented and legislatively supported. In Estonia, Lithuania,and Poland, networks are designed and some aspectsaccepted by law. In Hungary, Latvia, Switzerland, andIreland, network design is under development, and localor landscape-level ecological networks have been estab-lished in some parts of the territory of several Europeancountries such as Germany, Belgium, the UK, Italy, Spain,Portugal, Russia, and Ukraine. Landscape-level ecologicalnetworks are designed or implemented on a wide range ofspatial scales, from macro- and meso- to microscale pro-jects. The most significant research on both species’migration and dispersal, as well as on energy and materialfluxes, has been carried out at this level.

As an example of the designing of the national-levelecological network, we have presented a part of thePEEN that is based on Estonian data from a one squarekilometer grid. The proposed ecological network designconsists of three principal layers: (1) general topographi-cal features like coastlines, the water network, major roadsand place names for locating the depicted network; (2) ahabitat-based field of suitability for the ecological net-work, calculated on the basis of network values of

Page 9: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

0–1 1–10 10–20 20–30 30–40 40–60 60–80 80–100 No Data

Figure 4 A map of the human footprint as a basis for the ecological network system at the global scale. Summarized factors

of anthropogenic pressure have been used, such as the Human Influence Index, which is the quantitative basis for the map.

Adapted from Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, et al. (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience

52(10): 891–904 and Mander U, Kulvik M, and Jongman R (2003) Scaling in territorial ecological networks. Landschap20(2): 113–127.

State border

Suitability >1Protected areasTownsMajor roads and railwaysCoastline

Figure 5 Example of the ecological network of Estonia at the national level. Protected areas and areas not protected but suitable for

an ecological network according to their present natural state. Adapted from Remm K, Kulvik M, Mander U, and Sepp K (2004) Design of

the Pan-European Ecological Network: A national level attempt. In: Jongman RHG and Pungetti G (eds.) New Paradigms in LandscapePlanning: Ecological Networks and Greenways, pp. 151–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2124 Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning

Page 10: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

Ecological Engineering | Landscape Planning 2125

landscape features using a predefined algorithm; and(3) the ecological network as an administrative decision.The second layer serves as a tool supporting decisionmaking, while the third layer consists of the traditionalcomponents of an ecological network, such as core areas,corridors, buffer zones, and nature development/restora-tion areas. Figure 5 represents a combination of the lasttwo layers as a map of protected areas (layer 3) and areasnot protected but suitable for inclusion in ecological net-works according to their present natural state (layer 2).Protected areas can be considered to be obligatory coreareas of ecological networks, whereas areas suitable forecological networks areas can be considered to be bufferzones and/or corridors.

See also: Riparian Zone Management and Restoration;

Watershed Management.

Further Reading

Ahern J (1995) Greenways as planning strategy. Landscape and UrbanPlanning 33: 131–155.

Bastian O and Schreiber K-F (eds.) (1999) Analyse und okologischeBewertung der Landschaft, vol. 2, 564pp. Heidelberg: Auflage,Gustav Fischer-Verlag.

Baudry J and Merriam G (1988) Connectivity and connectedness:Functional versus structural patterns in the landscapes. In: SchreiberK-F (ed.) Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Seminar of IALE, pp. 23–28 (Munster: MunsterscheGeographische Arbeiten 29).

Bennett G (1998) Guidelines for the development of the pan-Europeanecological network. Draft. Council of Europe, Committee of Expertsfor the European Ecological Network. STRA-REP (98) 6, 35pp.

Bockemuhl J (1982) Erwachen an der Landschaft, 320pp. Dornach,Switzerland: Naturwissenschaftliche Sektion.

Bouwma IM, Jongman RHG, and Butovsky RO (eds.) (2002) Indicativemap of the pan-European ecological network for Central and EasternEurope. Technical background document. ECNC Technical ReportSeries, 101ppþ annexes. Tilburg, The Netherlands/Budapest: ECNC.

Brooker L, Brooker M, and Cale P (1999) Animal dispersal in fragmentedhabitat: Measuring habitat connectivity, corridor use and dispersalmortality. Conservation Ecology 3(1): 4.

Clay GR and Daniel TC (2000) Scenic landscape assessment: Theeffects of land management jurisdiction on public perception ofscenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning 49(1–2): 1–13.

Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot RS, et al. (1997) The value of theworld’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature387(6630): 253–260.

Cushman SA and Wallin DO (2000) Rates and patterns of landscapechange in the Central Sikhote-Alin Mountains, Russian Far East.Landscape Ecology 15(7): 643–659.

De Cola L (1994) Simulating and mapping spatial complexity usingmulti-scale techniques. International Journal of GeographicalInformation Systems 8(4): 411–427.

De Groot RS (1987) Environmental functions as a unifying concept forecology and economics. The Environmentalist 7(2): 105–109.

De Groot RS and Hein L (2007) Concept and valuation of landscapefunctions at different scales. In: Mander U, Wiggering H, andHelming K (eds.) Multifunctional Land Use. Meeting Future Demandsfor Landscape Goods and Services, pp. 15–36. Berlin: Springer.

Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, and Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processesthat affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65(1): 169–175.

Farina A (1998) Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology, 235pp.London: Chapman and Hall.

Forman RTT (1995) Land Mosaics, the Ecology of Landscapes andRegions, 632pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Forman RTT and Godron M (1986) Landscape Ecology, 619pp.New York: Wiley.

Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG, and O’Neill RV (1987) Neutralmodels for the analysis of broad scale landscape pattern. LandscapeEcology 1(1): 19–28.

Gardner RH and O’Neill RV (1991) Pattern, process, and predictability:The use of neutral models for landscape analysis. In: Turner MG andGardner RH (eds.) Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology,pp. 289–307. New York: Springer.

Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396(6706): 41–49.Hendriks K, Stobbelaar DJ, and van Mansvelt JD (2000) The

appearance of agriculture. An assessment of the quality of landscapeof both organic and conventional horticultural farms in westFriesland. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 77: 157–175.

Herzog F, Lausch A, Muller E, et al. (2001) Landscape metrics forassessment of landscape destruction and rehabilitation.Environmental Management 27(1): 91–107.

Hessburg PF, Smith BG, Salter RB, Ottmar RD, and Alvarado E (2000)Recent changes (1930s–1990s) in spatial patterns of interior northwestforests, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 136(1–3): 53–83.

Hobbs R (1997) Future landscape and the future of landscape ecology.Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 1–7.

Hudak AT, Fairbanks DHK, and Brockett BH (2004) Trends in fire patternsin a southern African savanna under alternative land use practices.Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 101(2–3): 307–325.

Isachenko AG (1973) Principles of Landscape Science and Physico-Geographic Regionalization. Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press.

Jongman RHG (1995) Nature conservation planning in Europe:Developing ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning32(3): 169–183.

Jørgensen SE (2007) Application of ecological engineering principles inlandscape management. In: Mander U, Wiggering H, and Helming K(eds.) Multifunctional Land Use. Meeting Future Demands forLandscape Goods and Services, pp. 83–92. Berlin: Springer.

Keane RE, Parsons RA, and Hessburg PF (2002) Estimating historicalrange and variation of landscape patch dynamics, limitations of thesimulation approach. Ecological Modelling 151(1): 29–49.

Kiemstedt H (1994) Landscape Planning – Contents and Procedures,124pp. Bonn: Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety, The FederalMinister of Environment.

Krause CL (2001) Our visual landscape. Managing the landscape underspecial consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and UrbanPlanning 54: 239–254.

Kuiper J (2000) A checklist approach to evaluate the contribution oforganic farms to landscape quality. Agriculture Ecosystems andEnvironment 77: 143–156.

Lausch A and Herzog F (2002) Applicability of landscape metrics for themonitoring of landscape change, issues of scale, resolution andinterpretability. Ecological Indicators 2(1): 3–15.

Lee JT, Elton MJ, and Thompson S (1999) The role of GIS in landscapeassessment: Using land-use-based criteria for an area of the ChilternHills area of outstanding natural beauty. Land Use Policy 16(1): 23–32.

Leser H (1978) Landschaftsokologie. Stuttgart: Ulmer Verlag.Li H and Reynolds JF (1994) A simulation experiment to quantify spatial

heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75: 2446–2455.Luoto M, Kuussaari M, Rita H, Salminen J, and von Bonsdorff T (2001)

Determinants of distribution and abundance in the clouded Apollobutterfly, a landscape ecological approach. Ecography 24(5): 601–617.

Mander U, Jagomagi J, and Kulvik M (1988) Network of compensativeareas as an ecological infrastructure of territories. In: Schreiber K-F(ed.) Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Seminar of IALE, pp. 35–38 (Munster: MunsterscheGeographische Arbeiten 29).

Mander U and Koduvere E (2003) Pressure, state and responseindicators in landscape assessment: An attempt on nitrogen fluxes.In: Helming K and Wiggerimng H (eds.) Sustainable Development ofMultifunctional Landscapes, pp. 157–175. Heidelberg: Springer.

Mander U, Kulvik M, and Jongman R (2003) Scaling in territorialecological networks. Landschap 20(2): 113–127.

Mander U and Kuuba R (2004) Changing landscapes in northeasternEurope based on examples from Baltic countries. In: Jongman RHG(ed.) The New Dimensions of the European Landscape,pp. 123–134. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Page 11: Encyclopedia of Ecology || Landscape Planning

2126 Ecological Models | Land-Use Modeling

Mander U and Murka M (2003) Coherence of cultural landscapes: A newcriterion for evaluating impacts of landscape changes. In: Mander Uand Antrop M (eds.) Advances in Ecological Sciences 16:Multifunctional Landscapes, Vol. III: Continuity and Change,pp. 15–32. Boston: WIT Press.

Mander U, Palang H, and Jagomagi J (1995) Ecological networks inEstonia. Impact of landscape change. Landschap 3: 27–38.

McGarigal K and Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysisprogram for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest ServiceGeneral Technical Report PNW-351.

Meyer BC (1997) Landschaftsstrukturen und Regulationsfunktionen inIntensivagrarlandschaften im Raum Leipzig-Halle. RegionalisierteUmwelt-qualitatsziele – Funktionsbewertungen-multikriterielleLandschafts-optimierung unter Verwendung von GIS, UFZ-Berichte24/1997, pp. 1–224, Leipzig.

Meyer BC (2001) Landscape assessment. In: Kronert R, Steinhardt U,and Volk M (eds.) Landscape Balance and Landscape Assessment,pp. 203–250. Berlin: Springer.

Nakamae E, Qin X, and Tadamura K (2001) Rendering of landscapesfor environmental assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning54(1–4): 19–32.

Neef E, Schmidt G, and Luckner M (1961) LandschaftsokologischeUntersuchungen an verschiedenen Physiotopen inNordwestsachsen. Abh. Der Sachs. Akad. Der Wiss. Zu Leipzig,math.-nat. Kl., Bd. 47, H. 1 Berlin.

Palang H, Mander U, and Luud A (1998) Landscape diversity changes inEstonia. Landscape and Urban Planning 41(3–4): 163–169.

Palmer JF and Lankhorst JR-K (1998) Evaluating visible spatial diversityin the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 43(1–3): 65–78.

Petit CC and Lambin EF (2002) Impact of data integration technique onhistorical land-use/land-cover change, comparing historical mapswith remote sensing data in the Belgian Ardennes. LandscapeEcology 17(2): 117–132.

Remm K, Kulvik M, Mander U, and Sepp K (2004) Design of the Pan-European Ecological Network: A national level attempt.In: Jongman RHG and Pungetti G (eds.) New Paradigms inLandscape Planning: Ecological Networks and Greenways,pp. 151–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, et al. (2002) The human footprintand the last of the wild. BioScience 52(10): 891–904.

Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, and Margules CR (1991) Biologicalconsequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review. ConservationBiology 51: 18–32.

Saunders SC, Mislivets MR, Chen J, and Cleland DT (2002) Effects ofroads on landscape structure within nested ecological units of the

Northern Great Lakes Region, USA. Biological Conservation103(2): 209–225.

Saveraid EH, Debinski DM, Kindscher K, and Jakubauskas ME (2001) Acomparison of satellite data and landscape variables in predictingbird species occurrences in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,USA. Landscape Ecology 16(1): 71–83.

Sochava VB (1978) Introduction to Study on Geo-Systems, 319pp.Novosibirsk: Nauka, (in Russian).

Solntsev NA (1949) On mophology of natural geographical landscape.Voprosy Geografii 16: 61–86 (in Russian).

Tang SM and Gustafson EJ (1997) Perception of scale in forestmanagement planning, challenges and implications. Landscape andUrban Planning 39(1): 1–9.

Tress B and Tress G (2001) Capitalising on multiplicity: Atransdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research.Landscape and Urban Planning 57(3–4): 143–157.

Troll K (1971) Landscape ecology (geoecology) and biogeocoenology –A terminological study. Geoforum 8: 43–46.

van Buuren M and Kerkstra K (1993) The framework concept and thehydrological landscape structure: A new perspective in the design ofmultifunctional landscapes. In: Vos CC and Opdam PO (eds.)Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environment, pp. 219–243.London: Chapman and Hall.

van Mansvelt JD (1997) An interdisciplinary approach to integrate a rangeof agro-landscape values as proposed by representatives of variousdisciplines. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 63: 233–250.

van Mansvelt JD, Stobbelaar DJ, and Hendriks K (1998) Comparison oflandscape features in organic and conventional farming system.Landscape and Urban Planning 41(3–4): 209–227.

Viles RL and Rosier DJ (2001) How to use roads in the creation ofgreenways: Case studies in three New Zealand landscapes.Landscape and Urban Planning 55: 15–27.

Virkkala R, Luoto M, and Rainio K (2004) Effects of landscapecomposition on farmland and red-listed birds in boreal agricultural–forest mosaics. Ecography 27(3): 273–284.

Wascher DM (ed.) (2000) Agri-environmental indicators for sustainableagriculture in Europe. ECNC Technical Report Series, 240pp.Tilburg: European Centre for Nature Conservation.

With KA and Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species responses tolandscape structure. Ecology 76(8): 2446–2459.

With KA, Gardner RH, and Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivityand population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos78: 151–169.

Zonneveld I (1995) Land Ecology, 199pp. Amsterdam: SPB AcademicPublishing.

Land-Use ModelingB Voigt and A Troy, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

ª 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Patterns of Human Land Use

Modeling Land-Use Change

Integrated Land-Use Modeling

Conclusions

Further Reading

Introduction

The conversion of land from nonurban to urban uses has

significant social, economic, and environmental conse-

quences. From the effects of increased automobile

dependency to habitat fragmentation and altered hydro-

logical regimes on social and ecological systems, a

plethora of impacts are being observed at multiple spatial

and temporal scales. Land-use models have been

employed for more than three decades to understand