encyclopedia of ecology || landscape planning
TRANSCRIPT
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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