Bastian Landscape Ecology Towards a Unified Discipline

8/14/2019 Bastian Landscape Ecology Towards a Unified Discipline

1/10

Landscape Ecology 16: 757766, 2001. 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

757

Perspective paper

Landscape Ecology towards a unified discipline?

Olaf BastianSaxon Academy of Sciences, Neustdter Markt 19 (Blockhaus), D-01097 Dresden, Germany (e-Mail:

[email protected])

Received 6 December 1999; Revised 22 September 2000; Accepted 2 April 2001

Key words: complementarity, geographical and biological roots, holistic perspective, landscape evaluation,landscape visions, transdisciplinarity

Abstract

Contemporary landscape ecology is not unified at all. There are historical, geographical and biological reasons

for the lack of unification, as well as differences between science and application. The search for a unified theoryof landscape ecology should consider previous concepts such as landscape diagnosis and landscape functionswhich were elaborated in Central Europe. Because of the various aspects in a landscape (components, processes,relations), landscape ecology should be regarded as a multidisciplinary, better a transdisciplinary, science wheredifferent views and approaches are involved in a holistic manner. The principle of complementarity is helpfulto understand and describe the landscape. As a crucial step, the transformation of natural science categories tocategories of the human society is brought out. This is realized by land(scape) evaluation and by the elaboration ofgoals (visions) of landscape development.

Introduction

Landscape ecology today appears to be a wide spec-trum of views, theories and methodologies. Thisheterogeneity results from different landscape con-ceptions (look at the still living question What isa landscape?), scientific backgrounds, and special-izations. One example is the existence of a more(bio)ecologically focused approach which deals espe-cially with habitat patterns, fragmentation and patchheterogeneity, connectivity and other aspects of popu-lation biology in contrast to another fundamental ap-proach which has its roots in geography, and thereforeincludes abiotic parameters and whole geocomplexesin a comprehensive manner.

Landscape ecology is still passing through aprocess of self-discovery. Hobbs (1994 in Wiens1999) characterized landscape ecology as a sciencein search of itself, which was demonstrated at the5th IALE-World Congress (International Associationfor Landscape Ecology) in Snowmass, Colorado, USA(29 July3 August 1999). This self-discovery con-

tains, for example, the search for the unification oflandscape ecology as a discipline (Wiens 1999b), the

question What is the most favourable or even theright view of landscape ecology?, the relationbetween basic research and application (the scienceand the action) and between holistic and sectoral ap-proaches and methodologies; and the improvementof scientific exchange to avoid ignoring results fromnon-anglophone countries.

The situation was summed up by Moss (1999):... landscape ecologists will have a clearer idea ofthe goals and the context for their work. Of equalimportance, the non-landscape ecologist will have amuch clearer idea of what landscape ecologists do andcan do. In other words, the field needs a focus and a

profile. It is worth investigating if the demand for aunified discipline is realistic, and, if yes, how we canimplement it, and which premises should be taken intoconsideration.


2/10

758

Different definitions

Landscape

Regarding the position, development and future oflandscape ecology, we should remember the numerousexisting definitions of the term landscape ecologyand its two roots: landscape and ecology. First, the sci-entific term landscape was shaped by geographers,essentially by the German geographer and scholarAlexander von Humboldt 200 years ago (the landscapeas the total character of a region). In 1850, Rosenkranzdefined landscapes as hierarchically organized localsystems of all the kingdoms of nature. Neef (1967)characterized landscape as a part of the earths sur-face with a uniform structure and functional pattern.Both appearance and components (geofactors: relief,soil, climate, water balance, flora, fauna, humans andtheir creations in the landscape), including their spatial

position, are concerned. Landscape is not however,only the sum of single geofactors, but an integrationforming the geographical complex (or geosystem).Thus, landscape is from different spheres: inorganicspheres, biosphere and sociosphere. According toNaveh (1987): landscapes dealt with in their totalityas physical, ecological and geographical entities, in-tegrating all natural and human (caused) patterns andprocesses ... or Forman and Godron (1986) definedlandscape as a heterogeneous land area composed ofa cluster of interacting ecosystems that is repeated insimilar form throughout. Leser (1997) regards the

landscape ecosystem as a spatial pattern of abiotic,biotic and anthropogenic components which form afunctional entity and serve as humans environment.

Early definitions (19th and beginning 20th century)from Central and Eastern Europe, where the geograph-ical and the biological roots of landscape ecologyoccur, reflect a holistic landscape conception. Later,influenced by the rising analytical natural sciences,the core of an all-embracing thought pattern was notappreciated (Lehmann 1986).

Still today, we also can observe repeated tenden-cies of reduction and specification: landscapes consistof structural components, or landscape elements,

(which) are patches of several origins, corridors offour types, and a matrix (Forman 1981) or The(ideal) landscape is a primarily aesthetic phenomenon,closer to the eyes than to the mind, more related tothe heart, the soul, the moods than to the intellect(Hard 1970). We also find the rejection of the land-scape paradigm, as King (1999) asks: Is there in fact

a landscape level, or if Widacki (1994) wants to turnaway from geocomplexes because we could fall backnow on satellite images as well as the resulting possi-bilities of integration and transformation of data readinto computer with the aid of GIS.

Generally we can realize, in view of the environ-

mental problems coming to the fore that landscapeis regarded more and more as a complex, highly-integrated system.

Landscape ecology

The second part of the term landscape ecology the science ecology deals with the investigationof relations between life and its abiotic environment(E. Haeckel). The term landscape ecology was coinedby the German biogeographer Carl Troll at the end ofthe 1930s. Interpreting an East-African savannah land-scape with the help of aerial photographs, Troll was

fascinated by the important scientific findings due tothe functional, vertical approach of ecologists with thespatial, horizontal approach of geographers. But al-ready earlier, A. Penck (1924) asked about the earthscarrying capacity, and S. Passarge (1912) used theterm landscape physiology (Finke 1994). Later, e.g.,Schmithsen, Neef, Haase, Richter, Barsch, Schreiber,Leser and others did important work in landscape ecol-ogy in Germany, and abroad. A similar developmenttook place in Russia (e.g., Sukachev and Dylis 1964;Socawa 1974) and other Eastern European countries.

Since then there are at least two fundamental, dif-

ferent views on landscape ecology (corresponding toits mother sciences): A more biological one, esp. in Northern Americaand some schools in Europe (e.g., Forman and Godron(1986). A more geographical approach, esp. in Centraland Eastern Europe (e.g., Neef 1967, Haase 1990,Richling 1994), but also in Latin America (Baumeet al. 1994; Cervantes et al. 1999). This conceptionis often equated with geoecology, which is not com-pletely correct. The term geoecology was introducedby Troll (1968) as a synonym to improve translatabil-ity, but it did not gain much acceptance. Especially

in Germany (e.g., Neef and his pupils), geoecologyembodies a division of landscape ecology dealing onlywith the abiotic issues (such as soils, water balance).Leser (1997) distinguishes geoecology, bioecologyand the all-embracing landscape ecology (which alsoconsiders anthropogenic factors).


3/10

759

The differences concerning these terms representonly one part of the existing lack of clarity. Somedefinitions are both concise and comprehensive, e.g.,Forman (1981): ... landscape ecology, thus, stud-ies the structure, function and development of land-scapes; or Leser (1997): Landscape ecology deals

with the interrelations of all functional and visiblefactors representing the landscape ecosystem. Ac-cording to Forman and Godron (1986) there are threefundamental characteristics of landscape ecology, ...the space relations landscape structure, their func-tional relationships - interaction, flow of material andenergy and the time relations the change of the struc-ture, characteristics and functions. Other definitionsreflect a narrow view, e.g.: Landscape ecology isthe study of spatial variation in landscapes at a vari-ety of scales. It includes the biophysical and societalcauses and consequences of landscape heterogene-ity (IALE Executive Committee, in Moss 1999).

Ill deepen this concern within the following section.Other authors emphasize both the chorological andthe ecosystem aspects of landscape ecology, deriv-ing from geographical and biological roots (Otahel1999). Naveh and Lieberman (1984) base landscapeecology on a general systems theory, biocybernet-ics, and ecosystemology and emphasize the activehuman role in landscape. This last-mentioned defin-ition corresponds to the absolutely welcome tendencyto include human to landscape issues in an increasingmanner.

The relation between basic and applied research

is a further contentious point. Some authors, e.g.,Leser (1997), emphasize the importance of basic re-search (without ignoring practical application). Jong-man (1999) wrote: Landscape ecology is a field ofscience with perspectives for application. From the1970s there has been a mutual relationship betweenlandscape ecology and land-use planning and land-scape management. For other authors, a strong focuson application is characteristic: Landscape ecologyis applied may landscape planning oriented ecologicalresearch direction (Haber 1979). It is determined byits goal environmental protection. It means that it isan environmental research field, i.e., the applied fieldof theoretically recognized disciplines (Drdo 1996).

At the same time, there are somewhat dangeroustendencies to define landscape ecology too widely,i.e., to subsume under the term landscape ecologyall appearances being related to landscape in a certainmanner: Landscape ecology includes perspectives asvaried as theoretical ecology, human geography, land-

use planning, animal behaviour, sociology, resourcemanagement, photogrammetry and remote sensing,agricultural policy, restoration ecology, or environ-mental ethics (Wiens and Moss 1999). For Mikls(1996) landscape ecology is the science of the envi-ronment in the wide sense of the word. But not all

issues which are related to landscape are landscapeecology! Landscape ecology is a science. Landscapeplanning is a procedure. Landscape aesthetics, per-ception, decision making are not ecology! Landscapeecology itself cannot act! Remote sensing, GIS, spa-tial statistics, and models, are tools. Landscapes haveproperties that go beyond science. Landscape ecol-ogy cannot explain all the processes, but can undoubt-edly help us to understand the complexity ... (Farina1998).

There is a real danger that the term landscape ecol-ogy may become wishy-washy like terms as ecologicalequilibrium, ecological stability, ecological disaster,

or sustainability. I agree with Moss (1999) that land-scape ecology is not the only field which deals withthe landscape and it certainly is not the all-embracingenvironmental science. It is, however, a field withthe potential to make a unique contribution to solvinga particular subset of natural-resource based issues.Pointing to this fact, however, I do not reject the neces-sity of a holistic approach in landscape ecology (seeThe holistic perspective section).

Partial aspects of landscape ecology

As mentioned above, there are no identical concep-tions of landscape ecology. Under the broad field oflandscape ecology, various activities of basic researchand application are realized. So it is no wonder thatsome authors or scientific schools emphasize partic-ular issues, and that single aspects are brought outor examined out of context. On the one hand, theinvestigation of such single aspects can contribute tothe knowledge of the whole landscape system; on theother hand, such specialized views can become inde-pendent, and the sight of the total system can be lost.Examples shall be discussed on the view of: spatial relationships, and single landscape components.

Spatial relationships

It is true that the spatial character of research in land-scape ecology is very important. If landscape ecology


4/10

760

is defined as the study of the structure and dynam-ics of spatial mosaics and their ecological causes andconsequences (Wiens 1999b), or Landscape ecologydeals with the spatially-explicit relationships amongpatch types in complex mosaics, and that nature isheterogeneous and scale matters, are in fact the raisons

dtre of landscape ecology (Wiens 1999a), or Thespatial dimension has been recognized as extremelyimportant from a topological approach to one in whichthe real world is studied (Farina 1998), it is obviousthat spatial relations are very important indeed, butthey are only one of the relevant foci.

The question should be allowed, is only investi-gation of spatial patterns (e.g., of populations) land-scape ecology? If yes, we could add to landscapeecology also other phenomena, if the existence ofspatial aspects is sufficient for such a classification.Much contemporary work on pattern has focusedon the analysis or description of spatial geometry

and has failed to provide any understanding of thesignificance or meaning of those patterns remarkedHaines-Young (1999). Li (1999) criticized that studiesin landscape ecology have been dominated by tak-ing things apart and characterizing various attributesof spatial patterns. These studies generally do not ad-dress the intrinsic causality and underlying dynamicsof the pattern. To the contrary, the object of land-scape ecology is not only to describe landscapes, but toexplain and understand the processes that occur withinthem. Thus the description of landscape pattern as anend in itself is limited. It is certainly misguided, given

the need to find more sustainable forms of landscapemanagement (Haines-Young 1999).The limited meaning of simple patterns (such as

woodlots and other habitat fragments) cannot be ex-tended to the holistically defined geocomplexes (ofthe geographical approach) which are, in the end,patterns, too. To justify the existence of landscapeecology merely as a spatial science is severely restric-tive. Do not most environmental and other disciplineshave a spatial dimension also? (Moss 1999). Accord-ing to Solon (1999), space may be understood in twoways: as an arena characterized solely by geometricalfeatures, upon which abiotic and biotic processes (in-cluding the life histories of organisms) are played out,or in its entirety, together with its attributes, featuresand dynamics. The goal (and the challenge) of land-scape ecology, however, is to go beyond these simplestatements to explore the richness of basic and appliedproblems (Wiens 1999a).

The dominating biological view

Absolutely, interesting and important landscape eco-logical approaches are based on population dynamics,e.g., patch-corridor-matrix models, greenways, con-nectivity, ecological infrastructure, habitat networks,ecological barriers, biocentres and biocorridors form-ing a skeleton of ecological quality and stability. Inspite of all scientific and practical significance, we aredealing with partial aspects of a landscape, especiallywith (bio)ecology in the landscape (Moss 1999),though we should think about landscape systems asa whole. While distinguishing a human, a geobotani-cal and an animal perspective, Farina (1998) accentsa dominating biological view. The occupation withhabitat patches in a landscape or with patch qual-ity to the organisms occupying a landscape (Wiens1999a) indicates a strong biological conception, too.The numerous works about landscape fragmentation

speak about the landscape admittedly, but they meanhabitats (e.g., fragmentation of woods). Accordingto Pietrzak (1998), a hypertrophy of the biologi-cal approach is evident, i.e., the biological view isoverstressed.

The patch-corridor-matrix model (Forman 1981,Forman and Godron 1986) also belongs here, evenif it was elaborated for matter and energy fluxes.This fact is not altered by the acceptance that thismodel has found, even in Europe: The model ...isat present a widely accepted, efficient method of de-scribing landscape structure and as it seems an

optimum proposal of landscape research for planningand designing activities in landscape (Pietrzak 1998).Regarding the widespread tendency of reducing land-scapes complexity to single aspects or components,Leser (oral comm.) marks it as playing with names.Moss (1994) draws attention to the drift away fromthis broad integrative concept to a dominance of thefield by community and ecosystem scientists whoseperception of landscape ecology is that of spatial com-munity ecology. The risk that in consequence oflandscape ecologys explosive growth the subdis-ciplines will seek their own identity and will lookinward rather than outward, splintering rather than

consolidating landscape ecology is mentioned also byWiens (1999b). Antrop (1999) identifies quite differ-ent approaches in landscape ecology: sectoral (e.g.,forestry, nature conservation), integrated (e.g., spa-tial planning), compartments (e.g., biological), andthemes (e.g., fragmentation).


5/10

761

Summarizing the cited intellectual positions, wecan state that restricted views and foci are still usual inlandscape ecology, despite the tendencies of spreadingthe holistic approach.

The holistic perspective

Outstanding features of landscape ecology are in myopinion the focus on structures, processes and changes, spatial and hierarchical aspects, the complexity of different factors in a landscape.

The holistic approach in the context of human-nature-relations is the real challenge of modern land-scape ecology regarding the background of increasingenvironmental problems and the discussion about sus-tainability. In the last years, the consideration of bothnatural and social components has been given more

and more attention: The time is ripe for change; aholistic ... approach is needed. ... the ecological sys-tem cannot be understood by reducing it to its parts(Li 1999). Especially, great value is attached to thehuman factors, since it would be naive to conduct ba-sic scientific investigations of those landscapes with-out considering the anthropogenic forces that haveshaped them (Wiens 1999b) and the acceleratedlandscape change is an anthropogenic phenomenon...which demands a permanent and consequent con-sideration of the context: nature-technique-society(Leser 1997). In other words: A co-evolutionary rela-

tionship exists between socio-cultural, economic andenvironmental systems within the context of a de-finable landscape, and they cannot be addressed ina reductionist and deterministic manner (Fairbankset al. 1999).

Integrative approaches in landscape research (andplanning) can contribute to overcome the overspecial-ization and fragmentation of environmental sciences,policies and education which lead to fragmentary at-tempts in the solution of environmental problems,and they may help to close the sometimes wide gapsbetween theory and practice.

That all is not new; it was already drafted bythe fathers of landscape ecology, by Troll (1939),Schmithsen (1942), Neef (1967) and others. Neef(1983) wrote in repetition of earlier ideas, that land-scape research as an applied science has to give specialattention to the metabolism between human beingsand earth, ... between nature and society. Accordingto Naveh and Lieberman (1984), landscape ecology

was born as a human-related science. Also the de-mands for landscape ecology to consider ethical / cul-tural aspects (e.g., Swouden-Svobodov 1991, Naveh1995, Nassauer 1999) have predecessors: Troll (1950)emphasized that an integrative landscape perspectivehas to include not only nature but also culture and the

traditions of the people.The holistic principle which was postulated al-ready by Smuts (1926), culminates in the Total Hu-man Ecosystem as the highest level of co-evolutionarycomplexity, integrating humans and their total envi-ronment in our biosphere and technosphere landscapeswith emerging properties not existing at the lower lev-els (Naveh 1999); i.e., the whole is more than the sumof the composing parts.

Landscape as a holistic system represents a part ofthe Total Human Ecosystem. Increasingly, thinkingand acting humans are regarded as an inherent partof the landscape which is defined as a spatial and

mental unity of the interrelated subsystems geosphere,biosphere and noosphere (Tress and Tress 2000).Such a broad landscape conception unifies the vari-ety of ecological, aesthetic, social and psychologicalaspects, and it philosophically supersedes the con-tradiction between natural sciences and humanities. Idoubt, however, that the term landscape ecology is themost favourable one for such a broad meta-science.Besides, we should accept that despite the absolutelynecessary emphasis on the holistic principle the ex-amination of the totality of facts and dependencesin the highly-complicated phenomenon landscape re-

presents a cognitive overtaxing (it demands too muchof humans intellectually). Landscape ecologists andplanners cannot consider all things. Demands lead-ing to this could not be realized and would be remoteof everyday life.

Holism, however, doesnt mean the inflationary(i.e., the far too frequent) use of the term land-scape ecology for all appearances which are relatedwith landscape in the broadest sense (see Differentdefinitions section).

The role of geography

The holistic principle is embodied in both mothersciences of landscape ecology: in ecology with itsecosystem approach and in geography which attachesgreat value both to spatial aspects and to compre-hensiveness (e.g., geocomplexes). The space-relatedprocessing and structuring of aggregated, integra-


6/10

762

tive parameters belong to the most essential tasks ofgeography.

There are several geographical principles whichare often forgotten now in the course of detailed analy-ses, but which may provide a good basis for widergeneralization of both a methodological and theoret-

ical nature. Such principles are, e.g., the hierarchicalordering of geocomponents (landscape factors), partialgeocomplexes, discontinuity of natural environment(applicability from the point to the area), regional-ization, landscape synthesis (Pietrzak 1998, Solon1999).

As a consequence of the astronomical developmentof landscape ecology, geography has only a minorpart (Finke 1994). Another reason was emphasized byNeef (1984):

For a long period it had been assumed that natureand society differed so much in their constituent

causal relationships that a connection between thetwo could not be admitted. ... this tended to be theargument for declaring physical and economic ge-ography to be two distinct sciences which were tobe strictly separated. However, one decisive mis-take was made in this. Geography does not concernitself with natural systems and social systems, butwith landscape regions and their utilization.

Besides, many geographers turned to special is-sues, which probably can be covered by representa-tives of other disciplines as well or even better. Theyleft the holistic view which actually distinguished

geography from other disciplines.A recollection of the landscape as a complex partof the earths surface, and the consistent applicationand further development of geographical principlesmentioned above, would be a fundamental suppositionto strengthen geographys identity.

Transdisciplinarity/complementarity

It is necessary to take the holistic character of land-scape ecology into account, including methodolog-ically. This means less differentiation of branch-

specific procedures and looking for bridges whichallow connection of specific views (Leser 1997), sincethe landscape perspective is full of promise for the re-alization of the integration of different sciences (Fa-rina 1998). For Richling (1994) and Moss (1999) land-scape ecology is the marriage of biology and geogra-phy. The goal for landscape ecology is to come out of

monodisciplinary restrictions (Neef 1985) and developto a fairly comprehensive multidisciplinary field. Asimple understanding of landscape ecology as the in-tegration of several disciplines (geography, ecology,...), however, is not acceptable either for landscapeecologists or for specialists in classical disciplines. A

mere combination of disciplines does not solve thespecific landscape ecological problems. What actuallyis specific to landscape ecology? The key factor isthe specific landscape-ecological problem... (Mikls1996). Landscape ecology is regarded as a holistictransdisciplinary science (Naveh and Lieberman 1984,Naveh 1995; 1999, Mikls 1996), working not onlybetween but above the mother sciences. Transdisci-plinarity means knowledge and research of complexproblems beyond special disciplines. The scientificquestions are defined and solved independently ofparticular disciplines (Jaeger and Scheringer 1998).Striving for a unification of landscape ecology (e.g.,

Wiens 1999b: Landscape ecology ... must becomeconceptually and operationally unified.) leads to thequestion: In what way can we master the diversityof the landscape sphere? Is it possible with a unifiedapproach, anyway?

It is hardly possible for practical research to realizethe comprehensive perspective of landscape ecology(which is based on the model of the complex spa-tially related landscape ecosystem) through only onediscipline. Inevitably, several disciplines are involvedin the investigation of the landscape ecosystem. It isnecessary to be aware of the fact that each of these

different views has a selective character and graspsonly a part of the complex reality (Leser 1997). Land-scape ecology is an interesting mixture of subjectsand motivations for interactive work, as it brings to-gether different viewpoints (Golley and Bellot 1991in Drdo 1996). In my opinion, landscape ecologycannot reflect all facts and relations. But it can andshould put special issues into the overall context ofnature-environment-society.

Rightly we can say that the principle of comple-mentarity is valid in landscape ecology, too. This termwas created more than 60 years ago by Niels Bohrfor nuclear physics: On the one hand, light, electronsand other elementary objects react as waves, on theother hand as particles. The appearances of waves andparticles both describe one part of the reality. One de-scription alone doesnt give an adequate explanationof all observations. For the equal use of two pictures(statements) which are mutually exclusive, Bohr cre-ated the term complementarity. A simple laying of


7/10

763

one picture on top of the other is not possible. Thepre-condition for an actual synthesis of both picturesis a new dimension; an enlargement of comprehensionin nature description.

Bohr himself supposed that complementarity is ageneral dialectical principle in scientific research. This

principle was introduced to geography in the 1980s(Buchheim 1983, Neef 1985). Because landscape is acompositum (i.e., an assembled construct), a systembased on different emerging processes and causalities,it cannot be analyzed by only one scientific approach.Different aspects are possible (Neef 1967). This isthe meaning of complementarity in geography (Neef1985), and respectively landscape ecology: the par-allelism of independent research disciplines is not ascientific shortcoming, but a necessity in the inves-tigation of geographical (i.e., landscape) complexes.Landscape as a very complicated phenomenon is an-alyzed and described from various points of view by

different scientific approaches and disciplines. To gaina comprehensive pictureof the landscape, all the mani-fold ecological, social, cultural, psychological aspectsmust be taken into consideration.

The key position of land(scape) evaluation

Landscape diagnosis

An urgent goal in landscape ecology is to achievea strong theoretical and methodological base (Moss

1999). Especially, it is necessary to promote theholistic approach. The question, how going be-yond general statements can be realized; how toimplement the specialists knowledge into holistic ap-proaches and how to introduce this in practical landmanagement/landscape planning?

We are not at zero, a lot of preliminary work hasbeen done. Among various approaches only some canbe mentioned here. It is true that landscape ecologyas a science is to provide a firm foundation for applica-tions, it needs more than an array of disparate findingsabout, for example, the effects of fragmentation inthis or that system, on this or that kind of organism.

It requires more than general statements of the formscale matters or all ecosystems in a landscape areinterrelated. It requires a core of concepts, principles,methodologies, and predictive theories that generatespecifics from generalities (Wiens 1999b).

But I dont agree that landscape ecology has nounifying conceptual structure or body of theory

(Wiens 1999b). For example, in Central Europe, es-pecially in Germany,

over the last few years, landscape research resultedin the development of an essentially coherent,highly consistent concept of landscape diagnosisand those areas of land management that were

based thereupon. Landscape diagnosis is basedupon the results of landscape analysis which, asa field of scientific research and inventory, servesthe determination of the landscape structure (com-ponents, space, and time structure) with respect toits natural, utilization-related, and dynamic char-acteristics. Landscape diagnosis has as its primaryobjectiveto systematically and methodically deter-mine the capability of landscapes to meet varioussocial requirements and define limiting or standardvalues, respectively, for securing the stability ofnatural conditions and for, if possible, increasing

of performance capacities(Haase 1990). The term landscape diagnosis was in-troduced in Germany in the 1950s (Lingner and Carl1955) following medical diagnosis. In Poland, but alsoin other countries,

specificity of landscape ecology manifests itselfin an integrative approach to the object of re-search, i.e., landscape treated together with manand the effects of his activity, approaching in astructural, functional and visual aspect. Landscapeecology encompasses the analysis of landscapecomponents and their interrelations, identification

of spatial natural units, the hierarchical classifi-cation and evaluation of the systems of naturalenvironment for various forms of human activity,as well as diagnosis of the way of organization ofnatural space

(Richling 1994).There is no question that only a description of the

landscape is not sufficient for planning purposes. Apurposeful processing of the analytical data is neces-sary, i.e.,

the combination of results of scientific explorationand measurements with technical and economic

parameters and, finally, the transformation ofgeosynergetic and ecological parameters into eco-nomic and social indices ... (transferring natural-science categories to social-science categories inthe field of landscape research

Neef 1969, Haase 1990, Bastian 1998a). The trans-formation problem includes as a crucial step of


8/10

764

landscape diagnosis or the core of the applicationvalue of landscape ecology (Zonneveld 1995) the evaluation of landscape characteristics with re-spect to social requirements and functions. Thus,the gap between natural scientific facts (e.g., struc-tures, processes and all analytical parameters which

we are dealing with, such as habitat networks, patchesand matrices, patterns and heterogeneity) and socio-economic aspects can be bridged.

Landscape functions

A fundamental help to realizing the transformationproblem, i.e., the step from categories of nature tothose of society (and vice-versa), is the assessmentof landscape functions. It is not a matter of land-scape functions in the sense of fluxes of energy,mineral nutrients and species between landscape ele-ments or patch-matrix interactions (Forman 1981),

but in their direct relation to human society. Theapproach evaluating landscapes with regard to nat-ural potentials/landscape functions has been applied inlandscape ecology and planning for many years (e.g.,Neef 1966, Haase 1978, Mannsfeld 1979, Ruickaand Mikls 1982, Bastian and Rder 1998, Bastianand Schreiber 1999), such as ecological functioning,usability, and carrying capacity. Examples of suchlandscape functions are: (potential) biotic productiv-ity, resistance to soil erosion, water retention capacity,groundwaterrecharge, groundwater protection, habitatfunction, and landscape potential for recreation.

Landscape visions

The problem of ecological goals/landscape visions (inGerman, Leitbild) is a further expression of con-necting natural science and society. Presently, there ismuch discussion about this in landscape planning andnature conservation. Such goals or visions are seen asproviding a solution where we shall choose differentalternatives in conservation and utilization of natureand environment (Bastian 1998b). Necessarily, thereare both natural scientific and social points of view.It is a real challenge for a transdisciplinary landscape

ecology to contribute to the elaboration of scientifi-cally based ecological goals/landscape visions whichare accepted by human society.

Conclusion

Favouring the holistic concept of landscape ecology,we should also pay attention to special aspects whichare to integrate into a comprehensive theory. The morecomplex a system is, the more complicated is the so-

lution of questions and problems. There are enoughdifficulties when combining abiotic and biotic aspects.To bridge the gap to social aspects (the transformationproblem) is much more complicated. This is still awide field for research. There are also still essentialdeficits in the practical application of scientific resultsand knowledge.

Communication gaps between ecology and the de-sign/planning disciplines seem to have their roots,first, in the different approaches of the landscapeecologists scientific descriptions versus the prac-titioners artistic or social value-driven work. Sec-

ond, a lack of cooperation both in research andpractical projects enlarges these gaps

(Ahern 1999). Often enough, landscape planners andland users (e.g., farmers) also talk at cross purposes.

We also should diminish our euphoria concerningthe general possibilities of planning landscape devel-opment, anyway. There are thousands or millions ofactors in a landscape with diverse ambitions. How dowe include these ambitions into planning? Which fac-tors and processes influence landscape development.In what way can we regulate it? What consequencesfor different landscape types result from globaliza-

tion? How can we protect our most valuable oldcultural landscapes? What about the diverging tenden-cies of land use intensification and urbanisation on theone side and the progressing marginalization on theother side? If we solve one problem, two new ques-tions are opened up. There is a huge amount of work.Lets get down to it!

References

Ahern, J.F. 1999. Barriers, opportunities, strategies, and models forthe application of landscape ecology in landscape planning and

design. Abstract, 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO,USA.Antrop, M. 1999. Landscape ecology: from concepts and methodol-

ogy towards applications in environmental and spatial planning.Plenary adress, 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO,USA.

Bastian, O. 1998a. The assessment of landscape functions oneprecondition to define management goals. Ekolgia (Bratislava)17 (Supplement): 1933.


9/10

765

Bastian, O. 1998b. Landscape-ecological goals as guiding principlesto maintain biodiversity at different planning scapes. Ekolgia(Bratislava) 17: 4961.

Bastian, O. and Rder, M. 1998. Assessment of landscape changeby land evaluation of past and present situation. Landsc. UrbanPlanning 41: 171182.

Bastian, O. and Schreiber, K.-F. 1999. Analyse und kologischeBewertung der Landschaft. Spektrum, Heidelberg, Germany.

Baume, O., Bastian, O. and Rder, M. 1994. Entwicklung und Standder geographischen Landschaftsforschung in Kuba. PetermannsGeograph. Mitt. 138: 235244.

Buchheim, W. 1983. Beitrge zur Komplementaritt. Abhandl. d.Schs. Akad. d. Wiss., Math.-nat. Klasse 55.

Cervantes, J.F., Salinas-Chavez, E. and Rodriguez, M. 1999. Land-scape ecology geographical orientation or an interdiscipli-nary research programme in Cuba and Mexico. Abstract, 5thIALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.

Drdo, J. 1996. A reflection on landscape ecology. Ekolgia(Bratislava) 15: 369375.

Fairbanks, D.H.K. and van Jaarsveld, A.S., Norgaard, R.B. 1999.Development of a coevolutionary landscape ecology frameworkfor analysing the sustainability of biodiversity conservation.Abstract, 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.

Farina, A. 1998. Principles and methods in landscape ecology.Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

Finke, L. 1994. Landschaftskologie. Westermann. Braunschweig,Germany.

Forman, R.T.T. 1981. Interaction among landscape elements: acore of landscape ecology. Proc. Int. Congr. Neth. Soc. Land-scape Ecol., Veldhoven. Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.pp. 3548.

Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. JohnWiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.

Haase, G. 1978. Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von Natur-raumpotentialen. Petermanns. Geograph. Mitt. 112: 113125.

Haase, G. 1990. Approaches to, and methods of landscape diagno-sis as a basis of landscape planning and landscape management.Ekolgia (Bratislava) 9: 1129.

Haber, W. 1979. Theoretische Anmerkungen zur kologischen

Planung. Verh. Ges. kol. 7: 1930.Haines-Young, R. 1999. Landscape pattern: context and process. InIssues in Landscape Ecology. pp. 3337. Edited by J.A. Wiens,and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO,USA.

Hard, G. 1970. Die Landschaft der Sprache und die Landschaftder Geographen. Colloquium geograph. 11, Bonn, Germany.

Jaeger, J. and Scheringer, M. 1998. Transdisziplinaritt: Proble-morientierung ohne Methodenzwang. Gaia 7: 1025.

Jongman, R.H.G. 1999. Landscape ecology in land use planning.In Issues in Landscape Ecology. pp. 112118. Edited by J.A.Wiens, and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass,CO, USA.

King, A.W. 1999. Hierarchy theory and the landscape...level? Or:Words do matter. In Issues in landscape ecology. pp. 69. Editedby J.A. Wiens, and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress,

Snowmass, CO, USA.Lehmann, E . 1 986 . Wesen und Werk Alexander von Humboldts aus

geowissenschaftlicher Sicht. Abhandl. Akad. Wiss. DDR, Abt.Math.-Naturwiss.-Technik 2 N. Berlin, Germany. pp. 15-30.

Leser, H. 1997. Landschaftskologie. Ulmer. Stuttgart, Germany.Li, B.-L. 1999. Towards a synergetic view of landscape ecology.

Abstract, 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.

Lingner, E. and Carl, F.E. 1955. ber die ForschungsarbeitLandschaftsdiagnose der DDR. Stdtebau und Siedlungswe-sen. pp. 211220.

Mannsfeld, K. 1979. Die Beurteilung von Naturraumpotentialen alsAufgabe der geographischen Landschaftsforschung. PetermannsGeograph. Mitt. 123: 26.

Mikls, L. 1996. Landscape-ecological theory and methodology: agoal oriented application of the traditional scientific theory and

methodology to a branch of a new quality. Ekolgia (Bratislava)15: 377385.

Moss, M. 1999. Fostering academic and institutional activities inlandscape ecology. In Issues in Landscape Ecology. pp. 138144. Edited by J.A. Wiens, and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-WorldCongress, Snowmass, CO, USA.

Naveh, Z. 1987. Biocybernetics and thermodynamic perspectivesof landscape functions and land use patterns. Landsc. Ecol. 1:7583.

Naveh, Z. 1995. Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landsc.Urban Planning 32: 4354.

Naveh, Z. 1999. What is holistic landscape ecology? Abstract, 5thIALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.

Naveh, Z. and Lieberman, A.S. 1984. Landscape Ecology Theoryand Application. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.

Nassauer, J.I. 1999. Culture as a means for experimentation and ac-tion. In Issues in landscape ecology. pp. 129133. Edited by J.A.Wiens and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass,CO, USA.

Neef, E. 1966. Zur Frage des gebietswirtschaftlichen Potentials.Forsch. Fortschr. 40: 6579.

Neef, E. 1967. Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschaftslehre.H. Haack, Gotha, Leipzig, Germany.

Neef, E. 1969. Der Stoffwechsel zwischen Natur und Gesellschaftals geographisches Problem. Geogr. Rundschau 21: 453459.

Neef, E. 1983. Landscapes as the integration field of human regionalwork. Geol. Mijnbouw 62: 531534.

Neef, E. 1984. Applied landscape research. Appl. Geogr. Develop.24: 3858.

Neef, E. 1985. ber den Begriff Komplementaritt in der Geogra-phie. Petermanns Geogr. Mitt. 129: 141142.

Otahel, J. 1999. The political-economic dimension of landscapeecology. In Issues in Landscape Ecology. pp. 134137. Editedby J.A. Wiens, and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE- World Congress,Snowmass, CO, USA.

Pietrzak, M. 1998. Syntezy krajobrazowe. Bogucki Wydaw. Nauk.,Poznan, Poland.

Richling, A. 1994. Landscape ecology as a discipline combininginvestigations on natural environment. In Landscape Researchand Its Applications in Environmental Management. pp. 1519.Edited by A. Richling, E. Malinowska, and J. Lechnio. Warsaw,Poland.

Ruicka, M. and Mikls, L. 1982. Landcape-ecological planning(LANDEP) in the process of territorial planning. Ekolgia CSSR1: 297-312.

Schmithsen, J. 1942. Vegetationsforschung und kologische Stan-dortslehre in ihrer Bedeutung fr die Geographie der Kulturland-

schaft. Z. Ges. Erdkunde, pp. 113157.Solon, J. 1999. Integrating ecological and geographical (biophys-

ical) principles in studies of landscape systems. In Issues inLandscape Ecology. pp. 2227. Edited by J.A. Wiens, and M.R.Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.

Socwa, W.B. 1974. Das Systemparadigma in der Geographie.Petermanns. Geograph. Mitt. 118: 161166.


10/10

766

Swouden-Svobodov, H. 1991. The future of cultural aspects ofEuropean landscapes. Proc. Europ. Seminar Practical LandscapeEcol. 4: 17.

Sukachev, V. and Dylis, N. 1964. Fundamentals of Forest Biogeo-coenology. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, UK.

Smuts, J. 1926. Holism and Evolution. Macmillan, London, UK.Tress, B. and Tress, G. 2000. Eine Theorie der Landschaft. Ple-

nary lecture IALE-Deutschland, Nrtingen, 20.22.7., Abstract

Volume, pp. 1415.Troll, C. 1939. Luftbildplan und kologische Bodenforschung. Z.

Ges. Erdkunde, pp. 241298.Troll, C. 1950. Die geographische Landschaft und ihre Erforschung.

Studium Generale 3. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.Troll, C. 1968. Pflanzensoziologie und Landschaftskologie. In Ber.

Int. Symp. Ver. Vegetationskunde, Stolzenau/Weser 1963, pp. 121. Edited by R. Txen. Den Haag, The Netherlands.

Widacki, W. 1994. The end of the geocomplex paradigm in physicalgeography? In Landscape Research and its Applications in Envi-ronmental Management. pp. 109113. Edited by A. Richling, E.Malinowska, and J. Lechnio. Warsaw, Poland.

Wiens, J.A. 1999a. Landscape ecology scaling from mechanismsto management. In Perspectives in Ecology. pp. 1324. Edited byA. Farina. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Wiens, J.A. 1999b. Toward a unified landscape ecology. In Issues

in Landscape Ecology. pp. 148151. Edited by J.A. Wiens, andM.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.

Wiens, J.A. and Moss, M.R. 1999. Preface. In Issues in LandscapeEcology. Edited by J.A. Wiens, and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-WorldCongress, Snowmass, CO, USA.

Zonneveld, I.S. 1995. Land Ecology. SPB Academic Publishing,Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Documents

Bastian Landscape Ecology Towards a Unified Discipline