_Changing Landscapes, Changing Disciplines_seeking to Understand Interdisciplinarity in Landscape Ecological Change Research

7/28/2019 _Changing Landscapes, Changing Disciplines_seeking to Understand Interdisciplinarity in Landscape Ecological Cha

1/13

Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 326338

Changing landscapes, changing disciplines: seeking to understandinterdisciplinarity in landscape ecological change research

Laura Musacchioa,, Esra Ozdenerolb, Margaret Bryantc, Tom Evansd

a Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota, 89 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USAb Department of Earth Sciences, University of Memphis, 402 Smith Chemistry Building, Memphis, TN 38152-3550, USA

c

Department of Landscape Architecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,101 Architecture Annex (0113), Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA

d Department of Geography/CIPEC, Indiana University, Student Building 120, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

Received 3 February 2004; received in revised form 22 July 2004; accepted 25 August 2004

Available online 22 October 2004

Abstract

Transformation of landscapes worldwide in the 20th century, now continuing into the 21st century, has raised global concerns.

Given this circumstance, interdisciplinary landscape change studies are focused on the causes and effects of land-use and land-

cover dynamics as well as the ecological and social impacts of alternative design, planning, policy, and management schemes on

landscapes and regions. In this paper, we are concerned about a particular type of interdisciplinary landscape change researchthat uses the principles and theories of landscape ecology as an underlying paradigm for explaining changes in landscapes

(called landscape ecological change research, or LEC research, in this paper). While landscape ecological change is the focus

of collaborative research efforts, the way in which the collaboration itself is carried out is the subject of debate. We present a

framework for public consideration based on Lattucas continuum of interdisciplinarity (2001) that characterizes the key themes,

questions, and issues in the debate about the interdisciplinaritydisciplinarity nature of LEC research that are raised by leading

scholars in the peer-reviewed literature. The paper presents this continuum, positions the key literature within this continuum,

and then presents recommendations for enhancing future interdisciplinary endeavors.

2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Landscape ecology; Landscape change; Interdisciplinary studies

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 612 626 0810;

fax: +1 612 625 0710.

E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Musacchio).

1. Introduction

Scientists predict that the effects of human alter-

ation of the environment, such as greenhouse warming,

could rapidly change the landscapes of today as we

know them (Walker and Steffen, 1997). In their recent

book, Ecological and Design: Frameworks for Learn-

0169-2046/$20.00 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.08.003


2/13

L. Musacchio et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 326338 327

ing (p. 316), Johnson and Hill (2002) define landscape

change as the alteration of structure and function over

time through their interaction and mutual influences.

This concept is embedded in several theories includingholism, complexity theory, and general systems theory

(see Forman, 1995; Gobster et al., 2000, 2004; Naveh,

1995, 2000; Ndubisi, 2002; Steiner, 2002 for further

explanation) that emphasize the interrelationship of

landscape change and human activities (Steinitz, 1990;

Nassauer, 1992, 1995; Naveh, 1995; Antrop, 1998).

In addition, landscape change is rapidly becoming

one of the central concepts that is being used for what

Herpserger (1994, p. 14) describes as a scientific base

for land-use decisions in planning.

Landscape change researchers, who are usually

employed by universities, governmental agencies, and

non-governmental organizations, are leading the way

to study landscape change and are responding by work-

ing together to develop interdisciplinary approaches

to study this phenomenon. A wide range of disciplines

are involved in landscape change research, including

landscape ecologists, landscape architects, community

and regional planners, geographers, demographers,

economists, wildlife biologists, meteorologists,

foresters, and many others. These interdisciplinary

efforts investigate the causes and effects of land-use

and land-cover dynamics as well as the ecological andsocial impacts of alternative design, planning, policy,

and management schemes on landscapes and regions

(known by a number of different names depending

on discipline, such as alternative futures, land-use and

land-cover studies, or ecological forecasting) (e.g.,

Steinitz, 1990, 1996; Goodchild et al., 1993; Wear

et al., 1996; Palmer, 1997; Nassauer, 1997; Nassauer

et al., 2002; Turner et al., 1998; Gobster et al., 2000,

2004; Steiner, 2000, 2002; Dale and Haeuber, 2001;

Jenerette and Wu, 2001; He et al., 2002).

While landscape change is the focus of col-laborative research efforts, the way in which the

collaboration itself is carried out is the subject of

discussion and debate. For example, the 2001 Work-

shop in Landscape Change, which was sponsored

by the National Science Foundation, Environmental

Systems Research Institute (ESRI), and Landscape

Architecture Foundation, explored the nature of inter-

disciplinarity when landscape architects, community

and regional planners, and geographers collaborate

(for more information about the workshop, see the

National Centre for Geographic Information and

Analysis at http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/landscape-

2/landscape.htm). The authors of this paper attended

that workshop, and we were fascinated by the dis-cussions about interdisciplinarity, which provided

great insights about collaborative research. However,

interdisciplinarity also was used in many different

ways in the workshop, and we felt an intellectual

framework was needed to conceptualize the dynamics

of interdisciplinaritydisciplinarity in landscape

change research.

Because of space limitations in this paper, our

framework focuses on a particular type of landscape

change research that uses the principles and theo-

ries of landscape ecology as an underlying paradigm

for explaining changes in landscapes (called land-

scape ecological change research, or LEC research,

in this paper). This type of landscape change re-

search attracts landscape researchers from the disci-

plines of landscape architecture, ecological sciences,

landscape planning, geography, and natural resources.

We present a framework based on Lattucas contin-

uum of interdisciplinarity (2001) that characterizes the

key themes, questions, and issues about the nature of

interdisciplinaritydisciplinarity in LEC research that

are raised by leading scholars in the peer-reviewed lit-

erature. The following sections present this continuum,position key literature within this continuum, and then

present recommendations for future interdisciplinary

research in this type of landscape change research.

2. The debate about

interdisciplinaritydisciplinarity in LEC

research

The challenge of how to develop collaborative re-

search projects about landscape ecological change is

a matter of great debate in the peer-reviewed litera-ture. The emphasis of this debate is on moving from

the practice of a single disciplinary science to one that

emphasizes interdisciplinarity (Bastian, 2001). Issues

remain about how to achieve interdisciplinary collabo-

ration in research projects about landscape ecological

change where disciplinary traditions and expectations

for empirical and applied research are highly variable.

The focus of discussion in these disciplines is on

the challenge of operationalizing interdisciplinarity be-

tween disciplines with different theoretical founda-
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/landscape-2/landscape.htm


3/13

328 L. Musacchio et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 73 (2005) 326338

tions, research traditions, methodological tools, and

functional vocabularies. Numerous articles have been

published about the dynamic tension between inter-

disciplinarity and disciplinarity in LEC research, andthey offer a wide range of opinions about the issue (see

Wiens, 1992; Hobbs, 1997; Rodiek and Steiner, 1998;

Pickett et al., 1999; Decamps, 2000; Antrop, 2001; Fry,

2001; Kinzig, 2001; Tress and Tress, 2001; Tress et al.,

2001; Bastian, 2001; Opdam et al., 2002 for further

discussion). From our review of the peer-reviewed lit-

erature, the debate focuses on twoperspectives:(1)how

knowledge about landscape ecological change will be-

come more unified in the future, and (2) but also how it

currently remains fragmented by discipline in the near

term.

2.1. Perspective 1: unifying knowledge

The firstperspective emphasizes thatthe momentum

of LEC research is towards a new level of interdisci-

plinary knowledge and integration between ecological

sciences, landscape planning, landscape architecture,

geography, and natural resource sciences. Scholars

stress that this perspective is the appropriate response

to holistically address non-disciplinary-based envi-

ronmental issues and to improve skills of predict-

ing and monitoring unexpected environmental events(Decamps, 2000). Some scholars predict that the trend

could lead to a new understanding about landscape

ecological change. For example, Rodiek and Steiner

(1998, p. 74) state, A fundamental unity of knowl-

edge about our environment will emerge within one

hundred years. In addition, some scholars speculate

that this unity of knowledge in LEC research will oc-

cur at the transdisciplinary level (see Tress and Tress,

2001).

2.2. Perspective 2: differentiating knowledge

The second perspective emphasizes the ongoing

realities of operationalizing LEC research across

disciplinary and institutional boundaries. One of the

challenges is difference in definitions and expectations

for empirical and applied research in the ecological


geography, and natural resource sciences. Wu and

Hobbs (2002, p. 304) note that the main challenge is

about the reciprocal integration between theoretical

developments and empirical testing and applications.

This idea is reiterated by Opdam et al. (2002) who state

that the maturation of knowledge integration between

the ecological sciences, planning, and design is notcomplete. New advances in a common knowledge-

base of theories and principles are greatly needed

(Nassauer, 1992; Hobbs, 1997; Decamps, 2000). Wu

and Hobbs (2002) remark that such characteristics are

typical of what Kuhn (1983) calls an immature science.

Fry (2001, pp. 16263) expands this idea further by

identifying five issues that must be addressed: (1)

protection of disciplinary boundaries; (2) differences

in disciplinary language and meaning (jargon); (3)

differences of qualitative and quantitative approaches;

(4) biases in the merit system and peer review; and (5)

the challenge of publishing interdisciplinary research.

2.3. The dynamic tension between

interdisciplinarity and disciplinarity

The two perspectives just described are integral for

understanding the dynamic tension between interdisci-

plinarity and disciplinarity in LEC research. From our

perspective, this dynamic tension is one of its funda-

mental characteristics that help to enhance the quality

and creativity of research endeavors. In some schol-

arly debates, this tension is characterized as a gap,bridge, or hurdle in LEC research. We, however, em-

phasize that this characterization should be considered

as a strength that is necessary to spark innovation in

interdisciplinary LEC research. We checked the rele-

vancy of our assumption by reviewing the literature of

interdisciplinary research. Indeed, we found a rich di-

alogue about this very issue, and we gained valuable

insights from this exercise. In particular, we found that

Lattucas (2001) continuum of interdisciplinarity to be

one of the most compelling concepts for explaining

the debate about the nature of collaboration in LECresearch.

3. Lattucas concept of interdisciplinarity as a

basis for understanding the debate about


research

Two approaches have been used to define interdis-

ciplinarity in academic research in the United States:


4/13


(1) the level of integration in team-based scientific re-

search programs and institutions and (2) the level of

formal and informal interactions between researchers

from a variety of disciplines (also known as interdisci-plinary studies) (Klein, 1994; Lattuca, 2001). The first

approach emphasizes the organizational management

of scientific research teams in universities, especially in

the natural sciences and engineering (Roy, 1979). Klein

(1985) and Roy (1979) describe this approach as in-

terdisciplinary problem-based research, and it rapidly

grew in the 1980s and 1990s (Lattuca, 2001). This ap-

proach is important because it recognized the fact that

the real problems of society do not come in discipline-

shaped blocks (Roy, 1979, p. 165). The alternative

approach, known as interdisciplinary studies, includes

a wide range of interdisciplinary interactions among a

community of scholars on a campus or network of cam-

puses (Klein, 1994). This approach includes not only

interdisciplinary problem-based research, but also ac-

tivities in classrooms, collaborative research without

a team focus, and research in all disciplines (Lattuca,

2001).

3.1. Lattucas concept of interdisciplinary

research

Lattucas concept of interdisciplinary researchis an example of the alternative approach to inter-

disciplinarity described in the previous section. Her

classification of interdisciplinarity included a wide

range of epistemologies and is based on a definition of

interdisciplinarity developed by scholars at the Centre

for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) in

Paris, France (Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development, 1972, pp. 2526 in Lattuca, 2001):

InterdisciplinarityAn adjective describing the inter-

action among two or more different disciplines. This

interaction may range from simple communication of

ideas to the mutual integration of organizing concepts,

methodology, procedures, epistemology, terminology,

data, and organization of research and education in a

fairly large field. An interdisciplinary group consists of

persons trained in different fields of knowledge (disci-

plines) with different concepts, methods, and data and

terms organized into a common effort on a common

problem with continuous intercommunication among

the participants from the different disciplines.

Table 1

Lattucas continuum of interdisciplinary research (adapted from

Lattuca, 2001, p. 81)

Type of research Definition

Informed disciplinarity Disciplinary questions requiring

outreach to other discipline(s)

Synthetic interdisciplinarity Questions that link disciplines

Transdisciplinarity Questions that cross disciplines

Conceptual interdisciplinarity Questions without a compelling

disciplinary basis

Klein (1994) corroborates the importance of CERIs

contribution to interdisciplinary studies when she

declared it has been a seminal work for decades in

interdisciplinarity studies.

Lattucas continuum for interdisciplinarity lists four

categories for the questions and issues posed by re-

searchers: (1) informed interdisciplinarity, (2) syn-

thetic interdisciplinarity, (3) transdisciplinarity, and (4)

conceptual interdisciplinarity (Table 1). Her continuum

of different types of interdisciplinarity builds on an

important assumption of the CERIs definition of in-

terdisciplinarity: interdisciplinarity exists on contin-

uum (2001, p. 18). In addition, she differentiated the

four types of scholarship in her continuum from other

scholars terms because of the nature of the questions

and issues addressed (Table 2).

Table 2

Lattucas comparison of her continuum to other scholars terms for

interdisciplinary research (from Lattuca, 2001, p. 114)

Type of scholarship Previous categorizations

Informed disciplinarity Instrumental interdisciplinarity

Pseudo-interdisciplinarity

Cross-disciplinarity

Partial interdisciplinarity

Synthetic interdisciplinarity Instrumental or

cross-disciplinarity that ismotivated by an

interdisciplinarity question

Multidisciplinarity

Partial interdisciplinarity

Conceptual interdisciplinarity

Transdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity

Cross-disciplinarity

Conceptual interdisciplinarity (True) interdisciplinarity

Critical interdisciplinarity

Full interdisciplinarity


5/13


3.1.1. First category: informed disciplinarity

The first category, informed disciplinarity, is ac-

tually disciplinary in nature for two reasons: (1) the

questions are disciplinary-based and (2) the researcherborrows methods, theories, concepts, or other disci-

plinary components from another discipline (2001, p.

82). However, this form of disciplinarity requires out-

reach to other disciplines (Lattuca, 2001). Lattuca em-

phasizes that research is only interdisciplinary when

[it] is motivated by an interdisciplinary question or is-

sue (2001, p. 82) and not just by borrowing methods

or concepts from another discipline.

3.1.2. Second category: synthetic

interdisciplinarity

According to Lattuca (2001), synthetic interdisci-

plinarity, is interdisciplinary for three reasons: (1) the

questions occur at the intersections of disciplines or at

the gaps between disciplines; (2) no single discipline

can answer the questions and (3) researchers borrow

theories, concepts, and/or methods from different dis-

ciplines . . . [but highlight] the contributions of disci-

plines (p. 247). Synthetic interdisciplinary questions

can be asked by individuals or by a team of disciplinary

experts and often use the scientific paradigm (Lattuca,

2001).

3.1.3. Third category: transdisciplinarity

Transdisciplinarity represents a form of interdis-

ciplinarity where the questions cross disciplines

(Lattuca, 2001, p. 81). These questions have twoimpor-

tant characteristics: (1) they are designed to identify

similarities in structures or relationships among differ-

ent natural and/or social systems (Lattuca, 2001, p.

116) and (2) they do not borrow theories, concepts,

or methods . . . from one discipline and apply them to

another, but rather transcend disciplines and are there-

fore applicable in many fields. (Lattuca, 2001, p. 83).These questions aim to develop an overarching synthe-

sis or conceptual framework of knowledge and most

often use a scientific paradigm, such as in ecology or

economics or in approaches such as general systems

theory (Lattuca, 2001).

3.1.4. Fourth category: conceptual

interdisciplinarity

The fourth category of the Lattucas continuum,

conceptual interdisciplinarity, encompasses questions

without a compelling disciplinary basis (2001, p.

81) and the contributions of individual disciplines is

muted. These questions are unique for two reasons: (1)

they emphasize the development of a concept or con-ceptual framework and (2) they critique disciplinary

knowledge (Lattuca, 2001). In addition, this category

includes questions about human societies that are

typically investigated by sociologists, anthropologists,

and humanists who use the interpretative paradigm

(Lattuca, 2001).

3.2. The transferability of Lattucas continuum to

the debate about interdisciplinaritydisciplinarity

in LEC research

Lattucas continuum is applicable to LEC research

for several reasons. First, her use of questions and is-

sues about the degree of interdisciplinarity as the basis

of the continuum also parallels the questions among

leading scholars about the nature of interdisciplinarity

in LEC research. For example, the debate in LEC re-

search focuses on similar questions: (1) how to define

interdisciplinarity; (2) how to collaborate; (3) how to

share knowledge; (4) how to understand disciplinary

expectations; and (5) how to link theoretical and ap-

plied research. Scholars usually intertwine the topics

in the same question or several questions in their peer-reviewed articles.

Second, Lattucas continuum includes all episte-

mologiesthatexist at American universities. Thisbroad

range is a positive attribute since LEC research is

characterized by disciplines with different epistemolo-

gies. For example, ecological sciences use the scientific

paradigm, while disciplines that embrace both natural

and social sciences, such as geography and landscape

architecture, may use the scientific and/or interpretative

paradigms.

Finally, researchers often borrow methods, theories,and concepts to enhance the quality of their studies.

Borrowing of theories and concepts for application is

fundamental for developing what Herpserger (1994,

p. 14) states is a scientific basis for land-use plan-

ning. Method borrowing is common especially with

geographic information systems (GIS) and remote

sensing techniques and is an important avenue for

integrating disciplines. This characteristic is similar

to several types of research described in Lattucas

continuum.


6/13


4. Applying Lattucas continuum: a framework

for defining the debate about


research

The application of Lattucas continuum presented

in this paper is a first step toward understanding the

debate among leading scholars about the nature of

interdisciplinaritydisciplinarity in LEC research. Us-

ing Lattucas categories, we selected and classified

the articles of leading scholars who are an active part

of the debate. The articles were chosen because of

the presence of: (1) questions about the interplay be-

tween disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity and (2) is-

sues and themes representative of the two perspectives

about LEC research. The questions in each article were

classified using the categories for Lattucas continuum

(Table 3). It is important to note that some articles by

leading scholars did not meet the two criteria but were

included in the discussion as additional examples.

4.1. Informed disciplinarity

The most notable example of informed disciplinar-

ity in LEC research is whether landscape ecology is a

separate discipline. Landscape ecology emerged from

the disciplines of the ecological sciences, landscapeplanning, landscape architecture, geography, and natu-

ral resource sciences in the past two decades, and these

researchers are among the most important contribu-

tors to the theoretical principles of landscape ecologi-

cal change. Yet, much discussion exists about whether

landscape ecology is actually a discipline in itself and

how it integrates knowledge from other disciplines.

This perspective stresses how researchers tend to ask

questions that require outreach to other disciplines,

such as borrowing theories and methods from other

disciplines.For illustration, several articles by leading schol-

ars were selected that fit the criteria of informed dis-

ciplinarity (Table 3). In these articles, the researchers

generally agree landscape ecology is emerging as a dis-

cipline (e.g., Wiens, 1992; Hobbs, 1997), and therefore

refer to landscape ecology as a discipline in their arti-

cles. These researchers describe how landscape ecol-

ogy is a problem-oriented and experimental science

that requires reaching out to other disciplines. Their

questionsabout disciplinarity emphasizehowscientists

are the source of knowledge about landscapeecological

change, and how they transfer disciplinary knowledge

about landscape ecological change to landscape archi-

tects and landscape planners who will then apply theknowledge to environmental problems. There is also

an emphasis on the development of common concepts

about landscape in order to improve the knowledge

base and communication between scientists, planners,

designers, and managers.

However, the questions about the degree of disci-

plinarity in landscape ecology are not fully resolved.

The researchers questions ponder whether landscape

ecology should move towards disciplinarity or more to-

wards interdisciplinarity. These researchers express the

desire that landscape ecology become more interdisci-

plinary or transdisciplinary in order to be better pre-

pared to address challenging environmental problems.

Considering Lattucas continuum, landscape ecology

could be in a transitionary phase from informed in-

terdisciplinarity to synthetic interdisciplinarity or even

trans-disciplinarity.

Another important indication that the selected ar-

ticles are representative of informed disciplinarity is

their emphasis on questions that require collaboration

and interactions between the disciplines of ecological


geography, and natural resource sciences (e.g., Opdamet al., 2002). Scientists tend to describe the process

of transferring knowledge about theoretical principles

of landscape ecology to landscape architecture, land-

scape planning, and natural resource management as

unidirectional knowledge transfer. On the other hand,

landscape architects, landscape planners, and natural

resource managers emphasize the theme of collabo-

ration among equals. Ahern (1999) offers advice for

how to facilitate integration between landscape ecol-

ogy, landscape planning, and landscape architecture.

For example, the sharing, or borrowing, of theory andmethods between these disciplines is identified as a

crucial step in linking theory and application.

Yet, some hurdles exist for developing collabo-

rations and sharing knowledge between disciplines.

Antrop (2001), a geographer, identifies the differences

between the language of landscape ecologists and plan-

ners as one of the major issues that impede progress to-

ward sharing knowledge. One potential explanation is

the emphasis in landscape ecology on empirical stud-

ies with the scientific method. In comparison, planning


7/13


8/13

Wiens (1992) What is landscape ecology, really? (p. 149) (1) Knowledg

Wu and Hobbs

(2002)

Given the multidisciplinary origins of the field,

should we embrace and solidify the interdisciplinary

of landscape ecology or move away from it? (p.

356)

(1) Evolving

discipline

(2) The future

transdisciplin

Synthetic interdis-

ciplinarity

Bridging disciplines in

environmental research

Kinzig (2001) (1) What does it mean when we separate humans

from nature?

(1) Gaps betw

(2) Works wit

research but q

and implemen

(2) Can we think of nature today as having an

existence independent of human thought and

action?

(3) How and why do we separate the two things?

(4) What does that mean for the boundaries we

draw circumscribing the scientific questions we are

permitted to ask, the analyses we are willing to

conduct, or the experimental designs we are willing

to conduct, or the experimental design we are

trained to deploy? (p. 715)

Pickett et al.

(1999)

Third, by articulating the relationships between

sociocultural and biophysical patterns and

processes, does interdisciplinary research addressdifferent types of system change, such as resilience,

resistance, persistence, and variability (Pimm, 1991)

over time and space (Burch, 1988)? (p. 303)

(1) Gaps and

research

(2) Works witresearch

(3) New conc

Transdisciplinarity Transdisciplinary

landscape theory to

transcend disciplines

Tress and Tress

(2001)

How can landscape researchers then effectively

work together to solve these problems if they refer

to different theoretical constructs? (p. 144)

(1) Common

(2) Common

communicati

Fry (2001) Values pervade science from the choice to study a

particular question through the interpretation of

results, but how often are these issues made

explicit? (p. 161)

(1) Common

(2) Influence

questions and

Conceptual inter-

disciplinarity

Role of science in society

and how to address the

changing environment

Lubchenco (1998) (1) How is our world changing? (1) Role of sc

society

(2) What are the implications of these changes for

society?

(2) Critique o

(3) What is the role of science in meeting the

challenges created by the changing world?

(4) How should science respond to these

challenges? (p. 491)


9/13


includes a wide range of approaches to research, which

may utilize quantitative and/or qualitative methods.

4.2. Synthetic interdisciplinarity

An important example of synthetic interdisciplinar-

ity significant to LEC research is occurring in the

National Science Foundations large-scale interdisci-

plinary research projects. Changes at this level in-

dicate an important shift in acceptance of this type

of research by the scientific establishment and could

signify potential funding opportunities for interdisci-

plinary LEC research. This perspective emerged in

the 1990s when prominent scientists of the National

Science Foundations long-term ecological research

projects noted a gap in environmental research that cen-

tered on the lack of collaboration between disciplines

of the natural and social sciences. These disciplines

have typically not collaborated because of the empha-

sis on the importance of disciplinary research (different

epistemologies, etc.) rather than collaboration across

disciplines. However, new initiatives in interdisci-

plinary environmental research such as the urban long-

term ecological research projects in Phoenix (see the

Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Re-

search Project, http://caplter.asu.edu/home/index.jsp)

and Baltimore (see the Baltimore Ecosystem Project,http://www.beslter.org/) provided new impetus to in-

vestigate interdisciplinary questions with teams of dis-

ciplinary experts.

For example, Kinzig (2001) and Pickett et al. (1999),

who are ecologists and participate in the urban long-

term ecological research projects in Phoenix and Balti-

more, respectively, are philosophically critical of how

landscaperesearchis currentlyconducted, buttheysug-

gest changes that work within the existing frameworks

of scientific research. In particular, Kinzigs questions

explore how research methods affect three aspects ofinterdisciplinarity in LEC research. She emphasizes

the need to address the gaps and intersections in re-

search that simultaneously integrates interdisciplinary

and disciplinary contributions. Pickett et al. (1999) also

emphasize similar issues as Kinzig, but in addition they

address the issue of how different interdisciplinary ap-

proaches might deal with different types of landscape

ecological change, such as resilience and persistence.

In addition, Pickett et al. (2004) recognize that scien-

tific understanding about landscape ecological change

is incomplete until this knowledge is applied to design

and planning.

4.3. Transdisciplinarity

This perspective suggests transcending disciplinary

boundaries should be the ultimate goal of LEC re-

search. Transdisciplinarity has been suggested as one

possibility for creating an overall synthesis across

the disciplines of ecological sciences, landscape plan-

ning, landscape architecture, geography, and natural

resource sciences. Strong proponents of this perspec-

tive, including Tress and Tress (2001) and Fry (2001),

bring an international perspective to LEC research, and

their articles have attracted the attention of landscape

researchers in the United States.

The questions of Tress and Tress (geographers)

and Fry (ecologist) have several issues in common.

Both suggest that borrowing of theories and meth-

ods between disciplines is not the answer, but rather

a new synthesis is needed across disciplines. They

emphasize the need for new theoretical constructs of

landscape and natural processes that cross-disciplinary

boundaries that are embedded in systems theory and

Navehs (1995, 2000) total human ecosystem con-

cept. In addition, these researchers stress the need for

better communication across disciplines. Fry (2001)identifies the need to overcome disciplinary values in

order to enhance communication across disciplinary

boundaries.

4.4. Conceptual interdisciplinarity

In this paper, the idea of conceptual interdisciplinar-

ity is seen as a critique of the relationship of sci-

ence and society and is interpreted as a call for a

paradigm shift about the assumptions and expecta-

tions of how science benefits society. This issue hassignificance to LEC research because proposals for a

paradigm shift could offer new interdisciplinary scien-

tific and funding opportunities to solve environmental

problems.

Few papers fit into this category because few re-

searchers have written articles that have recommended

a paradigmshift of this magnitude. Lubchencos (1998)

classic paper is the most notable example because she

recommends a new social contract for environmental

science in the United States. Lubchenco (ecologist) em-
http://www.beslter.org/http://caplter.asu.edu/home/index.jsp


10/13


phasizes that it is imperative to increase collaboration

between the natural and social sciences in order to an-

swer interdisciplinary research questions about the en-

vironment. She recommends a new mission and rolefor scientists in society whereby knowledge is pursued

for both its own sake as well as a means of gaining in-

formation about the consequences of policy and man-

agement decisions. Her article signals a paradigm shift

in federal policy about environmental research and has

caused natural and social scientists to reconsider the

need for interdisciplinary research projects. For exam-

ple, her article has been frequently cited by a number

of papers about LEC research.

5. Recommendations for advancing

interdisciplinarity in LEC research

5.1. Strengths and limitations of the framework

The framework presented is one step toward orga-

nizing key themes, questions, and issues in the debate

about interdisciplinarity in LEC research that are be-

ing raised by leading scholars. Based on our study, the

framework has four strengths:

(1) The framework could be used to classify all types

of landscape ecological change studies, including

research questions, approaches used, and people

involved.

(2) The framework also illustrates patterns, relation-

ships, and trends in the scholars questions about

how to share knowledge, how to collaborate, and

how to link theoretical and applied research.

(3) By using the standard definitions in Lattucas con-

tinuum, the scholars questions can be more easily

organized compared to other examples of interdis-

ciplinary research at American universities.

(4) It helps to clarify the multiple definitions of inter-disciplinarity that are used by the scholars in LEC

research.

We found several limitations when we used

Lattucas continuum in our study. She investigated

interdisciplinary research in the United States, so

her continuum needs further testing internationally.

Since her continuum is based on an internationally

accepted definition of interdisciplinarity by Centre for

Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) in Paris,

it is likely that her continuum will be applicable at

the international level as well. In our study, we found

that her continuum was helpful when we classified

the questions and issues of several internationalscholars. Finally, the last drawback of her study was

the limited number of informants, which included

many disciplines from the arts and sciences, but

not all disciplines. It is unlikely that the disciplines

of landscape planning and landscape architecture

were included in her study because they are highly

specialized professions that are present at only a small

percentage of universities in the United States. Lattuca

(2001) emphasizes that her study would be applicable

across all disciplines, so we feel that our study helps to

verify the results of her study and provides additional

insights about application to a circumstance that

involves theoretical and applied-oriented disciplines.

5.2. Recommendations

In order to advance the debate about interdiscipli-

naritydisciplinarity in LEC research, we used these

findings to make three recommendations.

5.2.1. Recommendation 1

Further research will be needed to classify and com-

pare existing empirical and applied studies about land-scape ecological change into the four categories of the

framework. The research will focus on these aspects:

(1) the types of expertise present;

(2) the types of research questions;

(3) the selection of paradigms, research designs, ap-

proaches, methods, and functional vocabularies;

and

(4) the application of theoretical principles of land-

scape ecology.


Additional research will be needed about how to de-

velop a common knowledge-base about landscape eco-

logical change from the different approaches, theories,

and concepts of landscape research. Moss (2000) and

Tress and Tress (2001) raised this issue as a significant

impediment in interdisciplinary LEC research. Land-

scape ecological change concepts are varied across the

disciplines of landscape ecology, landscape architec-

ture, landscape planning, and geography. As a starting


11/13


point, a study will be needed about how these disci-

plines define landscape ecological change in relation

to theirdifferent theoretical foundations, research ques-

tions, methodological tools and functional vocabular-ies.


Borrowing of theories and methods is considered an

important criterion for differentiation between the four

types of interdisciplinary scholarship in Lattucas con-

tinuum. This process is an important step in sparking

innovation and collaboration for the reciprocal inte-

gration between theoretical developments and empir-

ical testing and applications (Wu and Hobbs, 2002,

p. 304). Further research is needed about disciplinary

expectations and how knowledge integration leads to

knowledge creation.

More research is also needed about the different

methods used to analyze landscape ecological change.

The goal would be to understand which methods are

most important for studying specific concepts of land-

scape ecological change in different types of interdis-

ciplinary studies. The role of geographic information

systems and remote sensing in different types of col-

laborations and interactions would be of particular in-

terest.

6. Conclusion

LEC research addresses one of the central topics in

environmental research in the United States: the con-

tinuing transformation of landscapes. The framework

presented in this paper, which is based on a continuum

of interdisciplinarity by Lattuca (2001), categorizes

the key themes, questions, and issues being asked by

leading scholars who are influencing the debate about

interdisciplinaritydisciplinarity in LEC research. Theframework is a step toward a better understanding

about the nature of interdisciplinarity in LEC research

in the United States. It helps to standardize the

language about interdisciplinarity among researchers

from different disciplines as well as clarify the different

assumptions and expectations held by leading schol-

ars. The framework is helpful for understanding the

on-going tension between disciplinarity and interdis-

ciplinarity that will fuel new and creative approaches

for studying landscape ecological change. In addition,

the framework also demonstrates that there are many

lingering questions about which type of interdisci-

plinarityis best for pursuing LECresearchin theUnited

States. Based on the studys findings, we make threerecommendations about enhancing interdisciplinary

LEC research: (1) classify and compare the different

types of interdisciplinary landscape ecological change

studies using Lattucas continuum, (2) develop a

common knowledge-base of theories and principles

about landscape ecological change, and (3) explore

how theories and methods are shared between the

disciplines.

Acknowledgments

We express gratitude to the organizers of the Work-

shop in Landscape Change, Michael Goodchild and

Frederick Steiner, for their time and effort to bring

us together as well as the interactions with the work-

shop participants. The workshop was made possible

by funding from the National Science Foundation

(Grant No. BCS 0079979) and Environmental Sys-

tems Research Institute (ESRI) in cooperation with

the Landscape Architecture Foundation. Jack Danger-

mond and Susan Everett were key participants in thisprocess. In addition, this paper was partially inspired

by a panel at the 2001 Council of Educators in Land-

scape Architecture Conference in San Luis Obispo,

which included the valuable participation of Kristina

Hill (University of Washington, Seattle), Janet Silber-

nagel (University of Wisconsin, Madison), and Bill

Miller (ESRI). We appreciate the time of these re-

viewers who have offered their helpful feedback on

different versions of this manuscript (in alphabeti-

cal order): Jack Dangermond, Susan Everett, Michael

Goodchild, Bill Miller, David Pijawka, and Freder-ick Steiner. Julie Russ and Mary Kihl of the Her-

berger Center for Design Excellence in the College

of Architecture and Environmental Design at Ari-

zona State University provided important review as-

sistance during the development of this manuscript.

The material in this manuscript is in part based

upon the work supported by the National Science

Foundation under Grant No. DEB 9714833, Cen-

tral Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research

(CAP LTER).


12/13


References

Ahern, J., 1999. Spatial concepts, planning strategies and future

scenarios: a framework method for integrating landscape ecol-

ogy and landscape planning. In: Klopatek, J., Gardner, R.

(Eds.), Landscape Ecological Analysis: Issues and Applications.

Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 175201.

Antrop, M., 1998. Landscape change: plan or chaos? Landscape Ur-

ban Plan. 41, 155161.

Antrop, M., 2001. The language of landscape ecologists and plan-

ners: a comparative content analysis of concepts used in land-

scape ecology. Landscape Urban Plan. 55, 163173.

Bastian, O., 2001. Landscape ecologytowards a unified disci-

plines? Landscape Ecol. 16, 757766.

Burch,W.R., 1988.Human ecology and environmental management.

In: Agee, J.K., Darryll, J. (Eds), Ecosystem Management for

Parks and Wilderness. Seattle: University of Washington.

Dale, V.H., Haeuber, R.A. (Eds.), 2001. Applying Ecological Prin-ciples to Land Management. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Decamps, H., 2000. Demanding more of landscape research (and

researchers). Landscape Urban Plan. 47, 105109.

Forman, R.T.T., 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes

and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Fry, G.L.A., 2001. Multifunctional landscapestowards transdisci-

plinary research. Landscape Urban Plan. 57, 159168.

Gobster, P.H., Haight, R.G., Shriner, D., 2000. Landscape change in

the Midwest: an integrated research and development program.

J. For. 98 (3), 914.

Gobster,P.H., Stewart, S.I.,Bengston,D.N., 2004. The social aspects

of landscape change: protecting open space under the pressure

of development. Landscape Urban Plan. 69, 149151.

Goodchild, M.F., Parks, B.O., Steyaert, L.T. (Eds.), 1993. Envi-ronmental Modeling with GIS. Oxford University Press, New

York.

He, H., Mladenoff, D., Gustafson, E., 2002. Study of landscape

change underforest harvesting and climate warming-induced fire

disturbance. For. Ecol. Manage. 155, 257270.

Herpserger, A.M., 1994. Landscape ecology and its potential appli-

cation to planning. J. Plan. Lit. 9, 1429.

Hobbs, R., 1997. Future landscapes and future of landscape ecology.

Landscape Urban Plan. 37, 19.

Jenerette, G.D., Wu, J., 2001. Analysis and simulation of land-use

change in the central Arizona-Phoenix region, USA. Landscape

Ecol. 16, 611626.

Johnson, B.R., Hill, K. (Eds.), 2002. Ecology and Design: Frame-

works for Learning. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Kinzig, A., 2001. Bridging disciplinary divides to address en-

vironmental and intellectual challenges. Ecosystems 4, 709

715.

Klein, J.T., 1985. The evolution of a body of knowledge: interdisci-

plinary problem-focused research. Knowledge: Creation Utiliza-

tion Diffus. 7 (2), 112142.

Klein, J.T., 1994. Finding interdisciplinary knowledge and informa-

tion. In: Klein, J., Doty, W.G. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies

Today. Jossey-Boss, San Francisco, CA, pp. 733.

Kuhn, T.S., 1983. Roundtable: Kuhn and Lederberg on Scientific

Thought. New York Times, New York.

Lattuca, L.R., 2001. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary

Research and Teaching Among College and University Faculty.

Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN.

Lubchenco, J., 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new

social contract for science. Science 279, 491497.Moss, M.R., 2000. Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the

transformation of agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 15,

303311.

Nassauer, J.I., 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as the

matter of policy. Landscape Ecol. 6, 239250.

Nassauer, J.I.,1995. Culture and changing landscapestructure. Land-

scape Ecol. 10, 229237.

Nassauer, J.I. (Ed.), 1997. Placing Nature. Island Press, Washington,

DC.

Nassauer, J., Corry, R., Cruse, R., 2002. Alternative future landscape

scenarios: a means to consider agricultural policy. J. Soil Water

Conserv. 57, 44A53A.

Naveh, Z., 1995. Interactions between landscapes and culture. Land-

scape Urban Plan. 32, 4354.

Naveh, Z., 2000. What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual

introduction. Landscape Urban Plan. 50, 726.

Ndubisi, F., 2002. Ecological Planning: A Historical and Com-

parative Synthesis. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,

MD.

Opdam, P., Foppen, R., Vos, C., 2002. Bridging the gap between

ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape

Ecol. 16, 767779.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1972.

Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Uni-

versities. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-

ment, Paris.

Palmer, J.F., 1997. Stability of landscape perceptions in theface of landscape change. Landscape Urban Plan. 37, 109

113.

Pickett, S.T.A., Burch Jr., W.R., Grove, J.M., 1999. Interdisciplinary

research: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of

criticism. Ecosystems 2, 302307.

Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M.,2004. Resilient cities:

meaning, models, and metaphors for integrating the ecological,

socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape Urban Plan.

69, 369384.

Pimm, S.L., 1991. The balance of nature? Ecological Issues in the

Conservation of Species and Communities. Chicago University

of Chicago Press.

Rodiek, J.E., Steiner, F.R., 1998. Landscape architecture research

and education. Landscape Urban Plan. 42, 7374.Roy, R., 1979. Interdisciplinary science on campus: the elusive

dream. In: Kockelmans, J.J. (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity and Higher

Education. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University

Park, pp. 161196.

Steiner,F., 2000. TheLiving Landscape, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New

York.

Steiner, F., 2002. Human Ecology: Following Natures Lead. Island

Press, Washington, DC.

Steinitz, C., 1990. A framework for theory applicable to the edu-

cation of landscape architects (and other environmental design

professionals). Landscape J. 9, 136143.


13/13


Steinitz, C. (Ed.), 1996. Biodiversity and Landscape Planning: Al-

ternative Futures for the Region of Camp Pendleton, California.

Harvard Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, MA.

Tress, B., Tress, G., 2001. Capitalizing on multiplicity: a transdisci-

plinary systems approach to landscape research. Landscape Ur-ban Plan. 57, 143157.

Tress, B., Tress, G., Decamps, H., dHauteserre, A.M., 2001. Bridg-

ing humanand natural sciences in landscaperesearch. Landscape

Urban Plan. 57, 137141.

Turner, M., Baker, W., Peterson, C., Peet, R., 1998. Factors influ-

encing succession: lessons from large, infrequent disturbances.

Ecosystems 1, 511523.

Walker, B., Steffen, W., 1997. An overview of the implications

of global change for natural and managed terrestrial ecosys-

tems. Conserv. Ecol. 1 (2), 2, Accessed on 23 January 2004.

http://www.consecol.org/vol1/viss2/art2.

Wear, D., Turner, M., Flamm, R., 1996. Ecosystemmanagement with

multiple owners: landscape dynamics in a Southern Appalachian

watershed. Ecol. Appl. 6, 11731188.

Wiens, J., 1992. What is landscape ecology, really? Landscape Ecol.

7 (3), 149150.

Wu, J., Hobbs, R., 2002. Key issues priorities in landscape ecology:

an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol. 17, 355365.

Laura Musacchio (Ph.D.) is an AssistantProfessor at theUniversity

of Minnesotas Department of Landscape Architecture in Minneapo-

lis and is a researcher with the National Science Foundations Cen-

tral Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project (CAP

LTER). At the University of Minnesota, she teaches landscape ecol-

ogy, ecological design, conservation design, and research methods.

In addition, she taught geographicinformation systems, environmen-

tal planning, and landscape architecture at Arizona State University.

Herresearchemphasizes thechallenges and issuesfacing open space

conservation at the private/public land interface in rapidly urbanizing

regions in coastal, desert, grassland, and forest ecosystems.

Esra Ozdenerol is an Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences and

Director of the Advanced GIS Laboratory at the University of Mem-

phis. She serves as an Adjunct Professor of Preventive Medicine at

the University of Tennessee. She holds a B.S. in Landscape Archi-

tecture from Ankara University, Turkey, and M.L.A. and a Ph.D. in

Geography with a minor in Environmental Studies from Louisiana

State University. She has taught Geographic Information Systems

at the Florida International University in Miami. Ozdenerol special-

izes in geographic information systems, environmental health and

landscape ecology.

Margaret Bryant is an Assistant Professor in the Landscape Archi-

tecture Department at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni-

versity. Her research interests include integrating ecological science

into land planning and design, with an emphasis on urban regions,

and using geographic information systems (GIS) and other visual-

ization tools for land analysis andcommunication.She hasa Ph.D. in

regional planning from the University of Massachusetts and a mas-

ter of landscape architecture (M.L.A.) degree from the University of

Georgia.

Tom Evans is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geogra-

phyand AssociateDirector of theCenter forthe Study of Institutions,

Population and Environmental Change (CIPEC) at Indiana Univer-

sity. His research focuses on land-use/land-cover change analysisand

modeling and the application of GIS and remote sensing techniques

to the study of human dimensions of global change.

Documents

_Changing Landscapes, Changing Disciplines_seeking to Understand Interdisciplinarity in Landscape Ecological Change Research