doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028Ĭhiesura A, de Groot R (2003) Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1231332100Ĭhee YE (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.04.001Ĭash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson MN, Eckly N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchel RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.09.002īrunckhorst D, Coop P, Reve I (2006) “Eco-civic”optimisation: a nested framework for planning and managing landscapes. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.013īrody SD, Highfield W, Carrasco V (2004) Measuring the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in southern Florida. doi: 10.1007/s1098-6īlaschke T (2006) The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3530īianchi FJJA, Goedhart PW, Baveco JM (2008) Enhanced pest control in cabbage crops near forest in The Netherlands. doi: 10.1111/j.īianchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proceedings of the woodland trust and international association of landscape ecology-UK region conference, Gloucestershireīerkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. doi: 10.1007/s1098-1īennett AF, Radford JQ (2004) Landscape-level requirements for the conservation of woodland birds: are there critical thresholds in habitat cover? In: Smithers R (ed) Landscape and ecology of trees and forests. doi: 10.1023/A:1014412915534īastian O, Krönert R, Lipský Z (2006) Landscape diagnosis on different spatial and time scales-a challenge for landscape planning. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.03.001īailey N, Lee JT, Thompson S (2006) Maximising the natural capital benefits of habitat creation: spatially targeting native woodland using GIS. doi: 10.1007/s1098-yĪzerrad JM, Nilon CH (2006) An evaluation of agency conservation guidelines to better address planning efforts by local government. doi: 10.1007/s1098-2Īntrop M (2001) The language of landscape ecologists and planners-a comparative content analysis of concepts used in landscape ecology. Subsequently, we analyse how the framework could be applied and facilitate interdisciplinary research that is applicable in transdisciplinary landscape-development processes.Īnderson BJ (2008) Research in the Journal Landscape Ecology, 1987–2005. We elaborate this concept into a knowledge framework, the structure–function–value chain, and expand the current pattern–process paradigm in landscape ecology with value in this way. We argue that landscape ecological research needs to focus more on these issues and propose the concept of landscape services as a unifying common ground where scientists from various disciplines are encouraged to cooperate in producing a common knowledge base that can be integrated into multifunctional, actor-led landscape development. This paper addresses two prerequisites that landscape ecological science has to meet for it to be effective in producing appropriate knowledge for such bottom-up landscape-development processes-it must include a valuation component, and it must be suitable for use in collaborative decision-making on a local scale. When spatial planning policy is decentralised, local actors need to collaborate to decide on the changes that have to be made in the landscape to better accommodate their perceptions of value.
Landscape ecology is in a position to become the scientific basis for sustainable landscape development.
0 kommentar(er)
