PERSPECTIVES
Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology
and sustainable development
Jolande W. Termorshuizen Æ Paul Opdam
Received: 1 September 2008 / Accepted: 11 December 2008 / Published online: 4 January 2009
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Landscape ecology is in a position to
become the scientific basis for sustainable landscape
development. 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. This
paper addresses two prerequisites that landscape
ecological science has to meet for it to be effective
in producing appropriate knowledge for such bottomup
landscape-development processes—it must
include a valuation component, and it must be
suitable for use in collaborative decision-making on
a local scale. 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. 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.
Subsequently, we analyse how the framework could
be applied and facilitate interdisciplinary research
that is applicable in transdisciplinary landscapedevelopment
processes.
Keywords Landscape change Á Collaborative
spatial planning Á Landscape functions Á Pattern–
process relations Á Landscape value and valuation Á
Ecosystem services Á Structure–function–value
chain Á Interdisciplinary research Á Transdisciplinary
research Á Sustainability science
Introduction
People living in developed countries, especially in
urbanising areas and in regions where industrial
agricultural practices are intensifying, are increasingly
demanding high-quality landscapes (e.g.,
Jackson 2008; Matsuoka and Kaplan 2008; Stephenson
2008). In the Netherlands, for example, citizens
and companies are challenging farmers by demanding
that the landscape should provide more functions than
food production alone. This implies that landscapes
are expected to fulfil many functions at the same time.
We consider landscape performance in the context of
sustainable development; in other words, on the
condition that the use of our world and its natural
J. W. Termorshuizen (&) Á P. Opdam
Alterra, Landscape Centre, Wageningen University and
Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen,
The Netherlands
e-mail: Jolande.Termorshuizen@wur.nl
P. Opdam
Land Use Planning Group, Wageningen University and
Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen,
The Netherlands
123
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052
DOI 10.1007/s10980-008-9314-8
resources is based on a comprehensive consideration
of all ecological, social and economic functions and
without compromising the potential to deliver goods
and services to future generations (WCED 1987;
IUCN 1992; Linehan and Gross 1998). If we consider
these principles to be valid for landscape development,
then decisions on changes in landscapes have to
be taken after consideration of economic, social and
ecological functions and values. In sustainable landscape
development, humans change the landscape to
improve its functioning and create additional value.
Therefore, scientific knowledge should allow linking
of the physical structure and functioning of the
landscape to the economic, sociocultural, and ecological
values demanded by its users (Haines-Young
2000). For scientific knowledge that has an impact on
landscape-development processes, therefore, the first
prerequisite is that desired landscape values can be
related to intended changes in structure and functioning
of the physical landscape.
A second prerequisite follows from the trend
towards a decentralised landscape planning policy.
In most democracies, state-led planning is giving
way to systems of governance planning (Friedmann
1993; Haughton and Counsell 2004), in which
decision-making on landscape changes is becoming
the domain of various groups of actors on regional
and local scales (Brody et al. 2004; Azerrad and
Nilon 2006). These actors make different demands
on the landscape and hold different perceptions of
the benefits that landscapes must deliver to society.
This decision-making process is referred to as
‘‘collaborative planning’’ (Ryan et al. 2006) or
‘‘collaborative management’’ (Munˇoz-Erickson
et al. 2007). The trend towards bottom-up planning
is based on the subsidiarity principle (‘‘as much
local as possible and only so much government
regulation as necessary’’; Berkes 2004). It is
assumed that by involving local actors the sharing
of management power and responsibility will result
in more sustainable socioecologial systems (Schultz
et al. 2007). Collaborative planning poses an
unstructured problem to practitioners and scientists:
the objectives of landscape change and how to
accomplish them are not defined at the start of the
process and the required knowledge is uncertain. For
such unstructured problems, the literature recommends
a transdisciplinary approach in which several
scientific disciplines work together with regional
actors (Ezrahi 1980; Hisschemo¨ller and Hoppe
1995; Hisschemo¨ller et al. 2001; Horlick-Jones and
Sime 2004; Tress et al. 2005; Duff et al. 2008). The
knowledge needed for decision-making on landscape
development, therefore, needs to be relevant to the
small scale at which local actors perceive their
environment and decide about change. For example,
pattern–process knowledge should be spatially
explicit at the level of detail of individual landscape
elements, such as hedgerows, ditches, and water
pools. Moreover, because it needs to be suitable for
negotiating multifunctional targets, knowledge about
various landscape functions must have a common
basis that allows integration and comparison, and it
must be in a form that can be used in creative,
design-driven processes for identifying synergies
(win–win situations) and trade-offs between functions
(Tippett et al. 2007; Opdam et al. 2008). This
line of reasoning leads to the second prerequisite for
effective knowledge—it is spatially explicit on the
local scale, allows integration across disciplinary
boundaries, and is suitable for collaborative decision-
making.
Landscape ecology is being positioned as the
scientific basis for sustainable landscape development
(Potschin and Haines-Young 2006; Wu 2006; Wu
and Hobbs 2007). Considerable progress has been
made in sustainability impact assessment (e.g., Helming
et al. 2007) and in understanding driving forces
of landscape change (Veldkamp and Lambin 2001;
Sepp and Bastian 2007). In this paper, we show that
little advance has been made so far in producing
knowledge that meets the two prerequisites for
collaborative planning of landscape change. We build
upon the conclusion by Fry et al. (2007) that
landscape ecology has produced little coherent theory
so far to support its interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
maturation. The aim of this paper is to
contribute to this theory building by offering a
conceptual framework that connects the central
pattern–process paradigm of landscape ecology to
the social system in which human actors deliberate
about sustainable landscape development. We
explore how interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
approaches will be fostered by extending this paradigm,
either within the landscape ecological domain
or in the interaction between landscape ecology and
other domains in science. Our focus is on science and
therefore our search is within the scientific literature.
1038 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052
123
Although the framework could also have an impact
on the development of landscape policy, exploring
the grey literature on landscapes is outside the scope
of this paper.
The following questions will be explored:
– To what extent does current landscape ecological
research generate knowledge suitable for local
collaborative landscape planning?
– Which existing scientific concept of valuation is
most suitable for development into a new landscape
ecological framework?
– How could the new concept enhance cooperation
between scientific disciplines and between science
and practice?
Because of the state of the art of this subject, the
paper is exploratory and will generate hypotheses and
questions rather than answers.
How does landscape ecology deal
with sustainable collaborative landscape
development?
There is a widespread demand for a science that has
sufficient societal impact, calling for a fundamental
transition in the relationship between science and
society (Nowotny et al. 2001; Clark and Dickson
2003; Palmer et al. 2005; Potschin and Haines-Young
2006; McNie 2007). Much has been said in the
landscape ecological community about the need to
improve the interaction between landscape ecology
and society (Potschin and Haines-Young 2006; Wu
and Hobbs 2007) and, in particular, between landscape
ecology and spatial development (Opdam et al.
2002; Termorshuizen et al. 2007), but little progress
has been made in developing theory and methods in
this interface (Tress et al. 2005; Potschin and HainesYoung
2006). In the following, we show that
landscape ecological science has an insufficient
performance on the two prerequisites for knowledge
to be relevant to problem solving and significant to
local actors in sustainable landscape development.
We assume that the persistence of the gap between
landscape ecology and sustainable landscape development
is (at least partly) caused by this and discuss
how the landscape ecological knowledge base can be
improved for this purpose.
First, the issue of incorporating value. For a long
time landscape ecology has focussed on the relationships
between spatial patterns and ecological
processes (e.g., Turner 1989; Wiens and Moss
2005) without explicitly considering the question of
valuation. This may be because in large areas of
landscape ecological research people were not seen
as part of the landscape. They were either excluded
from the research or considered to be a cause of
landscape change (Bastian 2001; Antrop 2007; Wu
and Hobbs 2007). Although a growing number of
authors now stress the need to develop approaches
that link landscape ecological science with society
(e.g., Linehan and Gross 1998; Bastian 2001; Fry
et al. 2007; Wu and Hobbs 2007; Potschin and
Haines-Young 2006), the notion of valuation is
absent from most papers that address the science/
society interface (e.g., Leita˜o and Ahern 2002; Tress
et al. 2005; Wu and Hobbs 2007). In contrast, the
central notion in landscape development has always
been that people are part of the landscape and that
landscapes are changed for their benefit (Linehan and
Gross 1998; Antrop 2001). Hence, landscape ecology
and landscape planning have had a different orientation
on the value of landscapes to humans.
Second, the issue of collaborative development. In
organised decision-making on landscape change,
different process phases have been recognised, which
together constitute a cyclic process (Harms et al.
1993; Opdam et al. 2002). Phases that can be
distinguished are, for example: assessment, target
setting, strategy definition, design, implementation,
monitoring, and back to assessment again. All phases
are important for the landscape-development process.
Literature shows that landscape ecological research
that explicitly addresses sustainable development
mainly focuses on assessment studies to measure
the effect of policy measures on landscape patterns or
performance (e.g., Metzger and Schro¨der 2006;
Helming et al. 2007) and rarely on supporting
design-driven collaborative decision-making with
local actors (Luz 2000). In the symposia held at the
last IALE world congress (in 2007), 50 out of 230
presentations (22%) were on assessment studies, but
only 6% combined a local scale, valuation of
landscape assets, and collaborative decision-making,
and thereby met the two prerequisites proposed in the
Introduction. Assessment studies have two characteristics
related to solving structured problems. First,
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052 1039
123
values and objectives are defined beforehand in
policy and so negotiation about these is not part of
the research procedure. Second, the assessment
procedure is a linear process in which a chain of
rules and indicators (often in GIS models) are used to
measure progress towards the policy objectives
against the indicators used. For example, many
studies in Europe that are commissioned for the
European Union use the linear framework ‘‘Driving
Forces, Pressures, States, Impacts, Responses’’,
developed by the European Environmental Agency
(see Helming et al. 2007). Moreover, most assessment
studies are designed to support national and
international policies and are, consequently, based on
large-scale databases. For example, the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (2005) analysed global trends
in ecosystem goods and services. Also, the majority
of papers in the journal Landscape Ecology addressed
broad spatial scales (Anderson 2008). Brunckhorst
et al. (2006) have argued that such scales are
inappropriate for civic engagement in land-use planning
and management. Assessment tools are built on
rigorous replicable methods developed by experts.
These tools are suitable for answering questions, but
less useful for deliberation, which is characteristic of
bottom-up collaborative planning. Deliberation is
based on discussion and reflection, which increases
understanding of complex unstructured problems,
typical for sustainable landscape development (Macleod
et al. 2007). In this context, it is significant that
ecological knowledge is generally found too rigid and
prescriptive (Prendergast et al. 1999; Theobald et al.
2000; Morris et al. 2007) to be applicable to
collaborative landscape planning. We suggest that
most landscape ecological knowledge that has been
developed for policy assessment is not on the proper
spatial scale and not useful for deliberation. Further
research is necessary to deepen our understanding of
the different requirements that policy assessment and
collaborative landscape planning and design pose to
the structure of scientific knowledge.
These observations suggest, first, that for landscape
ecology to achieve a central position in
sustainable landscape development it has to extend
its pattern–process approach by incorporating perceptions
of value in its scientific scope (Fig. 1). This
would allow landscape ecological knowledge to
connect the physical structure and functioning of
the landscape with the values demanded by its users
(prerequisite 1). Second, there is a need for scientific
methods that allow actors in collaborative landscape
development to develop a science-based vision, to
negotiate about objectives and options, and design
and develop a landscape structure that functionally
supports the provision of demanded values (prerequisite
2). By definition, meeting this challenge
requires interdisciplinary collaboration. Valuation
techniques require the integration of approaches
taken from economics, psychology, and sociology
with pattern–process knowledge from the natural
sciences. Hence, there is an obvious need to intensify
communication between these sciences. We argue
that this communication challenge calls for a strong
unifying principle. This principle should also provide
a common ground between scientists and actors in
local landscape development (Nassauer and Opdam
2008). In the next section, we will search for such a
principle.
Fig. 1 Landscape functions are part of the pattern–process
paradigm in landscape ecology, but can also be considered
from the point of view of values that humans attribute to
landscapes. By incorporating value into the pattern–process
paradigm, landscape ecology can be developed into the basis
for sustainable landscape development
1040 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052
123
The landscape services concept as a bridge
between landscape and value
Landscape as a value-delivering system
For landscape science to contribute to sustainable
development, the view on what ‘‘landscape’’ is
should be consistent with this objective. This is not
obviously so: views on the landscape concept vary
widely among landscape sciences and in society.
Therefore, we have to mark our position in the
landscape debate first. In landscape science, landscape
values have long been narrowly defined. We
distinguish two views: one view based on nature
conservation values in relation to an ecophysical
definition of the landscape (Jobin et al. 2003; Wiens
and Moss 2005) and a second considering the
landscape as a cultural (Stephenson 2008) or aesthetic
phenomenon (Nohl 2001); both related to ‘‘the
cultural landscape’’ concept in which the landscape
is regarded as visual scenery. In landscape-planning
literature, in comparison, landscapes have been
considered as a human–ecological concept for
decades (Linehan and Gross 1998; Gobster and
Westphal 2004; Nassauer et al. 2004), emphasising
their economic, cultural and ecological values.
Recently, geographers and landscape ecologists have
been increasingly advocating a multifunctional landscape
concept, which includes both the aesthetic
aspect and the services it provides to humans (Bastian
2001; Fry 2001; Tress et al. 2001; Musacchio and Wu
2004; Potschin and Haines-Young 2006; see also
Stephenson 2008 for a review). Variation in landscape
views can also be found in landscape policy.
The UNESCO flagship programme on world heritage
cultural landscapes lays a strong emphasis on
conservation of cultural values of landscapes (Ro¨ssler
2006). The landscape convention of the Council of
Europe (2000) also emphasises the visual and cultural
aspects, but at the same time takes sustainable
development of landscapes as a principle for landscape
change. So, both scientific and societal views
differ in the emphasis on conservation versus development,
on natural versus cultural values, and on
aesthetic versus multifunctional user values.
We build on the multifunctional view of landscape
and incorporate both natural and cultural aspects,
because this view enables consideration of the
landscape as the physical basis for sustainable
landscape development. In this view, landscapes
are spatial human–ecological systems that deliver a
wide range of functions that are or can be valued by
humans because of economic, sociocultural, and
ecological reasons (Chee 2004; DeFries et al. 2004;
De Groot 2006), for example food production,
climate regulation and education (De Groot 2006).
This view implies that the functioning of landscapes
is the result of the interaction between physical
structures, which are the basis for natural processes,
and human actions. Because functions can be valued
by humans, they connect the performance of the
landscape system to human values and use (Fig. 1).
If we suppose that in collaborative landscape
development on the local scale, actors change the
landscape to obtain added value, which concept
would be the most appropriate to link landscape
ecological pattern–process knowledge with other
scientific domains and with collaborative landscape
planning?
We propose that ‘‘services concepts’’, for example
ecosystem services, landscape services, and environmental
services, emphasise the connection between
physical systems (ecosystems or landscapes) and
human values. ‘‘Services’’ (which is shorthand for
‘‘goods and services’’) are essential for the existence
and convenience of humanity (Daily 1997; De Groot
et al. 2002; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005). Examples of services are energy, flood
prevention, and recreational activities (De Groot
2006). The systematics of services, e.g., the definition
and the differences from functions and processes,
have been under construction and debate since the
term was first used in the literature (see, for example,
Bastian et al. 2006; Wallace 2007). For the time
being, we use the following construct, based on our
human–ecological view of the landscape. ‘‘Functions’’
can be translated into ‘‘services’’ when they
are valued by people (Fig. 2); one function can offer
Landscape services
Fig. 2 The structure–function–value chain as a framework for
landscape ecological knowledge, which gives meaning to the
term ‘‘landscape services’’ for collaborative landscape
development
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052 1041
123
several services. Thus, functions continue to exist in
the absence of people, whereas services exist because
people use and value the landscape. For example,
plant roots and soil biota (ecosystem components)
fulfil the function of soil retention. People value this
because it prevents damage from erosion, so a service
provided by the function ‘‘soil retention’’ is ‘‘prevention
of damage from erosion’’. In theory, the costs
of creating and maintaining vegetation strips can be
recouped from the money saved on repairing damage.
Changes in goods and services affect human wellbeing
(Daily 1997; De Groot et al. 2002; Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
As already mentioned, in sustainable landscape
development, actors change the landscape to obtain
added value. This can be translated now by characterising
sustainable landscape development as
adapting landscapes to provide better services.
Therefore, ‘‘landscape services’’ seems an appropriate
concept to link landscape ecological knowledge to
the field of collaborative landscape planning. However,
a quick scan in Scopus (Table 1) demonstrates
that this term has hardly been used in recent literature
(2007–2008). ‘‘Ecosystem services’’, on the other
hand, is far more popular: in the years 2007 and 2008,
614 articles mentioned ‘‘ecosystem services’’ in their
titles, keywords, or abstracts. Of these articles on
ecosystem services 75 mention ‘‘planning’’. However,
a closer look of the abstracts of this part reveals
that only a few articles are relevant for the field of
collaborative landscape development with ecosystem
services. In about half of the articles the term
‘‘ecosystem services’’ is just mentioned, as a kind
of buzzword, and not further developed. Of the
remaining articles, another half describes research on
a scale too large to be applicable to local planning.
Only a few studies on local to regional scales also
dealt with landscape-change processes with local
actors (Elbakidze et al. 2007; Schultz et al. 2007;
Cowling et al. 2008). None of these considered the
question how the term ‘‘ecosystem services’’ is
interpreted and used by local actors. Many of the
articles were about payments for ecosystem services,
assessment of policy, valuation of ecosystem services,
mapping of ecosystem services, etc. This
information could be essential to collaborative landscape
development, but its user value was not tested
in on-the-ground decision-making on landscape
change involving local actors.
The scarcity of literature on ecosystem services
applied in collaborative landscape development,
indicates that this concept needs further specification
to make it relevant and acceptable for application in
landscape development. We will explore below why
‘‘landscape services’’ may serve that purpose.
Landscape services versus ecosystem services
Why do we think that ‘‘landscape services’’ is a better
concept than ‘‘ecosystem services’’ to unify scientists
of different disciplines to build an interdisciplinary
knowledge base that is suitable for collaborative
landscape planning? Why should the ‘‘landscape
services’’ concept be recognised as more relevant and
acceptable both by local actors and scientists from
various disciplines, such as environmental and social
sciences, landscape planning, and architecture? We
present three lines of arguments for preferring the
term ‘‘landscape services’’ to ‘‘ecosystem services’’.
Landscape services better associate
with pattern–process relationships
The core message of landscape ecology is that
landscape pattern matters to landscape functioning.
To put it in the context of the services concept: the
unique contribution of landscape ecology to sustainable
landscape development is understanding spatial
pattern-functioning relationships and linking these to
Table 1 The number of articles, articles in press, and reviews
in the Scopus abstract and citation database (from 2007 and
2008; search conducted on 18 November 2008) with search
terms in the title, keywords or abstract
Search terms Number of articles
Services concepts in general
Ecosystem services 614
Environmental services 157
Green services 1
Landscape services 3
Services concepts in combination with planning
Ecosystem services and planning 75
Environmental services and planning 20
Green services and planning 1
Landscape services and planning 0
1042 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052
123
valuation of landscape services (Haines-Young
2000). These relationships might be most critical in
multifunctional, fragmented landscapes that are
heavily used by humans, where the provision of
services not so much depends on the features of the
individual, small ecosystem patches, but rather on the
spatial interaction between these patches and between
patches and human elements, such as footpaths and
roads, causing synergies and trade-offs between
services. An example is pest suppression in crops
by parasitic and predatory insects, which need a
specific structure of landscape elements to develop a
viable population (Bianchi et al. 2006). The spatial
position of the supply of services compared with the
position of the service users is also important, for
example the distance of users’ dwellings from a forest
where they can recreate or the upstream placement of
ditches or trees with respect to a village that needs
flood protection. Because of these intricate relationships
between the spatial pattern of landscape
elements and (horizontal) landscape processes, we
prefer the term ‘‘landscape’’ because it highlights the
importance of spatial pattern, whereas the ecosystem
concept highlights the functional (vertical) relationship
between ecosystem components (a.o. O’Neill
2001).
Landscape services better unify scientific disciplines
Among scientists, ‘‘landscape’’ is a term popular with
planners and landscape architects and is also used in
social sciences (Linehan and Gross 1998; Steiner
2000; Dramstad et al. 2006). However, ‘‘ecosystem’’
is not part of the language used in these scientific
domains. For example, Macleod et al. (2007), in their
paper on sustainable catchment management, use the
word landscape to denote the management unit, but
not ‘‘ecosystem’’. Instead, ‘‘ecosystem’’ is increasingly
becoming a core concept in environmental
science and associated with nature, biodiversity, and
environmental protection. Many recent papers on
ecosystem services relate services to biodiversity in
natural ecosystems (e.g., Martinez and Lo´pez-Barrera
2008; Cowling et al. 2008) and use it as a core
concept in environmental policy assessment (see for
example the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005). ‘‘Landscape’’ is a broader concept than
‘‘ecosystem’’, because more disciplines can recognise
themselves in it.
Landscape services are more relevant and legitimate
to local practitioners
For local actors, the concept must elicit associations
with the multidisciplinary character of the landscape
and also with a place where they live and work and
for which they are responsible. Connected with these
associations is the detailed pattern of landscape
elements that the locals perceive, valuate and manage.
We propose that the term ‘‘landscape’’ includes
all these aspects, whereas ‘‘ecosystem’’ does not,
because of the following. We observe, at least in our
part of the world, that the term ‘‘ecosystems’’ is
connected to (semi)natural areas with legal protection,
with recreation on Sunday, and with biodiversity
and natural processes. We did find some studies in
which the concept of ecosystem services was applied
on the local landscape scale, but these studies were
completely science-driven without involvement of
local actors (Patil et al. 2001; Li et al. 2005; GreˆtRegamey
et al. 2008; Lovell and Johnston 2008).
When we encountered the term ecosystem services in
scientific papers on collaborative management, the
unit of management appeared to be large-scale areas,
such as semi-natural farms in Arizona and vast
wetland area in Sweden (Olsson et al. 2004; Schultz
et al. 2007). Hence, ‘‘ecosystem’’ may be associated
with large-scale, natural processes, and conservation
instead of with human habitat, cultural patterns, and
development.
Based on these three lines of argument, we hypothesise
that to guide landscape ecology towards a
sustainable development science, the term ‘‘landscape
services’’ is more appropriate as a unifying
concept between scientists and between scientists and
local actors than ‘‘ecosystem services’’. Contrary to
‘‘ecosystem’’, ‘‘landscape’’ may be appealing to nonecological
scientific disciplines and may be associated
with people’s local environment, with the place
for which they feel responsible, and with distinct
spatial elements that they can change to improve the
ecological, social, and economic value. Therefore, we
propose the term ‘‘landscape services’’ as a specification
(rather than an alternative) of ‘‘ecosystem
services’’ for use in landscape ecology, when striving
for development of an interdisciplinary science base
for collaborative landscape development. Other
related terms might be considered, for example
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052 1043
123
‘‘natural capital’’ (Haines-Young 2000; Chiesura and
De Groot 2003; Blaschke 2006), ‘‘environmental
services’’ and ‘‘green services’’ (Ojeda et al. 2008;
Rogge et al. 2007), which are sometimes used as
synonyms for ecosystem services. The last two are
also used to depict financial arrangements (e.g.,
‘‘Payments for Environmental Schemes’’; Jack et al.
2008). We suggest that these terms are, like ‘‘ecosystem’’,
primarily associated with the ecological
functions of landscapes. Therefore we believe they
are less effective in unifying scientists from different
disciplines, while being less relevant and legitimate
to local actors in collaborative planning. They also
lack the emphasis on spatial pattern–process interaction.
We call for future research to determine whether
our arguments for preferring ‘‘landscape services’’
are supported by empirical evidence. For now, we
will build on these arguments and develop a theoretical
framework for landscape services that may guide
landscape ecology to merge better with social and
planning science to develop a science base for
collaborative sustainable landscape development.
The knowledge task for science:
the structure–function–value chain of knowledge
How can we translate the concept of landscape
services into a knowledge structure that helps to
converge knowledge generation in scientific disciplines
and at the same time strengthens the
relationship between science and practice? To answer
this question we analyse how the pattern–process
relationship, expanded to include value, could be
transformed into a knowledge chain that meets the
needs of the landscape-development process. We
assume that in obtaining a sustainable outcome,
scientific knowledge can make a difference by
guiding local actors to define common future values
and helping to identify a landscape structure that will
support those values. However, scientific knowledge
is of a generic nature and, for implementation, needs
to be reframed within the local context by linking it to
area-specific information. In collaborative local
development, actors involved in decision-making
should be able to understand the generic knowledge
and to apply it correctly in the specific context of the
planning region (Opdam et al. 2008). In this section,
the emphasis is on the generic knowledge; the
following section deals with the question of applying
it in local landscape planning processes.
To change landscapes in a way that adds value,
targets must first be set (Termorshuizen et al. 2007).
This requires indicators of landscape functions and
knowledge about how these indicators relate to
ecological, social, and economic values and benefits.
Much research addresses these relationships (for a
review see Chee 2004). Realising targets requires
insight into the relationship between function indicators
and spatial structure (Termorshuizen et al. 2007).
These are the relationships landscape ecology has
focussed on traditionally. However, relatively little
attention has been paid to how actors in local
landscape planning and design use this pattern–
process information, whether they tend to focus on
functions or on the spatial structure, and how they deal
with value. Actors must be able to negotiate about
their different perceptions of value and translate these
into preferred changes in landscape structure, taking
into account the spatial trade-offs between functions.
Shifting targets often also demand a shift in the
intended changes of landscape structure, because of
the functional relationship between structure and
value (via functions). The concept of landscape
services can therefore be operationalised in a knowledge
chain with two links—the first between spatial
structure and landscape functions and the second
between functions and values. We call this conceptual
knowledge chain the ‘‘structure–function–value
chain’’ (Fig. 2). Figure 3 gives two examples of
structure–function–value chains. The three entities
in the chain are represented by measurable, quantitative
indicators (for value, functioning, and changeable
physical features) because a quantitative indicator is
more verifiable, reproducible, and negotiable than a
qualitative one. Examples of quantitative function
indicators include the expression of carbon storage in t
C/ha (Bailey et al. 2006), the provision of reeds in
Fig. 3 Examples of structure–function–value chains
1044 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052
123
kg/ha/year (Hein et al. 2006), and species richness in
number of species (Bennett and Radford 2004;
Lindenmayer et al. 2005). Value can be expressed in
monetary and non-monetary terms. We envisage the
two links in the structure–function–value chain as
quantitative relationships.
The form of the relationships between structure
and function and function and value is crucial
information for decision-making—will a certain
investment lead to added value? Many relationships
are nonlinear (Eiswerth and Haney 2001; Fahrig
2002; Farber et al. 2002; DeFries et al. 2004; Huggett
2005). Therefore, an investment does not always lead
to more value. For example, if the relationship shows
a limit, the actual physical state of the planning area
determines whether it is possible to improve a
function or that it is already at its maximum (Fig. 4a).
For example, increasing the spatial cohesion of an
area initially improves the performance of a specific
population, but when certain cohesion has been
achieved, additional investments will not lead to
further improvement of performance (Hanski 1994).
If the relationship follows a bell-shaped curve with a
single optimum (Fig. 4b), investing in structure may
initially increase the function level, but further
investment will lead to a loss of functioning (and
thereby of value). For example planting more and
more trees to increase landscape quality for recreation
will eventually result in a forest which is too
dark. The shape or position of the relationship
between the supply of a landscape service and the
landscape characteristics differ according to the areaspecific
context. For example, when habitat quality is
bad, more area is needed for a specific species
(Opdam et al. 2003).
The innovative aspect of the knowledge chain is
that it highlights the need for interdisciplinary
research. In this context, interdisciplinarity has two
aspects. First we will elaborate on interdisciplinarity
within the structure–function–value chain, caused by
the fact that knowledge on both links is required at
the same time. Subsequently, we will discuss interdisciplinarity
between chains, thus between
functions, needed to support multifunctional landscape
development.
Integration of knowledge within the chain is
needed. The structure–function part of a chain may
be the domain of ecologists or geographers, while the
function–value part requires cooperation with economics
and sociology. To our knowledge, this
integration needs a strong impulse. For each function,
quite a lot of information on bits and pieces of the
chain can be found scattered throughout the literature,
obtained in different places and landscape types and
on varying spatial scales, but the complete chain is
rarely investigated. For example, the recent interest in
the role of biodiversity in suppressing crop pests has
produced a few reviews and papers (Tscharntke et al.
2005; Bianchi et al. 2006, 2008) in which landscape
features are quantitatively related, among others, to
the percentage of plants in fields that are infected
with parasites. Bianchi et al. (2006) showed that
increasing structural complexity on the scale of
agricultural landscapes can contribute to increased
predation and parasitism of pests and reduced crop
damage. However, these papers do not give information
about the economic profit for the farmer resulting
from lower costs of pesticide application. The
absence of complete chains of knowledge in research
is reflected in the disciplinary journals, which have
(a) (b)
Fig. 4 A structure–function curve with a limit (a) and one
with a bell-shape (b). If a certain structure in the planning area
were to be changed from 1 to 2, a considerable increase in the
function indicator could be expected. If, however, the structure
were to be changed from 2 to 3, it would not have much effect
(a) or it would have a negative effect on the output of the
function (b)
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052 1045
123
focussed on one link only for a long time, for
example Ecological Economics (function–value) and
Landscape Ecology (function–structure). The emergence
of integrative journals, for example
Sustainability Science, is rather recent but promising.
At the moment the structure–function–value chain is
not yet incorporated into the research published in
this journal.
Also, integration of knowledge between chains/
functions is needed. Different functions are being
studied in different scientific disciplines that communicate
insufficiently to produce knowledge that
can be used in collaborative landscape development.
The knowledge needs to be integrated in order to
support multifunctional landscape development, in
which functions have to be weighed and spatially
combined. For example, to integrate information on
the capacity of landscape to retain storm water, on the
capacity of purification of air by vegetation, and on
the perception of landscape structure by humans, it is
required that similar spatial scales, levels of detail,
and definitions of landscape structure are applied.
From this it can be concluded that the scientific
community faces a considerable task in producing
integrated knowledge. The structure–function–value
chain is an overarching concept that invites scientists
from different disciplines to coordinate their research
and guides their efforts towards outcomes more
suitable for integration. This integrated knowledge
must, in its turn, be applicable to transdisciplinary
landscape-development processes.
Crossing the boundaries between science
and practice
To explore how the structure–function–value chain
could facilitate a collaborative landscape-development
process, we have designed a conceptual
framework for application (Fig. 5). In this section,
we discuss its use in the planning process and the
expected performance in the light of criteria for
effective knowledge transfer (Cash et al. 2003).
Figure 5 shows how the structure–function–value
chain can be applied in collaborative decision-making
on landscape change. On the left of the figure, the
landscape change component of the framework, we
emphasise that the goal-setting and design process
must result in a structure appropriate to the desired
functions and a level of functioning that corresponds
to the desired value. If not, the designed structure is
not sustainable and must be adapted. Local actors, for
example farmers, tourist offices, and nature-conservation
organisations, choose which functions they
prioritise and which values the landscape functions
must provide, taking into account area-specific
aspects such as relevant policy and available space.
Hence, the objective of collaborative landscape
change is to alter the landscape structure to improve
its capacity to provide selected services up to a level
that is negotiated by the local actors. By achieving
this, added value is generated for landscape users.
The right of the figure, the socioeconomic system,
depicts the interactions between the actors capable of
Fig. 5 A conceptual
framework for collaborative
landscape development,
showing the position of the
structure–function–value
chain in relation to the
interacting forces demand
and supply in the provision
of landscape services. The
outcome of the change
process needs to ensure that
structure, function, and
value are in equilibrium and
that profits accruing to
landscape users equal
costs ? income to the
suppliers
1046 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052
123
supplying landscape services and the actors using
these services, linked by financial arrangements.
Hence, the landscape change is considered in a
market situation of demand and supply. The demand
may come from inside the planning region or from
outside it, for example from the nearby urban
population, or it may follow from legislation implemented
by the national government. Ideally, the
suppliers earn income and incur the costs of changing
the landscape and managing it; the users gain profit in
the form of quality of life (health, recreation) or save
money because the landscape takes over regulatory
functions (e.g., water supply, waste treatment). By
placing the landscape in a context of supply and
demand between suppliers and users, a condition is
created for sustainable landscape development.
The central part of the figure depicts the objective
setting, design, and evaluation process. It includes
decision-making, but also the coordination and organisation
of the demand–supply interaction, and
implementation of regulatory mechanisms to make
this work. Steps in this process may include selecting
functions to be developed and choosing how the
physical structure of the landscape will be changed to
improve it for the selected functions. An important
part of the landscape-change process is the transfer of
money from the demand to the supply side. This may
require a fund managed by a local board of
representatives of interest groups, financed from both
private and public sources. If functions or values are
demanded that transcend the scale of the planning
area (such as protected species or clean air), local and
national governments may be involved to protect
large-scale public values and supply budgets to
achieve this. The objective setting, design and
evaluation phases form a cyclic process, which will
probably never come to a final conclusion, but be
continuous as landscape changes will lead to changes
in the socioeconomic system that will lead to new
landscape changes. This process is typically designed
as a learning process in which local practitioners,
planners, landscape architects, and other professionals
cooperate with scientists in a transdisciplinary
coproduction of knowledge (Duff et al. 2008).
We are anxious to learn how the framework could
facilitate cooperation between scientists and practitioners.
For example, in the function–value linkage,
scientists may provide a list of possible landscape
functions to be improved, from which local actors
choose preferred functions to invest in. Scientists
may provide generic indicators and relationships
between function and value, for example in monetary
terms (Farber et al. 2002), but local actors decide how
they perceive the values provided by the actual
landscape and they determine the aspiration level for
the future landscape, for example for the level of
water purification or the level of biodiversity. Thus,
where scientific knowledge is related to values, it
needs to be reframed in a subjective context determined
by local actors. This is less so with knowledge
about the relationship between structure and functioning—generic
relationships between ecosystem
area and the level of the water purification function,
for example, need to be interpreted for the specific
ecosystem types and water quality in the planning
area, but can still be measured in objective terms.
Scientists may indicate ways to determine limits of
sustainability to change the functioning of the
landscape system (sustainable use levels; De Groot
2006), but local actors decide how to deal with limits
to acceptable change. Moreover, scientists can offer
local actors room to manoeuvre by indicating different
spatial structures that deliver about the same
function level instead of a single optimum solution
(Potschin and Haines-Young 2006).
How may we expect the landscape services
framework, worked out as the structure–function–
value chain, to perform in knowledge transfer
between science and society? Cash et al. (2003)
argue that scientific information is likely to be
effective in actions for sustainable development
when the information is credible, salient, and legitimate.
Credibility addresses the question of scientific
adequacy. We expect the landscape services concept,
as a boundary concept, will help to clarify what
should be known to change a landscape and identify
the scientific knowledge that needs to be provided.
Development of well-tested methods and tools for
showing the interrelationship between landscape
pattern, the functioning of landscape, and its benefits
to people, together with improvements to the availability
of knowledge on the right spatial scale, would
increase the credibility of the contribution that
science can make to collaborative landscape planning.
Salience concerns the relevance of the
information to the needs of decision makers. We
assume that our concept will help to improve salience
by enhancing the integration of knowledge across
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052 1047
123
disciplines. Integration improves, for example, the
effectiveness of scientific advice on combining
functions in the same spatial structure, which reduces
costs. Legitimacy reflects the perception that the
production of information respects users’ values, and
is free from bias, transparent, and produced with the
interests of the user in mind (Cash et al. 2003; McNie
2007). The structure–function–value chain explicitly
intends to improve legitimacy by introducing value
into the scientific approach.
Conclusion
‘‘Interdisciplinary frameworks that incorporate multivariate
causality, non-linear feedback, and
individual-based decision-making are critical to
research that explicitly incorporates humans in ecosystems’’
(Palmer et al. 2004). We have proposed the
concept of landscape services as a common ground
for knowledge production and have elaborated this
concept into a framework for knowledge generation,
applicable in local collaborative landscape development.
With this concept we expand the pattern–
process paradigm by incorporating human value to
position landscape ecology as a core science for
sustainable landscape development. The term ‘‘landscape
services’’ has been used previously (without
explicit definition), but we give it new significance in
the context of collaborative planning processes
designed to change landscapes with the purpose of
generating added value. ‘‘Landscape services’’ is just
a term; with the structure–function–value chain we
intend to give it meaning for landscape development.
To professional planners and local actors the chain
emphasises that the demanded value requires appropriate
landscape functions and physical patterns,
enabling the development of sustainable landscape
designs and subsequent landscape use. To scientists,
we expect the concept, expressed as the chain linking
knowledge found in different scientific disciplines, to
enhance interdisciplinary science. Finally, we suppose
that the concept will help to clarify cooperation
between scientists and practitioners, which improves
the user value of scientific knowledge. The concept
may be seen as a contribution to interdisciplinary and
probably also transdisciplinary theory (see the
research questions listed below), and could stimulate
the development of landscape ecology, as envisaged
by Wu and Hobbs (2007), toward a hierarchical and
pluralistic, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary
branch of sustainability science.
Theory should be tested and should evoke new
research questions and the development of new
methods. In our view, the landscape services framework
calls for challenging and innovative landscape
ecological research and helps to ask the right
questions. We suggest a few key questions:
– With respect to implementation of the framework:
• How can the available knowledge in various
disciplines (e.g., about landscape perception,
recreation, human health) be integrated into
structure–function–value chains and what are
the most important gaps in knowledge?
• What is the form of the relationships of the
linkages in the structure–function–value chain
and what role do they play in decision-making
on limits of sustainability and cost-
effectiveness?
• Are available methods, for example policy
assessment and scenario evaluation methods,
suitable for application in collaborative decision-making
and if not, how should these
methods be adapted?
• How can guidelines and methods for incorporating
the framework into collaborative
landscape planning be designed?
– With respect to the added value of the framework
itself:
• How does the framework affect the thinking
and negotiation process of local actors?
• How does the framework affect the cooperation
and knowledge exchange between
scientists and between scientists and
practitioners?
• Is the concept of landscape services more
effective than ecosystem services in collaborative
landscape development?
• Does the framework lead to more sustainable
use of landscapes?
• In what kind of planning culture is the
framework effective?
• How does the relevance of the framework as
perceived by local actors vary between intensively
and extensively used landscapes?
1048 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052
123
Of course, the framework is not a solution to the
problem we have identified; at most it is a means of
learning how to move landscape ecology closer to
sustainable development. We hope that it helps actors
to visualise how landscapes can be used for sustainable
development and that researchers will find it
helpful and inspiring for learning how to develop
adequate knowledge for sustainable landscape planning.
As such, we see the framework as a tool for
learning and communication. Its user value will have
to be discovered in the course of a learning process
involving the participation of scientists and
practitioners.
Acknowledgments This study is part of the ‘‘Ecosystem and
Landscape Services’’ research programme of Wageningen
University and Research Centre and financed by the strategic
research programme ‘‘Sustainable spatial development of
ecosystems, landscapes, seas and regions’’, commissioned by
the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation, and
Food Quality. We thank Barbara Sterk, Laura Musacchio, and
the anonymous reviewers for suggesting valuable improvements
to the manuscript.
References
Anderson BJ (2008) Research in the Journal Landscape Ecology,
1987–2005. Landscape Ecol 23:129–134. doi:10.1007/
s10980-007-9187-2
Antrop M (2001) The language of landscape ecologists and
planners—a comparative content analysis of concepts
used in landscape ecology. Landsc Urban Plan 55:163–
173. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00151-7
Antrop M (2007) Reflecting upon 25 years of landscape ecology.
Landscape Ecol 22:1441–1443. doi:10.1007/s10980-
007-9170-y
Azerrad JM, Nilon CH (2006) An evaluation of agency conservation
guidelines to better address planning efforts by
local government. Landsc Urban Plan 77:255–262. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.03.001
Bailey N, Lee JT, Thompson S (2006) Maximising the natural
capital benefits of habitat creation: spatially targeting
native woodland using GIS. Landsc Urban Plan 75:227–
243. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.03.004
Bastian O (2001) Landscape ecology-towards a unified discipline?
Landscape Ecol 16:757–766. doi:10.1023/A:1014
412915534
Bastian O, Kro¨nert R, Lipsky´ Z (2006) Landscape diagnosis on
different spatial and time scales—a challenge for landscape
planning. Landscape Ecol 21:359–374. doi:10.1007/
s10980-005-5224-1
Bennett 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. Proceedings of the
woodland trust and international association of landscape
ecology—UK region conference, Gloucestershire
Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation.
Conserv Biol 18:621–630. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.
00077.x
Bianchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T (2006) Sustainable
pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on
landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest
control. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 273:1715–1727. doi:
10.1098/rspb.2006.3530
Bianchi FJJA, Goedhart PW, Baveco JM (2008) Enhanced pest
control in cabbage crops near forest in The Netherlands.
Landscape Ecol 23:595–602. doi:10.1007/s10980-008-
9219-6
Blaschke T (2006) The role of the spatial dimension within the
framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital.
Landsc Urban Plan 75:198–226. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.
2005.02.013
Brody SD, Highfield W, Carrasco V (2004) Measuring the
collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to
manage ecological systems in southern Florida. Landsc
Urban Plan 69:33–50. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.
09.002
Brunckhorst D, Coop P, Reve I (2006) ‘‘Eco-civic’’optimisation:
a nested framework for planning and managing
landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:265–281. doi:10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2005.04.001
Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson MN, Eckly N, Guston
DH, Ja¨ger J, Mitchel RB (2003) Knowledge systems for
sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:
8086–8091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100
Chee YE (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of
ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 120:549–565. doi:
10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028
Chiesura A, de Groot R (2003) Critical natural capital: a sociocultural
perspective. Ecol Econ 44:219–231. doi:10.1016/
S0921-8009(02)00275-6
Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the
emerging research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
100:8059–8061. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231333100
Council of Europe (2000) The European landscape convention,
URL: www.coe.int/EuropeanLandscapeConvention
Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B,
Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A
(2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem
services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
105:9483–9488. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706559105
Daily GC (ed) (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence
on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington
De Groot RS (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool
to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable,
multi-functional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:175–
186. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016
De Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for the
description, classification and valuation of ecosystem
functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408. doi:
10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP (2004) Land-use choices:
balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front
Ecol Environ 2:249–257
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052 1049
123
Dramstad WE, Fjellstad WJ, Sundlii Tveit M, Fry GLA (2006)
Relationship between visual landscape preferences and
map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc
Urban Plan 78:465–474. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.
12.006
Duff G, Garnett D, Jacklyn P, Landsberg J, Ludwig J, Morrison
J, Novelly P, Walker D, Whitehead P (2008) A collaborative
design to adaptively manage for landscape
sustainability in north Australia: lessons from a decade of
cooperative research. Landscape Ecol (in press). doi:
10.1007/s10980-008-9236-5
Eiswerth ME, Haney JC (2001) Maximizing conserved biodiversity:
why ecosystem indicators and thresholds matter.
Ecol Econ 38:259–274. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(01)
00166-5
Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Axelsson R (2007) Sustainable
forest management as an approach to regional development
in the Russian Federation: state and trends in
Kovdozersky Model Forest in the Barents region. Scand J
For Res 22(6):568–581. doi:10.1080/02827580701804179
Ezrahi Y (1980) Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: the
political context of scientific advice. Minerva: a review of
science. Learn Policy 18:111–131
Fahrig L (2002) Effect of habitat fragmentation on the
extinction thresholds: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 12:346–353
Farber SC, Constanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and
ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol
Econ 41:375–392. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5
Friedmann J (1993) Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning.
J Am Plann Assoc 59:482–485. doi:10.1080/01944369308
975902
Fry GLA (2001) Multifunctional landscapes—towards transdisciplinary
science. Landsc Urban Plan 57:159–168. doi:
10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00201-8
Fry G, Tress B, Tress G (2007) Integrative landscape research:
facts and challenges. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics
in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp 246–268
Gobster PH, Westphal LM (2004) The human dimension of
urban greenways: planning for recreation and related
experiences. Landsc Urban Plan 68:147–165. doi:10.1016/
S0169-2046(03)00162-2
Greˆt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P (2008) Valuing ecosystem
services for sustainable landscape planning in Alpine
regions. Mt Res Dev 28:156–165. doi:10.1659/mrd.0951
Haines-Young R (2000) Sustainable development and sustainable
landscapes: defining a new paradigm for
landscape ecology. Fennia 178:7–14
Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics.
J Anim Ecol 63:151–162
Harms B, Knaapen JP, Rademakers JG (1993) Landscape
planning for nature restoration: comparing regional scenarios.
In: Vos CC, Opdam P (eds) Landscape ecology of
a stressed environment. Chapman & Hall, London, pp
197–218
Haughton G, Counsell D (2004) Regions, spatial strategies and
sustainable development. Routledge, New York
Hein L, Van Koppen K, De Groot RS, Van Ierland E (2006)
Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem
services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2005.04.005
Helming K, Pe´rez-Soba M, Tabbush P (eds) (2007) Sustainability
impact assessment of land use changes. Springer,
Berlin
Hisschemo¨ller M, Hoppe R (1995) Coping with intractable
controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy
design and analysis. Knowl Technol Policy 8:40–60. doi:
10.1007/BF02832229
Hisschemo¨ller M, Tol RSJ, Vellinga P (2001) The relevance of
participatory approaches in integrated environmental
assessment. Integr Assess 2:57–72. doi:10.1023/A:1011
501219195
Horlick-Jones T, Sime J (2004) Living on the border: knowledge,
risk and transdisciplinarity. Futures 36:441–456.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.006
Huggett AJ (2005) The concept and utility of ‘ecological
thresholds’ in biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv
124:301–310. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.037
IUCN (1992) The Rio declaration on the environment. IUCN,
UNEP, WWF, Gland
Jack BK, Kousky C, Sims KRE (2008) Designing payments for
ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience
with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 105:9465–9470. doi:10.1073/pnas.0705503104
Jackson LL (2008) Who ‘‘designs’’ the agricultural landscape?
Landsc J 27:23–40. doi:10.3368/lj.27.1.23
Jobin B, Beaulieu J, Grenier M, Be´langer L, Maisonneuve C,
Bordage D, Filion B (2003) Landscape changes and
ecological studies in agricultural regions, Quebec, Canada.
Landscape Ecol 18:575–590. doi:10.1023/A:1026
047625427
Leita˜o AB, Ahern J (2002) Applying landscape ecological
concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning.
Landsc Urban Plan 59:65–93. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046
(02)00005-1
Li F, Wang R, Paulussen J, Liu X (2005) Comprehensive
concept planning of urban greening based on ecological
principles: a case study in Beijing, China. Landsc Urban
Plan 72:325–336. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.04.002
Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J, Cunningham RB (2005) Native
vegetationcoverthresholdsassociatedwithspeciesresponse.
Biol Conserv 124:311–316. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.
038
Linehan JR, Gross M (1998) Back to the future, back to basics:
the social ecology of landscapes and the future of landscape
planning. Landsc Urban Plan 43:207–223. doi:
10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00088-7
Lovell ST, Johnston DM (2008) Creating multifunctional
landscapes: how can the field of ecology inform the
design of landscape? Front Ecol Environ 7. e-View. doi:
10.1890/070178
Luz F (2000) Participatory landscape ecology: a basis for acceptance
and implementation. Landscape Ecol 50:157–166
Macleod CJA, Scholefield D, Haygarth PM (2007) Integration
for sustainable catchment management. Sci Total Environ
373:591–602. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.12.029
Martinez ML, Lo´pez-Barrera F (2008) Special issue: restoring
and designing ecosystems for a crowded planet. Ecoscience
15:1–5. doi:10.2980/1195-6860(2008)15[1:SIRADE]2.0.
CO;2
Matsuoka RH, Kaplan R (2008) People needs in the urban
landscape: analysis of Landscape and Urban Planning
1050 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052
123
contributions. Landsc Urban Plan 84:7–19. doi:10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2007.09.009
McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information
with user demands: an analysis of the problem and
review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10:17–38. doi:
10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004
Metzger MJ, Schro¨der D (2006) Towards a spatially explicit
and quantitative vulnerability assessment of environmental
change in Europe. Reg Environ Change 6:201–216.
doi:10.1007/s10113-006-0020-2
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and
human well-being. Island Press, Washington
Morris J, Camilleri M, Moncada S (2007) Key sustainability
issues in European sensitive regions—a participatory
approach. In: Helming K, Pe´rez-Soba M, Tabbush P (eds)
Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes.
Springer, Berlin, pp 451–470
Munˇoz-Erickson TA, Aquilar-Gonza´les B, Sisk TD (2007)
Linking ecosystem health indicators and collaborative
management: a systematic framework to evaluate ecological
and social outcomes. Ecol. Soc. 12:6 [online]
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art6/
Musacchio L, Wu J (2004) Collaborative landscape-scale
ecological research: emerging trends in urban and regional
ecology. Urban Ecosyst 7:175–178. doi:10.1023/B:
UECO.0000044034.55695.bd
Nassauer J, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the
landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23:633–
644. doi:10.1007/s10980-008-9226-7
Nassauer JI, Allan JD, Johengen T, Kosek SE, Infante D (2004)
Exurban residential subdivision development: effects on
water quality and public perception. Urban Ecosyst
7:267–281. doi:10.1023/B:UECO.0000044039.65448.48
Nohl W (2001) Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception—preliminary
reflections on future landscape
aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plan 54:223–237. doi:10.1016/
S0169-2046(01)00138-4
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science.
Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty.
Blackwell, Malden
O’Neill RV (2001) Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept?
(With full military honors of course!). Ecology 82:3275–
3284
Ojeda MI, Mayer AS, Solomon BD (2008) Economic valuation
of environmental services sustained by water flows in the
Yaqui River Delta. Ecol Econ 65:155–166. doi:10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2007.06.006
Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T (2004) Social-ecological transformation
for ecosystem management: the development of
adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in
Southern Sweden. Ecol. Soc. 9, 4 [online] URL: http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2
Opdam P, Foppen R, Vos CC (2002) Bridging the gap between
ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape
Ecol 16:767–779. doi:10.1023/A:1014475908949
Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion:
an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for
biodiversity. Landscape Ecol 18:113–126. doi:10.1023/A:
1024429715253
Opdam P, Pouwels R, Van Rooij S, Steingro¨ver E, Vos CC
(2008) Setting biodiversity targets in participatory
landscape planning: introducing the ecoprofile approach.
Ecol. Soc. 13(1):20 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyand
society.org/vol13/iss1/art20/
Palmer M, Bernhardt E, Chornesky EA, Collins SL, Dobson
AP, Duke CS, Gold BD, Jacobson RB, Kingsland SE,
Kranz RH, Mappin MJ, Martinez ML, Micheli F, Morse
JL, Pace ML, Pascual M, Palumbi SS, Reichman OJ, Simons
A, Townsend AR, Turner MG (2004) Ecology for a
crowded planet. Science 304:1251–1252. doi:10.1126/
science.1095780
Palmer M, Bernhardt E, Chornesky E, Collins S, Dobson A,
Duke C, Gold B, Jacobson R, Kingsland S, Kranz R,
Mappin M, Martinez M, Micheli F, Morse J, Pace M,
Pascual M, Palumbi S, Reichman O, Townsend A, Turner
M (2005) Ecological science and sustainability for the
21st century. Front Ecol Environ 3:4–11
Patil GP, Brooks RP, Myers WL, Rapport DJ, Taillie C (2001)
Ecosystem health and its measurement at landscape scale:
toward the next generation of quantitative assessments.
Ecosyst Health 7:308–316. doi:10.1046/j.1526-0992.2001.
01034.x
Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2006) ‘‘Rio?10’’, sustainability
science and landscape ecology. Landsc Urban Plan
75:162–174. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.03.005
Prendergast JR, Quinn RM, Lawton JH (1999) The gaps
between theory and practice in selecting nature reserves.
Conserv Biol 13:484–492. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.
97428.x
Rogge E, Nevens F, Gulinck H (2007) Perception of rural
landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc
Urban Plan 82:159–174. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.
02.006
Ro¨ssler M (2006) World heritage cultural landscapes: a
UNESCO flagship programme 1992–2006. Landscape
Res 31:333–353
Ryan RL, Fa´bos JG, Allan JJ (2006) Understanding opportunities
and challenges for collaborative greenway planning
in New England. Landsc Urban Plan 76:172–191
Schultz L, Folke C, Olsson P (2007) Enhancing ecosystem
management through social-ecological inventories: lessons
from Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden. Environ
Conserv 34:140–152. doi:10.1017/S0376892907003876
Sepp K, Bastian O (2007) Studying landscape change: indicators,
assessment and application. Landsc Urban Plan
79:125–126. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.002
Steiner F (2000) The living landscape: an ecological approach
to landscape planning, 2nd edn. McGraw–Hill, New York
Stephenson J (2008) The cultural values model: an integrated
approach to values in landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan
84:127–139. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.07.003
Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P, Van den Brink A (2007)
Incorporating ecological sustainability in landscape planning.
Landsc Urban Plan 79:374–384. doi:10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2006.04.005
Theobald DM, Hobbs NT, Bearly T, Zack JA, Shenk T,
Riebsame WE (2000) Incorporating biological information
in local land use decision-making: designing a system
for conservation planning. Landscape Ecol 15:35–45. doi:
10.1023/A:1008165311026
Tippett J, Handley JF, Ravetz J (2007) Meeting the challenge
of sustainable development—a conceptual appraisal of a
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052 1051
123
new methodology for participatory ecological planning.
Prog Plann 67:9–98. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2006.12.004
Tress B, Tress G, De´camps H, d’Hauteserre A-M (2001)
Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape
research. Landsc Urban Plan 57:137–141. doi:10.1016/
S0169-2046(01)00199-2
Tress G, Tress B, Fry G (2005) Clarifying integrative research
concepts in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 20:479–
493. doi:10.1007/s10980-004-3290-4
Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C
(2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification
and biodiversity—ecosystem service management.
Ecol Lett 8:857–874. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.
00782.x
Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern and
process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197. doi:10.1146/
annurev.es.20.110189.001131
Veldkamp A, Lambin EF (2001) Editorial: predicting land-use
change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85:1–6. doi:10.1016/S0167-
8809(01)00199-2
Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services:
problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246. doi:
10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015
Wiens J, Moss M (eds) (2005) Issues and perspectives in landscape
ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987)
Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability
science. Landscape Ecol 21:1–4. doi:10.1007/
s10980-006-7195-2
Wu J, Hobbs R (2007) Landscape ecology: the state-of-thescience.
In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape
ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp
271–287
1052 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:1037–1052
123