Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
DOI 10.1007/s10980-015-0200-x
PERSPECTIVE
The significance of geosystem and landscape concepts
for the assessment of ecosystem services: exemplified
in a case study in Russia
Olaf Bastian . Karsten Grunewald .
Alexander V. Khoroshev
Received: 27 August 2014 / Accepted: 10 April 2015 / Published online: 21 April 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract
Context Recently, physical geography and land-
scape ecology have attracted increasing attention,
due to the expectation that their theoretical and
methodical concepts may improve the assessment of
ecosystem services (ES). Examples of promising
approaches rooted in various scientific schools, espe-
cially of Eastern Europe and Russia.
Objective The paper briefly describes these ap-
proaches, particularly in terms of ES supply. This is
deepened by way of a case study in Russia which
shows the crucial role of landscape patterns and
landscape units in the assessment of ES with respect to
the relationship between forestry and runoff.
Methods For the selection of important geosystem-
based aspects we started from the ES approach and
reviewed the Eastern European (particularly Russian
and Eastern German) literature to identify aspects that
might be suitable for incorporation into the ES
concept.
Results Among the geosystem-based geographical
and landscape-ecological approaches which have been
addressed by scientific schools in Russia and Eastern
O. Bastian  K. Grunewald (&)
Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional
Development, Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany
e-mail: k.grunewald@ioer.de
A. V. Khoroshev
Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University,
Leninskie Gory 1, 119991 Moscow, Russia
Europe, landscape genesis, landscape units, landscape
hierarchy, the role of spatial scales, ecosystem patterns
and relationships and natural potentials belong to the
most promising ones. These approaches can improve
assessments of ES by strengthening their scientific
foundation, and elaborating them in a spatial context
which might help to better influence land use policy
and decision-making.
Conclusions Integrated geosystem approaches may
provide a number of interesting theoretical and
methodological contributions and impulses to the
study of ES, especially for the current national TEEB
initiatives in many countries. This provides significant
perspectives for the application of geosystem-based
concepts in ecological planning.
Keywords Landscape genesis  Landscape units 
River basins  Catena  Natural potentials  Spatial
scales  Forestry  Water runoff
Introduction
Recently, ecological planning has faced new chal-
lenges with respect to the ever more popular concept
of ecosystem services (ES), which is seen as a way to
enhance consideration for biodiversity and ecosystems
in planning and decision-making processes, foster
sustainable land use and avoid over-utilization and
degradation of natural resources (e.g. Braat and de
123
1146
Groot 2012). The ES concept has achieved promi-
nence particularly via the global The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity study (TEEB), which is
focused on ‘‘the global economic benefit of biological
diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the
failure to take protective measures versus the costs of
effective conservation’’ (TEEB 2010).
Since the release of TEEB’s suite of final reports at the
UN-CBD meeting in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010,
numerous countries have begun or completed national
TEEB studies, including Germany (Naturkapital
Deutschland-TEEB DE 2012); initial steps have also
been taken in Russia (Tishkov 2005; Bobylev and
Zakharov 2009). These country-level studies focus on
evaluating national policy priorities in terms of their ES
dependencies and impacts, identify and value important
ES and natural areas that provide them, and propose
changes in policies and mechanisms that address national
priorities and ES losses. There is considerable need for
guidance for all these studies, in terms of process,
organization, scope, policy contexts, valuation frame-
works, methodologies, and typical solutions (TEEB
2013).
Brouwer et al. (2013) note that there exists a wide
variety of assessment approaches in practice at various
geographical and temporal scales. As recent surveys of
ES mapping studies have shown, the most commonly
used sources of information include land cover variables,
topographical information and spectral vegetation in-
dexes. Less common are mapping techniques basing on
biological data, such as functional traits of plants (e.g.
vegetative height, leaf dry matter content, leaf nitrogen
and phosphorous concentration, flowering onset), or
ecosystem structure and habitat data. There are also such
models as the InVEST tool, which examine the under-
lying mechanisms which drive ES delivery and are thus
more likely to produce realistic information on ES
supply, but they also require significant investment in
data acquisition and expert knowledge (Maes et al. 2012).
By using topographical maps and land use maps,
and by relating landscape functions and ES to single
land cover types, the ES of large areas can be mapped
at a rather low expense (e.g. Burkhard et al. 2012;
Maes et al. 2012). For instance, the Ecosystem
Assessment of Great Britain (UK NEA 2011) refers
to only nine ‘‘broad habitat types’’.
However, the relationships between land cover
variables and ES supply have not yet been thoroughly
understood (de Groot et al. 2010; Eigenbrod et al.
123
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
2010). The poor understanding of the process under-
lying ES supply is one of the greatest barriers to
progress in quantifying and mapping ES (Tallis et al.
2013). Hence, land use and land cover can be seen as
helpful but simplistic proxies for ES supply and values
(Schägner et al. 2013). Such proxy methods have been
very powerful in creating policy awareness at various
levels, but they are insufficient when it comes to land
use and policy planning for ES delivery, as they
disregard complex ecological reality. This scientific
uncertainty poses serious risks of adverse effects of
policies (van der Biest 2013). It is also problematical
that the indicator ‘‘land cover’’ does not allow for any
clear differentiation between ES supply and demand
(or present land use). Against this background,
landscape-ecological integrative approaches deserve
more attention (Iverson et al. 2014).
Indeed, integrated approaches are attracting ever
greater attention; they encompass the complexity of
ecosystems and landscapes with their abiotic, biotic
and socio-economic characteristics (Miklós 2010).
Among the landscape-ecological integrated approach-
es rooted in various scientific schools in different parts
of the world, we will emphasize particularly the
Russian/Soviet (and Eastern European) biophysical
approach based on the geosystem paradigm, on soil
science, physical geography, and geology, which is not
well known to the international readership, because
early papers that define and describe this perspective
were published in Russian or German, and only in some
cases and much later translated into English—see the
sample of key papers collected by Wiens et al. (2006).
We argue that this approach may provide a number of
interesting theoretical and methodological contribu-
tions and impulses to the study of ES delivery.
The goal of this paper is to underpin this assumption
from theoretical, methodological and practical points
of view. The paper presents several aspects of, or
approaches to, the geosystem concept (some of them
exemplified by way of a case study in Russia on the
relationship between forestry and runoff), and points
out not only the opportunities and benefits it offers, but
also their constraints for the assessment of ES supply.
Methodology
For the selection of important geosystem-based
aspects, our point of departure was our knowledge of
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
the ES concept and ES models, particularly the ES
cascade (Haines-Young and Potschin 2009, while
taking into account criticism and advancements—e.g.
Spangenberg et al. 2014, who introduce additional
elements, emphasize the societal dimensions more
strongly and turn the cascade into so-called stairways)
and the EPPS framework (Bastian et al. 2012a, b,
2013; Grunewald and Bastian 2015). We then re-
viewed the Russian literature to identify aspects that
might be suitable for incorporation into the ES
concept. The aspects selected are to some extent
closely interlinked. Neither do they make any claim to
completeness, nor do we attempt to compare them
comprehensively with land cover based assessment
approaches.
There is no clear terminology concerning the
distinction between concepts, models, approaches
and aspects. Both the geosystem and natural potentials
can represent a concept. But the latter can also be seen
as an approach or an aspect of the former. Here, we
prefer the terms ‘‘concept’’ (or paradigm) for geosys-
tem (or landscape) and ‘‘aspect/approach’’ for the
issues described in the following sections.
We start from a short description of the geosystem
and (physical) landscape concepts, and briefly present
and discuss the selected geosystem and landscape
based approaches. Then, we deepen the analysis with
reference to a case study as representative of the role
of landscape patterns and landscape units in the
assessment of service supply, with respect to relations
between forestry and runoff in Russia. Finally, we take
a closer look at the perspectives for application in
ecological planning, especially in Germany and
Russia.
Theoretical basis: aspects of geosystem
and landscape-based ecosystem service
assessments
The concepts of geosystem and landscape
The geosystem concept appeared in the 1960s, when
Viktor Sochava (1963) introduced this term into geo-
graphical landscape research. At that time, the system
approach was being intensively implemented in geo-
graphy (Chorley and Kennedy 1971). Today, the term
‘‘geosystem’’ is also widely used in the teaching of
physical geography (Christopherson 2014). Geosystems
1147
are related to the geographical space and reflect the
structure, development and change of the earth’s crust.
Sochava’s geosystem term is basing on older funda-
mentals, such as the biologically oriented ecosystem
science, the general theory of hydrological systems, the
specific basics of geo-sciences (e.g. geomorphology,
geochemistry, climatology) and landscape ecology
(Blumenstein et al. 2000).
Geosystem research deals with the properties and
the internal energy, water and matter turnovers of
landscape systems. The biologically oriented ecosys-
tem research does the same, however, while taking the
connection between living beings and their environ-
ment into special account. Despite different views of
the life and earth sciences, both approaches largely
overlap in practice (Leser 1997).
The holistic paradigm ‘‘the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts’’ applies to the provision of ES, too.
The landscape matrix determines the role of the
individual components, rather than simply adding up
the individual components (Vandewalle et al. 2008).
Willemen (2010) stresses the argument that land-
scapes are holistic spatial systems in which humans
interact with their environment. In particular, the
geographical context and landscape character can be
very important for ES.
The definition of landscape as a geosystem or
an ecosystem complex is mainly held by physical
geographers and landscape ecologists. For exam-
ple, Nikolai Solntsev, founder of the landscape
science school at Moscow State University, de-
fined landscape as a ‘‘genetically uniform territory,
with regular and typical repetition of some inter-
related combinations of geological structures,
landforms, surface and groundwater, microcli-
mates, soil types, phytocoenoses and zoocoenoses’’
(Solntsev 1948).
Ernst Neef (1967) included human creations, and
described landscape as ‘‘a segment of the earth’s
surface characterized by the same structure and
processes, of which the full integration of all geo-
factors (geological subsoil, relief, soil, climate, water
balance, flora, fauna, humankind and its works) of a
site or a space consists’’.
Nevertheless, such physical landscapes, or geosys-
tem or ecosystem complexes, may provide a suitable
basis for ES assessments, and in many cases they are
more appropriate than considering single components
(e.g. land cover) in isolation.
123
1148
Landscape genesis
The complex structure of (physical) landscapes
emerged over long periods in complicated processes.
Especially the study of landscapes and their genesis
may provide valuable insights into ecosystem struc-
tures and processes, which may be important for the
provision of ES, particularly with regard to the vast,
rather undisturbed areas which are a general geo-
graphical peculiarity of the former Russian Empire
and the USSR, as well as of present-day Russia,
particularly its Asian part. Russian geographers have
since the early twentieth century focused on landscape
genesis. Lev Berg created the basis for the ‘‘structural’’
approach in landscape science, providing definitions
of landscapes and geography: ‘‘A natural landscape is
a region in which the character of landforms, climate,
and plant and soil cover are integrated into a harmonic
whole, typically repeated within a certain zone of the
earth. A study of the causes leads to the fact that relief,
climate, and plant and soil cover form one unique
landscape system or organism, resulting from interac-
tions of different factors that affect each other and that
constitute the natural landscape. This is the task of
scientific geography… The task of great significance
for geographers is the division of the earth’s entire
surface, or its parts, into regions based on their natural
attributes’’ (Berg 1915). Berg composed first small-
scale landscape maps and regionally integrated de-
scriptions for the Asian part of Russia.
In large parts of Russia, natural landscapes still
dominate, and natural genesis-based classifications
still have high validity. Physio(geo)graphy-based and
genesis-based approaches to landscape research since
the 1940s have proven relevant in the exploration for
natural resources and for planned economic activities
(Sochava 1963; Isachenko 1973). For instance,
morainic outwash and karst plains differ in the
intensity of their matter flows, soil fertility, biological
productivity, carrying capacity of deposits etc., so that
different land use and settlement possibilities result
(see ‘‘Ecosystem patterns’’ section). Similar approach-
es referring to the idea of strong interdependencies
between abiotic and biotic phenomena and physio-
graphy as a binding factor were developed simultane-
ously or a bit later in Australia, western and central
Europe, and North America (Troll 1950; Christian
1958; Zonneveld 1989). The importance of the
genesis-based approach for the identification of spatial
123
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
units was emphasized by Minar and Tremboš (1997)
and Bailey (2005). The resulting maps in scales
ranging from global to local were successfully used for
ecological regionalization (Rowe 1996; Omernik
2004; Loveland and Merchant 2004; Bailey 2005),
landscape planning (Hills 1961; Martin-Duque et al.
2003), and forest planning (Beauchesne et al. 1996;
Smith and Carpenter 1996).
Landscape units
For the assessment of ES, particularly for the supply
side, the potentials or the capacity of ecosystems to
deliver services, suitable units of reference are neces-
sary. Such spatial reference units are needed for the
sampling, analysis and assignment of data, as well as
for the assessment and modelling of ES themselves.
We can distinguish between regular geometrical units
such as grids, and irregular or non-geometrical units
such as ecological units. Examples for ecological units
are ecosystems, watersheds, bio-geographical units, or
landscape units and geo-chores (Haase and Mannsfeld
2002; Blaschke 2006; Bastian et al. 2006; Ingegnoli
2014). The reference units should be related to scales
that are ecologically reasonable and policy relevant,
and they should express the complexity of facts and
relationships.
Landscape units show a uniform or similar overall
character, which society must respect in order to
achieve an effective and at the same time careful use.
Different types of landscape units have the advantage
of suitability for
• Identifying landscape characteristics (all-encom-
passing landscape character in the sense that
Alexander von Humboldt expressed in the early
nineteenth century),
• Defining leitbilder (visions for landscape devel-
opment), and
• Transferring information/extrapolating results and
applying them to ecologically similar areas, in
order to bridge data bottlenecks to a certain degree
(Bastian et al. 2006; Potschin et al. 2010).
A special case of landscape units is the natural or
biophysical unit. According to Haase and Mannsfeld
(2002) this ‘‘is an area of land (a section of the earth’s
terrestrial crust) characterized by a uniform physical
structure determined by natural laws and by a complex
of abiotic and biotic components; it represents the
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
relationship (in terms of processes) between the
geosphere and the biosphere’’. In other words: The
‘‘biophysical unit’’ is that part of a landscape which is
determined by its natural components (geological and
geomorphologic structure, soil, water, climate, flora
and vegetation, fauna). There are also several other
names for such entities, e.g. geo-complex, geochore,
physical region, natural complex, natural sphere, land
unit, land system, eco-region, or, in German, Natur-
raum (Bastian et al. 2006).
In the former USSR, landscape mapping developed
since the 1940s, and served as a basis for the
elaboration of the concept of morphological structure
of landscape as a genetic entity. The hierarchical
organization of nested landscape units is the focus of
this concept. An elementary natural territorial com-
plex is referred to as facies. Normally, it lies within an
element of the mesorelief (e.g. the concave portion of
a gully slope), and is absolutely uniform in lithology
and slope. This results in a uniform microclimate and
water regime. In such conditions only one soil and one
biocoenosis can occur. Spatial arrangements of facies
usually lead to the higher-level landscape units called
podurochishchya in Russian (e.g. gully slopes). Lat-
eral flows of matter and energy are well-manifested at
this hierarchical level. A series of genetically and
dynamically linked facies and podurochishchya con-
stitute an urochishche—a landscape unit within a
single mesorelief form (e.g. gully, hill, river terrace as
a whole). A geographical mestnost (locality) has been
defined as a part of a landscape with a certain
combination of main urochishchya determined by
the variability in geological structure (e.g. different
thickness of surface deposits), ratio of dominant,
subdominant and rare urochishchya (Dyakonov 2007),
etc.
Mapping units at the urochishche hierarchical level
(scale 1:10,000–1:50,000) are widely used for the
purposes of local landscape planning and environ-
mental impact assessment in Russia. Higher level units
(mestnost, landscape) are more relevant for strategic
planning at the regional level, e.g. in planning
ecological networks, or priorities for economic devel-
opment. The landscape level is preferred for the
drawing of landscape maps for regional atlases. Facies
are too small to have economic activity adapted to
them, but certain combinations of facies within
urochishchya, e.g. a number of small waterlogged
depressions in a flat area, can impose restrictions on
1149
land use and force a change in the choice of
technology, e.g. on the manner of ploughing.
With respect to ES, both ecological and socio-
economic units (administrative units, land use units)
are relevant. The overlap of these two types is a major
problem, which needs special attention, as ecological
issues and institutional boundaries seldom coincide
(de Groot et al. 2010).
Landscape hierarchy
Landscape units can be seen as associations or mosaics
of basic topological elements, and they can be
aggregated at different levels of abstraction, resulting
in different sub-dimensions within the chorological
dimension (nano-, micro-, meso-, macro-ecochores).
At the chorological dimension, we leave behind the
concept of homogeneity that has been used to define
ecotopes (Neef 1963a). The internal heterogeneity of
such units is reduced to new information, which is
defined as homogeneous at a higher level of abstrac-
tion (Herz 1973). At a higher level of aggregation,
geochores have new properties which are beyond the
mere sum of their parts (Löffler 2002).
Hierarchies play an implicit role in many ecological
models (O’Neill 1989; Wu 1999), particularly in
landscape ecology. The hierarchy concept developed
in Russian physical geography has provided the
methodological basis for the analysis and mapping
of landscape structures at various scales. In Russia,
relief and geology are traditionally considered of
crucial importance for generating landscape patterns.
In the hierarchy of natural units in Russia, landscape is
understood to be a large, genetically homogeneous
unit (1000–10,000 km2) that can be subjected to
typological classification, unlike such higher-order
units as physical-geographical (eco)districts, (eco)-
provinces, or (eco)regions. The landscape consists of
so-called morphological units Solntsev (1948).
Process-oriented research (particularly in land-
scape geochemistry) has also elaborated hierarchical
systems of units. Elementary landscape, catena, cas-
cade, landscape-geochemical system, and watersheds
of different ranks (Kasimov and Gennadiev 2007) are
examples of process-oriented units relevant for assess-
ing ES dependence in matter flows between landscape
elements. The list of such services includes runoff
regulation, ability of soils to neutralize pollutant
migration, the hydroelectric potentials of rivers, etc.
123
1150
Recently, researchers have started attempts to build
hierarchies based on the concept of the multi-struc-
tural organization of landscapes. The point of depar-
ture for this is the multiplicity of mutually independent
ecological processes, each of which is responsible for
a specific hierarchy of geosystems (Wu et al. 2000).
Statistically significant interrelationships between
landscape components are evaluated to reveal the
sensitivity of particular landscape properties to pro-
cesses of various hierarchical orders (Khoroshev
2010).
Spatial scales
Ecosystems, their structures, processes and services,
are related to specific spaces and manifest themselves
in several scales. The term ‘‘space’’ is considered very
important and constitutive in a wide range of scientific
disciplines, not only in geography, but also in
philosophy, mathematics and physics, history, archae-
ology and sociology. According to Blotevogel (1995)
we understand space as a
• Tangible physical space (pattern of different areas
and cubes), which can be described objectively,
• The natural human environment (e.g. landscape),
and
• Social space (the social construction of reality,
spaces of collective actions, areas of spatial
allocations).
Scale issues of ecosystems were already rooted in
the original definition of Tansley (1935), who stressed
that ecosystems can be defined at a wide range of
spatial scales, from the level of a small ephemeral
sunlit spot on the forest floor up to that of a whole
forest ecosystem spanning several thousands of kilo-
metres and persisting for decades or centuries (Forman
and Godron 1986). The supply of ES depends on the
functioning of ecosystems, which is in turn driven by
ecological processes operating across a range of scales
(Hein et al. 2006). Often, specific ES are generated and
supplied at particular scales (Hein et al. 2006;
Costanza 2008).
Given various scale levels, scale-dependent process
variables and magnitudes require scale-adapted meth-
ods of analysis and evaluation, which have already
been addressed by the ‘‘dimension theory’’ (Neef
1963b). On this basis, the approaches developed at the
local and regional scales can be transferred (adapted,
123
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
applied and checked) to the supra-regional or even to
the global context—the ‘‘bottom-up’’ strategy. The
reverse ‘‘top-down’’ approach, too, is possible. Due to
the fact that the combination and processing of data
from quite different temporal and spatial scales and the
transition from one scale to another can cause
problems involving the expressiveness and interpre-
tation of data and information (Neef 1963b), the
choice of a suitable dimension or scale is essential for
any conceptual and/or methodological ES framework.
Wu and Li (2006) have provided a review on theories
and methods in scaling.
The spatial relations of ES are manifold. This
applies to the supply aspects (for the areas where ES
are supplied or maintained), but also for the areas
where human needs or demands for ES arise, and
where they have to be satisfied. Some aspects are listed
below (cp. Bastian et al. 2012b):
• The supply of ES is tied to special area require-
ments (minimum areas) of the ecosystems
concerned.
• Frequently, a specific spatial composition or
pattern of several ecosystems is necessary to
generate ES (see below). Composition aspects
are also manifested in the spatial congruence or
divergence of ES, or in mutual effects (synergies
or trade-offs).
• Whether different ES co-vary positively or
negatively often depends on the configuration of
the ecosystems or landscape elements involved at a
specific scale.
• Spatial aspects are also relevant with respect to the
differentiation between areas where ES are gener-
ated (service providing areas), and those where
they are used or demanded (service benefiting
areas).
Ecosystem patterns
One of the most important tasks is to reveal and assess
ES provided by particular combinations of ecosys-
tems, landscape elements and landscape units; the
whole is more than the sum of its component elements.
The composition and patterns of ecosystem complexes
and landscapes strongly influence fluxes and flows of
water, nutrients, and biota. These in turn determine the
quality and diversity of ES derived from a landscape,
catchment or river basin. The spatial properties of
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
ecosystems and landscapes—size, orientation, shape,
core/edge ratio, mutual location, neighbourhood,
proportion, distance to other elements, etc.—generate
the diversity of potentials (service supply) and land
use opportunities (cf. ‘‘Natural potentials’’ section).
Spatial aspects and patterns take centre stage in
landscape ecology (Forman and Godron 1986; Moss
2000).
Landscape structure has a principal significance in
geographical approaches to ES assessment. Various
ES can depend either on the internal properties of a
unit, or on the effects caused by the interactions of
units, i.e. on the landscape structure per se.
In assessing pattern-dependent ES, it is necessary to
distinguish between the functional roles of units that
each contribute differently to the emergent effect of
spatial patterns. It is useful to distinguish between
units which
• Dominate in an area, usually serve as a major
source of matter flow, and provide a considerable
share of ES: Any part of such a unit can be
exploited without significant loss of ES in other
parts: E.g. patch-wise logging in a large forest
complex
• Are rare or unique within a matrix, but extremely
significant and irreplaceable as providers of speci-
fic resources, habitats, recreation sites, etc.: E.g.
riparian forests in steppe zones
• Can stop undesirable flows and protect vulnerable
neighbouring units, i.e. units with buffering func-
tion: E.g. forest patches on slopes can protect water
bodies from nutrient inputs from adjoining
farmlands
• Can neutralize or compensate for the negative
effects of neighbouring units and undesirable
flows, e.g. patches with peat deposits in floodplains
that can partially absorb and immobilize atmo-
spheric pollutants
• Ensure connectivity between valuable territories
and support desirable migration routes for people,
animals, seeds, genetic exchange, flows of fresh air
and water, etc.: E.g. forest corridors in agricultural
areas
• Affect the directions of matter flows: E.g. mudflow
cones that change their shapes frequently and
affect streams in mountain valleys, sometimes
resulting in the formation of dams and lakes
1151
• Form mosaics that ensure the diversity and neigh-
bourhood of habitats, resource areas, snowmelt
patterns, wind directions, recreation facilities, etc.
Various spatial patterns of units result in different
amounts of ES, unless area proportions are the
same. For example, rugged terrain ensures high
diversity of nutrients supply in soils, which in turn
results in diversity of plant cover, animal popula-
tions and game resources.
Natural potentials
In European concepts and schools of landscape
ecology, for example, in the German landscape
literature, natural potentials have been conceptualized
(Bastian and Steinhardt 2002; Wiggering et al. 2003;
Burkhard et al. 2009; Bastian et al. 2012a). The
concept of potentials assesses nature’s assets from the
point of view of the potential user and by means of a
primarily science driven mode of operation (explicitly
including the natural and social sciences). The goal is
to display the service capacities of an ecosystem (or of
the bio-physical part of a landscape) as a field of
options available to society for usage. Hence, the
potentials approach also considers such categories as
risk, carrying capacity and the capacity to capture and
balance environmental stress, which limit or may even
exclude certain intended uses (Mannsfeld 1983); this
is increasingly subsumed today under the term
‘‘resilience’’.
In addition to ‘‘potential’’, the term ‘‘capacity’’ can
also be found in literature as well as ‘‘natural
functions’’ (e.g. in the German Nature Conservation
Act). Thus, de Groot et al. (2002) and Willemen
(2010) define ecosystem functions (and landscape
functions) as ‘‘the capacity of natural processes and
components to provide goods and services which
directly and/or indirectly satisfy human needs’’. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005)
emphasizes ‘‘the capacity of the natural system to
sustain the flow of economic, ecological, social, and
cultural benefits in the future’’. Burkhard et al. (2012)
distinguish between the potential as the hypothetical
maximal service supply under the given conditions,
and the capacity as the ability of a defined spatial unit
to supply specific ES which are used within a certain
period.
123
1152
In Russia, ‘‘natural landscape potentials’’ were first
mentioned by Solntsev (1948), who understood
potential as the inherent natural capacities of a
landscape, determined both by the geographical
heritage of former times (i.e. the effect of genesis)
and by the possibilities given by the present-day
pattern of the geographical processes. He distin-
guished natural and cultural–technical potentials.
Moreover, he recommended differentiating between
groups of potentials according to the human point of
view: positive (e.g. the provision of habitats for plants
introduced to decrease the groundwater level), nega-
tive (e.g. irrigation-induced salinization), and neutral
ones.
Since the 1990s, Isachenko (2003) has developed
the concept of the ecological potential of the landscape
based on such climatic parameters as input and
biological productivity as major output indicators.
Landscape science in the former USSR since the
1950s has focused heavily on the assessment of natural
potentials and their various applications in land use
planning, for agriculture in particular. However,
monetary valuation played no major role during the
Soviet era, due to absence of market mechanisms.
Case study: the role of landscape patterns
for service supply in fragmented forest areas
in Russia
Some of the approaches presented in the previous
sections (e.g. landscape genesis, spatial patterns,
scales and landscape units) will be illustrated by the
following case study. It will show that the assessment
of different kinds of ES requires a multiplicity of
approaches to the delineation of spatial units, each of
which is based on particular theoretical concepts. We
also demonstrate that the application of each approach
enables us to reveal functional roles of spatial units in
a landscape.
Study area
The study area (Fig. 1) is located in the southern taiga
at the north of the Kostroma administrative oblast
(region) in Kologriv district (centre: 59N 44E). The
relief is shaped by Riss glaciation and glacial lakes and
their currents. The landscapes are representative for
that section of the East-European taiga where the relief
123
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
is shaped by Riss glaciation as well as by glacial lakes
and their currents. It is almost flat in the inner
watershed areas, and in part consists of gently rolling
plain (Khoroshev and Koshcheeva 2009). Oligotroph-
ic mires are rare and of small sizes. The dominant
vegetation is forests of Norway spruce (Picea abies),
Siberian fir (Abies sibirica) and small-leaved lime
(Tilia cordata), as well as silver birch (Betula pendula)
and European aspen (Populus tremula) in widely-
spread secondary forests (Khoroshev et al. 2013).
Marginal parts of watershed areas sloping toward the
Unzha river valley are deeply dissected and well-
drained with exposures of Jurassic carbonate clays and
marlstones. Soddy podzolic soils have formed on
loamy sands or loess-like loams covering morainic
loams. Sandy river terraces with well-developed
aeolian landforms are occupied by forests with Scots
pine (Pinus sylvestris) on deep podzols. Timber
harvesting is the main occupation of local communi-
ties who face now the problem of the resource
depletion. Agriculture (mainly cattle-breeding and
grain production) is concentrated in well-drained area
adjusting to the Unzha river valley and is in state of
decline.
Methods
Assessments of ES may comprise both an inventory of
the present state and a prognosis of ES supply in the
future. Approaches to forecasting forest-dependent ES
often include modelling the spatial distribution of age
classes over a territory with regard to either nature-
oriented or economy-oriented management (Nabuurs
et al. 2007) as well as to the variety of successional
trajectories and disturbance regimes (Kenkel et al.
1998). To test the relevancy of several viewpoints on
the delineation of spatial units for ES assessments we
performed this case study using mapping and mod-
elling techniques.
Field research on the area of approx. 3500 km2
involved integrated descriptions of relief, sediments,
soils, and plant cover in representative topographic
positions resulting in delineating natural spatial units.
Topographic and remote sensing Landsat and SPOT
data were used for landscape mapping and determi-
nation of typical and rare landscape elements. Data of
the State Forest Inventory were used as an additional
source of information about boundaries of forest
management units, composition and age of forest
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
Fig. 1 Location of the study area
stands and corresponding forestry measures. Space
images from 1990, 2001, and 2008 were used to assess
dynamics of timber harvesting. Interviews with local
forest managers provided valuable information con-
cerning forestry technologies, game resources, and
trends of economic development in the region. Table 1
summarizes important criteria (indicators), data
1153
sources, reference units and other spatial aspects,
some of which are described below in details.
To illustrate the basin approach we performed a
modelling of the total annual runoff from the small
river basin Varzenga (3494 ha) under various cutting
scenarios. Our point of departure was that runoff from
the forest unit depends on stand age due to evaporation
123
1154
fluctuations. Recovery succession can be interrupted
by cutting at various stages depending on the choice of
target species. In the study region cutting ages for
spruce and birch are established at 80 and 60 years,
respectively. Therefore, we compared two scenarios:
one aimed at the undifferentiated choice of one or two
target species for cutting in the whole basin versus the
scenario (no. 2) of a unit-related choice of target
species depending on landscape conditions. We used
data from Krestovsky (1986) who assessed deviations
of total runoff from that of deforested areas depending
on stand age. We assumed that just before cutting
initial value of total runoff accounts for 100 %. Within
a period of 5 years after cutting, runoff increases up to
165 % compared to the initial value. 25 years after
cutting (succession stage with birch dominance),
runoff decreases to 100 % and further to 50 % from
initial value by the age of 80 years (spruce dominance
stage). Later, runoff increases again and reaches
100 % at the age of 120.
The dependence is approximated by the following
equation with r-square 0.98 (p = 0.0000):
Y ¼ ð2:283  8:226ðt=100Þ þ 13:496ðt=100Þ2
 9:125ðt=100Þ3 þ 2:759ðt=100Þ4
 0:4ðt=100Þ5 Þs=S
where Y is the total annual runoff, t is the time after
cutting, s is the forest unit area, S is the basin area.
The model evaluated the contribution of each
forest unit to the total runoff from the basin every
10 years. Each step of evaluation involves informa-
tion about the age class which is characterized by a
specific dominant tree species—birch in young or
middle-age stands and spruce in mature ones.
Forecast of total runoff extends over the period
between the years 2007 and 2197.
Results
The genesis of landscape and the hierarchy of spatial
units are the keystones of the geosystem concept. The
genesis-based, so-called ‘‘structural’’ approach to the
delineation of landscapes is applicable for both the
coarse and fine scales. At the coarse scale in the study
area, we distinguished: (i) morainic gently rolling
landscapes with cover of nutrient-rich loess-like loams
which ensure the highest timber productivity and the
highest level of biodiversity; and (ii), by contrast, flat
123
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
landscapes with a cover of fluvioglacial sands over
morainic loams with poorer mineral nutrition and,
hence, lower productivity and biodiversity. Such a
genesis-based division of landscapes ensures a correct
assessment of both provisioning (timber supply) and
supporting (biodiversity) ES for contrasting territories
with areas of approx. several hundred square kilome-
ters (landscape, mesogeochore) (Table 1). At the finer
hierarchical level, the smallest units of forest man-
agement (forest parcels) should ideally be related to
landscape morphological units corresponding to indi-
vidual landforms (urochishchya, nanogeochores), e.g.
valley slopes, floodplains or river terraces. However,
this conflicts with common practice in parcel delin-
eation, which prefers to rely on a uniformity of tree
species composition and age class. The application of
a genesis-based approach increases the opportunities
for the correct choice between forestry measures
(Table 1). For instance, at slope urochishchya (nano-
geochores), intact spruce and fir forests facilitate the
partial transfer of surface runoff to subsurface flow. It
means that this forest parcel will contribute to runoff
regulation due to its own (i.e. neighbourhood-inde-
pendent) properties. Hence, its preservation is prefer-
able to the adjustment of urochishchya on flat surfaces,
which would contribute much less to runoff regula-
tion, and where the timber supply service could have
higher priority.
Consideration of spatial patterns is the core idea of
the Basin and Catena approaches. Both focus on
neighbourhood relations and spatial interactions be-
tween landscape morphological units linked by one-
way matter and energy flows, but at different scales.
The main point of departure for applying the basin
approach in the study area is the well-known effect of
the contribution of forest stands to long-term and
seasonal runoff regulation (Pobedinsky 1979; Bradley
and Hammond 1993). In the model the river basin is
characterized by dominance of young stands
(\20 years, 30 % of the total area) and premature or
mature even-aged birch stands (40–60 years, 30 %)
while mature spruce forests rarely occur. Forestry
strategy can be aimed at either cutting all the mature
small-leaved stands or postponing cutting in selected
(or all) units until the maturation of spruce. The model
of long-term forestry described above showed evi-
dence (Fig. 2) that the choice of birch as the target
species for cutting results in the largest range of total
runoff fluctuations for the next 200 years. An
 Table 1 Quantitative criteria (indicators), data sources, relevant units and significance of spatial patterns for ES assessment in the case study area
Ecosystem Quantitative criteria Semi-quantitative criteria Data sources Relevant Relevant Significance of spatial patterns
service economic unit natural unit

Provision of Timber volume (m3/ Distance/access time Forest inventory Forest Nanogeochore/ Underestimation of landscape diversity
timber ha) consumption to Field research at key management Urochishche results in non-compliance between
resources Basal areas (m2/ha) productive areas plots and unit natural units and forest parcels
extrapolation using Forest quarter (delineated in forest inventory)
Amount of harvested
timber space images Forest parcel Heterogeneity promotes wrong evaluation
classification of timber volume for parcel/quarter
Forest management unit
database
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164

Provision of Amount of Distance/access time to Interviews Forest quarter Nanogeochore/ Minimum effective size of harvesting area
non-timber berries/mushrooms productive areas Forest parcel Urochishche Forest/meadow adjacency
forest picked up Distance/access to
resources Number of involved abandoned field with
(wild fruits) citizens coppice
Proportion of profit Local prices for
in total income berries/mushrooms
(variable margins) depending on yield
Density of pathways
Game resources Patch density and Land cover neighborhood Space image Forest quarter Microgeochore/ Landscape diversity (patches and
(hunting) fragmentation Number of hunted animals Landscape map Field Mestnost landforms, cores and singularities)
indices Nanogeochore/ Proportion of mature/young stands/non-
Minimum distance to Interviews
Number of hunters game areas Urochishche forest land
Game inventory
Species richness and Valuable
Field observation
abundance ecotope
(winter trace
counting)
Provision of Height, number of Prevailing herbs group Yield (t/ha) Field Nanogeochore/ Drainage conditions depend on
agricultural plants at sample (valuable Graminae or Field research Agricultural urochishche neighboring landforms
products plot Leguminosae, weeds, enterprise Combination of landforms can be
Agricultural monitoring
(plants) Aboveground poisonous plants) characterized by morphometrical
Interviews with Land tenure
biomass parameters (relief ruggedness,
stakeholders
Proportion of herbs curvature)
and grasses
Yields (dt/ha)
1155

123
 Table 1 continued
1156

Ecosystem Quantitative criteria Semi- Data sources Relevant Relevant Significance of spatial
service quantitative economic natural unit patterns

123
criteria unit

Soil fertility Depth of humus horizon (cm) Presence/ Sampling and chemical analysis Field Nanogeochore/ Morphometrically
N, P, K, C content (%) absence of Data of agrochemical monitoring urochishche measured (from DEM)
typical Catena combination of
Humus supply (t/ha) horizons landforms
Degree of Ruggedness indicates
erosion- erosion potential or
induced accumulation of
heterogeneity nutrients
Soil texture Deterioration of
Soil type waterbodies in lower
sections of a catena.
Runoff Evapotranspiration/ Number of Interviews (memories) River basin Forest/non-forest lands
regulation Precipitation ratio flood waves Calculation based on known land cover proportions for ratio
depending on age and type Flood intensity different periods (from historical maps and images) and Proportion of mature/
of forest stands forest age-dependent evapotranspiration intensity young stands
Degrees of
Duration and height of floods/ heterogeneity Space image classification Location of forest/non-
low water forest lands within a
Landscape maps
Patch density and basin
fragmentation indices Landscape diversity
Carbon NDVI Space images Forest
sequestration Forest inventory data management
unit Forest
Land inventory data quarter
Field observation Forest parcel
Field
Agricultural
enterprise
Land tenure
Recreation Income of hotels Number of Interviews District Mesogeochore/ Landscape diversity
services Proportion of area with photos in Statistical data Hotel cluster Landscape (patches and
recreation facilities Google Earth Nanogeochore/ landforms)
Field observation Settlement
Number of recreants/cars Distance/ Urochishche Uniqueness in
access time regional/national
to valuable context
sites
Density of
pathways
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
Fig. 2 Forecast of deviation of total annual runoff from the Varzenga river basin for the period 2007–2197 under three forestry
scenarios. ‘‘1’’ runoff from hypothetical deforested basin
extremely high runoff peak is expected to repeat
approximately every 70 years. Thus, this scenario
favours short-term water-protection ES during periods
of birch maturity in most areas. However, long-term
decrease of water-regulatory ES is unavoidable. If a
planner makes a decision to ignore mature birch stands,
to enable further succession and to cut only mature
spruce stands, runoff will be less variable and, in
general, smaller. Hence, long-term water-regulatory
ES increases while water-protection ES decreases. The
third scenario involves an adaptive choice of various
target species with regard to landscape structure. Birch
stands are cut only partially; succession continues until
spruce maturation; spruce stands are partially pre-
served at slope positions to facilitate subsurface flow.
Under these conditions the model forecasts high level
of both water-protection and water-regulation services.
The seasonal aspect of water-regulatory ES within a
river basin depends greatly on: (i) the total forest
percentage, (ii) the ratio of areas covered by various
forest types, (iii) the allocation of clear-cuts. In the
study area, hydrography shows evidence of well-
manifested spring maximums that can result in
catastrophic floods, followed by low summer water
levels. To maximize the regulatory ES, the rational
allocation of clear-cuts within a river basin should take
into account the total proportions of forests, and the
spatial ratios of various forest types (Table 1).
1157
Simultaneous and rapid snowmelts across an entire
deforested basin is typical where extensive cutting was
carried out during the 1980s and 1990s (Khoroshev
2010). This has resulted in low summertime water
levels which are harmful for fish and water mammal
populations. Longer and less intensive snowmelts
occur in basins where the dominant forest units
alternate with cut areas, e.g. as in the Varzenga river
basin (Fig. 3). Mosaics of coniferous and deciduous
forests also affect the water regime positively, since
they result in different snowmelt periods (Khoroshev
and Koshcheeva 2009). To provide effective water-
regulatory ES, the optimum proportion of forested
lands within a river basin in the East-European taiga
would be 30–50 % (Pobedinsky 1979).
Basin lag is a property of basin geosystems that must
be considered for a rational allocation of clear-cuts. If
the lower basin is already deforested (Fig. 3), it is
recommended that logging be reduced, or forest cover in
the upper basin preserved. This helps avoid the super-
position of floods, because snowmelts in the forested
upper basin start later. Hence, the flood wave will reach
the lower basin by the time the flooding in the deforested
section drains out, and the forest units in the upper
reaches will play a compensatory role (Khoroshev and
Koshcheeva 2009) with respect to the negative effects of
deforestation in the lower basin (Table 1). The need for
basin-related planning aimed at maximizing runoff
123
1158
Fig. 3 Spatial distribution of forest stand age classes in the Varzenga river basin
regulatory ES increases greatly if bridges, roads,
embankments, and recreational sites located at the
floodplains in the lower reaches are susceptible to
extreme spring flooding. Obviously, this can result in
significant losses of provisioning and cultural ES.
The scale of pattern-related planning decisions does
matter if a planner intends to solve a problem of
maximizing regulatory or supporting ES. Some of the
latter require a finer scale than a river basin. The catena
approach first introduced by Milne (1935) appears
relevant for decisions concerning the preservation or
restoration of forest units (urochishchya or facies) that
could stop or neutralize undesirable solid matter fluxes
on their way from deforested watersheds to watercours-
es (Table 1). Unlike the genesis-based landscape
approach, the Catena approach focuses on the functional
role of a morphological unit in a sequence of units across
a slope. The Catena approach requires a specific
perspective on landscape morphological units, namely
identification of autonomous, transitional and accumu-
lative categories (Kasimov and Gennadiev 2007).
For example, protective forest strips act as buffers
for local-scale ecological networks and prevent ex-
cessive input of matter to low-lying landscape units.
Buffer forest strips should be located at the toe-slopes,
at the lines of slope curvature changes, and at the
borders of valley slopes and flat interfluves. The
amount of ES provided is a function of minimum area,
123
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
shape, width and orientation which should be project-
ed in accordance with slope length and slope gradient,
adjusted for the deforested area. This ES is especially
important in valley sectors with priority agricultural
use and high inputs of fertilizers and pesticides.
In the area under study, an erosion-shaped morainic
landscape, the allocation of necessary forest strips
depends to a large extent on soil-forming deposits
related to landscape genesis. Loess-like loams require
the widest protection strips, since they offer the least
resistance to erosion (Fig. 4). At the same time,
nutrient-rich soils are favourable for communities
with numerous herb species typical of the broad-leafed
forest zone. Thus, buffer forest strips in such locations
can be treated as rare for taiga and highly vulnerable
landscape morphological units that also provide
supporting ES. A minimum buffer strip width is
possible on sandy slopes where surface runoff risk and
biological diversity are very low (Fig. 4). Thus,
rational allocation of buffer strips assures a natural
potential to capture and balance environmental stress
resulting from soil disturbance.
Our results show that spatial planning of forest use
(timber harvesting in the form of clear cutting) in the
study area should aim at runoff regulation and erosion
control. It is obvious that the three approaches
described above, Landscape, Basin and Catena, can
effectively supplement each other to optimize ES, and
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
Fig. 4 Allocation of necessary buffer forest strips on steep slopes with regard to soil texture (Map Koroshev 2015)
reflect the superposition of three types of geosystem
models that require different management measures.
Discussion: implications for planning
In addressing the implications for planning, we should
look first at ES in planning processes, and second at
the special role of the geosystem concept.
Planning relevant for ES addresses especially the
following issues (Grünwald and Wende 2015):
• Which ES in the area are important for human
well-being?
• Where do the ES originate from (inside or outside
the planning area)?
• Which actors/stakeholders need these ES?
• Which values (and priorities) have the particular
ES?
• How can management and other measures im-
prove the ES (incl. trade-offs)?
• Who are the addressees of measures?
In Germany, landscape plans are prepared at
several spatial levels (von Haaren et al. 2008):
1159
Although ES are not addressed explicitly within this
or other planning and decision-making processes, the
instruments, goals and contents are similar. Both the
ES concept and landscape planning are based on the
analysis of ecosystem properties and land use, and
they aim at the maintenance and the development of
natural assets by commonly accepted valuation rules
(e.g. Kienast 2010). Both concepts use environmental
information, which can be associated with a broad
range of ES.
Nevertheless, it has not become clear to date
how the ES concept could be integrated into the
current landscape planning process, because there
are significant differences in the scope of planning,
in the methods applied, and especially in the role of
quantification and economic valuation. The main
constraints to the implementation of the ES concept
are that landscape planning is already a very
complex process, and adding another layer of
complexity by integrating ES assessments, anyway,
seems to be feasible but expensive (Grünwald and
Wende 2015). To achieve such a goal, regulatory
frameworks provided by superordinate legislative
levels, and higher remuneration for planners, are
123
1160
needed (von Haaren and Albert 2011; Albert et al.
2012).
In Russia and such other post-Soviet countries as
Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, landscape
plans or pilot studies and drafts were developed at
various scales, from the regional to the local levels;
though legally mandatory, they were not fully intro-
duced in practice (Antipov and Mikhalkovsky 2006;
Wojtkiewicz et al. 2010). The legal basis for landscape
planning per se has not yet been developed, which
results in insufficient coordination of various kinds of
branch planning. However, legislation regulating
territorial planning (Schemes of Territorial Planning
required for regions and districts, and General Plans
for cities and rural settlements) provides opportunities
to introduce concepts of natural potential and ES, as
well as instruments of landscape planning (Wende
et al. 2013). Recent documents regulating territorial
planning require a set of procedures traditional in
landscape analysis, e.g. delineation of functional
zones with different allowable anthropogenic loads
in accordance with ecosystem potentials; assessment
and mapping of natural risks; identification of the most
valuable spatial units; and analysis of the spatial
context and exterior factors affecting the territory. The
most common spheres of application are planning in
agriculture, recreation, urban development, protecting
natural protected areas and ecological networks (Kol-
bovsky 2008).
Landscape planning projects during the 1990s and
2000s in various regions in Russia proposed the
evaluation of landscape functions as an integral part of
the bioproductive, biotopic, water-regulating, climate-
regulating, soil-forming, sanitary, information and
culture forming, economic-functional and other deci-
sion-making processes (Drozdov 2000; Antipov and
Mikhalkovsky 2006; von Haaren et al. 2008).
Generally, it is clear that thorough knowledge and
consideration of the ecological/physical fundamentals
enables better results in spatial planning.
• Thus, the knowledge of landscape genesis helps to
understand properties of ecosystems, their spatial
arrangements and their development and change
over time.
• Landscape units are widely applied, e.g. for the
assessment of landscape character (Wascher
2005), or for the definition of Leitbilder (models)
for planning (Potschin et al. 2010).
123
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
• Ecological data and analyses from a particular
reference unit can to a certain degree be transferred
to ecologically similar and therefore comparable
units, including the capacity to supply ES. Vast
areas of Russia need regionally specific models of
land use and landscape management, which is
impossible without careful regionalization based
on natural units, their properties and potentials.
• The role of spatial aspects and scales is generally
recognized and applied by ES experts and
practitioners.
• The understanding of spatial (and temporal)
aspects may enable manipulation of systems to
decrease trade-offs, enhance synergisms and pro-
mote resilience and sustainable use of multiple ES
(Bennett et al. 2009).
• The theory of the hierarchical organization of
geosystems provides the opportunity to relate
levels of land use decision-making to appropriate
landscape unit levels. It is also important to pay
more attention to the role of entire ecosystem
complexes, rather than only to single ecosystems
in isolation.
• We consider the approach of natural potentials a
very important foundation for land use and land-
scape planning, to distinguish between the poten-
tial (i.e., capacity) to supply ES and the actual or
demanded/needed use of these ES by humans. By
means of potentials, we address both the question
of non-use or inadequate use of natural resources
and the problems of overexploitation. Recently,
the approach of potentials has increasingly been
addressed in ES frameworks, e.g. by Bastian et al.
(2012a, b, 2013) or Spangenberg et al. (2014).
Conclusions
Geosystem-based approaches may improve ES supply
assessments by strengthening their scientific founda-
tion, and elaborating ES in a spatial context, which
may help to better influence land use policy and
decision-making. Some of the approaches described
above, such as spatial relationships, scale, landscape
units, or potentials, are already being widely applied.
On the other hand, several aspects, such as land-
scape genesis or landscape hierarchy, have not played
any significant role in international ES debates. The
question is: what are the reasons for this situation?
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
We can identify in particular the following weakness-
es and gaps in the ‘‘classic Eastern European landscape
approaches’’: Some terms are complicated, still insuffi-
ciently understood in the international scientific commu-
nity, difficult to communicate, and/or have not yet been
adopted into the common international scientific lan-
guage (e.g. microchore). Also, some approaches are
complicated to handle, demanding and time consuming,
and are not interdisciplinary, but rather specific to a single
scientific discipline (e.g. physical geography). Geosys-
tem or physical landscape concepts are very descriptive
and strongly focused on nature, and their relation to
humans and their benefits are not immediately evident.
On the other hand, comprehensive analytical data on such
factors as elevation, soils, waters, biotopes or land cover
are increasingly available in many countries. GIS
applications make any processing and combination of
such data easy, so that more complex and ‘‘holistic’’
approaches seem to be becoming unnecessary. This is
also supported by specialized, unidimensional ways of
thinking in the sciences and in practice. Moreover,
geographers and landscape researchers in Eastern
Europe/Russia (the former Soviet Union) hardly pub-
lished in international English-language journals at all,
but rather in domestic journals, the so-called grey
literature. That has led to a lack of knowledge about
their contributions among foreign experts.
The case study conducted on the crucial role of
landscape patterns and landscape units in the assessment
of ES related to the relationship between forestry and
runoff is suitable to support the theoretical assumption
on the importance of geosystem-based concepts. Ac-
cording to Flyvbjerg (2006), thoroughly executed case
studies are very important for the effectiveness of
scientific disciplines. To verify, support, confirm and
communicate the wide range of geosystem-based
concepts, a larger number of convincing case studies
should be performed and published.
The ES concept will only be successful if it refers to a
great extent to the peculiarities of the ecosystems
concerned. Integrated geosystem and landscape-based
approaches may drive the current implementation of the
national TEEB processes forward, as has been the case
in many countries, including Germany and Russia.
Some of these approaches are relevant mainly in a
national context (e.g. for Russia), as they link up with
national scientific traditions and the specifics of the
country, but others are also relevant in an international
framework, and are already being applied there, at
1161
least to some extent. Since even the inclusion of ES in
ecological planning causes significant difficulties and
requires adapted regulations or ordinances, this is even
more true for the application of several geosystem-
based approaches, especially if they cause additional
expenditure. But they can also facilitate the work and
improve the results. Not only is further research on
geosystem-based concepts/approaches themselves
needed, there is also a valuable potential and a need
with regard to the exploration and communication of
existing, but often hidden, knowledge.
Acknowledgments The cooperation between the authors was
supported by the DFG-Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(German Science Foundation, BA 1214/8-1). We also thank
the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) in Germany
for the support of academic exchange between Germany and
Russia to ecosystem services. We thank Prof. W. Wende, IOER
Dresden, and two unknown reviewers for their advice, and Mr.
Phil Hill ( )/F. Pahl, Berlin, for polishing the language.
References
Albert C, von Haaren C, Galler C (2012) Ökosystem-
dienstleistungen. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung
44:142–148
Antipov AN, Mikhalkovsky VG (2006) Landscape planning:
tools and experience in implementation. Russian Academy
of Sciences, Siberian Branch, VB Sochava Institute of
Geography, Irkutsk. Federal Agency for Nature Conser-
vation, Bonn (2005 also in Russian)
Bailey RG (2005) Identifying ecoregion boundaries. Environ
Manag 34(Suppl. 1):14–26
Bastian O, Steinhardt U (eds) (2002) Development and per-
spectives in landscape ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Bastian O, Krönert R, Lipský Z (2006) Landscape diagnosis in
different space and time scales—a challenge for landscape
planning. Landscape Ecol 21:359–374
Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U (2012a) Space and time
aspects of ecosystem services, using the example of the EU
Water Framework Directive. Int J Biodivers Sci, Ecosyst
Serv Manag. doi:10.1080/21513732.2011.631941
Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012b) Ecosystem proper-
ties, potentials and services—The EPPS conceptual
framework and an urban application example. Ecol Indic
21:7–16
Bastian O, Syrbe R-U, Rosenberg M, Rahe D, Grunewald K
(2013) The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying,
mapping and managing ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv
4:15–24
Beauchesne P, Ducruc J-P, Gerardin V (1996) Ecological
mapping: a framework for delimiting forest management
units. Environ Monit Assess 39:173–186
Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding
relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett
12:1394–1404
123
1162
Berg LS (1915) The objectives and tasks of geography. In:
Proceedings of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society
51:463–475 (in Russian). Also in: Wiens JA, Moss M,
Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds.) (2006) Fundamental pa-
pers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press,
New York, pp 11–18
Blaschke T (2006) The role of the spatial dimension within the
framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital.
Landsc Urb Plan 75:198–226
Blotevogel HH (1995) Raum. In: Akademie für Raumforschung
und Landesplanung (ed) Handwörterbuch der Raumord-
nung. Hannover, pp 733–740
Blumenstein O, Schachtzabel H, Barsch H, Bork H-R, Küppers
U (2000) Grundlagen der Geoökologie. Springer, Berlin
Bobylev SN, Zakharov VM (2009) Ecosystem services and
economy. Institute of Sustainable Development, Moscow
(in Russian)
Braat LC, de Groot R (2012) The ecosystem services agenda:
bridging the worlds of natural science and economics,
conservation and development, and public and private
policy. Ecosyst Serv 1:4–16
Bradley T, Hammond H (1993) Practical methodology for
landscape analysis and zoning. Silva Forest Foundation,
Slocan Park
Brouwer R, Brander L, Kuik O, Papyrakis E, Bateman I (2013)
A synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem
services in the EU in the context of TEEB. TEEB follow-up
study for Europe. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W (2009) Landscapes’
capacities to provide ecosystem services—a concept for
land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online 15:1–22
Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jørgensen SE,
Potschin M (2012) Solutions for sustaining natural capital
and ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:1–6
Chorley RJ, Kennedy BA (1971) Physical geography: a systems
approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Christian CS (1958) The concept of land units and land systems.
Proc Ninth Pac Sci Congr 20:74–81
Christopherson RW (2014) Geosystems: an introduction to phy-
sical geography, 9th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification
systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141:350–352
de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for
description, classification and valuation of ecosystem
functions, goods and services. Environ Econ 41:393–408
de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010)
Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem ser-
vices and values in landscape planning, management and
decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272
Drozdov AV (ed) (2000) Landscape planning with elements of
engineering biology. KMK, Moscow (in Russian)
Dyakonov KN (2007) Landscape studies in Moscow Lomono-
sov University: development of scientific domains and
education. In: Dyakonov KN, Kasimov NS, Khoroshev
AV, Kushlin AV (eds) Landscape analysis for sustainable
development. Theory and applications of landscape sci-
ence in Russia. Alex Publishers, Moscow, pp 11–20
Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A,
Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ (2010) The
impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribu-
tion of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 47:377–385
123
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study
research. Qual Inq 12:219–245
Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley,
New York
Grunewald K, Bastian O (eds) (2015) Ecosystem services—
concept, methods and case studies. Springer, Heidelberg
Grünwald A, Wende W (2015) Integrating the concept of
ecosystem services into landscape planning. In: Grunewald
K, Bastian O (eds) Ecosystem services—concept, methods
and case studies. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 177–185
Haase G, Mannsfeld K (2002) Naturraumeinheiten, Land-
schaftsfunktionen und Leitbilder am Beispiel von Sachsen.
Forsch. z. deutschen Landeskunde, vol 250. Deutsche
Akademie für Landeskunde, Flensburg
Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2009) Methodologies for
defining and assessing ecosystem services. Final Report.
University of Nottingham
Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006)
Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem
services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228
Herz K (1973) Beitrag zur Theorie der landschaftsanalytischen
Maßstabsbereiche. Petermanns Geogr Mitt 117:91–96
Hills GA (1961) The ecological basis for land-use planning.
Research Report 26. Ontario Department of Lands and
Forests, Toronto
Ingegnoli V (2014) Landscape bionomics. Biological-integrated
landscape ecology. Springer, Dordrecht
Isachenko AG (1973) Principles of landscape science and
physical-geographic regionalization. Melbourne Univer-
sity Press, Carlton
Isachenko AG (2003) Ecological geography of Russia. Sankt-
Petersburg University Publishing House, Sankt-Petersburg
Iverson L, Echeverria C, Nahuelhual L, Luque S (2014)
Ecosystem services in changing landscapes: an introduc-
tion. Landscape Ecol 29:181–186
Kasimov NS, Gennadiev AN (2007) Basic concepts of land-
scape geochemistry and soil geography. In: Dyakonov KN,
Kasimov NS, Khoroshev AV, Kushlin AV (eds) Landscape
analysis for sustainable development. Theory and appli-
cations of landscape science in Russia. Alex Publishers,
Moscow, pp 165–175
Kenkel NC, Watson PR, Uhlig P (1998) Modelling landscape-
level vegetation dynamics in the boreal forests of North-
western Ontario. Forest Research Report No. 148. Ontario
Forest Research Institute
Khoroshev A (2010) Multilevel analysis of landscape structure for
land use decisions. In: Barančoková M, Krajčı́ J, Kollár J,
Belčáková I (eds) Landscape ecology–methods, applications
and interdisciplinary approach. Institute of Landscape Ecol-
ogy, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, pp 99–112
Khoroshev A, Koshcheeva A (2009) Landscape ecological ap-
proach to hierarchical spatial planning. Terra Spectra Plan
Stud 1:3–11
Khoroshev AV, Nemchinova AV, Avdanin VO (2013) Land-
scapes and ecological network of the Kostroma region.
Kostroma Univ Publ House, Kostroma (in Russian)
Kienast F (2010) Landschaftsdienstleistungen: ein taugliches
Konzept für Forschung und Praxis? Forum für Wissen
2010:7–12
Kolbovsky EYu (2008) Landscape planning. Academia, Mos-
cow (in Russian)
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
Krestovsky OI (1986) Influence of cutting and forest
regeneration on stream discharge. Hydrometeoizdat,
Moscow (in Russian)
Leser H (1997) Landschaftsökologie. 4th ed, (1st ed. 1976),
Ulmer, Stuttgart
Löffler J (2002) Landscape complexes. In: Bastian O, Steinhardt
U (eds) Development and perspectives of landscape
ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 58–68
Loveland TR, Merchant JM (2004) Ecoregions and ecoregion-
alization: geographical and ecological perspectives. Envi-
ron Manag 34(Suppl. 1):1–13
Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P,
Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Zulian
G, Bouraoui F, Paracchini ML, Bidoglio G (2012) Map-
ping ecosystems services for policy support and decision
making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1:31–39
Mannsfeld K (1983) Landschaftsanalyse und Ableitung von
Naturraumpotentialen. Abhandl. Sächs. Akad. Wiss.,
Leipzig, math. nat. class, vol 35. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin
Martin-Duque JF, Pedraza J, Sanz MA, Bodoque JM, Godfrey
AE, Diez A, Carrasco RM (2003) Landform classification
for land use planning in developed areas: an example in
Segovia province (Central Spain). Environ Manag
32:488–498
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems
and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington
(DC)
Miklós L (2010) The most successful landscape ecological
concepts in the practice. Probl Landsc Ecol 28:15–22
Milne G (1935) Some suggested units of classification and
mapping for East African soils. Soil Res 4:183–198
Minar J, Tremboš P (1997) Selected aspects of geoecological
regionalization at detailed scales. Acta Universitatis
Carolinae, Geographica 32:39–43
Moss M (2000) Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the
‘‘Transformation of Agricultural Landscapes’’. Landscape
Ecol 15:303–311
Nabuurs GJ, Pussinen A, van Brusselen J, Schelhaas MJ (2007)
Future harvesting pressure on European forests. Eur J For
Res 126:391–400
Naturkapital Deutschland–TEEB DE (2012) Der Wert der Natur
für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft—Eine Einführung. Ifu-
plan, München; Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Re-
search–UFZ, Leipzig. Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation, Bonn
Neef E (1963a) Dimensionen geographischer Betrachtungen.
Forsch Fortschr 37:361–363
Neef E (1963b) Topologische und chorologische Arbeitsweisen
in der Landschaftsforschung. Petermanns Geogr Mitt
107:249–259
Neef E (1967) Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschafts-
lehre. Haack, Gotha, Leipzig. Also in: Wiens JA, Moss M,
Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006) Fundamental pa-
pers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press,
New York, pp. 225–245
O’Neill RV (1989) Transmutations across hierarchical levels.
In: Innis GS. O’Neill RV (eds.) Systems analysis of
ecosystems. Int. Coop. Publ., Fairland, Md., pp 59–78.
Also in: Wiens JA, Moss M, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ
(eds) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology.
Columbia University Press, New York, pp 11–18
1163
Omernik JM (2004) Perspectives on the nature and definition of
ecological regions. Environ Manag 34(Suppl. 1):27–38
Pobedinsky AV (1979) Water protection and soil protection role
of forests. Lesnaya Promyshlennost, Moscow (in Russian)
Potschin M, Klug H, Haines-Young R (2010) From visions to
action: framing the Leitbild concept in the context of
landscape planning. Futures 42:656–667
Rowe JS (1996) Land classification and ecosystem classifica-
tion. Environ Monit Assess 39:11–20
Schägner JP, Brander L, Maes J, Hartje V (2013) Mapping
ecosystem services’ values: current practice and future
prospects. Ecosyst Serv 4:33–46
Smith M-L, Carpenter C (1996) Application of the USDA Forest
Service national hierarchical framework of ecological units
at the sub-regional level: the New England-New York
example. Environ Monit Assess 39:187–198
Sochava VB (1963) Definition of some notions and terms in
physical geography. In: Proceedings of the Institute of
Geography of Siberia and Far East. vol 3, pp 50–59 (in
Russian)
Solntsev NA (1948) The natural geographic landscape and some
of its general rules. In: Proceedings of the Second All-
Union Geographical Congress, vol 1. OGIZ, Leningrad,
pp 258–269 (in Russian). Also in: Wiens JA, Moss MR,
Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006) Fundamental pa-
pers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press,
New York, pp 19–27
Spangenberg JH, von Haaren C, Settele J (2014) The ecosystem
service cascade: further developing the metaphor. The in-
fluence of purpose and application characteristics like scale
and beneficiaries. Ecosyst Serv 104:22–32
Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Sharp R, Nelson
E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pen-
nington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J,
Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes
G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus M, Toft J, Marsik M,
Bernhardt J, Griffin R, Glowinski K, Chaumont N, Perel-
man A, Lacayo M (2013) InVEST 2.5.6 User’s Guide. The
Natural Capital Project, Stanford
Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts
and terms. Ecology 16:284–307
TEEB (2010) In: Kumar P (ed.) The economics of ecosystems
and biodiversity. Ecological and Economic Foundations.
Earthscan, London and Washington. http://www.teebweb.
org. Accessed 20 Sept 2013
TEEB (2013) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity.
Guidance manual for TEEB country studies. Version 1.0.
http://www.teebweb.org. Accessed 20 Sept 2013
Tishkov AA (2005) Biospheric functions of natural ecosystems
of Russia. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian)
Troll C (1950) Die geographische Landschaft und ihre Er-
forschung. Studium Generale 3:163–181
UK NEA (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment:
synthesis of key findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
van der Biest K (2013) An integrated model to assess the effects
of land use change on the delivery of multiple ecosystem
services. In: Abstract of the workshop ‘‘Indication, inte-
gration and application of ecosystem services in decision
making’’, University of Kiel May 6–8
Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Harrison PA, Luck GW, Berry P,
Bugter R, Dawson TP, Feld CK, Harrington R, Haslett JR,
123
1164
Hering D, Jones KB, Jongman R, Lavorel S, Martins da
Silva P, Moora M, Paterson J, Rounsevell MDA, Sandin L,
Settele J, Sousa JP, Zobel M (2008) Review paper on
concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services.
RUBICODE Deliverable D2.1. http://www.rubicode.net/
rubicode/RUBICODE_e-conference_report.pdf. Accessed
Dec 2013
von Haaren C, Albert C (2011) Integrating ecosystem services
and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. Int
J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 7:150–167
von Haaren C, Galler C, Ott S (2008) Landscape planning. The
basis of sustainable landscape development. Federal
Agency for Nature Conservation, Leipzig
Wascher DM (ed) (2005) European landscape character areas—
typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment
of sustainable landscapes. Final Project Report. Alterra
Report No. 1254, Wageningen (NL)
Wende W, Wirth P, Közle E, Lappo A, Spirin P (2013) Zum
Umgang mit Schutzgütern und Nutzungen in der Territo-
rialplanung der Russischen Föderation. 1. Practical guid-
ance within the framework of the project EkoRus. Leibniz
Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development
IOER, Dresden; NIIP Gradostroitelstva, St. Petersburg
Wiens JA, Moss MR, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006)
Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia
University Press, New York
123
Landscape Ecol (2015) 30:1145–1164
Wiggering H, Müller K, Werner A, Helming K (2003) The
concept of multifunctionality in sustainable land develop-
ment. In: Helming K, Wiggering H (eds) Sustainable de-
velopment of multifunctional landscapes. Springer, Berlin,
pp 3–18
Willemen L (2010) Mapping and modeling multifunctional
landscapes. PhD thesis, Wageningen University (NL)
Wojtkiewicz W, May A, Hoppenstedt A, Wende W (2010)
Einführung des Naturschutzinstruments ‘‘Landschaftspla-
nung’’ in der Region des Südkaukasus. Natur Landschaft
85:340–344
Wu J (1999) Hierarchy and scaling: extrapolating information
along a scaling ladder. Can J Remote Sens 25:367–380
Wu J, Li H (2006) Theories and methods in scaling: a review. In:
Wu J, Jones B, Li H, Loucks OL (eds) Scaling and
uncertainty analysis in ecology. Springer, Dordrecht
Wu J, Jelinski DE, Luck M, Tueller PT (2000) Multiscale ana-
lysis of landscape heterogeneity: scale variance and pattern
metrics. Geogr Inf Sci 6:6–19
Zonneveld IS (1989) The land unit—a fundamental concept in
landscape ecology, and its application. Landscape Ecol
3:67–86