Public Landscape Goods An Economic Frame

Jesper Brandt, Bärbel Tress, Gunther Tress
[eds.]
Multifunctional Landscapes:
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape
Research and Management.
Conference material for the international conference on “Multifunctional Landscapes:

Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Research and Management,”
Centre for Landscape Research, University of Roskilde, Denmark
October 18-21, 2000.
Published by the Centre for Landscape Research

Roskilde, September 2000
J. BRANDT, B. TRESS, G. TRESS . [eds.] (2000): Multifunctional Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Research and Management.
2
Brandt, J., B. Tress, and G. Tress:

Multifunctional Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches
to Landscape Research and Management. – Conference
material for the conference on “multifunctional landscapes”,
Centre for Landscape Research, Roskilde, October 18-21,
2000. – Published in September 2000.
If you quote from this book, please use the above mentioned
reference and refer to the paper title and the author.
© Centre for Landscape Research, Roskilde, Denmark, 2000

3
Contents
I. Introduction/Conference theme 13
II. Plenary lectures 17

Antrop, Marc: Multifunctionality and urbanisation. 19
Parris, Kevin: Agri-environmental indicators for multifunctionality in 20
the countryside: Measuring changes in agricultural landscapes
as a tool for policy makers.
Eaton, Marcia M.: Aesthetic evaluation of multifunctional 20
landscapes.
Brandt, Jesper: Interdisciplinary landscape research and the 21
management of multifunctional landscapes.
Tress, Bärbel and Gunther Tress: Scenarios for the management of 21
multifunctional landscapes.
Naveh, Zev: Multifunctional biosphere landscapes and the future of 21
our Total Human Ecosystem.
Mansvelt, Jan Diek van: Criteria and parameters for sustainable land- 22
use.
Brandt, Jesper: Demands for future landscape research. 23
III. Lectures in the six workshops 25

1. Workshop no. 1: 27
The landscape – from vision to definition
Naveh, Zev: Introduction to the theoretical foundations of 27

multifunctional landscapes and their application in
transdisciplinary landscape ecology.
Décamps, Henri: How a landscape finds form and comes alive. 44
Kostinskiy, Grigoriy: Landscape and place: the distinction between 50
two notions (experiences of their usage in geography).
Bastian, Olaf: Landscape ecology – towards a unified discipline? 50
Monitoring multifunctional terrestrial landscapes
Howard, David C., Sandrine Petit, and Robert G. H. Bunce: 51

Monitoring multi-functional landscapes at a national scale –
guidelines drawn up from the Countryside Survey of Great
Britain.
De Blust, Geert and Mira Van Olmen: Monitoring multifunctional 63
terrestrial landscapes: some comments.
4
Sepp, Kalev et al.: The methodology and applications of agricultural 71

landscape monitoring in Estonia.
Pistrich, Karl Heinz and Hans Karl Wytrzens: The multifunctionality 71
of the Alpine grassland in Austria.
Biodiversity versus landscape diversity in multifunctional
landscapes
Jongman, Rob: The difficult relationship between biodiversity and 72

landscape diversity.
Emanuelsson, Urban: TBD 84
Jeanneret, Philippe: Relationship between biodiversity and landscape 84
diversity: examples in Swiss cultivated landscapes.
Solon, Jerzy: Troubles with the evaluation of landscape diversity. 84
Complexity of landscape management
Romstad, Eirik: Public landscape goods – an economic framework. 86

Luz, Frieder: Participatory approaches in landscape ecology – a basis 98
for acceptance and implementation of concepts for managing
Penker, Marianne: Determinants for successful policy-making in the 109
field of landscape management.
Lenz, Roman: Can we plan landscapes? Aspects of an application- 109
oriented landscape ecology.

Values and assessment of multifunctional landscapes
Haines-Young, Roy H. and Marion B. Potschin: Multifunctionality 111

and value.
Tybirk, Knud: Nature values in agricultural landscapes: different 119
possibilities in organic and conventional farming systems.
Palang, Hannes et al.: Defining valuable landscapes for planning 121
purposes.
Axelsson Lindgren, Christina: Multifunctional landscape planning 121
within forestry and organic production. A comparative analysis
from the visual quality perspective.

Ecological aspects of multifunctional landscapes in
historical perspective.
Russell, Emily W. B.: Historical aspects of multifunctionality in 122

landscapes.
Olwig, Kenneth: “Historical aspects of multifunctionality in 133
landscapes” – opposing views of landscape.
Dirkx, Joep: Historical ecology of Dutch cultural landscapes. 147
5
Spears, Ian: Integrated evaluation of historic landscapes in England, 147

Wales and Germany.
IV. Draft on ”Recommendations on Interdisciplinary 149

Landscape Research”
Tress, Bärbel and Gunther Tress: Draft version for workshop no. 1 151
Brandt, Jesper: Draft version for workshop no. 2. 157
Adsersen, Henning, Hans Henrik Bruun and Line Magnussen: Draft 162
version for workshop no. 3
Hasler, Berit and Ulf Kjellerup: Draft version for workshop no. 4 166
Arler, Finn and Jesper Fredshavn: Draft version for workshop no. 5 170
Aaby, Bent and Per Ole Rindel: Draft version for workshop no. 6 173
V. Papers presented in parallel sessions 175

1. Session A: Landscapes in theory 177
Frederiksen, Peter: Landscape theory – a way out of the conceptual 177

mess.
Fry, Gary: Multifunctional landscape assessment – a step nearer 177
transdisciplinarity.
Ingegnoli, Vittorio and Elena Giglio Ingegnoli: Main disciplinary 178
models in landscape ecology: Limits and advantages.
Khoroshev, Alexandre and Yury G. Puzachenko: Approaches to 178
landscape research in Russia.
Lang, Stefan Christian: WYGIWYS - What you get is what you see: 179
The understanding of "landscape" between traditional
epistemology and constructivism.
Nguyen, The Thon: Fundamental problems of ecolandscape theory 179
and their application for environmental planning and
management.
Pinto-Correia, Teresa and Alexandre Cancela d’Abreu: The project of 180
landscape identification and characterisation for Portugal.
Presentation of a methodology for defining and characterising
landscape units as basis for land use planning.
Qvistrøm, Mattias: On landscape boundaries and how to bound 180
contemporary landscapes.
Richling, Andrzej: Landscape as an object of investigation of various 181
disciplines.
Terkenli, Theano S.: Towards a Theory of the Landscape: The 181
Aegean Landscape" as a Cultural Image.
6
2. Session B: Functions of agricultural/rural landscapes 183
Berggren-Bärring, Ann-Magreth: Function and pattern in relation to 183

agricultural land use.
Busck, Anne Gravsholt, Lone Søderkvist Kristensen and Jørgen 183
Primdahl: Farmers' decision making concerning hedgerows.
Dalgaard, Tommy and Hild Rygnestad: A bottom up method to map 184
the farming structure and agricultural intensity at the landscape
scale.
Dennis, Peter et al.: Impacts on farmland biodiversity of large-scale 184
changes in arable and pastoral landcovers.
Geertsema, Willemien: Plant diversity and habitat networks in 185
agricultural landscapes.
Kalkhoven, Jan T. R.: Planning biodiversity in agricultural 185
landscapes: development of a decision support system.
Meyer, Burghard Christian, Heidrun Muehle, and Ralf Grabaum: 186
Sustainable Planning in Agricultural landscapes.
Olesen, Carsten Riis and Jørgen Primdahl: The hunted landscape. 186
Roepers, Reinetta and C. R. Baltjes: Changes in landscape structure: 187
a vector based analysis of three NW European agricultural
areas.
3. Session C: Functions of urban and recreational landscapes 188
Abdal, Mahdi and Majda Sulieman: Improvement of Agricultural 188

Research Components in Urban Landscape and Greenery of
Kuwait.
Breuste, Jürgen: Recreation and nature conservation - two conflicting 189
functions in multifunctional Central European urban
landscapes.
d'Hauteserre, Anne-Marie : Visionary entrepreneurism forges 189
Monaco's multifunctional landscape.
Gyllin, Mats: Defining urban biodiversity - a matter of scale, function 190
and values.
Jaarsma, Catharinus Freerk and Ir. G. Willems: Rural road networks 190
in multifunctional landscapes.
Karjalainen, Eeva: Ways of perceiving a recreation forest. 191
Shuang, Chen and C. Y. Jim: Variations of Treescape in A Chinese 191
City: The Case of Nanjing.
Weiland, Ulrike: Which kind of planning is needed for an 192
ecologically sustainable development of urban landscapes?
Xu, JingHuai: The evolution of old Su Zhou city's environment 192
ecology.
Young, Christopher and P. J. Jarvis: A multicriteria approach to 193
evaluating habitat change in urban areas: an example from the
Black Country (UK).
7
4. Session D: Landscapes as places for experience, perception 194

and identification
Behm, Holger: Quo vadis savannah - hypothesis? - How a change in 194

paradigm of anthropology would effect modern landscape
aesthetics.
Haines-Young, Roy and Jorge Rubiano: Visions of Sherwood. 194
Handley, John and Robert Wood: Creative conservation or faking 195
nature: a critical review of the ethics of landscape restoration.
Kristiansen, Ib: Wired nature. 195
Macfarlane, Robert: Outsiders in the British landscape? An analysis 196
of ethnic minority landscape genesis projects in North-east
England.
Mouritsen, Ole: Cultural heritage and the new estate identity in the 196
agrarian landscape.
Sandall, Jean and Geoff Kaine: How do people evaluate native 197
vegetation in agricultural landscapes? An application of
Inglehart's Materialist-postmaterialist social values theory.
Scott, Alister: Assessing public perception of landscape: The Welsh 197
experience.
Soini, Katriina: Cognitive mapping: a method for assessing 198
biodiversity perceptions?
Wojciechowski, Krzysztof H.: Various aspects of the landscape 198
values considered as national heritage.
5. Session E: Landscapes between continuity and change 199
Barczi, Attila and Katalin Joó: Kurgans: Historical and ecological 199
heritage of the Hungarian plane.
Caspersen, Ole and Bo Fritzbøger: Long term retrospective landscape 200
ecology - some methodological reflections.
Deil, Ulrich: Characters of traditional and modern vegetation 200
landscapes.
Eigaard, Peter Ritzau and Bernd Münier: Comparing long term 201
landscape-development around three Danish lakes.
Gilliéron, Corinne: Agricultural landscape dynamics in Switzerland: 201
a model using the brown hare as an indicator of the evolution
of ecological qualities.
Girel, Jacky: Land use history and changes in biodiversity of riparian 202
landscapes (illustrated by the examples of the Rhone and Isère
rivers valleys).
Mander, Ülo and Marika Murka: Coherence of Cultural Landscapes: 202
A New Criterion for Evaluating the Impacts of Landscape
Changes.
Møller, Per Grau: Cultural Environments - changing in the past and 203
continuing in the future.
Nüsser, Marcus: Cultural landscape dynamics in the NW-Himalayas 203
and Hindukush: A human-ecological monitoring approach
using repeat photography.
Roldán, María José, P. Martín de Agar, and C. L. de Pablo : 204
Landscape mosaics: recognition and changes over time.
8
Zerbe, Stefan: The role of land use in the differentiation of natural 204
units - a historical perspective.
6. Session F: Observing landscapes 206
Annoni, A., Susan B. Christensen, and Steve Peedell: GIS for Natura 206
2000 - Monitoring of Europe's nature conservation sites.
De Blust, Gert, Marc Antrop, V. Van Eetvelde, and Mira van Olmen: 207
Integrated monitoring for the countryside: the Flemish
experience.
Fridman, Jonas and Göran Ståhl: Developing a landscape monitoring 207
program for Sweden.
Haase, Dagmar: Towards an interdisciplinary monitoring of 208
European floodplain landscapes: Geoecological approaches of
terrestrial monitoring in floodplain forests within an urban
landscape.
Jentsch, Anke and Peter S. White: Impact of disturbance on 208
landscape diversity.
Netzband, Maik: Monitoring and Evaluating the Nature Space 209
Potential in Suburban Spaces Using Remote Sensing Data and
GIS.
Ott, Jürgen: Monitoring "Kolbental" - a concept for the protection of 209
a wetland area and its sustainable use for drinking water
supply.
Pérez Gutierrez, P., C. T. López de Pablo, P. Martin De Agar 210
Valverde, and F. Díaz Pineda: Analysis of landscape changes
with integrated criteria: application to sustainable management
of natural resources.
Quinn, Elaine: Mitigation and Monitoring of Ecological and Visual 210
Impacts of Projects Subject to EIA in the UK.
Stüdemann, Otto, Sabine Eckert, Sandra Odya, and Dörte Krüger: A 211
methodical approach of an ecological process classification in
the landscape research shown with Rostock Hierarchical
ozonemonitoring (RHOM).
Vejre, Henrik and Casper Szilas: Convergence of land attributes (soil, 212
geology, geomorphology and soil water) with site productivity
in plantations of Norway spruce in western Denmark.
Vuorela, Niina: Detecting and classifying change transitions in the 212
landscape using combined spatial data sets.
7. Session G: Diversity and heterogeneity of landscapes 214
Beierkuhnlein, Carl: Comparing biodiversity and landscape 214

heterogeneity at different scale.
Blaschke, Thomas: Multifunctional connectivity analysis of 214
landscape elements.
Corbacho, P.P., A. Zárate, J. C. Rebollo, and C. L. De Pablo: 215
Landscape homogenisation and fragmentation: Changes in the
spatial organisation of the Madrid landscape (Spain).
9
Degórski, Marek: Is a geodiversity a part of landscape diversity. 215

Fjellstad, Wendy, Wenche Dramstad, Gary Fry, and H. F. Mathiesen: 216
Theoretical landscape indices meeting data from the real
world.
Hietala-Koivu, Reija : Connections between landscape diversity and 216
modernizing agriculture in rural landscape.
Ling, Christopher, John Handley, John Rodwell, and Julian Dring: 217
Rebuilding the post-industrial landscape: interaction between
landscape diversity and biodiversity on derelict land.
Nagendra, Harini: Assessing the influence of patch type in 217
determining patch structure: Studies in the Western Ghats,
India.
Porter, Jonathan, Geoffrey Griffiths, Steven Warnock, and Eunice 218
Simmons : The Living Landscapes Project: Exploring the link
between landscape character and biodiversity.
Puzachenko, Yury and Gleb M. Aleshchenko: Assessment of 218
Landscape Diversity using Aerial and Space Images.
8. Session H: Evaluating landscapes 220
Atauri, J. A., José V. de Lucio: Landscape evaluation of natural 220

protected areas.
Auclair, Daniel, Jean-Francois Berczil, Frédéric Borne, and Michel 221
Ëtienne : Assessing the visual impact of agroforestry
management with landscape design software.
Baruth, Bettina and Erik Borg: Contribution of multiscale remote 221
sensing data for landscape evaluation in the Dnister region
(Ukraine).
Francis, Charles: Multiple goals and outputs in an agricultural 222
landscape.
Frederiksen, Pia, Esbern Holmes, and Jesper Brandt: Agricultural 222
functionality and landscape heterogeneity: Multifunctionality
in Danish agricultural landscapes.
Grodzinski, Michael: Landscapes’ stability and diversity as strategies 222
for development.
Katter, Roswitha : Interdisciplinary evaluation of land use. 223
Kiss, Gábor : Nature conservation evaluation of the inanimate natural 223
components of the landscape.
Kistowski, Mariusz: Problem of landscape pattern indication for their 224
protection: A case study from young and old glacial areas of
north Poland.
Lorz, Carsten: Water supplier and forestry service, competitors to be 225
in the use of forested catchments? A case study from Western
Ore Mountains, Saxony FRG.
Sinha, Amarendra Kumar and Mahaveer Punia: Watershed erosion 226
response model WERM) for prioritization and management of
multifunctional watershed: Experience from Western India.
10
9. Session I: Policy and planning of multifunctional landscapes 227
Bills, Nelson and David Gross: Impacts of changing agri- 227

environmental policy on countryside conservation: A
preliminary report about a comparative study of selected
designated areas in New York, US and England.
Buttenschøn, Rita Merete: Regional nature protection based on nature 227
management and agri-environmental regulations.
Dax, Thomas and Gerhard Hovorka: The contribution of mountain 228
policy to maintain multifunctional landscapes and to support
rural development in Austria.
Hasler, Berit and Ole Hjort Caspersen: Multifunctional landscapes 228
and agriculture in a Danish region and targeting of
agrienvironmental policies.
Hong, Sunkee and In-Ju Song: Traditional land use patterns in Korea: 229
From a cultural corridor of the far-eastern landscape.
Johansen, Steinar and Geir Inge Orderud: The agricultural 229
multifunctionality and multifunctional landscapes - policy
options under different trade regimes.
Mart, Külvik, Kalev Sepp, Jüri Jagomägi, and Ülo Mander: Green 230
network as a integrative planning tool in ecological landscape
management in Estonia.
Primdahl, Jørgen and Teresa Pinto-Correia: Integrating agricultural 230
policies with planning and environmental policies.
Veihe, Anita: Integrated land use planning – a case study from 231
Ghana.
Wascher, Dirk M.: Landscape indicators at the European level. 231
10. Session J: Managing multifunctional landscapes 233
Broge, Niels Henrik et al.: The use of remote sensing and 233
anthropologic tools to define multifunctional landscapes in
Thailand.
Brzóska, Jolanta, Andrzej Kijowski and Stefan Zynda: The 233
methodology of drawing maps of environmental complexity
for the needs of environmental management.
Denzer, Vera and Dagmar Haase: Forms of historical and current 234
land-use of the Leipzig floodplains – anthropogenic influences,
aspects of actual land-use conflicts and conflict management.
Griffiths, Emma, Chris Ling, and John Handley: Community 235
participation in the land restoration process.
Hels, Tove and Kjell Nilsson: Boundaries in the landscape - results 235
and experiences from interdisciplinary landscape research.
Kuzmin, Sergey B.: Ecological safety of landscape management as 236
exemplified from South Siberia region.
Larsen, Dorthe K. and Jesper Brandt: A Cartographic Tool to Support 236
Public Access to the Countryside.
Miller, Craig: Management of alluvial forest remnants in a New 237
Zealand agricultural landscape.
Schou, Jesper S. and Berit Hasler: Economic and voluntary 238
instruments for agricultural landscape management.
11
VI. Poster presentations 239

Annoni, A., S. Christensen, and S. Peedell: GIS for NATURA 2000 – 241
Monitoring Europe's Nature Conservation Sites.
Balon, Jaroslaw and Wieslaw Ziaja: Regional differentiation of 241
landscape modification in the Polish Carpathians.
Baranek, Elke, Tina Boeckmann, Kirsten von der Heiden, Rosemarie 242
Siebert: Does the involvement of stakeholders facilitate the
implementation of research results?
Centeri, Cs., Attila Barczi, and R. Pataki: Application of GIS in 243
erosion mapping on the Tihanyi Peninsula.
Cristea, V. et al.: Multidisciplinary studies – a basis for the planning 243
of the sustainable development of Cluj-Napoca city (Romania).
Dalgaard, Tommy et al.: Regional GIS-scenarios for land use. 244
Dalgaard, Tommy and Arne Kyllingsbæk: Long-term changes in 244
Danish Agriculture.
Dankl, Claudia: Cultural landscape research in Austria. 245
De Blust, Geert and Mira Van Olmen: An ecologically based 246
decision process for land reorganisation.
Donner, Ralph: Integration of qualitative properties into landscape 246
research.
Eigaard, Peter Ritzau and Berit Hasler: An analysis of farmers 246
reservations towards participation in voluntary agro-
environmental agreements.
Francis, Charles et al.: Action research and learning in agriculture 247
and food systems: Moving activities into the rural landscape.
Frandsen, Ege Lau: Soil changes in relation to landscape and changes 247
in management regime.
Gibelli, Maddalena Gioia and R. Santolini: Landscape changes due to 248
a linear infrastructure in a sensitive land unit: a springs area in
n agricultural landscape.
Glemnitz, Michael: Differentiation between abandoned fields and 248
grasslands from satellite images through the use of
phenological and structural vegetation parameters.
Guzel, N.: Agrolandscapes dynamic of North-Western European 249
Russia.
Hunter, Sue, Karen Henwood and Nick Pidgeon: The place of 249
forestry in modern Welsh culture: How individuals and
communities perceive and relate to their aspects of their
landscape specially in relation to modern forestry practice.
Ilyés, Zoltán: Farm system and landscape pattern in a traditional rural 250
region in the Eastern-Carpatheans.
Katter, Roswitha: Interdisciplinary evaluation of land use. 250
Kovár, Pavel: Aboandoned anthropogenic landscapes: Are they 251
potentially multifunctional?
Lang, Stefan: Evaluating species related patch connectedness for 251
animal dispersal modelling in heterogeneous landscapes.
Ling, Chris: Toolkits for community led registration of derelict land. 252
Marta, C., H. Freitas, and R. de Groot: Functions and values of 252
agricultural landscapes: the pseudosteppes of Castro Verde, a
case study from Southern Portugal.
12
Nagengast, Barbara and Mariusz Pelechaty: Changes in water and 253

rush vegetation of the Lake Skrzynka in the last 70 years.
Nyizsalovszki, Rita: Land use change and its effects on a sample area 253
in the Tokaj-Foothill region (Hungary).
Ode, Å. and G. Fry: Urban pressure on woodlands. 254
Odya, Sandra, Otto Stüdemann, and Sabine Eckert: Evidence of 254
spatial differentiated dynamic of ozone injuries at the southern
Baltic coast.
Odya, Sandra, Sabine Eckert, and Otto Stüdemann: Derivation of 255
plant physiological thresholds for ozone near the grounds by
means of standardized ozone indicating plant Nicotiana
tabacum L. Bel W3.
Padoa-Schioppa, Emilio and Marco Baietto: Local parks as a network 255
component in a multidimensional approach of conservation.
Pelechaty, Mariusz: Habitat diversity of the lake ecosystem. 256
Ping, Zhao and Peng Shao Lin: Edge effect of successional 257
communities and restoration of forest fragmentation in low
sub-tropics of South China.
Pietrzak, Maciej: Changes in the forest boundaries within central 257
Greater Poland over the last 200 years.
Quinta-Nova, Luis: The use of vegetation structure and composition 258
measures to improve habitat classification in rural landscapes.
Rivis, R., U. Ratas, and E. Puurmann: Methods of studying 258
biodiversity in relation to landscape pattern of Estonian coastal
areas.
Seng, Mirijam: Anthropogenic transformation of cork oak-dominated 259
landscapes in Spain and Portugal.
Song, I.-J., S.-K. Hong, and H.-O. Kim: Distribution Characteristics 259
of naturalized plants influences by land use patterns in Seoul
Metropolitan Area.
Stüdemann, Otto, Sabine Eckert, and Sandra Odya: Analysis of ozone 260
episodes and their inherent structure in several landscapes at
the Southern Baltic coast.
Tveit, Mari Sundli: Landscape preferences – who sees what in the 260
agricultural landscape.
Vervloet, J. and D. M. Wascher: Fundamentals of landscape 261
typology.
Watve, Aparna, Gandhe R. V., and Gandhe K. R.: Planning of locale 262
specific conservation strategy for plant diversity – a case study
from Mulshi region in Western Ghats, India.
Wurbs, A., Glemnitz, M., Jacobsen, M.: Assessment of restoration 262
potential for semi-natural biotops in agrarian landscapes.
Yatsukhno, Valentin: Relations between biodiversity and landscape 263
diversity (a case study of Belovezhskaya Pushcha)
13
I. Introduction
14
15
Introduction to the conference theme
At present, the landscape is a popular topic, not only in an academic but also in a broader
context. People have strong ties to landscapes and use them in various ways. From a human
perspective, many of the earth’s landscapes are being used more intensely than ever before in
the history of earth, and landscapes are increasingly being used simultaneously for several
purposes. During the post-war period, intensified land use has been furthered primarily by
spatial segregation of functions. Growing land pressure and environmental problems have
made this strategy problematic and a paradigm of complete multifunctionality is emerging.
Thus, there will be high demands on the landscapes of the future, which will have to serve
simultaneously the following functions: ecological (as an area for living), economic (as an
area for production), socio-cultural (as an area for recreation and identification), historical (as
an area for settlement and identity), and aesthetic (as an area for experiences). Depending on
people’s different ways of using the landscape, it has a different meaning for them. In this
regard, landscape is a very complex phenomenon. Single disciplines can only discover and
describe small parts of the landscape as a whole. To understand landscape fully and address its
challenges, discrete disciplines have to work together.
Accordingly, the conference will give participants an opportunity to explore various

approaches. Members of such disciplines as the sciences, humanities, and social sciences as
well as architecture and the arts will meet. The conference seeks to bridge the gap between
different approaches and to create a common ground for future landscape research that can
meet the challenge of a renewed emphasis om multifunctionality. It is the conference’s aim to
bring the difficulties and problems in present landscape research to the fore and to present
strategies for coping with them. The lectures and workshops aim to formulate common
recommendations for future landscape research in the next millennium. Ultimately, the results
of the conference will be presented and published as the ”Recommendations on
Interdisciplinary Research on Multifunctional Landscapes.”
With this proceeding, the conference will follow up the efforts made by the European
congress ”Landscape Ecology: things to do – proactive thoughts for the 21st century," which
was organized by the Dutch Association for Landscape Ecology in 1997. As a result of this
congress, a little booklet* with recommendations was published. We recommend this lecture
to our participants as it will be a good preparation for the workshop discussions. By the
initiative ”Multifunctional Landscapes”, we broaden the perspective from ”landscape
ecology” to ”landscape research and management” in general, however at the same time
focussing on a critical analysis of the emerging concept around ”multifunctional landscapes.”
Jesper Brandt, Bärbel Tress and Gunther Tress

Roskilde, September 2000
*A new identity for landscape ecology in Europe. A research strategy for the next decade: outlines
formulated at the European congress Landscape ecology: things to do – proactive thoughts for the 21st
century. Published by the Dutch Association for Landscape Ecology (WLO) in spring 1998
16
17
II. Plenary lectures

18
19
In order of their appearance during the conference.
Multifunctionality and Urbanisation
Marc Antrop
Department of Geography, University Ghent, Belgium
Considering the landscape, urbanisation refers to a series of highly dynamic and complex
processes that transform the existing landscape. This happens mainly in the urban fringe
zones, but urbanisation can also induce important changes in the remote countryside.
Urbanisation induces functional changes of the way the land is used, as well as morphological
changes, introducing many new landscape elements that wipe away the existing ones and thus
cause a disruption of the initial landscape structures by fragmenting them. Finally, it causes
profound changes in the attitude towards the landscape of the newcomers and new users, as
well as the way they value their environment.
Unless the rural landscapes of the countryside, it is difficult to experience the urbanised
landscapes as a common heritage that allows an almost free access for the passing traveller.
Characteristic for urbanised landscapes is the high density of numerous actors, which all use
in a rather non-concerted manner a small piece of land. The result is a highly fragmented
space with a mosaic of very different land uses and a high density of transportation
infrastructures. The general structure of the landscape and the relations between its
components is not clear and space has a highly privatised character. Can such a pattern be
called a multifunctional landscape?
First, different types of use and functionality should be determined and grouped into
categories. Can these be related to concepts such as carrying capacity and sustainable
development? A classification is proposed. Next, multifunctionality should be considered at
different scale levels. The concept is intimately related to land use and land cover. At the
lowest level, each field or land parcel should be considered separately. Is the field used always
for the same purposes or can different cycles of use alternate? Does it allow exceptional
infrequent uses? At a higher scale level blocks of fields having a similar or related types of
functionality should be considered. How do these interact internally? Finally, at the highest
scale level, the landscape level, whole continuous mosaic should be considered. How are
different functionality’s compatible or conflicting, possible, necessary, indicated? Is it
possible to embed functionality from different scale levels? These questions will be discussed
using case studies from Europe.
20
Agri-environmental Indicators for Multifunctionality in the

Countryside: Measuring Changes in Agricultural Landscapes as a
Tool for Policy Makers
Kevin Parris
Agriculture Directorate, OECD, 2 Rue Andre Pascal, 75016 Paris, France
Email: Kevin.Parris@oecd.org
To facilitate policy monitoring and evaluation, it is useful to consider agricultural landscapes

as composed of three key elements: landscape structures or appearance, including
environmental features (e.g. habitats), land use types (e.g. crop types), and man-made objects
(e.g. hedges); landscape functions, for example, as a place to live, work, visit, and provide
various environmental functions; and landscape values, concerning both the value society
places on agricultural landscape, such as recreational and cultural values, and also, the costs to
farmers of maintaining landscapes. The paper describes, in Section 1 the environmental and
policy context of agricultural landscapes in OECD countries. This is followed, in Section 2
by an examination of a range of indicators that are currently being developed in OECD
countries to track the state and trends in agricultural landscapes, in particular, indicators
covering landscape structure or appearance; management, including private/public schemes to
maintain and enhance landscapes; and the costs of landscape provision by farmers and
benefits or values society places on agricultural landscapes. Section 3, identifies future
research challenges in this area, and finally, Section 4 concludes with a discussion on the
place of landscape in the context of the current debate on multifunctionality and sustainability
in the context of the agricultural sector.
Key Words: landscape; agri-environmental indicators; policy; multifunctionality;

sustainability.
Aesthetic Evaluation of Multifunctional Landscapes

Marcia Muelder Eaton
University of Minnesota, USA
Designs for sustainable environments cannot be fully implemented unless ecological and
aesthetic values are consistent with one another. Multifunctional landscapes present special
challenges---not only must different biosystems be ecologically compatible---so must the
different aesthetic values that attach to the individual systems that make up the whole be
brought into harmony. The analog of multi-media arts might be helpful here: though due
attention must be given to the contribution of each “medium”, a different entity emerging
from the interaction of the parts requires its own kind of evaluation.
21
Interdisciplinary landscape research and the management of

multifunctional landscapes
Jesper Brandt
Centre for Landscape Research, Roskilde University, P.O. Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde
E-mail: brandt@ruc.dk
Growing ecological, economic and social conflicts in former monofunctionally used

landscapes and the necessity to develop sophisticated types of regulation meeting the
challenge of a more multifunctional use of these landscapes has been one of the motive behind
the development of many interdisciplinary landscape projects since the mid-80ties. The set-up
of a Danish project 1996-2001 ‘Value, Landscape and Biodiversity’ will be presented as an
example. It has the explicit goal to establish an empirical and theoretical framework for a
research that can deal with the relation between values, consequences and planning in regard
to integrated management and use of the Danish countryside. A short status of the project as
well as a critical discussion of the practical and organisational problems facing such an
interdisciplinary landscape project will be given.
Scenarios for the management of multifunctional landscapes

Bärbel Tress & Gunther Tress
Centre for Landscape Research, University of Roskilde, P.O. Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde
E-mail: baerbel@ruc.dk and gunther@ruc.dk, http://www.geo.ruc.dk/vlb/bgt
Rural areas are having more and more demands placed on them by local and urban
populations. There are many perspectives on appropriate development of rural landscapes and
their small communities over the next two decades. Even if there is a decrease in agricultural
land use, many other functions will take its place. The lecture presents a new approach to
development challenges in the countryside in Denmark, based on scenario technique and
active participation of stakeholders. With these tools, the authors have played out different
extreme scenarios for rural areas, including industrial agriculture, tourism, and recreation,
nature conservation, and residential expansion. All of these developments, which will have
profound effects on the rural landscapes of the future, have been discussed with local and
regional stakeholders. The results of these discussions will be the basis for a second set of
scenarios that integrate several interests.
Multifunctional biosphere landscapes and the future of our Total

Human Ecosystem
Zev Naveh
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Landscape ecologists will be able to play a significant role in the sustainable future of our
Total Human Ecosystem and its landscapes, if they will make a clear distinction in their work
between the following major landscape ecotope classes:
22
A. Sustainable multifunctional and multidimensional biosphere landscapes and regenerative

systems:
1. Natural and seminatural biosphere ecotopes, (or in short bio-ecotopes) driven entirely by
solar energy though photosynthesis and containing self-organizing (autopoietic) and self-
regulating spontaneously evolving and reproducing organisms on which the future
biological evolution depends.
2. Multifunctional agro-silvo-pastoral, as well as traditional and organic farming bio-
ecotopes, in which the biological production, derived solely from solar energy, is
channeled into economic goods.
B. Unsustainable throughput systems of the fossil energy based, industrial society:

1. High input agro-industrial ecotopes in which solar energy is subsidized by fossil energy
and high inputs of chemicals, replacing most of the natural, biological control
mechanisms with detrimental environmental effects.
2. Urban-industrial and rural echnosphere ecotopes (or in short techno-ecotopes) and their
technological artifacts, which are human-made and maintained depending almost entirely
on fossil and nuclear energy and are resulting in high outputs of entropy waste and
pollution and environment. Their detrimental impacts could be minimized by a more
wisely and efficient use of natural resources in a solar-powered, reuse and recycle,
sustainable and more just global economy.
Criteria and Parameters for Sustainable Land-use

Jan Diek van Mansvelt
Wageningen University Researchcentre, Department of Plantscience, Pb 9101, 6700 HB Wageningen,
Netherlands, E-mail: Jan.DiekvanMansvelt@users.eco.wau.nl
Over the past decades, interest in the effects of agricultural land-use on the environment,
natural ecosystems and the overall rural landscape has increased. From a wide range of
disciplines of social and natural sciences, unintended and unwanted effects of unlimited
specialisation and up-scaling have been reported. With soil erosion, pollution of soil, water
and air, energy wastes, losses of bio-diversity and degradation of the rural societies, a broad
spectrum of problems have emerged into the perception of those responsible for the planning
and evaluation of the use of the land. Representatives of a wide range of disciplines have
addressed large numbers of symptoms in research and policy. Less has been done to analyse
common grounds for the mentioned problems in an interdisciplinary context. This paper will
report on an interdisciplinary study made with EU support, trying to find common
denominators for the problems and a consistent system to find ways to solve them. It will
focus on keys for interdisciplinary in land-use research and policy, starting from the notion
that the land-use should provide for the human needs for survival: physical, social and
cultural. Drawing on the work of Maslow for human motivation, targets for land-use are
derived, and from them criteria for the land-use planning and evaluation by environmentalists,
ecologists, economists, sociologists, landscape architects and cultural anthropologists. Notions
on the quality of life, as an overall target for land-use management, will be included in the
presentation. It will be shown that a synergy between the multiple targets is quite well
possible, and seems to be reached rather consistently in the context of organic types of
sustainable agriculture.
23
Demands for future landscape research

Jesper Brandt
Centre for Landscape Research, Roskilde University, P.O. Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde
E-mail: brandt@ruc.dk
The conference ‘Multifunctional landscapes’ has been open to a variety of questions related to
modern landscape research. But it does not aim to give recommendations for all questions
connected to future landscape research. Six workshop themes, all of importance to the overall
theme of ‘Multifunctional landscape' has been selected for a closer examination. Based on the
contributions to the 6 workshops, the preliminary recommendations from these workshops,
and the discussions within and between the workshop groups up to and during the conference,
the challenges for a future landscape research that can serve as a constructive and critical
guide for solving the problems facing the complex management and use of our landscapes will
be presented.
24
25
III. Lectures in the six workshops

26
27
1. Workshop No. 1:
The Landscape – from Vision to Definition
Workshop guide and presentation of recommendations:

Bärbel Tress, Denmark
Gunther Tress, Denmark
Main speaker: Zev Naveh, Israel

First opponent speaker: Henri Décamps, France
Second opponent speaker: Grigoriy Kostinskiy, Russia
Third opponent speaker: Olaf Bastian, Germany
Introduction to the Theoretical Foundations of Multifunctional

Landscapes and their Application in Transdisciplinary Landscape
Ecology.
Z. Naveh
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Abstract.
A holistic theory of landscapes should become an integral part of the conceptual foundation of
goal-oriented and mission-driven landscape ecology. Based on a dynamic systems view,
emerging from the recent paradigm shifts and insights gained from findings on complexity and
wholeness multifunctional landscapes should be conceived as tangible, mixed natural and
cultural interacting middle-number systems and as the concrete, self-organizing Gestalt
systems of our Total Human Ecosystem. Ranging from the smallest mappable ecotope holon
to the global ecosphere landscape, they should be studied, upgraded, managed and evaluated
with a biperspectivable systems view, treating them simultaneously both as products of both
material, natural biogeophysical systems and as mental, cognitive noospheric systems. This
can be achieved with the help of innovative transdisciplinary approaches and research
methods, in close cooperation between landscape ecologists and ecologically oriented
scientists from relevant social sciences, the humanities and arts and the professionals involved
in all phases of land use decisions. Acting both as specialists in their own field of land
expertise and as integrators, landscape ecologists could play an important dual role in ensuring
the future of healthy, attractive and stable multifunctional landscapes as part of the creation of
post-industrial symbiotic relations between human society and nature.
28
Introduction.
Our workshop is called “The Landscape – from Vision to Definition”. The meaning of
“vision” is either simply the faculty of seeing, or in much broader sense, farsightedness, seeing
beyond the present into the future, and envisioning from a vantage point a common goal. Such
a dual meaning is also true for “definition”. It can be interpreted either as a statement of the
precise meaning of a term, or as an attempt for stating a degree of distinctiveness of the outline
– like the definition in a photographic lens.
I suggest that we should use the broader interpretations and view multifunctional
landscapes (MLs) from such a vantage point with a clear vision of our future goal. We should
find out together from this vantage point what makes MLs distinct and unique from any other
view. This should lead us to our final conclusion on the necessity for a transdisciplinary, goal-
oriented landscape research.
We can accomplish this assignment only with the help of a fruitful dialogue. The eminent
theoretical physician and science philosopher David Bohm (1996) has called dialogue ”a
stream of meaning, flowing among through us and between us”. He compared the regular
fashion of scientific discussions to a ping-pong game, in which each person presents his fixed
position and only argues, in favor of his view without listening to the other position, and
where people are betting the ideas back and forth to win. However in dialogue nobody is
trying to win. Everybody wins if anybody wins it is a-win-win and not a win-loose
relationship.
According to Decartes, the understanding of nature and realization of certainty are achieved
first by separation from the natural world, then by its precise measurement. This has lead to a
utilitarian criterion of truth, and a reduction of the “object” of knowledge to an instrumental
relation or quantifiable value that has been further developed into a statistical technique. This
has served classical physics, followed by other natural sciences, in the efforts for reaching
“true” predictions of future natural phenomena. However, the systems paradigm implies that
understanding the process of knowing – the epistemology - has to be included in the
description of the natural phenomena, of which the observer is an inseparable part. Thereby
the systems view has been developed as a perceptional and scientific window through which
we are able to look at complex ecological and societal phenomena in their realistic way within
the observed context. This “contextual window view” is of greatest relevance for our
transdisciplinary landscape research. It can serve as the cognitive basis for the dialogue,
leading to mutual understanding of different perceptions and “window views” by the
landscape ecologists and the other research team members.
Contrary to those who still cling to this scientific prediction model, and claim that in order
to become “a nature science” landscape ecology (LE) has to develop its own predictive theory,
I suggest that instead of a predictive science, it is essential for landscape ecology to become a
prescriptive science. This is, of course, also true for a landscape theory: When we deal with
human-influenced and modified landscapes, we cannot predict landscape changes by
extrapolating from the past and present in to the uncertain future. As Holling (1996) and
Bright (2000) have pointed out, rightly, we have to anticipate environmental surprises and we
have to learn to deal also with uncertainties and unpredictability.
However, we can anticipate and prepare different scenarios based on the principles of if…..
then, and on base of these we can prescribe what, in our opinion should be done to realize the
most desirable one. In this respect, landscape ecology can be compared to medicine. We have
to diagnose the health of whole landscapes, anticipating their fate and the risks involved in
their further misuse and degradation and the prospects for their further sustainable
development, and then our obligation is to try and prescribe the best remedies for their
management, conservation, restoration. For this purpose also our landscape theory cannot be
bound down by a rigid and mechanistic predictive theory, for which classical Newtonian
29
physics has served as a model. It must be guided by a much broader future-oriented and
dynamic worldview.
The vantage point for this worldview should be, in my opinion, the realization that at the
present deep ecological crisis, humanity has reached a crucial turning point in its relations to
nature. These relations will be determined by the fate of our biosphere landscapes whose
future is endangered by increasing pressures of exponential population growth and
consumption, coupled with uncontrolled agro- and urban-industrial expansion.
As I will explain in more detail below, their fate is closely coupled with the biological and
cultural evolutionary trends, during our present transition from the industrial to the post-
industrial global information age. Erwin Laszlo (1994), the world-renown systems philosopher
and expert on global trends, has shown in a very blunt and convincing way, that at this “Grand
Transition” the only choice is between further sustainable evolution of life on earth, or its
further exponential degradation until its final extinction.
Landscape ecologists can play a meaningful role in the choice of further evolution, if they
will focus their view on the vision of an overarching transdisciplinary goal, namely, the
creation of new, mutually beneficial symbiotic relations between nature and human society, as
realized in healthy, productive, attractive and livable multifunctional landscapes. Research and
action towards this goal have to based on a sound holistic conception of landscapes and their
role in this process. However, such a theory of landscapes cannot be considered in isolation. It
has to be an integral part of a broader holistic conception of landscape ecology and its
theoretical and practical implications. Attempts in this direction have been made by us (Naveh
and Lieberman 1994; Naveh 1990; 1995; 1998a; 1998b). These have been recently
summarized in a special issue of Landscape and Urban Planning in an IALE symposium on
Holistic Landscape Ecology in Action (Naveh 2000). Their concepts were formalized in terms
of a hierarchical systems approach, rooted in General Systems Theory (GST) and its recent
holistic and transdisciplinary insights in organized complexity, self-organization and co-
evolution in nature and in human societies. Although these issues have much relevance for our
landscape theory, I can present them only in a very condensed way, as part of 10 major
premises which in my opinion, could serve as the core theory for such a holistic theory MLs.
Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes.
First Premise: A theory of MLs has to be conceived in the light of the recent holistic and
transdisciplinary scientific revolution, its paradigm shifts and recent insights in synthetic
evolution and in the selforganization of nonequilibrium dissipative structures. They are
part of the cultural evolution of human society, driven by leaps through bifurcations into
higher organization levels by positive feedback loops of autocatalytic and crosscatalytic
hypercycles and networks.
The true meaning of contemporary holistic landscape conception can be fully comprehended
only in the broader context of the recent holistic and transdisciplinary “scientific revolution”.
According to Kuhn (1996) such a revolution takes place when the existing theories no longer
adequately explain reality and new paradigms of conceptional schemes have to replace
gradually those conventional and well-established paradigms of so-called “normal science”. In
our case, such a revolution was initiated by a major paradigm shift from parts to wholes, and
from entirely reductionistic and mechanistic approaches to more holistic and organismic ones.
It leads to the turning away from breaking down, analyzing and fragmenting wholes into
smaller and smaller particles towards new trends for integration, synthesis, and
complementary. It means the need to replace the reliance on exclusively linear and
deterministic processes by non-linear, cybernetic and chaotic processes, based on systems
30
thinking of complexity, networks and hierarchic order. It leads from a belief in the objectivity
and certainty of the scientific truth towards the recognition of the limits of human knowledge,
the need for a contextual view of reality, and the need for dealing with uncertainties. Thereby
it leads from mono-and multi-disciplinarity to inter-and transdisciplinarity.
As presented recently by Holling et al. (1999), such a holistic paradigm shift is changing
already the science and practice of adaptive resources management and recognizes human
wisdom and traditional common-sense and its deep cultural values. It has to change also our
view of landscapes from a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary picture of physical,
chemical, biological, and other landscape elements and processes into a transdisciplinary view
of the landscape and its multifunctional natural and cultural dimensions.
This implies an overarching scientific and practical approach, transcending and crossing
disciplines and professions, aiming together towards a common systems goal. This can be
achieved by closely interwoven cooperation between many fields of knowledge and expertise
and their interactions. Holistic landscape research requires such a transdisciplinary goal across
ecology, geography, and ecological-oriented sociology, economics, anthropology, history,
philosophy, political science, planning, and any other relevant scientific and/or professional
field involved in this endeavor.
Probably the greatest achievement of the transdisciplinary scientific revolution has been
inspired by a great number of new research findings and especially those by the Nobel Price
laureate Prigogine and his collaborators (Prigogine and Sprengers 1984) on the self-organizing
properties of nonequilibrium “dissipative structures”. These lead to a major paradigm shift
from the neo-Darwinian conception of evolution to an all-embracing conception of synthetic
cosmic, geological, biological and cultural co-evolution, emphasizing cooperation as the
creative play of an entire evolving universe. This transdisciplinary paradigm of “Grand
Synthesis” (Laszlo 1987) of a “Self-organizing Universe”(Jantsch 1980), is opposed to the
Newtonian paradigm of an atomistic world, operating by mechanistic laws of the clockwork-
like universe and its more modern view as a bio-chemical and physical machine.
This synthetic evolutionary process should be conceived, as a discontinuous development
of sudden leaps by "bifurcations" (from the Greek furca =fork) to a higher organizational
level. As described by Laszlo (1994), in the cultural evolution these were leaps from the
primitive food gathering - hunting to the more and more advanced agricultural and industrial
stages, culminating in societies globally integrated in the emerging information age. Each of
these bifurcations is driven mainly by the widespread adoption of basic cultural and
technological innovation, culminating now in societies globally integrated in the emerging
information age. Each of these bifurcations is driven mainly by the widespread adoption of
basic cultural and technological innovation, such as symbolized presently by the computer.
Landscape evolution is an integral part of this cultural evolutionary process. Therefore,
without its comprehension we will never be able to grasp the holistic nature of these dynamics
landscape changes, with which I will deal in more detail below.
Capra (1996) has presented a brilliant synthesis of these recent scientific breakthroughs. It
opens the way for a new holistic understanding of the “Web of Life”, in which landscapes are
imbedded.
Second Premise: Each landscape is a three-dimensional, concrete ecological system that

is more than the sum of its parts, containing more information than the sum of its
measurable components, because of its emergent organizational system properties
This holistic General Systems paradigm should serve as the major theoretical foundation of a
holistic ML theory: It requires that we regard each landscape on its own right as a whole, as a
concrete, space/time defined ecological system that is more than the sum of its parts. As a
31
result, also the information about the whole landscape is larger than the arithmetic sum which
can be derived from its parts. Therefore the state of the whole must be known to understand
the collective of the parts (Weiss 1969). Thus for instance, not only the natural but also the
cultural components of a regional landscape, its forests, grass- and shrublands, its wetlands
and rivers, its agricultural fields, its residential and industrial areas, its roads, traffic- and
power-lines and their history contribute to the integral and truly holistic character of the
landscape. They comprise its various human-ecological, social, economic, psychological,
spiritual, aesthetic and functional aspects of experiencing and using the landscapes. In these,
their complex network interactions cannot be comprehended merely by analysis, but only by
synthesis within the context of the organization of the whole and its implications for resolving
the pressing problems of our present ecological and cultural crisis, in the sense of the above-
described goal.
Weiss (1969) demonstrated these essential holistic features of a system, as expressed by the
invariance of the system, in comparison with the more variant fluctuations of its constituents
by a simple mathematical formula. This shows that in a system the sum of deviations in
physical, chemical, biological and ecological (and in the case of our MLs also cultural)
parameters, expressed as the variance V of its elements a,b,c,…..n, are greater than the
variance of the total complex S:
Vs <<(Va+Vb+Vc+…….+Vn)
This is the result of systems behavior under the internal degrees of freedom of its
components by coordination and control. It is realized by the capacity of cybernetic adaptive
self-regulation through negative feedback loops. Thereby the system - and in our case the
landscape- becomes more than its parts, not in a quantitative-summative way but in a
qualitative-structural way.
Third Premise: In the universal macrohierarchical organization of natural, multileveled

and stratified open systems, MLs are part of the global ecological microhierarchy.
Serving as the tangible matrix for all organisms, they form their own Holon hierarchy,
with ecotopes as the smallest structural and functional holons and the ecosphere as the
largest, global Holon.
Under the inspiration of General System Theory, hierarchy theory has become an important
part of the systems approach, and a cornerstone for transdisciplinarity. Its basic paradigm is
the view of a hierarchical organization of nature as ordered wholes of multileveled, stratified
open natural systems These range from the lowest, physical levels of space-time fields and
quarks up to the astronomic entities of planets, stars, galaxies and their clusters. In this
macrohierarchy of the cosmos, the biological levels of organismic complexity and the
ecological levels of above-organisms complexities, integrating living systems with their
environment, constitute the microhierarchy of our planet earth (Laszlo 1972).
In any natural systems hierarchical organization, each higher level acquires newly emerging
qualities and is therefore more complex as its lower subsystems. It organizes the level below it
and serves thereby also as the context of the lower level. At the same time, its lower subsystem
gives the function of each system and the purpose is given by its supersystem.
For the representation of a holistic and dynamic view of the real world, we have to take into
consideration its hierarchical structure and to adapt our means of measurement and evaluation
to each level. Each higher level contains the lower one and displays lower frequency behavior.
Classical ecology and eco-physiology have dealt mainly with the fast response loops between
the atmosphere and the surface vegetation. Until recently it has been assumed that at the
landscape scale we have to deal chiefly with the slower and weaker loops of landscape
modifications through anthropogenic activities and their effects on biogeochemical cycling
32
and climate change. But because of the exponential rates of these modifications, their time
scales become faster and faster and their loops become stronger and stronger coupled.
Therefore the prevention of their adverse effects has become also more and more urgent. This
has far-reaching implications on the ways in which the “pragmatic” usable information of the
results of our studies should be brought to the attention of the stakeholders and decision-
makers, to induce their immediate response.
An important development for the recognition of the dichotomic Janus - faced nature of each
hierarchy level being at the same time both whole and part, was introduction of the "holon"
concept by Koestler (1969): Holon is a composition of two Greek terms: holos = whole +
proton = part). On each intermediary hierarchic level such holons function as self-contained
wholes toward their subordinated sub-systems, but at the same time they act also as dependent
parts toward their super-systems. In other words, depending on our point of view each Holon
in the systems hierarchy behaves either as a part or as a whole.
By studying, managing, and restoring landscapes with all their unique natural, cultural and
perceptional dimensions, as ordered holons of such a landscape hierarchy (or "holarchy" in
Koestler's terms), we can conceive the complementary nature of landscape units, being both
parts of a higher space-time and perceptional hierarchy, and wholes toward their lower
hierarchical levels. Thereby we are overcoming the contradiction between entirely one-sided
holistic or reductionistic perceptions of landscapes. However, we have to realize that their
organizational complexity cannot be treated as a rigid one-dimensional spatially structured
physical and biological hierarchy but only as dynamic, multidimensional space-time,
conceptual and perceptual Holon holarchies, from the largest and most complex global
ecosphere landscape to the smallest landscape cell or “ecotope”.
This can be considered the smallest, more or less homogeneous and clearly discernible and
mappable building block of nature, with all its subordinated landscape elements and fluxes. In
contrast to functional ecosystems, which are diffuse in space and more or less intangible
(Allen and Hoekstra 1992), and the vaguely defined and delineated landscape "patches",
ecotopes are concrete systems, well-defined in space and time and mapped, in general on
scales of 1:10 000 to 25 000 (Leser 1991; Zonneveld 1995). Their boundaries are determined
in a pragmatic way, according to the object and the needs of the study.
Fourth Premise: For their study and management landscapes have to be upscaled from
the ecotope to the higher landscape Holon levels both along biogeophysical and ecological
and along cultural and perceptional gradients. This requires new integrative,
multidimensional and transdisciplinary approaches and methods, including ecodiversity
parameters.
Environmental interactions and impacts do not operate in landscapes in clear-cut hierarchical

boxes, but in a gradual way along different scales of space, time and intensity. As explained by
Bohm & Peat (1987), they are also perceived in different ways, according to the overall
disposition of both mind and body by the observer and his psychological and cultural filters
and conceptual windows. However, up-to-now, landscape patterns and processes have been
viewed almost exclusively within a biophysical and bioecological context along spatial and
temporal scales. For dealing with the organizational patterns and the functional processes
shaping these landscapes holons and their geomorphological, biological and cultural
heterogeneity, not only their space-time dimensions should be enlarged, but also their
perceptional and cultural dimensions have to be upscaled from the ecotope into larger
landscape holons, such as slopes and mini-catchments, regional landscapes and biomes, up to
the global ecosphere landscape. For this purpose, as well as for their study, conservation,
management and restoration, mechanistic species, population, community and ecosystem
33
parameters are not adequate. These have to be replaced by new, more inclusive parameters,
measuring ecological, topological and cultural diversity and their total landscape diversity and
heterogeneity as "ecodiversity " (Naveh 1988a,b).
Fifth Premise: MLs are the spatial matrix in which all organisms, including humans,
function. As such they at are also the concrete systems of our Total Human Ecosystem,
integrating humans and their total environment at the highest co-evolutionary level of
the ecological hierarchy.
From what has been said up to now, it is obvious that for a full comprehension of the holistic
conception of MLs and the transdisciplinary challenges of their study and management, they
have to be treated within the context of a larger global ecological hierarchy of the integrated
human-nature systems complex in which we live.
According to the conventional ecological conception, natural ecosystems are considered as
the highest organization level of the ecological hierarchy, above organisms, populations and
communities (O’Neill et al., 1987). This is indicative for the still dominating perception of a
hierarchical order of nature, viewing humans merely as external factors to natural ecosystems,
and creating therefore their own social and economical hierarchies.
A more realistic conceptualization of the presently prevailing global ecological hierarchy
has to take into account that human modified and managed cultural semi-natural and
agricultural landscapes are making out by far the greatest majority of the total open landscape
area on global scales (Pimentel 1992). Even the few remaining natural and close to natural
landscapes and their terrestrial and aquatic networks are affected directly and indirectly by
human impacts and they are shrinking rapidly from year to year. Their fate - like that of all
other land- and seascapes on earth - is depending for good or worse almost solely on the
decisions and actions of human society (Vitousek et al. 1997). We have acquired such
enormous control capacities for good and worse that we are able not only to manipulate genes,
cells and organs but also the many ecological and social strands around us. If we disregard the
close links between natural and social systems, stemming from the modern dualistic
worldview, and if we insist on a radical discontinuity between humans and the rest of the
natural world, then we will not be able to divert the global change trajectory from extinction
into future sustainable biological and cultural evolution. Therein lies the importance of the
Total Human Ecosystem (THE) concept and its practical value. It perceives humans and their
ecological, cultural, social, political and economic dimensions as an integral part of this
highest co-evolutionary geo-bio-anthropo level of the ecological hierarchy above the
ecosystem level in which humans are integrated with their total environment. It should serve
therefore also as the basic conceptual cornerstone of the very much-needed overarching
unifying systems metatheory, for all those involved in landscape study and management in the
broadest sense.
In this context it is clear, that MLs cannot be defined merely as spatially heterogeneous
areas with repeated patterns of ecosystems on km wide stretches (Forman and Godron 1986).
They are the matrix and living habitat of all organisms, including humans, and their
populations, communities and ecosystems, functioning within different scales of the above
described landscape holarchy. As such they are also the concrete, space/time defined ordered
wholes and unique Gestalt systems of our THE. In the following premises I will attempt to
further develop these unique THE Gestalt features.
34
Sixth Premise: MLs are mixed natural-cultural interaction systems with intermediate
numbers of diverse natural biogeospheric and cultural noospheric components with
closely interwoven patterns and processes. For their study innovative approaches and
methods are required.
MLs are belonging to a special class of “middle-number ecological interaction systems”

whose elements are coupled with each other by mutual, mostly non-linear cybernetic relations.
They are characterized by intermediate numbers of diverse natural biotic and abiotic and
(anthropogenic) cultural components with greatly varying dimensions and structural and
functional relationships among these components.
For the organized complexity of such middle-number systems neither mechanical nor
statistical approaches are satisfactory and innovative approaches and methods are required
(O’Neill et al. 1987; Weinberg 1975). This is especially the case with highly fragmented and
heterogeneous human modified, used and managed cultural landscapes, in which natural and
cultural pattern and processes are closely interwoven. Whereas the natural elements have
evolved and are operating as parts of the geosphere and biosphere, the cultural ones are the
creations of the noosphere (from the Greek "noos = mind), namely the sphere of human mind
and consciousness. As shown lucidly by Jantsch (1980), the noosphere should be regarded as
an additional natural envelope of life in its totality that Homo sapiens had acquired throughout
the evolution of the human cortex as the domains of our perceptions, knowledge, feeling, and
consciousness. It enabled the development of additional noospheric realms of info-socio- and
psycho-sphere that have emerged during our cultural evolution.
Seventh Premise: New notions for the comprehension and study of the unique, holistic
nature of THE landscapes can be gained with the help of the Hologram Paradigm. It
recognizes much deeper, enfolding, generative orders in which human mind,
consciousness and creativity play an important role, and which are hidden behind the
regular orders, described in landscapes by formal geometric structures and coordination
grids.
As explained by Naveh and Lieberman (1994) in much more detail, David Bohm, whom
Einstein recognized as his “intellectual successor”, has used the advances of the lensless
holograph photography for the development of exciting new holistic ideas and theories. These
are of also greatest relevance for an innovative theory of holistic MLs and deserve our fullest
attention.
In a holograph the light from each part of the object falls onto the entire photographic plate.
Therefore, each part of the plate contains information about its interrelated patterns, relevant
for the perception of the whole . It reflects the whole and in a sense becomes enfolded across
the holograph. This “Hologram Paradigm” has served Bohm (1980) as a powerful analogy
for a new metatheory of a dynamic holistic whole and undivided order of the universe. To
describe the deeper reality, he proposed a "new notion of order" which he named "implicate
order" or enfolded order. It lies beneath the regular “explicate order” in which the
fundamental equations are written, using the coordinates of space and time, and it gives rise to
it in a universal “holomovement”. For him, what happens on the plate is simply a momentary
frozen version of what is occurring on infinitely vaster scales in each landscape on earth and in
each space of the universe. In this "everything is enfolded into everything".
Bohm & Peat (1987) have carried this holistic paradigm even further. They claimed that no
one order will fully cover the human experience and as contexts change, orders must be
constantly created and modified. This is true also for the Cartesian grid of coordinates, which
has dominated the basic order of physical and geographical reality for the last three hundred
35
years. Bohm and Peat (1987) questioned its general appropriateness and arrive at notions of
different degrees of order: The flowing river gives a good image of how a simple order of low
degree can gradually change to chaotic order of high degree, and eventually to random order.
But they show that between the two extremes of simple regular order and chaos there is a rich
new field of creativity, as a state of high energy making possible a fresh perception, generally
through the mind. Full creativity requires also free play in communication in science.
They recognized implicate order as a special case of generative order. This order is
fundamentally relevant in nature, as well as in consciousness and in the creative perception
and understanding of nature - and therefore also for MLs. Thereby Bohm and Peat (1987)
reached an entirely new view of consciousness as a generative and implicate order that throws
light on nature, mind and society, and opens the door to the kind of dialogue stated above. If
such an overall common generative order will bring together science, nature, society and
consciousness, this can have also far-reaching implications for our transdisciplinary landscape
paradigms.
In a recent comprehensive biography of Bohm and his work, his close collaborator Peat
(1997, page 263) stated that “the implicate order is a door into new ways of thinking and the
eventually discovery of new and more appropriate mathematical orders. It is both a
philosophical attitude and a method of inquiry.”
For landscape ecology this means that further and deeper insights into the holistic nature of
landscapes can be gained only if we are ready to free our minds of rigid commitments to
familiar notions of order. Only then, we may be able to perceive new hidden orders behind the
simple regularity and randomness. “It is possible for categories to become so fixed a part of
the intellect that the mind finally becomes engaged in playing false to support them. Clearly,
as context changes so do categories” (Bohm and Peat, 1987, p.115). Such a change in context
occurs when landscapes will no longer be treated as “nothing but” formal, spatial geometric
structures and mosaics, describable by Archimedian geometry, and by the Cartesian grid of
coordinates. Instead they will be conceived as unique Gestalt systems, imbedded in a hierarchy
of subtle, generative, implicate orders, in which human mind, consciousness and creativity
play an important role.
First, important steps in this direction beyond the regular Archimedian order are the fractal
dimensions, which occupy already an important role in many landscape studies. However it
should be realized that the order of fractals is related to a local order of space, but in the
implicate and generative order, the process of enfoldment is related to the whole, to the THE.
For landscape research it will become a major challenge to capture the implicate and
generative orders of landscapes. This may be achieved by further development of the holistic
Gestalt interpretation of aerial photography, and its combination with holograph photography.
Further new orders will hopefully emerge through the collaboration of landscape ecologists
with other relevant scientific and professional fields for the development of practical tools and
methods to include the appreciation of aesthetic, ethical and intrinsic nature values in the
decision making process.
Eighth Premise: To overcome the dualistic view of perceiving landscapes either as

exclusively biophysical, natural events or as psychological mind events, MLs should be
conceived with a biperspectivable systems view as interacting products of natural
biogeospheric systems and cognitive noospheric systems , observable simultaneously from
two points of view and contextual windows
A major obstacle for accomplishing these transdisciplinary challenges is to overcome the great
epistemological barriers erected between scientists from the natural and humanistic scientific
“cultures” by their contrasting perceptions of landscapes as either entirely physical or entirely
36
mental phenomena. This dichotomy originated from the deeply ingrained Cartesian dualistic
view of nature and mind. It has resulted in the positivistic and reductionistic dualistic
interpretations, by which the latter are “soft systems” which cannot be measured and
quantified by conventional mathematical and/or biophysical means. Therefore they “do not
count” (This, in spite of the fact that many landscape elements that cannot be counted, count in
reality, and on the other hand not all those which can be counted, really count).
In his groundbreaking introduction to systems philosophy, Laszlo (1972) developed an
alternative to this dualistic view with the help of a biperspectivable systems view of two major
systems classes of natural systems and cognitive systems: He defined natural systems as “a
random accumulation of matter/energy, in a region of physical space-time, organized into co-
acting interrelated subsystems or components”, and cognitive systems as, “systems constituted
by mind events, including perceptions, sensations, volitions, feelings, dispositions, thoughts,
memories and imaginations – i.e. anything present in the mind”.
Both systems are single, self-consistent mind-events of cognitive systems and natural,
physical space-time events of concrete systems. But they are internally and externally
observable simultaneously as integrated natural cognitive and psychophysical systems.
The unique feature of human mind is its capacity for retrospection. Introspectively "lived"
systems can be externally "observed" systems of physical events, and physical events can be
internally viewed through retrospection. This leads to the assumption that systems of mind
events (i.e. cognitive systems) can be externally viewed and systems of
physical events (i.e. natural systems senso Laszlo) can be internally viewed. As explained in
detail by Laszlo (1972) the theories applying to natural and to cognitive systems are
isomorphic, this means (See Naveh & Lieberman 1994, page 36) the equivalence relations of
the structural properties of both systems have analogical coupling properties, in both
directions, irrespective of the different energetic and material realizations of these
couplings . Thus, f.i. a map of a certain landscape is isomorphic to the actual spatial relations
between the different elements of this landscape. Therefore when switching from the one to
the other system we change the content or reference of the theory, but its form remains the
same. This lead Laszlo to the fundamental concept of the nature-cognitive (i.e.
psychophysical) system , which are not "dual" but "biperspectival", and the basic entities of
systems philosophy are non-dualistic, psychophysical systems, termed biperspectival natural -
cognitive systems.
As thinking human creatures we are living not only in the physical, and geographical space
of these concrete natural systems of the geosphere and the biosphere, which we share with all
other organisms. At the same time we live also in the conceptual space of the cognitive
systems of the human mind of the noosphere. As the products of both these internally and
externally viewable natural and cognitive systems and their interactions, our THE MLs can
serve as the tangible bridge between nature and mind. As such they can be perceived, studied,
managed and evaluated simultaneously with such a biperspectivable systems view. This
complementary approach is essential for any meaningful transdisciplinary research and its
practical implementation.
Ninth Premise: The multifunctionality of landscapes is driven both by natural

biogeospheric and by cultural noospheric processes. They are therefore
multidimensional with important reciprocal effects on human society. For the appraisal
of their intrinsic and instrumental bio-ecological, socio-ecological and socio-economic
values close cooperation between landscape ecologists and experts from all other relevant
scientific and professional disciplines is required.
37
The multifunctionality of landscapes is the quintessence of holistic landscape theory, as

presented above. It can be fully comprehended by revealing the basic differences between
landscapes, in comparison to living systems and ecosystems. Living systems are driven by
chemical, physical and biological physiological processes, maintaining the multifunctionality
of life. In ecosystems, the relations between organisms and their biotic and abiotic
environment have created additional ecological processes, leading to a great number of vital
regulation, production and protection functions. However, their multifunctionality is
monodimensional, because it is based only on natural, material processes of flow of
energy/matter and biophysical information, to be investigated by basic and applied disciplines
of the natural sciences. On the other hand, the multifunctionality of our natural and cultural
THE biosphere landscapes is multidimensional. It is deeply imbedded in their holistic,
biperspectivable nature as mixed natural and cultural systems. Their functions are driven not
only by natural, material-ecological processes, stemming from their geospheric and biospheric
origin, and transmitted by biophysical information, but also by cognitive mental processes of
noospheric origin and transmitted by cultural information. Their multifunctionality includes,
according to Naveh and Lieberman (1994), three major domains:
1) The bioecological domain, related to those physical, chemical, and biological processes that
ensure highest attainable productivity, diversity, and stability, and integrity.
2) The socioeconomic domain related to the direct economic benefits to be derived from these
landscapes and their “hard”, marketable products.
3) The socioecological and cultural domain related to life quality, and to its sociohygienic,
psychological, cultural, scientific and spiritual requirements. Producing only “soft”, non
marketable social and cultural values, these functions are mostly ignored or underrated in the
decision making process and are not fully recognized as vital “life support” functions. Their
perception creates the unique reciprocal relations between human society and landscapes in
which humans are both effectors and affected. The latter can have far reaching impacts on our
state of mind, consciousness, attitudes and values. To this affective bond, the American
cultural geographer Tuan (1974) has given the name “Topophilia ”. Their effect on our
physical and mental wellbeing is now more and more recognized. The new science of
ecopsychology presents this as a powerful dimension, by suggesting that by living in greater
harmony with nature we shall not only improve our mental health, but make our life happier
and more fulfilled with meaning (Roszak et al. 1995). This coupling of mental health with
landscape quality should become therefore an integral part of our vision of “healthy”
landscapes.
In the evaluation of these functions we have to realize that in addition to the anthropocentric
dimensions of their instrumental values, measured by their benefits for human society, there is
also an ecocentric and ethical dimension of the intrinsic existence values of landscape, not
depending on these utilitarian values. Therefore we have to study landscapes function not only
as a mere commodity to be exploited as a resource on which we project our economic interest,
but as being a source of value on their own right, even if we cannot put any monetary and
social value on their services.
The cultural information of these cultural, multidimensional landscape perceptions is
transmitted by “cultural templates” from generation to generation as a cultural landscape
heritage. However, the rapid processes of cultural and landscape homogenization and
urbanization are endangering these cultural biosphere landscapes, and their heritage values.
We will not be able to prevent their extinction by stressing only their socio-economic
functions, and by reducing the human role to that of “Homo economus”(O’Neill and Kahn
2000). Instead, as suggested rightly, in the statement by the organizers, we have to mount a
common, transdisciplinary effort with scientists from other relevant natural, social and human
38
disciplines, with artists with planners, and architects and also with ecopsychologists to study,
evaluate and promote their multifunctionality by a much broader holistic approach.
Tenth Premise: In the synthetic evolution of the selforganization of nonequilibrium

dissipative structures, our THE landscapes, as part of the cultural evolution, are driven
through leaps of bifurcations into higher organization levels by positive feedback loops
of autocatalytic and crosscatalytic hypercycle networks. In this process unsustainable
throughput agro-industrial and urban-industrial landscapes are endangering the
autopoietic regenerative biosphere landscapes and destabilizing the geosphere.
In this final premise the circle will be closed by returning to the first premise in which new
insights in synthetic evolution and the selforganization of dissipative structures were discussed
and the cultural evolution was presented as leaps by bifurcations to higher organization levels.
These leaps have been made possible by mutually reinforcing cross-catalytic feedback loops
of whole chains of catalytic “Auto-and cross-catalytic cycles. They have been first described
by Eigen and Schuster (1979) as hypercycles”, in chemical and biological processes, which
underlie the emergence of life and were further developed by Maturana and Varela (1980) into
a more general theory on the autopoiesis (From the Greek autopoiesis =self-creation) of living
systems.
The integration of the structure-oriented model of self-organization of dissipative structures,
rooted in nonlinear thermodynamics, and the organization-oriented model of catalytic
networks of autopoiesis, has culminated in a coherent theory of living systems, ecosystems
and social systems. It has also far-reaching implications for natural and seminatural biosphere
landscapes (Naveh and Lieberman 1994; Naveh 1998 a b):
Accordingly, such systems on a relatively high organization level that can renew, repair and
replicate themselves in a process of self-organization as networks of interrelated component–
producing processes, by creating and recreating networks in a flow of matter and energy and
information, are called autopoietic systems.
Throughout human history the Total Human Ecosystem expanded according to the rate of
growth of human populations, their consumption and technological power, resulting in a
gradual process of modification and conversion of natural landscapes into cultural landscapes.
However, during this evolutionary process, and since the industrial fossil fuel revolution with
accelerating speed, a crucial bifurcation has divided these Total Human Ecosystem landscapes
into biosphere and technosphere landscapes and their ecotopes (or in short bio-and techno-
ecotopes), and most recently also into intermediate agro-industrial ecotopes. Their distinctive
features require a basic functional classification, presented as an ordination of increasing
modification, conversion and replacement described elsewhere in more detail (Naveh
1988a,b):
Natural bio-ecotopes, as well as seminatural bio-ecotopes, such as forests, woodlands,
grasslands, wetlands, rivers and lakes, are driven entirely by solar energy and its biological
and chemical conversion through photosynthesis and assimilation into chemical and kinetic
energy. They contain spontaneously evolving and reproducing organisms on which the future
biological evolution depends. As adaptive self-organizing systems they are internally regulated
by natural - that means biological and physical -chemical information and have the capacity to
organize themselves in a coherent way by maintaining their structural integrity in a process of
continuous self-renewal of autopoiesis. All these biosphere landscapes can be considered also
as dissipative structures that are far from equilibrium, maintained and stabilized only by
permanently interchanging energy and entropy with their environment. Driven by positive
feedback of environmental and internal fluctuations, they move to new regimes that generate
conditions of renewal of higher entropy production, while undergoing short and long-term
39
cyclic fluctuations, far from a homeostatic equilibrium stage. By "pumping out" entropy as
disorder in their autopoietic live-creating process these landscapes increase their internal
negentropy, ensuring more effective information and energy efficiency within the system, and
play thereby an active role in the evolutionary process. As multidimensional and
multifunctional landscapes, they are important life supporting and improving systems by
fulfilling not only vital food production, regulation, protection and carrier functions, but also
all other above mentioned "soft" socio-ecological and intrinsic functions.
Traditionally and organic agro-ecotopes are also solar-energy powered biosphere landscapes.
Although regulated and controlled by human cultural information, they have still retained a
great amount of their self-organizing capacities. Therefore, like biosphere landscapes they can
be called “Regenerative Systems” (Lyle 1995).
Urban-industrial techno-ecotopes are human-made and therefore artificial systems, driven by
fossil and nuclear energy and their technological conversion into low-grade energy. They lack
the above described multifunctionality and the selforganizing and regenerative capacities of
biosphere landscapes and result in high outputs of entropy, waste and pollution with far-
reaching detrimental impacts on the remaining open landscapes and human health.
High-input agro-industrial ecotopes have replaced recently almost all low-input cultivated
agro-ecotopes in industrial countries and are spreading now also in many developing
countries. Although their productivity is depending still on photosynthetic conversion of high
grade solar energy, this energy is subsidized to a great extent by low grade fossil energy, and
their natural control mechanisms have been replaced almost entirely by heavy chemical inputs
and throughputs. In this respect, and in their detrimental environmental impacts on the open
landscape, its wildlife and biodiversity, and the quality of its natural resources of soil and
water, as well as on human health, they come very close to technosphere landscapes, and like
these, can be called “Throughput Systems” (Lyle 1995). Without heavy financial subsidies,
even the most “successful” agro-industrial systems, as measured by high yields and agro-
technological sophistication, like those in Israel, are undergoing deep economic crisis.
Therefore these landscapes have lost not only their ecological but also their economic
sustainability.
All these bio-agro- and techno-ecotopes are spatially interlaced in the industrial “Total
Landscape” forming a disordered mosaic whose increasing homogenizing aesthetic and
ecological entropy development has been described in a profound way by the important
landscape historian Rolf-Peter Sieferle (1997). As a result of the overwhelming adverse and
destabilizing impacts of the techno-and agro-industrial landscapes on the biosphere landscapes
and the geosphere, they cannot function together as a coherent, sustainable Total Human
Ecosystem ecosphere. This is manifested by many syndromes of biological and cultural
landscape impoverishment and degradation, such as accelerated desertification, erosion,
catastrophic flooding, salination, and eutrophication, as well as in threatening global climate
changes and in the disruption of the protecting ozone layer in the stratosphere (Fig.1.). This
creeping process of extinction can be prevented only by ensuring the structural and functional
integration of bio-and technosphere ecotopes into a coherent sustainable ecosphere.
40
Fig. 1: The destabilization of the “Total Industrial Landscape” by unrestrained outputs of the
technosphere and agro-industrial landscapes on the biosphere landscapes and the geosphere
Conclusions
With the help of a holistic landscape conception, well grounded in system theory and its recent
insights, we will be able to better comprehend and deal with landscapes as an integral part of
the physical, chemical, biological, ecological and socio-cultural processes determining the fate
of our THE and therefore also global survival. The biperspactivable system view of
landscapes, functioning simultaneously as natural and cognitive systems, and therefore as a
tangible bridge between nature and mind, opens the way for close cooperation between
landscape ecologists and scientists from all other relevant disciplines and professions, working
together for the joint overarching transdisciplinary vision of a sustainable future of our THE
and its landscapes. Equipped with these conceptions, landscape ecologists can fulfill an
important role by serving in the dual position of experts in their own field and as integrators
for innovative, future-oriented research and action.
Such research must take into consideration that the recent adoption of new information and
communication technologies has caused the rapid development of the infosphere, driving
41
human society through unstable and even chaotic transitional stages towards this global
information rich age with all its positive and negative implications, dangers and opportunities.
It will depend on the readiness and ability of human society to follow the road toward further
evolution and sustainability of our global THE, by choosing the bifurcation, converging
towards a higher level of complexity and organization and toward further evolution of life on a
higher level of quality. For this purpose, there is urgent need for the creation of a
postindustrial, symbiosis between nature and human society, turning the antagonistic relations
between the biosphere and the technosphere into mutually beneficial ones, in sustainable,
healthy and information rich biosphere and technosphere landscapes
The scientific input of landscape ecologists in restoring, reclaiming, and rehabilitating
damaged landscapes, revitalizing wetlands, rivers, lakes and their embankments, creating
living corridors and viable urban biosphere islands, could fulfil an important role in this
integration. It should be part of comprehensive landscape planning and environmental
management for sustainable development towards the information society. However, in order
to become also a driving force in this symbiotic process, landscape ecologists must take an
active part in the creation of new cultural, information-rich, crosscatalytic and synergistic
feedback loops, linking natural, ecological, socio-cultural and economic processes of our THE.
Thanks to the above-described recent insights in selforganization of autopioetic systems
and their crosscatalytic networks, we are now able to deal in holistic ways with complex
natural and cultural patterns and to offer practical means to the decision makers and the public
for ensuring lasting mutual synergistic benefits for the people and their physical, mental and
economic welfare, together with the creation of healthy, productive and attractive landscapes
for the emerging information society
This has been achieved in a recently completed interdisciplinary EU research project for
regional sustainable development, by synthesizing and quantifying in more robust ways the
interaction of the dynamic natural and socio-cultural and economic landscape processes with
the help of dynamic systems modeling, including crosscatalytic networks, and holistic future
scenarios and other integrative methods. Our model revealed mutual supportive crosscatalytic
network relations in the dynamics of the emerging information society, initiated by the
development of younger companies, their innovators and key people, comparable to the
autopioetic dynamics driving ecological systems and natural and semi-natural biosphere
landscapes.
With the help of this model we could further show that the contribution of nature to regional
attractiveness is crucial for regional upswing. Thereby the citizens will gain from nature,
namely the “soft” intangible and intrinsic values, and the “hard” and marketable values of the
regional "green” biosphere landscapes. A further symbiotic CNN link of give and gain relation
between these landscapes and the new successful regional economy could be created by
paying an adequate fixed share of the tax income for the sustainable management, design and
development (Grossmann et al. 1997; Grossmann 2000): Grossmann and Naveh, in press).
Such models can be realized in practice only as part of an all-embracing environmental
sustainability revolution. It will be driven by the widespread adoption of technological
innovations of regenerative and recycling methods and the efficient utilization of solar and
other non-polluting and renewable sources of energy, coupled by less wasteful and more
sustainable lifestyles and consumption patterns. That this is not a utopian dream can be
learned from the encouraging examples provided in the recent 1999 State of the World report
(Brown et al. 1999), in addition to many others, indicating that we are at the threshold of such
a postindustrial environmental sustainability revolution.
42
References
Allen, Timothy, F. Hoekstra, Thomas, W. (1992): Toward a Unified Ecology. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Bohm, David (1980): Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge and Kegan.
Bohm, David (1996): On Dialogue. London: Routledge.
Bohm, David; Peat, David F. (1987): Science, Order, and Creativity. A Dramatic Look at the
Roots of Science and Life. New York: Bantam Books,
Bright, Chris (2000): Anticipating environmental “surprises. In: Brown, Lester R.; Flavin,
Christopher; French, Hilary [eds]: State of the World 2000. A Worldwatch Institute
Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. New York, London: Norton &
Company, pp.22-38.
Brown, Lester, R., Flavin, Christopher; and French, Hilary [eds.] (1999): State of the World
1999. A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society. New
York., London: Norton& Company.,
Capra, Fritjof (1996): The Web of Life. A New Understanding for Living Systems. New York:
Anchor Books Doubleday.
Eigen, Manfred: Schuster, Peter (1979): The Hypercycle: A Principle of Natural Self-
organization. New York: Springer Verlag.
Forman, Robert .T.T; Godron, Michel (1986): Landscape Ecology. New York: Wiley.
Grossmann, Wolf, D., Meiss, Karl M., Fraenzle, Stefan (1997): Art, design and theory of
regional revitalization within the information society. Gaia, 6: 105-119.
Grossmann, Wolf, D. (2000): Realizing sustainable development with the information society
– the holistic Double-Gain-Link approach. Landscape and Urban Planning. Special
issue on “Holistic Landscape Ecology in Action”. (In press).
Grossmann, Wolf, D.; Naveh Zev (2000): Transdisciplinary challenges for regional
sustainable development toward the post-industrial information society. Third
International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics May 3-6
Vienna (In press).
Holling, John (1996): Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems and incentives for people.
Ecological Applications 6:733-735.
Holling, C.S; Berkes, Firket; Folke, Carl (1999): Science, sustainability and resources
management. In: Berkel, Firket; Folke, Carl; Colding, Johan [eds.]: Linking Social and
Ecological Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jantsch, Erich (1980): The Self-Organizing Universe. Scientific and Human Implications of
the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Koestler, Arthur (1969): Beyond atomism and holism.- the concept of the holon. In: Koestler,
Arthur; Smithies, John, R. [eds.] Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life
Sciences. London: Hutchinson of London, pp. 192-216.
Kuhn, Tomas, S. (1996): The Structure of the Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 3rd edition.
Laszlo, Erwin (1972): Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of
Contemporary Thought. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Laszlo, Erwin (1987): Evolution: The Grand Synthesis. Boston: Shambhala, New Science
Library.
Laszlo, Erwin (1994): The Choice: Evolution or Extinction. A Thinking Person's Guide to
Global Issues. New York: C. P. Putnam & Sons.
Lyle, John,T. (1994): Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. New York: John
Wiley.
Maturana, Humberto; Varela Francisco (1980): Autpoiesis and Cognition. Dodrecht: D.
Reidel.
43
Naveh, Zev. (1990): Landscape ecology as a transdisciplinary framework for environmental

education. In: Keiny, Shoshana; Zoller, Uri [eds.]: Conceptual Issues in Environmental
Education New York: Peter Lang, pp. 125-146.
Naveh, Z. (1995b): Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landscape and Urban Planning,
32: 43-54.
Naveh, Zev (1998a): Culture and landscape conservation - a landscape ecological perspective.
In: Gopal, Brij; Pathak, P.S; Saxena, K.G. [eds.]: Ecology Today: An Anthology of
Contemporary Ecological Research. New Delhi: International Scientific Publications.,
pp.19-48.
Naveh, Zev (1998b): Ecological and cultural landscape restoration and the cultural evolution
towards a post-industrial symbiosis between human society and nature. Restoration
Ecology 6:135-143.
Naveh, Zev (2000): What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. In: Palang,
Hannes; Mander, Ulo; Naveh, Zev. [eds.]: Holistic Landscape Ecology in Action.
Landscape and Urban Planning. (In press).
Naveh, Zev; Lieberman. Arthur, S. (1994): Landscape Ecology Theory and Applications.
Second Edition. New York.: Springer.
Peat, David, F. (1997): Infinite Potential. The Life and Times of David Bohm. Helix Books.
Reading Massachusetts: Addison –Wesley,
Pimentel, David (1992) : Conserving biological diversity in agricultural systems. BioScience
42:354-362.
Prigogine, Ilia ; Stengers, Ilse (1984): Order out of Chaos. Man’s Dialogue with Nature.
Boston & London :New Science Library Shamabala,.
Roszak, Theodor; Gomes Mary, E.; Kanner, Allen D. (1997): Ecopsychology. Restoring the
Earth Healing the Mind. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Sieferle, Rolf, P. (1997): Rueckblick in die Natur. Eine Geschichte des Menschen und seiner
Umwelt. Muenchen: Luchterhand Literaturverlag.
Tuan, Yi-Fu (1974): Topophilia. A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jewrsey: Prentice-Hall.
Vitousek, P.M., Mooney,H.A., Lubchenco, Janes; Melillo John,M. (1997): Human
domination of Earth’s systems. Science 277:494-499.
Weinberg, Georg, M. (1975): Introduction to General Systems Thinking. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Weiss, Paul, A.(1969): The living system: Determinism stratified. In: Koestler, Arthur:
Smithies, John, R. [eds.]: Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences.
London: Hutchinson of London, pp. 3-55.
Zonneveld, Isaak (1995): Land Ecology. An Introduction to Landscape Ecology as a Base for
Land Evaluation, Land management and Conservation. Amsterdam: SPB Academic
Publishing.
44
How a landscape finds form and comes alive.

Henri Décamps.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 29 rue Jeanne Marvig, 31055, Toulouse cedex 4, France.
Out of a ruin a new symbol emerges, and a landscape finds form and comes alive.
John B. Jackson, 1994.
A journey from landscape vision to definition leads nowhere if it is made by

ecologists alone, particularly if it is made without human and social scientists. This statement
points to the central hypothesis of my lecture : ‘societies interpret their environment according
to the way they manage it, and they manage their environment according to way they interpret
it’ (Berque et al. 1994).
Adopting such a central hypothesis implies acknowledging the importance of human
perception. Berque and his colleagues emphasise that understanding a landscape is not only to
know the morphology of the environment or the physiology of human perception, it is also to
know the cultural, social and historical causes of that perception - in other words what
constructs human subjectivity.
From that perspective, bocages, paddy-fields, mountain-pastures appear as
‘ecosymbols’, that is ecological as well as symbolic entities. Landscapes find form and come
alive when a set of representations give these symbolic entities an explicit aesthetic scheme,
that can be valued and reproduced for example as paintings or as postal cards, and that
characterise a certain society at a certain time. Thus, the concept of landscape appears as a
particular relationship a society keeps up with its environment.
We need to remember that this concept does not exist in all societies: it appeared in
the IVth century in the Chinese civilisation, and only in the XVIth century, at the Renaissance,
in our European civilisation. According to Berque (1995), four criteria distinguish these
landscape civilisations from those who are not :
• they use words to express the idea of landscape,
• they develop a literature (oral or written) to describe landscapes or celebrate their beauty,
• they produce pictorial representations of landscapes,
• they practice pleasure gardening.
On this basis, I’d like to illustrate how a landscape finds form and comes alive, taking
as an example riparian areas, the areas that constitute my own research topic.
Riparian areas are landscapes.
This is not a new idea. Malanson’s comprehensive book published in 1993 was entitled :
« Riparian Landscapes », and my 1995 S.I.L. Baldi Lecture was sub-titled : « a Landscape
Perspective ». We know that riparian areas are landscapes. but are we aware of the
consequences of such a statement ?
Let’s recall some early work :
In the nineteen forties, the German geographer Carl Troll undertook spatial analyses
using aerial photographs and coined the word « Landschaftsökologie », an ecology that
addressed large heterogeneous areas.
45
In the nineteen eighties, a paper co-authored by two ecologists, Paul Risser and James
Karr, and a geographer, Richard Forman, revived landscape ecology in North America. Since
those early days landscape ecology has continually moved forward, particularly with the use
of satellite imagery and computer modelling.
However, since the early nineties, under the influence of papers such as those
published by Zev Naveh (1982, 1991) and Joan Nassauer (1992, 1995), an increasing number
of ecologists have realised that landscapes are much more than what they had originally
thought, and not just patches and ecological processes.
Landscapes depend on cultural preferences and desires ; they are relative entities,
where natural environmental processes and culture interact.
If we consider riparian areas as landscapes it means that we consider them as
ecological as well as cultural entities and this leads to a dramatic change in the way, we, as
ecologists can contribute to their management.
Survival of riparian landscapes depends on ecological and cultural sustainability.
Everywhere in the world, river flood plains are increasingly dominated by humans, leaving
only fragments of riparian forests along rivers.
The survival (or persistence) of such fragments depends on their ability to maintain
their structure and function over time in the face of external pressures, in other words, it
depends on their ecological sustainability. However, particularly in human dominated flood
plains, sustainability appears to be a relationship between dynamic ecological systems and
dynamic human economic systems, a relationship in which the ecological health and integrity
of riparian forest fragments are not destroyed by the effects of human activities.
Therefore, ecological sustainability is not enough. It must be combined with a cultural
sustainability, where the survival of riparian fragments depends on human attention. Riparian
landscapes ‘are more likely to be ecologically maintained in a world dominated by humans’, if
they evoke the sustained interest of people ,- if they provide aesthetic experiences.
In fact, survival of riparian landscapes requires that people enjoy and take care of
them. Thus, our task, as scientists, is twofold : First, we must determine what are the
landscape properties which should be the focus of human attention ; and secondly, we must
devise ways of directing human attention to these properties.
This is where, as suggested by Joan Nassauer (1992), vividness comes in. Landscape
properties, which invite the focus of human attention, must be not only relevant, but also be
clear. The more clear these properties, the more likely people will care of them.
I’d like to demonstrate that diversity and connectivity may be examples of such
properties of riparian landscapes, helping to provide ecological as well as cultural
sustainability.
Ecological sustainability requires people to have knowledge of both diversity and

connectivity.
Only diverse and connected riparian landscapes can maintain their function overtime, at the
site as well at the watershed level.
At the site level, the filter function of riparian systems depends on their diversity and
connectivity. For example, the best protection for watercourses against diffuse pollution is
provided by « multi species buffer strips », including three interconnected zones (Lowrance et
al.1998) :
46
- a herbaceous zone next to arable land which spreads surface flow, thus
facilitating the deposition of coarse sediment,
- a zone of managed shrubs and trees which maximises infiltration and storage of
pollutants in woody vegetation,
- and a permanent forest zone influencing the environment of the watercourse.
These interconnected zones must be characterised also by a high species diversity

because they will not buffer all the pollutants in the same way, and with the same efficiency,
for conservative pollutants such as sediment, phosphorus, heavy metals or for non-
conservative pollutants such as nitrate.
If these interconnected zones are characterised by high species diversity there are
other benefits as well as filtering diffuse pollution such as in flow regulation, fish production,
wildlife habitat, timber production and landscape amenity.
At the catchment level, stream networks provide great diversity, with small streams in
the headwater areas providing both conduits and barriers to hill slope runoff, and larger
streams in middle and lower zones providing runoff and water storage. This diversity needs to
be connected in riparian zones for them to deliver their benefits. Thus, a continuous stream
corridor, without major gaps, is essential to maintain aquatic conditions such as cool water
temperature and high oxygen content, the conditions which are needed to maintain viable fish
populations.
Public health may require an entire transformation of multi land use catchments. A
striking example is provided by the reduction of diffuse pollution by nitrate in the Vittel area
of France. In 1988, the Company producing Vittel mineral water concerned about the ongoing
constant increase in nitrate content of the subsurface waters close to the springs it was using.
Vittel Company therefore launched a program to determine what changes in agriculture
practice would be necessary to stop this increase, and what would be the conditions for that
change to be accepted by farmers.
It was quickly evident that such a program would challenge the local agricultural
model and would lead to major changes in farm practice and building patterns. Agreements
between Vittel company and individual farmers which allowed the production of a high
quality mineral water and also the continuation of agricultural practices in the area entailed
long and difficult discussions, and the mutual understanding of the necessary ecological
processes of the catchment. These agreements resulted in the creation of a new landscape as
can be seen on a ‘before and after’ diagram (Deffontaines and Brossier 1997).
This new landscape illustrates the role of diversity and connectivity in the ecological
health of a multi land use catchment and demonstrates such an ecological health depends on
more people having more knowledge and understanding of riparian diversity and connectivity.
Cultural sustainability demands people’s attention and care towards diversity and
connectivity.
Let’s begin with a quotation from John B. Jackson (1994) : « The value of trees is not only
that they can be beautiful and that they give us shade and privacy and coolness in the
summer ; they also demand our attention and care. We are constantly interacting with trees ;
some of them give us fruit, other give us firewood and all have to be thought about and even
worried about when we consider the future. In brief, trees give us a sense of responsibility and
sometimes a kind of parental pride ».
I think that this quotation could be applied to riparian landscapes. And I’d like to
illustrate this with two case studies where diversity and connectivity of riparian landscapes
47
were central themes in urban design. Both examples are from the work of the French
landscape architect Bernard Lassus (1998).
The first is the restoration of the Corderie Royale built at Rochefort, a French arsenal
city from the 17th century. This historic building was erected along the estuary of the River
Charente, which runs into the Atlantic to the South. In it, rigging for the king’s ships built in
nearby docks was made. For more than two centuries, soldiers and scientists sailed from
Rochefort to all parts of the Americas, Quebec and West Indies. In these countries empty hulls
of ships were filled with unknown plants, including the begonia, the large flowered magnolia
and many others for the return voyage to France. They were planted and acclimatised near the
Corderie before being sent elsewhere in Europe.
In 1926, the arsenal came to a standstill and work at the Corderie stopped. Screens of
trees spread into the once industrial banks of the river, hiding the building which, invisible
from the river as well as from the town, was more or less forgotten.
In 1992, the Corderie was successfully restored in the context of its historical
relationship with the town of Rochefort. The landscape restoration symbolises the relationship
between a former port and the far distant corners of the world.
From the side of the Charente, the façade of the building can be seen through a screen
of shrubs and small trees, which allows the boat passengers and the riverside walkers to
discover it intermittently, and from diverse angles.
On the town side, the Corderie is seen from the ramparts that dominate the building
along its façade which are lined by Chimaerops palm trees. A ramp planted with Virginian
Liriodendron slopes toward the palm tree line and leads to an area of rigging evoking the past
port activity.
This new riparian urban landscape provides connections between different historical
periods ; between today’s leisure activities and the time when the arsenal was in full use, and
plant collecting from exotic places was active, before its abandonment and period of neglect.
Each of these periods occupies a different yet connected space, and together they provide an
opportunity for a new future - a horticultural landscape where the past is symbolised by the
begonia.
The restoration has drawn on historical diversity as the basis for a new culturally
sustainable riparian landscape.
My second example is the Park at Duisburg-Nord, in the industrial valley of the Ruhr
in Germany. In this project, the canalised and heavily polluted river Emscher is used as a
symbol of revival.
On the map of the project some areas represent day needs of residents close to the
Park, other areas correspond to three different time periods in the history of the valley. An
area corresponds to former times with the rectilinear canalised river near factories and blast
furnaces ; another area is even before that time with the sinuous curves of the riverbed,
represented as it was before the factories were built ; a last area corresponds to the future with
a series of gardens illustrating the process of landscape metamorphosis. These different areas
are distinguished and yet united by a « temporal pen » composed of alternating rows of
deciduous and coniferous trees placed parallel and obliquely.
This project suggests two interesting points when considering natural and cultural
interactions :
• First, rather than hiding the pollution problem behind landscape screens, the project makes
very clear and « vivid » the diversity of connected time periods, which will give rise to a
new future landscape.
• Secondly, a preoccupation with natural processes is not forgotten, it is simply placed in the
context of the larger cultural picture of which they are part.
48
From these examples, it is clear that diversity and connectivity may be clear
characteristics which can attract people’s attention and care, thus creating cultural
sustainability.
Interaction between ecological and cultural sustainability governs riparian management.
The project in the park at Duisburg-Nord, around the polluted river Emscher, emphasises an
ecological perspective. It distinguishes, yet unites, different areas representing successive
periods of ecological health phases of the river. Such an ecological understanding may
increase landscape aesthetic pleasure in anchoring diversity not in a particular area, but in a
variety of connected areas.
In contrast, the restoration of the Corderie Royale along the Charente, in Rochefort,
emphasises a cultural point of view. It distinguishes different historical time periods which
linked together give a new sense of place for this riparian area. This new landscape may
increase ecological knowledge in anchoring diversity not in a particular period of time, but in
a variety of connected time periods.
This is not to confound health experiences and aesthetic experiences of riparian
landscapes. We all know that healthy landscapes are not necessarily beautiful and that
beautiful landscapes are not necessarily healthy. But we are taking advantage of interactions
between natural successional processes and aesthetic experiences to provide future landscapes
which are ecologically and culturally sustainable.
We must recognise that riparian landscapes - as other landscapes - evolve from a
series of events over time which are influenced by our feelings of responsibility to them and
our interest in them.
Writing about the Chesapeake Bay, Mark Sagoff, from the Institute of Philosophy and
Public Policy in Maryland, recalls, that in 1991, the sate of Maryland offered anyone
registering a car the option of paying $20 to receive a special license plate bearing the words
« Treasure the Chesapeake ». A surprising number of registrants bought the plate. And Sagoff
asks : how many of us would have given the $20 for a plate that read « Use the Chesapeake
effectively », or something like that ?
People treasure the Chesapeake - and similarly other environments - because of the
value they attach to the Chesapeake in their identity, to what they are, not just what they want.
In our world which is so increasingly dominated by humans, sustainable landscapes will be
those where ecological health interacts effectively with cultural preferences and desires.
This is really the key to successful riparian management. But a major issue remains :
We still have to promote this interaction.
The examples I gave in this lecture lead to the same conclusion : diversity and connectivity
may be relevant characteristics which can help to sustain riparian landscapes ecologically and
culturally,- which can help building resilience as suggested by Berkes and Folke (1998).
Indeed, the ecological and cultural approaches both focus on these two properties.
This makes diversity and connectivity ideal tools to reconcile nature and culture when
designing future riparian landscapes. Ideal tools also to develop a two way interaction where
ecological knowledge increases landscape aesthetic pleasure and where, landscape aesthetic
pleasure increases ecological knowledge (Nassauer 1997).
Promoting such a two way interaction may be a crucial task for the sustainability of
landscapes in general.
49
But we still need, as ecologists, to account for cultural preferences in riparian

management (Décamps 2000). We need to re-insert our ecological knowledge in the context
of landscape experiences, expectations and pleasure. We need to become aware of sensory
approaches.
« A sensory approach that involves making visible both Nature and our own nature is
an indispensable way of reconciling science and the sensory world » (Lassus 1998).
References.
Berkes F. and Folke C. (eds). 1998. Linking social and ecological systems : management
practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press.
Berque A. 1995. Les raisons du paysage de la Chine antique aux environnements de synthèse.
Hazan.
Berque A., Conan M., Donadieu P., Lassus B. and Roger A. 1994. Cinq propositions pour une
théorie du paysage. Champ Vallon, Paris.
Décamps H. 1996. The renewal of floodplain forests along rivers: a landscape perspective.
Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 26: 35-59.
Décamps H. 2000. Demanding more of landscape research (and researchers). Landscape and
Urban Planning 47 : 105-109.
Deffontaines J.P. and Brossier J. (dir.). 1997. Agriculture et qualité de l’eau : l’exemple de
Vittel. Dossier de l’environnement de l’INRA n° 14, Paris.
Jackson J.B. 1994. A sense of place, a sense of time. Yale University Press.
Lassus B. 1998. The landscape approach. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lowrance R. et al. 1998. Riparian ecosystem management model (REMM).
http ://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu.
Malanson G.P. 1993. Riparian Landscapes. Cambridge University Press.
Nassauer J.I. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape
Ecology 6 : 239-250.
Nassauer J.I. 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10 : 229-
237.
Nassauer J.I. (ed). 1997. Placing nature. Culture and Landscape Ecology. Island Press.
Naveh Z. 1982. Landscape ecology as an emerging branch of human ecosystem science.
Advances in Ecological research 12 : 189-237.
Naveh Z. 1991. Some remarks on recent developments in landscape ecology as a
transdisciplinary ecological and geographical science. Landscape Ecology 5 : 65-74.
Risser P.G., Karr J.R. and Forman R.T.T. 1984. Landscape ecology : directions and
approaches. Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication 2, 1984.
Sagoff M. 1992. Has nature a good of its own ? pp 57-71 in : Costanza R., Norton B.G. and
Haskell B.D. (ed). Ecosystem health. New goals for environmental management. Island
Press.
Troll C. 1939. Luftbildplan und ökologische Bodenforschung. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für
Erdkunde, Berlin : 241-298.
50
Landscape and place: the distinction between two notions

(experience of their usage in geography)
Grigoriy Kostinskiy
Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia
The paper is aimed at the clarification (from the standpoint of geography) of two close notions
– landscape and place. The comparison of these notions demonstrates that they are not
identical, though often (especially in the flow of speech) are used as synonyms. The idea of
landscape as a strict term in geography emerged much earlier than that of place – in the very
beginning of the 20th century. This was connected with a new humanistic impetus and was
based on the long-standing (since the Renaissance visual art) idea of image, which reflects
reality.
In contrast to place, which is an elementary notion, landscape is a synthetic one. I call place
elementary not because it is simple, but since it is basic, primordial (as well as space). The
paired categories of place and space serve as the prerequisites of our discourse on territories,
regions, landscapes, etc. By means of places we mark our terrestrial space, by means of
landscapes this terrestrial space takes the form of images. Unlike place, landscape is
connected not with the intuition of marking, but with the intuition of seeing. The
methodological basis of the concept of landscape was holism, a holistic image (Gestalt).
Landscape presupposes the presence of man in a specific cultural-psychological role of an
observer (a contemplator). Not surprisingly that a landscape is usually regarded as the product
of contemplation, similar to an image, a picture, or a ‘paysage’.
Landscape Ecology - towards a unified discipline?

Olaf Bastian
Saxon Academy of Sciences, Neustädter Markt 19 (Blockhaus), D-01097 Dresden, Germany
e-Mail: Olaf.Bastian@mailbox.tu-dresden.de
The appearance of contemporary landscape ecology is not unified at all. There are historical
reasons (esp. geographical and biological roots) as well as differences between science and
application. The search for a unified theory of landscape ecology should consider previous
concepts such as „landscape diagnosis“ and „landscape functions“ which were essentially
elaborated in Central Europe. Because of the various aspects in a landscape (components,
processes, relations), landscape ecology should be regarded as a multidisciplinary, better a
transdisciplinary science, where different views and approaches are involved in a holistic
manner. The principle of complementarity is helpful to understand the character of landscape
ecology. The holistic approach in the context of human-nature-relations is the real challenge
of modern landscape ecology regarding the background of increasing environmental problems
and the discussions about sustainability. On the example of a case study in a part of Saxony
(Germany), an appropriate methodology with several steps is demonstrated: The use of
complex reference units, the assessment of many and diverse landscape functions, the
transformation of (natural) scientific facts to categories of human society (by the evaluation
which is the crucial step of the whole procedure), and the elaboration of environmental goals
(landscape visions) are essential characteristics of a real holistic approach in landscape
ecology.
51
2. Workshop No. 2:
Monitoring multifunctional terrestrial landscapes
Workshop guide and presentation of recommendations: Jesper Brandt, Denmark
Main speaker: David C. Howard, UK

First opponent speaker: Geert de Blust, Belgium, Mira van Olmen, Belgium
Second opponent speaker: Kalev Sepp, Estonia
Third opponent speaker: Karl Heinz Pistrich, Austria
Monitoring multi-functional landscapes at a national scale –

guidelines drawn up from the Countryside Survey of Great Britain
David C. Howard, Sandrine Petit and Robert G. H. Bunce

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Merlewood, Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria, UK, LA11 6JU,
e-mail: dhoward@ceh.ac.uk
Abstract
The Countryside Survey is an approach to monitoring landscape and ecological change that
has been developed in Great Britain since the 1970s. Data are collected using field survey and
remote sensing (satellite imagery and aerial photographs) and have been linked to other
surveys including those involving interviews with land-owners. The field survey is structured
using an environmental classification to draw stratified, random samples of 1km squares from
a known population, within which standardised procedures for vegetation survey and mapping
are used. The classification is also used to integrate the different datasets and is an integral
part of the Countryside Information System, a computer package designed to convey
information about changes in Britain’s landscape and ecology to policy advisors.
The paper discusses the principles of monitoring and addresses key questions associated with
planning a new campaign. The history and development of the Countryside Surveys in
Britain are used to provide examples of the application of those principles. Guidelines for
environmental monitoring drawn from the experience of the Countryside Survey approach are
proposed.
Keywords: Countryside Survey of Great Britain, field survey, national monitoring, sampling,
classification
52
Introduction
Multi-functional landscapes
It has long been recognised that man has shaped the environment he lives in and generated the
landscapes we see across most of northern Europe. While the detailed use of the land varies
from area to area, it can be generalised into three or four sectors that compete with each other
for land (Figure 1). The sector in Britain covering the largest area is agriculture that ranges
from intense arable cropping to extensive grazing of semi-natural vegetation. Production
forestry can be considered as similar to agriculture in that it looks to crop vegetation,
however, the processes involved work over a different timescale. Other major sectors do not
rely on vegetative production and are dominated by urban development (for residential
housing, industry and transport). Quarrying, mineral extraction and waste disposal form a
significant proportion of the non-vegetation sector.
Figure 1: A diagrammatic representation of the major land uses in Great Britain draped
over a map showing the density of Countryside Survey sample sites.
53
A rapidly expanding sector has been recreation. This sector can co-exist with all the sectors
described so far. Recreation usually relies on the landscape and although (with one or two
notable exceptions) it has not usually shaped the landscape, its growing financial power is
now leading to landscape management for recreation. The recreational value of a landscape
may be the driving force for conservation of both natural, historical and cultural features.
Studies of multifunctional landscapes need to recognise the different land uses and their
characteristics. The interactions between the management processes and the natural
environment are complex and not always well understood. Background knowledge of the
systems involved can help select appropriate methods of recording.
Surveillance and monitoring

Monitor, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, has several meanings, mostly describing
people, some of which are relevant to us, but none that captures the current scientific essence
of the word. The scientific term still has overtones of warning and admonition, but it is
usually regarded as the act of sequentially observing and recording objects and events in the
real world in such a way that change can be identified. The sense of warning comes where
monitoring uses environmental quality standards to identify damaging exceedances as with
critical laods.
The act of observation and recording is termed surveillance and is associated with the verb to
survey. Making and reporting a single observation can be performed with a variety of levels
of rigour. Repeating those observations so that a time series can be fully related to one
another requires far more care and precision and is termed monitoring. Survey provides a
measure of stock while monitoring describes both stock and change,
Monitoring the terrestrial environment used to be considered as a weak area of science as it
was not considered to test a central hypothesis. Now it is progressively recognised as a valid
field of research that is essential to the efficient management of our environment and the
development of sustainable landscape systems. The products of monitoring now feed in to a
wide range of studies such as those into changes in bird populations in agricultural
ecosystems.
As part of the expansion of landscape ecological research, rigorous approaches of assessing
landscape change have been developed (Antrop, 1998; Bastian & Roder, 1998; Cousins &
Ishe, 1998). The need for a better understanding of the processes underlying the changes in
land use that we observe has stimulated research into its cause and effects, not the least by the
development of conceptual models of land use transformation (e.g. De Koning et al., 1999).
If we are to be capable of describing any potential environmental change, it is essential to
adopt a holistic view of the landscape when devising a monitoring system (Antrop, 1998).
However, in practice, our incomplete understanding of the processes responsible for change
and their interaction with landscape elements may cause problems. Our preconceptions may
limit the material that we consider dynamic enough to be worthy of recording or lead to wrong
estimates of the expected rate of change, which could lead to an inadequate frequency of
survey. The driving forces controlling and influencing change, whether anthropogenic or
natural, can be difficult to identify and often operate at different spatial and temporal scales.
These issues make it impossible to prescribe a “perfect” methodology for monitoring
landscapes. The situation is further confused by the many different objectives for monitoring
which may include elements of ecology, environment, socio-economics and psychology.
Our preconceptions and lack of complete understanding make the use of indicators dangerous.
Indicators are valuable in communicating a message, they may be only partial surrogates for
54
the true process and change can be mis-represented or overlooked if they are the only
information collected.
Planning a monitoring campaign

Basic considerations before starting a monitoring exercise
The first question to ask in a monitoring exercise is ‘what is being monitored and why?’. In
general terms it may seem simple to describe the need to record changes in ecology and the
environment. Increasing public awareness of the environment and our interaction with it and
the desire to be ‘environmentally friendly’ give monitored information an important role in
assessing the effectiveness of government strategy and helps plan new policies. The ‘what’
can be more difficult to answer, especially if the topic of the monitoring exercise is broad (e.g.
ecology and environment) and the goal not well defined. Scope and accuracy must therefore
be clear before starting a monitoring programme.
• Guideline 1 The extent and components of the landscape being monitored must be
explicitly stated. The geographic boundary of the region of interest must
be demarcated and the statistical confidence in any results or descriptions
set. Once all these items have been taken into account, a campaign of data
collection can be planned.
In the case of the Countryside Surveys, the geographic extent was clear - Great Britain. Being
a group of islands made the boundaries crisp and the lack of adjoining land reduced the
potential problems of habitats being readily ‘supported’ by land outside the domain. Recent
divisions of the land classifications into Scottish and English and Welsh sections has led to
some questions about this problem being addressed (Howard et al., 1998).
Terminology and communication

Appropriate methods of observing and recording must be formulated and publicised. While
the information to be collected and the funds available will determine the methods of
collection, it is important to be aware of the views of different users of the information.
Unnecessary and irrelevant criticism can be produced by poor communication with different
sectors and research fields simply because of differences in procedures and terminology. A
standard terminology with glossaries and dictionaries should be used from the monitoring
design to the presentation of results. In the case of the Countryside Surveys, this is covered in
several ways:
− Elements of general methodology were addressed in ‘The Ecological Consequences of
Land Use Change’ project (Bunce et al., 1993) ,
− Practical aspects of field survey covered in successive field handbooks (e.g. Barr, 1998)
− The Comparison of Land Cover Definitions and LUCID computer programme (Wyatt et
al., 1994)) define categories used in reporting.
Being aware of the problem of potential misunderstanding is only the start of the solution.
Continuing close collaboration and discussion with different groups who have interest in the
results reduces the reflex reaction of rejection to the production of contradictory independent
results. Within the Countryside Surveys advisory groups composed of representatives of
government departments and agencies contribute to the formulation of reports and closed
seminars offer the chance to discuss the results before full publication.
55
• Guideline 2 Ensure that terms are clearly defined and methods fully explained.
Clear communication is essential at all times, between workers and users
of information.
Sampling strategies
One of the primary objectives in any survey should be the efficient acquisition of data. In the
case of the Countryside Surveys, this is aided by the use of a stratification to distribute
samples and integrate datasets. The ITE Land Classification was designed as a general
purpose sampling stratification to help efficiently record ecological information in rural
Britain and allow information to be aggregated as regional and national statistics.
The classification was produced using multivariate analysis of cartographic information
describing climate, geology, morphology and human geography. In the original classification,
every 1 km square in GB has been assigned to one of thirty two strata, called Land Classes
(Bunce et al., 1996a). More recently, following the devolution of Scotland, the classification
was extended to forty strata, allowing Scotland to be handled in complete isolation from
England and Wales.
The Countryside Surveys draw squares at random from a 15 km grid placed over the
stratification; the grid therefore produces a dispersed sample. Using the ITE Land
Classification, regional and national estimates have been produced from a sample of squares;
a mean for each Land Class was calculated and then multiplied by the number of squares in
that Land Class. The estimates for each Land Class were then summed to produce the final
regional or national estimate. The variances of each individual Land Class was also
calculated and combined to produce error terms for the national statistics
• Guideline 3 Take care in targeting samples to maximise returns on effort. An

appropriate stratification increases efficiency, but must be statistically
rigorous.
Methods of data collection

When monitoring, data need to be consistent between surveys. There is a great temptation to
improve techniques, alter methods and acquire different information in successive surveys.
Methods can be easily altered, but unless changes are carefully planned and conservative,
compatibility between different sessions will be lost. It is important that the results can be
presented in different styles so that they remain relevant to contemporary issues. For the
Countryside Survey field survey, this is achieved by recording information in detail for fixed
sample sites.
The mapping of land cover and habitats is done using a flexible code system, so that the codes
can be recombined (Howard & Barr, 1991). Other elements such as vegetation, freshwater
invertebrates and soils are sub-sampled within the mapped sample units. The initial survey of
1978 was predominantly targeted at vegetation and this shaped the sample units and data were
collected mainly from vegetation plots (Bunce & Shaw, 1973). A kilometre square was
selected as the base survey unit and quadrats placed at random within it. This size is a
compromise between the desire to record as large a unit as possible, minimise edge effects and
the limitation of how much work can be practically achieved in a short time-period. The
approach contrasts that of other workers (some landscape ecologists and phytosociologists)
who attempt to map using irregular shapes defined by the extent of the natural elements (e.g.
56
Zonneveld, 1989). The imposition of a regular grid eases the task of recording change, but
causes problems in quantifying some characteristics, such as pattern.
• Guideline 4 Use a standard method of recording on each sampling occasion. Any

modifications or additions must be conservative and not jeopardise
comparison with data already collected.
Choice of sample unit

Other sizes of sample unit have been considered and attempted. A second map classification
of Britain was produced in the 1980s at a resolution of 10 km square, but this was impractical
for field survey (Ball et al., 1983). In Northern Ireland a similar 1 km square classification
was produced (Cooper, 1986), but the complexity of the landscapes led to a sampling of
quarter km squares with associated weightings to produce estimates (Cooper et al., 1997).
Within Britain mapping is predominantly carried out on a standard co-ordinate system, the
Ordnance Survey National Grid. The co-ordinate system has been carefully selected with
respect to the shape of the country to minimise distortion in area, direction and shape (Harley,
1975). However, the system does not extend far beyond the coastline (indeed it does not
extend to Ireland who have a different version of the same system) so mapping projection may
be important to consider in selecting base maps. Mapping systems and map availability
differs from country to country, but it is important to question the suitability of the projection
for estimation of areal features.
Method of recording
Once the sample unit has been determined, it is then necessary to consider the level of detail at
which information will be recorded. It is more appropriate to record information at a greater
level of detail by sub-sampling (e.g. using quadrats for vegetation, soil pits and cores, water
and invertebrate samples). For mapping it is necessary to define the precision of data
recording. For the Countryside Surveys, vegetation was mapped if it formed more than 25%
of the canopy cover when viewed from above. Distinct areas of land cover are mapped when
they extended beyond the minimum mappable unit (20 m2 ); areas smaller than this are
recorded as mosaics. For natural features or areas of extensive semi-natural vegetation the use
of contemporary aerial photographs helped provide demarcation of different cover types.
A standard method of recording in the field aids consistency. The use of standard recording
sheets and codes allows information to be quickly and clearly noted in a variety of conditions
– for the Countryside Surveys, the recording sheets are printed on waterproof paper.
A standard list of codes, drawn from the experience of previous surveys, is used for both
vegetation and cover. Vegetation plot sheets contain a list of the 100 most frequently
recorded species with space to add any additional species. For mapping, a list of terms is
provided which are combined to produce a complete description. Surveyors are provided with
a handbook containing the definitions of the terms, and they are allowed to generate new
terms if necessary. However, they are directed to avoid using vague or ill-defined terms as
from experience these take a disproportionate length of time to interpret. Structured map code
sheets are used to encourage all information to be recorded – it is better to make decisions in
the field as they are harder to make and justify during the analysis.
A benefit of the detailed mapping codes is the potential to re-mould the information into a
variety of summary categories. Following the Rio Convention, Biodiversity Action Plans have
57
been devised in GB for a number of broad habitats. The flexibility of mapping has allowed
previous surveys to be used to estimate changes in those categories. However, a consequence
of the complexity is the time taken processing and validating the data. Be prepared for a lot of
manipulation and interpretation post survey to avoid presenting large numbers of complex
categories.
• Guideline 5 Avoid or minimise subjective decisions being taken. Decisions should

be made in the field wherever possible. Training and clear definitions aid
decision making.
Preparation for survey

Surveys can be seen as snapshots of the ‘environmental stock’ and comparison of repeated
surveys will provide details of change. For a snapshot, the surveys need to be performed
within a tight time frame. If a survey for any area covering hundreds of square kilometres is
to be completed within a single season, then a number of survey teams must be employed.
For the British surveys, forty teams of two surveyors are employed to cover the summer of the
year of survey.
Expertise is required to perform survey and as the surveys have been 6-8 years apart, the
people involved are not full time surveyors. Half of the surveyors are employed just for the
period of survey and they come with a variety of skills and experience. It is not possible start
with a team of inexperienced surveyors and expect the same results as if you start with
experienced ones.
The start of a survey is training. In the fortnight before the start of the Countryside Survey,
the methods are described, handbooks circulated and field exercises carried out. Once field
sites are being visited, in order to avoid bias, the survey team are overseen and guided by
quality control teams and monitored by quality assurance. No matter how rigorous the
supervision, there will always be some noise in the results, however it is important to avoid
directional bias or at least to recognise and quantify it.
• Guideline 6 Have a standard level of expertise for surveyors/interpreters . Once the

standard is set, an improvement in performance may lead to a bias in
results. Start with experts in their own fields rather than just looking for
generalists.
Capitalise on the strengths of different approaches

Each method of data collection has its own strengths and weaknesses. Ideally, methods
should be combined in such a way that the strengths complement one another and the
weaknesses are minimised. The common approaches range from remote sensing (using both
satellite imagery and aerial photographs), field survey to interviews and archive searches.
Every piece of information has its value, but the key is to recognise and record that value so
that it contributes to the full picture.
58
• Guideline 7 Utilise different sources of information to maximise their strengths .

Census techniques give excellent broad-brush descriptions and give good
geographic distributions, field samples provide greater depth of
environmental/ecological detail.
Interpretation – don’t expect it to be simple!

Once the results have been processed, interpretation can begin. One aspect of multifunctional
landscapes that is particularly relevant in interpretation is the different timescales that
different sectors work on. Agriculture tends to have an annual turnover and may use
rotational management that is likely to produce change in detailed land cover over three to
five year periods. Commercial forestry has a longer span, in Britain usually 60 to 70 years,
although broadleaves are managed over much longer periods. Urban development is often
looked on as simple expansion, but dereliction and abandonment do occur, especially with
industrial facilities and extractive industries.
As well as the management processes proceeding through the year, natural processes also
proceed with a seasonal rhythm. The time of year a site is visited is important and when a site
is revisited it is essential to return at a similar time. Unfortunately, calendar dates are only
approximate guides to season and there is no good time frame that can be used to determine
when to re-survey.
Even when the surveys occur at the same time of the season, temporary change may be
recorded due to atypical years (e.g. droughts or exceptionally wet periods).
The period between surveys and their frequency is of crucial importance in terms of the
questions the results can be used to address. Once the monitoring routine is established the
separation period can become self justifying. The Countryside Surveys started in 1978 and
were repeated in 1984, 1990 and 1998; a gap of six to eight years. Previous national estimates
of stock of the British countryside arguably started in 1067 with the Domesday Book
(although there are arguments that it built on Saxon census statistics). In the last century three
other projects looked at land cover at a national scale. In the 1930s, Dudley Stamp led the
‘First Land Utilisation Survey’ which was repeated in the 1960s with Alice Coleman’s
‘Second Land Utilisation Survey’. Unfortunately the latter was never fully published so stock
and change figures are not available.
• Guideline 8 The time between surveys should be long enough to allow change .
This is a compromise as processes operate on different time-scales, so
seasonal fluctuations and dynamic processes may be confounding.
The third project, ‘Monitoring Landscape Change’, used aerial photographs from the 1940s,
1960s and 1980s to report change. A classification was used to scale results up to national
figures. The project had the benefit of using photographs of the same sites, making recorded
changes real. However, the photographs were not from single unified campaigns and were not
collected with the intention of making comparisons making the interpretation subjective in
places.
59
Consistency is the key

The benefits and drawbacks of using repeat sites as opposed to independent samples are
complicated by the magnitude of change recorded. In general, for a large change statistical
estimates are stronger when derived from independent samples, but small changes better using
repeat samples. The latter approach also allows flows between land cover categories to be
identified. The Countryside Survey revisits sites wherever possible, although additional sites
have been added into each survey.
• Guideline 9 Revisit the same sample locations so that real change can be recorded.
Additional sample sites may be added, and rolling programmes can be
adopted. Beware of bias from sites where information could not be
collected.
Communicating the results

It is important to consider the target audience of any results. In multi-functional landscapes,
interest is likely to come from different groups with potentially opposing standings.
Descriptions of stock can often be read in a variety of ways, but changes in stock are far more
exacting and controversial. Unfortunately, this is the opposite way round to the statistical
interpretation where change estimates are more difficult to produce and usually have less
confidence than stock.
The audience may not be scientific or well versed in reading academic literature and the
standard reports produced for contracts may prove indigestible. Different formats need to be
used to convey the results, glossy, summary reports (e.g. Parr et al., 1993), Web pages (e.g.
http://www.cs2000.org.uk/) and computer packages manipulating and presenting results (e.g.
Countryside Information System (Howard et al., 1994) are all valuable.
Although the production of error terms or confidence intervals may give an air of validity,
more needs to be done. The statistics may not cover all aspects of noise in the results and
exercises quantifying the repeatability should be carried out. A quality assurance programme
was undertaken for the 1990 and 1998 Countryside Surveys, but still needs some careful
interpretation. Differences in species recorded for the same site may arise from a number of
causes; mis-identification, mis-recording and mis-location are three that immediately spring to
mind, but seasonal variation and management changes between teams surveying in the same
year can produce striking results.
• Guideline 10 Test the accuracy of results through quality assurance exercises.

Information should be presented in a variety ways but always qualified by
descriptions of confidence.
Other national monitoring schemes

Surveys have been carried out in many European states (see Table 1 for examples) but only
now are they being repeated. We must not feel complacent that the spatial extent of survey
and monitoring will allow definitive statements to be made about changes in multi-functional
landscapes at a European scale. Just as the differences between surveys in one area using
different techniques can masque change, so too can different techniques applied in in different
areas.
60
Table 1 Example surveys in European states
Country Reference
Austria Wrbka et al., (1999)
Belgium Dufrêne & Legendre, (1991)
Germany Haase, (1989)
Netherlands Jongman, (1990)
Northern Ireland Cooper et al., (1997)
Norway Sæbø, (1983)
Spain Elena Rossello, (1989)
The ideal solution is a unified repeated survey at a European scale, tying in both temporal and
spatial scales. If this is not achievable, we should recognise the principles of monitoring and
ensure interpretation and presentation is only made using compatible datasets.
Discussion
The benefits of hindsight
After quarter of a century of monitoring, it is possible to ask ‘What could Countryside Survey
have done better?’ and there are a few topics that we would have addressed differently. The
first is the definition of the domain for the survey; the surveys are targeted at rural Britain and
so squares that were more than 75% built up were rejected. Subsequently we have produced
classifications of urban land and performed survey, but it would have been better to include all
squares originally.
The second point relates to the development of the technique. The first survey (1978) was
stronger on recording vegetation in plots than mapping, an issue that was addressed in the
second survey (1984). Unfortunately, the second survey did not repeat the vegetation plots
recorded in 1978. They have been repeated in 1990 and 1998, but the analysis would be more
illuminating if the 1984 vegetation data were present.
In 1978, the locations of the vegetation plots and soil samples were marked on 1:10,000 scale
maps. The sites need to be relocated as accurately as possible to reduce one source of noise
and so in 1990 they were marked with buried metal plates (identifiable subsequently using a
metal detector) and photographed. The relocation in 1998 was easier and surveyors could
record their opinion as to the accuracy of the relocation.
The vegetation plots were photographed a second time in 1998 and some of the changes are
startling. So far, this is one of the aspects we have not capitalised on all. There are other
elements that we are also keen to develop or analyse such as the information recorded
following discussions with land owners. This should be combined with the socio-economic
survey carried out with our survey squares following the 1990 survey (Potter et al., 1996).
Other links that will benefit from further development include the collaboration with the
satellite derived Land Cover Map (Howard et al., 1996).
Another aspect in which we were slow to start with was animal ecology. The 1990 survey
included sampling freshwater invertebrates from standing and running water and the
classification has been used to devise sampling schemes for badgers, foxes and bats (see
Harris et al., 1995). Countryside Survey 2000 is being co-ordinated with a bird survey of the
survey squares carried out by the British Trust for Ornithology.
61
None of the omissions detract from the major strengths of dataset that has been accrued from
the monitoring. The surveys have been repeated four times and there is a commitment to
continue collecting data. The results produced so far generally conform sufficiently to expert
opinion, but do pose interesting questions. They are being increasingly used to help formulate
government policy and question the management of our landscapes. The key characteristic
that makes the information usable is that it is an objective sample of the British rural
landscape.
Acknowledgements
The UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (formerly the Department of
the Environment) funded the extension of the ITE Land Classification and co-funded of the
CS1990 and CS2000 with the Natural Environment Research Council. English Nature and
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also funded sections of those surveys.
References
Antrop, M. (1998) Landscape change: plan or chaos Landscape and urban planning 41, 155-
161.
Ball, D.F., Radford, G.L. & Williams, W.M. (1983) A land characteristic data bank for Great
Britain ITE Bangor occasional papers
Barr, C.J. (1998) Countryside Survey 2000 Field Handbook. In Internal report, Institute of
Terrestrial Ecology.
Bastian, O. & Roder, M. (1998) Assessment of landscape change by land evaluation of past
and present situations Landscape and Urban Planning 41, 171-182.
Bunce, R.G.H., Barr, C.J., Clarke, R.T., Howard, D.C. & Lane, A.M.J. (1996) The ITE
Merlewood Land Classification of Great Britain Journal of Biogeography 23, 625-634.
Bunce, R.G.H., Howard, D.C., Hallam, C.J., Barr, C.J. & Benefield, C.B. (1993) Ecological
consequences of land use change Department of the Environment, London.
Bunce, R.G.H. & Shaw, M.W. (1973) A standardised procedure for ecological survey Journal
of Environmental Management 1, 239-258.
Cooper, A. (1986) The Northern Ireland Land Classification University of Ulster
Cooper, A., Murray, R. & McCann, T. (1997) The Northern Ireland Countryside Survey
Environment and Heritage Service
Cousins, S.A.O. & Ishe, M. (1998) A methodological study for biotope and landscape
mapping based on CIR aerial photographs Landscape and Urban Planning 41, 183-192.
De Koning, G.H.J., Verburg, P.H., Veldkamp, A. & Fresco, L.O. (1999) Multi-scale
modelling of land use change dynamics in Ecuador Agricultural Systems 61, 77-93.
Dufrêne, M. & Legendre, P. (1991) Geographic structure and potential ecological factors in
Belgium Journal of Biogeography 18, 257-266.
Elena Rossello, R. (1989) Biogeoclimatic land classification and mapping in Spain. In GIS in
ecology Merlewood research and development paper, vol. 114 (ed. R.G.H. Bunce and D.C.
Howard) Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Grange-over-Sands.
Haase, G. (1989) Medium scale landscape classification in the German Democratic Republic
Landscape Ecology 3, 29-41.
62
Harley, J.B. (1975) Ordnance Survey Maps a descriptive manual Ordnance Survey,
Southampton.
Harris, S., Morris, P., Wray, S. & Yalden, D. (1995) A review of British mammals: population
estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans Joint Nature
Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Howard, D.C. & Barr, C.J. (1991) Sampling the countryside of Great Britain: GIS for the
detection and prediction of rural change. In GIS '91 Applications in a changing world , vol.
FRDA report 153 (ed. H. Schreier, S. Brown, P. O'Reilly and P.J. Meehan), pp. 171-176 Reid
Collins, Vancouver, Canada.
Howard, D.C., Barr, C.J. & Fuller, R.M. (1996) Linking ecological information recorded from
ground, air and space: examples from the Countryside 1990 project Global Ecology and
Biogeography Letters 5, 227-234.
Howard, D.C., Barr, C.J. & Scott, W.A. (1998) The validity of using Countryside Survey
sample data from Great Britain to estimate land cover in Scotland Journal of Environmental
Management 52.
Howard, D.C., Bunce, R.G.H., Jones, M. & Haines Young, R. (1994) The development of the
Countryside Information System Institute of Terrestrial Ecology Countryside 1990 series
1994
Jongman, R.G.H. (1990) Ecological classification of the climate of the Rhine catchment
International Journal of Biometeorology 34, 194-203.
Parr, T.W., Barr, C.J., Bunce, R.G.H., Fuller, R.M. & Furse, M. (1993) Countryside Survey
1990 Summary Report Department of the Environment
Potter, C., Barr, C. & Lobley, M. (1996) Environmental change in Britain's countryside: An
analysis of recent patterns and socio-economic processes based on the countryside survey
1990 Journal of Environmental Management 48, 169-186.
Sæbø, H.V. (1983) Land use and environmental statistics obtained by point sampling Bull. Int.
Statist. Inst. 50, 1317-1341.
Wrbka, T., Szerencsits, E., Moser, D. & Reiter, K. (1999) Biodiversity patterns in cultivated
landscapes: experiences and first results from a nationwide Austrian survey. In Heterogeneity
in landscape ecology (ed. M.J. Maudsley and E.J.P. Marshall) IALE(UK), Long Ashton,
Bristol.
Wyatt, B.K., Greatorex Davies, N., Bunce, R.G.H., Fuller, R.M. & Hill, M.O. (1994)
Comparison of land cover definitions Department of the Environment, UK, London.
Zonneveld, I.S. (1989) The land unit - A fundamental concept in landscape ecology, and its
applications. Landscape Ecology 3, 67-86.
63
Monitoring multifunctional terrestrial landscapes: some comments
Geert De Blust and Mira Van Olmen

Institute for Nature Conservation, Kliniekstraat 25, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: geert.de.blust@instnat.be; mira.van.olmen@instnat.be
Abstract
Landscape monitoring gains credibility and utility the more it coincides with the different
phases of the process of environmental and nature policy. The pursuit of sustainable
development is a general accepted objective in this process. In this respect monitoring of
multifunctional landscapes can gain a lot when adapting criteria for sustainable development.
An integrated monitoring, addressing all possible phases of the cause-effect chains that are
relevant to the studied landscape, makes this realizable.
In the paper we focus on some critical aspects of the monitoring of multifunctional

landscapes. After exploring the meaning of 'multifunctional landscapes', we give some
remarks according integrated monitoring of them. Striving for policy relevance has
consequences for the monitoring of multifunctional landscapes, especially when results are
thought to be useful to elucidate causes of observed changes and must help to define proper
policy measures.
Keywords: spatial and integrated multifunctionality, sustainable landscapes, monitoring

goals, the DPSIR-model, integrated
The nature of multifunctional landscapes and multifunctional land use
The subject multifunctional landscape refers to the plural and simultaneous use of an area for
several purposes; an area thus that serves different functions and combines a variety of
qualities. Traditionally, those different functions tend to develop within separate zones,
leading towards a segregation of functions. Apart from the problem of mutual impacts that
hinders optimal development, part of the functions (of the countryside) cannot be confined to
well defined areas only. To reach the nature conservation goals or to ensure the production of
high quality drinking water e.g., more than a series of strict nature reserves or of sufficient
water extraction and water protection zones are needed. Besides occupying mono-functional
areas, these functions penetrate within other land use types as well. And finally, some of the
uses and qualities of the countryside cannot be allocated unequivocally at all, as is the case
with e.g. landscape-based recreation or the aesthetic values. All this poses not only problems
to land use planning that is known to work with a mixture of mono-functional zones,
multifunctional zones and loosely delimited zones, but has also consequences for the
monitoring of multifunctional landscapes.
It seems that multifunctional land use can be achieved in three ways:

• By pursuing different goals in a corresponding mixture of separate land use types.
• By pursuing the different goals on the same parcel of land but successively in time.
• By integrating from the beginning and constantly the different goals in order to
accomplish them simultaneously.
64
Multifunctionality is therefore not only a matter of scale, although it is for the first case. Here
one can distinguish the different land use types, each with an unequivocal goal and a
dedicated manager: one piece of land with one function and one manager. Such a situation can
be defined as 'spatial multifunctionality'. And indeed, when zoomed in or out, an area appears
to be less or more multifunctional. In the second and third case however, different goals are
attained within the same spatial management unit, either successively or simultaneously.
Managers may succeed each other or remain the same and the original goals gradually merge
until they cannot be distinguished any more. These types of multifunctional land use can be
defined as 'integrated multifunctionality'. A landscape with a fine grained mixture of fields,
ley or temporary grassland, Christmas-tree plantations, small nature sites, road verges
managed for flowers and butterflies, a camping ground and a football-field, is an example of a
spatially multifunctional area. In a designated area with modern agriculture and operative
management agreements meant to conserve nature and landscape values or in a region with
organic or biodynamic agriculture, types of integrated multifunctional land use can be
recognised.
When monitoring multifunctional landscapes, one must be aware to be able to cover both
types of multifunctionality. This makes demands upon the methodology of monitoring, the
resolution obtained by the spatial scale and the legend applied. For a landscape with spatial
multifunctional land use, mapping resolutions used so far will mostly satisfy. But for the types
of integrated multifunctional land use, this is more dubious. Indeed, the legend must be
suitable to describe the variety of management measures that can be practised on what is
considered a parcel with one type of land use. Not spraying pesticides, retarding the mowing
date, banning hunting during the migration season, etc., make all the difference when it comes
to combine agriculture and nature conservation and hence the sustainability of multifunctional
landscapes. So ideally, the data recorded during monitoring should allow detecting these
fundamental differences in management. Other types of integrated multifunctional land use
are hard to record because some of the current legend units are too broad. Using a category
such as 'urbanised area' in the monitoring of multifunctional landscapes may exclude a
diversity of practises taking place in that urbanised area of the countryside, e.g. on the level of
the farmsteads, that are an essential part of the multifunctional land use of the whole area
(think of farm-tourism e.g.). All this makes it not unlikely that monitoring multifunctional
landscapes is biased towards detecting especially spatial multifunctionality.
Conclusion 1: The data to be recorded and the methods used for monitoring multifunctional
landscapes should allow describing the different types of multifunctional land use.
When a multifunctional landscape appears to be a mixture of mono-functional parcels, the

question remains however if what was then called and seen as a multifunctional landscape,
succeeds to be sustainable on the long run, sustainability that has to be assessed by successive
monitoring rounds. The sustainability of multifunctional landscapes has to do with
interrelations and mutual impacts between different land uses and once again with
management. But it also depends on the spatial configuration of the different land use types
composing the landscape. So monitoring the functionality of multiple land use requires that
the particular spatial arrangement of individual land use types and their management can be
described to. A higher zone with a nature area, surrounded by a sufficient broad buffer zone in
combination with a footpath and adjacent to low lying intensive agricultural fields, can yield a
sustainable multifunctional landscape, while the same land use types but arranged in a
different spatial pattern, may not be sustainable at all. In large parts of Europe the topography
and the hydrological landscape structure thus create relationships in landscapes that condition
to a high degree the potentials for sustainable multifunctional land use. Therefore monitoring
65
should be able to describe these patterns and detect their changes over time. A heterogeneous
landscape is not synonymous to a sustainable multifunctional landscape.
The last means that chorological classifications and analyses should be considered in order to
do justice to fundamental landscape patterns. Today however, typifications or topological
classifications are used widely to construct the keys and legends for the monitoring of
Conclusion 2: The legend used for the mapping and for the data collection and certainly the
analysis of the cartographic results should allow to assess the sustainability of multifunctional
landscapes.
Definition and aim of monitoring
A rather strict but common used definition of monitoring is given by Hellawell (1991):
Intermittent (regular or irregular) surveillance carried out in order to ascertain the extent of
compliance with a predetermined standard or the degree of deviation from an expected norm.
Since one is concerned with setting limits and deciding what to do when the results of the
monitoring reveal that the goal is not reached, monitoring is intrinsically purposeful.
According to this definition, monitoring is related to objectives and standards and is therefore
goal oriented, as is landscape ecology. Monitoring is not open-ended. It is this goal orientation
that marks out monitoring from related activities such as inventories, surveys and surveillance
(Hellawell, 1991). Nevertheless, in practise these terms often got mixed up. We recommend
however to stick to the original definition of monitoring.
There can be three main reasons to set up a monitoring programme:

- Assessment of the effectiveness of policy;
- Audit function;
- Early warning;
In any of these cases, standards or norms have to be defined. The task of the monitoring is
then to assess whether the current conditions lie within certain defined limits of these
standards. Although crucial in the definition of monitoring and being the reason for existence
of the instrument, a clear reference to the limits, standards, norms or goals is often absent in
monitoring programmes. A probable reason for that and as such also a problem that is often
encountered by researchers involved in the development of monitoring schemes is the lack of
clearly defined policy goals. And in cases where there is a definition of norms or standards
that give concrete form to those policy goals, it is often not measurable. An example of such a
policy objective is the ‘standstill principle’, a central phrase in the new Decree on Nature
Conservation in Flanders (21.10.1997). According this principle, new development projects
should avoid the reduction of the current quantity and quality of nature. Today's situation
should be regarded as the standard. Nevertheless, it is not the target to freeze that situation.
Societal and economic development must go on. And hence the debate remains what is
understood by 'quality' and 'quantity' of nature. It is clear that, although the policymakers
have set a goal for the future, that goal is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure. Not an
easy task to develop a monitoring programme that can reveal whether or not the standstill
principle is observed regarding the natural values of the countryside.
66
However rather rare, there are some examples of incentives to give concrete form to abstract
ecological targets. In 1989 the Third Memorandum on Water Management in the Netherlands
introduced the AMOEBE method to set target images for ecological restoration of the sea and
the rivers (Tjallingii, 1996). AMOEBE is an acronym for the Dutch title, which translates as
‘General Method for Ecological Description’. This approach is a good example of a
methodology by which one tries to visualise the distance between the current ecological
situation of an ecosystem and the ecological aims for that same system, set for the future (Ten
Brink & Hosper, 1989). As a result, one gets a measurable ‘distance to target’. The method
was later used to indicate target types for nature conservation policy in general (Tjallingii,
1996).
In case of absence of measurable objectives, the scientists have to deduce them themselves.
Doing so, the project will gain societal relevance. Without denying the importance of the
public debate, one can say that the pursuit of sustainable development, also of multifunctional
landscapes, is a general accepted objective. Forman (1995) defines a sustainable environment
as an area in which ecological integrity and basic human needs are concurrently maintained
over generations.
Monitoring of multifunctional landscapes aims to describe changes in the landscape that

eventually influence the potentials for a multifunctional land use. In the development and
management of sustainable multifunctional landscapes and land use, the quality of the biotic
and a-biotic components as well as that of their interrelations are essential. Therefore, these
aspects should in any case be part of the criteria selected to assess the sustainability of
multifunctional landscapes. That means that the preconditions for a multifunctional land use
need to be detected. We mentioned already the importance of the management and the pattern
of individual land use types or management regimes in this respect. Besides, the natural
conditions that lead to and allow for multifunctionality should be surveyed too. Indeed, the
conformity of land use and management with the natural conditions can be equally important
to assess the sustainability of multifunctional landscapes and land use.
In this respect, monitoring of multifunctional landscapes can gain a lot when adapting criteria
for sustainable landscape management as they are developed in former work (e.g. Van
Mansvelt et al., 1999). Van Mansvelt (1997) gives such criteria for a sustainable landscape,
including those for the quality of the a-biotic and biotic environment (survival of the
biosphere and food sufficiency), for the social environment (sharing and participation) as well
as criteria for the cultural environment (human development and ethical survival). These
criteria are made more concrete by translating them to parameters that can be chosen to assess
the degree in which a certain criterion is met.
A successful monitoring of multifunctional landscapes should be able to represent the data,

needed to construct the criteria for sustainable multifunctional land use, in order to measure
the changes in sustainability and the distance to target. In that sense, monitoring, or the
development of a monitoring programme, can and should help to elucidate the current policy
targets or at least to make them more clear and assessable.
Nevertheless, one should always be careful not to link the aim of the monitoring strictly or
exclusively to the aim of the current policy. Although monitoring seems to gain its relevance
from the results that refer directly towards policy goals and quality standards, that dependence
or coupling can be its weakness too. This because of the common phenomenon of short-term
policy goals. In case the policy goals would change and there is a strong association with the
monitoring programme, also the programme would have to change or might be skipped. Such
67
an evolution should be avoided at any price; since the value of a monitoring programme
increases the longer it is maintained. Therefore the choice of criteria, indicators and variables,
used in a monitoring programme is fundamental for the success of the whole and need to be
well considered and consistent in a way that they can outlive any short-term policy and serve
for different directions in policy goals that can be expected in the near future.
Not yet mentioned, but essential for the success of every assessment, is a well know baseline
that prevails when monitoring begins and to which all changes will be equated. The results of
a first, intensive and complete executed campaign of the monitoring programme will serve
perfect as a baseline. The baseline, together with the aims, in some way determines the
ambition of the policy-intentions.
It is obvious that goals have to be set in the beginning of the development of the programme.
In fact it should be the first step in the process, since both sampling strategy and choice of
parameters are depended on what one would like to know.
Not to be forgotten is that monitoring and especially the subsequent results are not only useful
to the policymakers, but also to the public. Where policymakers formulate objectives and
develop corresponding instruments to reach those goals, monitoring programmes are there to
proof the effectiveness of the instruments and to identify any possible undesirable processes
that are not controlled at all by those measures. Thus monitoring can play a crucial role in
putting a certain issue (once more) on the political agenda. If the standards or norms, defined
by the policymakers, are not reached, monitoring might help to reveal the ‘distance to target’.
That’s where research has an important task. We should be able to prove in a scientific way
whether or not and to what degree a certain policy is effective.
This warning function of the monitoring does not mean that the instrument is of minor
scientific importance, as is suggested in the paper of Howard et al (2000): ‘The scientific term
still has overtones of warning and admonition,…’. Where the field recording can be regarded
as a pure technical action, the development of the monitoring programme itself, including
sampling strategy, analyses, and reporting, demands sufficient scientific skills (Usher (1991;
Spellerberg, 1992). If the applied methods are not based on scientific principles, the results of
the monitoring will be worthless.
Conclusion 3: The first guideline for any monitoring campaign should be that the goals of the
monitoring have to be clear to both contractor and employee. Therefore following actions
should be undertaken:
- Make concrete and visualise the baseline, the targets and the distance between the
two.
- Appeal to criteria and parameters for sustainable landscape management when
deciding on what to monitor.
- Make sure that the end users and stakeholders are involved in the development of
the monitoring programme.
Monitoring and the DPSIR-conceptual model
Monitoring, and that counts also for monitoring of multifunctional landscapes, gains
credibility and utility the more it coincides with the different phases of the process of
environmental and nature policy. Depending the phase, environmental policy measures focus
on the social activities, on the environmental pressure, on the quality and the structure of the
68
environment or on the consequences of environmental change for humans, nature and

economy (Verbruggen, 1997). Also the policies for the countryside and the management of
multifunctional landscapes are organised in this way. It is clear that this structure corresponds
with the general concept of the environmental disturbance chains. In environmental
management, it is a common rationale in this respect to work with a framework or conceptual
model that links the different elements in cause - effect chains. The Pressure - State -
Response (PSR) Model of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development) and the Driving forces - Pressures - State - Impact - Responses (DPSIR) Model
used by the EEA (European Environment Agency) are examples. It is recommendable for
monitoring to clarify its position in this framework, especially to define the proper phases the
results of the monitoring are addressed to.
A monitoring programme can be set up and a corresponding set of indicators can be

developed to report on the state and the changes of only one of the phases of the management
framework. Monitoring biodiversity or land use in a complex landscape then can yield very
detailed and relevant results, but for policy it often remains unclear what measures could be
taken to stop the observed evolution if this was assessed as negative. This type of monitoring
doesn't learn a lot about causing factors.
To be able to address to the different sectors of environmental policy and management, a
monitoring programme should include a set of variables and indicators that relate to the
different phases. The elaboration of a project therefore starts with an analysis of the occurring
environmental disturbance chains. This must yield variables that are important to assess:
• the pressures (pressure indicators) that measure e.g. levels of activities, land use,
emissions,
• the state (state indicators) as expressed by the quality (concentrations, structure, etc.) of
the compartments of the environment, e.g. groundwater levels, nitrate concentration,
• the effect (effect indicators) in terms of consequences to biodiversity, public health etc.
This whole exercise can also be done when a precise policy goal is lacking. The scientific
challenge is then to deduce the comprehensive statement "maintenance of multifunctionality
of the rural area" to its essential parts. In this respect, the preconditions for multifunctionality
in an area and the relevant current or potential environmental disturbances that may threaten
them must be analysed.
Conclusion 4: Monitoring multifunctional landscapes should focus on pressures, states and

effects in order to obtain as much information as possible that is suitable for the integrated
management of these multifunctional landscapes.
Integrated monitoring.
When attention is paid to monitor the causes and the effects of disturbance chains at the same
time, and hence the variables are selected according their role in the DPSIR-conceptual
model, we end up with an integrated monitoring. Besides the functional interrelations between
the variables, the spatially nested surveillance of those variables is another fundamental
character of such an integrated monitoring. Crucial in this process is the scale dependency of
the variables. Where 1 km² as a unit can be sufficient and even the best choice for the
measurement of most aspects, it might be far too small for identifying the driving forces.
Therefore we suggest that surrounding each monitoring plot a ‘multi-vector space', the
landscape ecological setting of the plot, is described. That means that the interrelations acting
on the scale of the landscape are identified and hence potential sources or pathways of impact
are located. These exercises will reveal e.g. whether or not there are groundwater pumping
69
stations or surface water discharge canals nearby; will yield information about well known
pollution sources, or will help the analysis by showing that the monitoring site is situated in
the vicinity of a large nature area or a big wood that has only a minor part of its area in the
monitoring site itself.
Doing justice to all the considerations so far, taking into account vertical and horizontal
interrelations acting on different spatial scales and ensuring that the results are useful for a
variety of policy goals, leads us to a more than ambitious research and monitoring
programme. The foregoing was indeed a depiction of a rather ideal situation. Due to financial
and practical restrictions, it will often be impossible to establish such a monitoring
programme. Another reason why it is unlikely to be developed in its full extend, is the aim to
produce statistically rigid results. Indeed, every component shows a characteristic spatial
variation and hence demands an own spatial sampling strategy in order to obtain statistically
sound results. The total number of monitoring sites that is required to meet the needs of
statistical validity will then easily exceed any project facilities.
Therefore, to obtain an integrated monitoring, collaboration with other thematic monitoring

programmes e.g. air quality or water quality monitoring schemes might be the solution. In this
respect integrated monitoring also means the tuning of different monitoring programmes and
the clear and well defined interdisciplinary analysis of data collected in these different
programmes. When integration is obtained by connecting different monitoring programmes,
one needs to consider the sampling units and the related co-ordinate systems of the other
mapping or monitoring schemes too. It is well known that historically, these mapping and
monitoring schemes, often rely on the grid systems and sampling strategies of former or
current inventories and surveys. The ideal co-ordinate system of a multifunctional landscape
monitoring programme is then not any longer the only base. On the other hand, a well
considered selection of sites for landscape and land use related monitoring, can be a robust
spatial framework for other initiatives to emerge and for existing monitoring programmes to
link on. As such the selected sites can act as anchors for new monitoring programmes and as
field stations where we can study and learn interactions on a andscape scale in detail.
Conclusion 5: The monitoring of multifunctional landscapes is best performed in an integrated

way or the strategy is set up in such a way that the link with other thematic monitoring
programmes is easily established in order to allow the integrated management of these
landscapes.
References
Forman, Richard, T. T. (1995): Land Mosaics. The ecology of landscapes and regions. –
Cambridge: University Press.
Hellawell, J. M. (1991): Development of a rationale for monitoring. - In: Goldsmith, Barrie F.

[ed.]: Monitoring for Nature Conservation. - London, New York, Tokyo, Melbourne, Madras:
Chapman and Hall, pp.1-14.
Howard, David C., Petit, Sandrine and Bunce, Robert G. H. (2000): Monitoring multi-
functional landscapes at a national scale: guidelines drawn up from the Countryside Survey of
Great Britain. – International Conference on Multifunctional Landscapes: workshop 2,
70
Monitoring multifunctional terrestrial landscapes. University of Roskilde, Centre for

Landscape research.
Spellerberg, Ian F. (1992): Monitoring ecological change. – Cambridge: University Press.
Ten Brink, Ben J. E. and Hosper, S. H. (1989): Naar toetsbare ecologische doelstellingen voor
het waterbeheer: de AMOEBE-benadering. – H2 O, Vol.20, pp. 612-617.
Tjallingii, Sybrand P. (1996): Ecological Conditions: strategies and structures in

environmental planning. – Wageningen: DLO Institute for Forestry and Nature Research
(IBN-DLO).
Usher, Michael B. (1991): Scientific requirements of a monitoring programmeme. - In:

Goldsmith, Barrie F. [ed.]: Monitoring for Nature Conservation. - London, New York,
Tokyo, Melbourne, Madras: Chapman and Hall, pp.15-32.
Van Mansvelt, Diek J. and Znaor, D. (1999): Criteria for the a-biotic and biotic realm:
Environment and Ecology. – In: Van Mansvelt, Diek J. and van der Lubbe, M. J. Checklist for
Sustainable Landscape Management. Final report of the EU concerted action AIR3-CT93-
1210: The Landscape and Nature Production Capacity of Organic / Sustainable Types of
Agriculture. – Amsterdam, Lausanne, New York, Oxford, Shannon, Signapore, Tokyo:
Elsevier Science B. V.
Verbruggen, A. (ed.) (1997): Report on the environment and nature in Flanders 1996.
Learning to change. – Erembodegem: Flemish Environment Agency.
71
The Methodology and Applications of Agricultural Landscape

Monitoring in Estonia
Kalev Sepp1 , Mari Ivask1 , Ülo Mander2 , Maarika Mänd3 , Jaak Truu1 and Maarika Truu1
1
Environmental Protection Institute, Estonian Agricultural University, Institute of Geography,
University of Tartu
2
Institute of Plant Protection, Estonian Agricultural University
Landscape monitoring was started as a sub-programme of biological object monitoring in

1996. The main objectives of the agricultural landscape monitoring programme are: a) To define
changes in land use structure in different types of agricultural landscapes (intensive and extensive
land use); b) To explain the connection between landscape structure indicators and the
characteristics of ecological status of agricultural landscapes (soil microorganisms, number of
earthworms, pollinators). Altogether nineteen study areas were strategically selected.
Bioindicator-based monitoring method were applied for evaluating the human pressure to
agricultural landscapes. Following parameters have been chosen:
(1) at field level – individuals and species of earthworms (Lumbricidae) per 1 m2 , diversity of
soil microbial and earthworm communities, total hydrolytical activity of soil
microorganisms, the number of colony forming microorganisms per 1 g of dry soil, and
(2) at regional level – the numerical composition of bumblebee species.
Land use changes on the pilot areas over the last 50 years are analysed on the base of black-
and-white interpreted aerial photos in the scale of 1:10,000. Time sections for analysing the
changes were classified into three periods. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the
landscape elements and indicator species was carried out.
The multifunctionality of alpine grassland in Austria

H.K. Wytrzens and K.H. Pistrich
Institute of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna
Tel. +43/1/47654-3572 Fax +43/47654-3592
e-mail: wytrzens@edv1.boku.ac.at, pistrich@edv1.boku.ac.at, http://www.boku.ac.at/iao
Society increasingly expects the pastures and meadows of the Austrian Alps to fulfill a range
of non-agricultural demands in addition to their traditional production function. This paper
looks at how these demands differ both in character and geographical relevance, attempts to
quantify them in full, and investigates how they are perceived by farmers.
The analyses cover over 600 study plots in 44 Austrian mountain communities. A record
of the demands placed on the land is drawn from a systematic analysis of activities and
policies undertaken by public administration in the context of rural planning, water
management and environmental protection. It also draws on a survey of some 190 farm
managers in the regions studied (Styria, Tyrol and Lower Austria). The multifunctionality is
then evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively. The paper also develops a basic concept
for measuring multifunctionality (the so-called "multidimensional intensity of use") and tests
this approach using a parcel-based survey of around 50 different types of land use, including
water protection, environmental protection, landscape protection, skiing (alpine and cross-
country), mountain biking, military use, transport (road, rail and air), hunting, waste disposal
and many more. The results of the study should provide a basis for an integrated evaluation of
the performance of mountain grassland in Austria.
72
3. Workshop No. 3:
Biodiversity versus landscape diversity in
multifunctional landscapes

Bente Jessen Graae, Denmark, Line Magnussen, Denmark,
Hans Henrik Bruun, Denmark, Henning Adsersen, Denmark
Main speaker: Rob Jongman, The Netherlands

First opponent speaker: Urban Emanuelsson, Sweden
Second opponent speaker: Philippe Jeanneret, Switzerland
Third opponent speaker: Jerzy Solon, Poland
The difficult relationship between Biodiversity and Landscape

diversity
R.H.G. Jongman
Wageningen University and Research Centre, Environmental Sciences Expertise Group,
PO box 47 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands, E-mail: r.h.g.jongman@alterra.wag-ur.nl
Abstract
The relationship between biodiversity and landscape diversity, especially in the cultural
landscapes in Europe is not straightforward. On different scale levels determinant factors
change from climate for the environmental diversity for species diversity at the highest level
to land cover and structure diversity with small-scale community variations and species
diversity at the lowest level. At the ecosystem level biodiversity and landscape diversity are
linked with diversity in regional land use systems and with land use changes and management
as driving forces.
The rural landscapes of Europe are in both a homogenisation and a fragmentation
process. The regional differences are disappearing due to the dominating world economy. If
regional differences are not kept then the cultural landscapes of Europe does that mean that
their biological diversity will decline and only remnants will remain? Models on agricultural
management and data on landscape change throughout Europe confirm this. Landscape
change through technological changes, but at present mainly through policy decisions and the
mental urbanisation of the rural land. If regional differences are important, then they have to
be maintained through conscious environmental and ecological planning. The question is how.
Should we maintain cultural landscapes or develop alternatives, new nature?
Keywords: biodiversity, landscapes, landscape changes, Europe, scales, management.

73
1 Introduction
European landscapes are viewed differently from north to south and east to west, but they are
all related more to human impact than to the natural features. Although the concept of nature
and landscape differs among people depending on their cultural and educational background,
everyone knows that Mediterranean, Oceanic/Atlantic, Continental/Alpine, Boreal and Arctic
landscapes show fundamental differences. Heathlands and bogs are known to be part of north
and west Europe, stonewalls are found in Ireland and England, olive groves are
Mediterranean. Land use has always been related to other changes in society and responds to
political, economic and social changes through man’s activities. Defining the relationship
between landscape and biodiversity in Europe is therefore not simply a matter of counting
species and landscape elements but involves also the inclusion of the diversity in
environments on the various scales of the landscapes in Europe and the impact of mankind
through management and policy making. In this contribution I want to present the problems
that have to be faced when discussing the relationship between biodiversity and landscape
diversity and the understanding of the importance of cultural landscapes.
If one wants to understand biodiversity in Europe, it is necessary to analyse the diversity in

patterns and processes that cause actual and potential biodiversity. Biodiversity is dependent
on the natural richness of different parts of the continent. However, it is also dependent on the
impact of man and the way he changed nature into cultural landscapes. In a hierarchical
approach towards classification of landscapes the highest level is made up by the most stable
component of landscapes, the climate, including more less stable components when
downscaling. At the lowest level it is land use and its history which plays the key role in
biodiversity and cultural diversity (Jongman and Bunce 2000).
In Europe the regional differences in markets are disappearing. This means that agriculture
and forestry are international activities and practices are becoming exchangeable through
Europe. Land is used more intensively and accessibility has been improved by drainage and
road building. Land that is too expensive to be used or that has physical handicaps becomes
marginal and goes out of production. Units of land use systems are getting bigger: farm size is
growing and natural areas grow towards bigger units, especially in land that is marginalising.
In the past, land use was dictated by the structure of the land, its geomorphology, soil
conditions and water availability. Interactions between nature and agriculture were expressed
in the various cultural landscapes of Europe. Landscape structures had a function in providing
wood, being a fence, purifying water, storage and so on. Nowadays animal and plant breeding
technology, agricultural trade policy, logistics and environmental restrictions are the most
important determinants for agricultural development and they strongly influence the changing
landscape diversity, although the spatial structure of the land is still mainly traditional. This
structure also still determines the biological diversity of Europe because a large part of Europe
is dominated by human land use and characterised by man-made structures.
2 Biogeography and biodiversity
In every continent an understanding of biogeography is important in the appreciation of

differences in species composition and biodiversity. Climate variability is widely recognised as
the main discriminant for the definition of biogeographical zones and species richness at the
continental level. The main climate zones of Europe and their characteristics are given in Table 1.
Species development and composition at the continental scale have been influenced mainly by
74
climatic differences. The species are the basic elements of the biodiversity. Comparison within
genera such as the oak shows differences in species richness and most diversity seems to occur in
the Mediterranean (Jongman & Bunce 2000). The total number of plant species in Spain is
between 5000 and 6000, and in the Balkan Peninsula the number of plant species is over 8000. In
Great Britain it is only 2000. Biodiversity differs through Europe; in the Mediterranean are in
average more species than in the boreal or Atlantic zone, due to present climate and climate
history.
Within each biogeographical zone many types of biotopes (Moss et al, 1991) are present of
which some are specific for a biogeographical zone or even endemic in a smaller region.
Other biotopes are found everywhere in Europe; they might show gradients from south to
north, from west to east and from lowland to upland. For example, bogs are typical western
and northern vegetation types, heathlands are predominantly Atlantic and grasslands can be
found throughout the continent. Biotopes are physical representations of groups of ecosystems
that have common characteristics. They are not classified on species but on physiognomic and
environmental characteristics such as climate, salinity and Ca-availability. Only on a more
detailed level species play role in their characterisation. Pattern diversity is a major cause for
species diversity within European regions. Natural pattern differences characterise the basic
diversity of landscapes. The distribution of biotopes shows that species diversity is not the
only descriptor of biodiversity. Ecosystem diversity is – as is also recognised in the
Convention on Biological diversity – an extra dimension to species diversity representing the
complexity of natural systems.
Table 1: Climate characteristics in Europe (based on Walter and Lieth, 1964, Polunin and
Walters, 1973 and Roisin, 1969).
Climate zone Mean winter Mean summer Precipitation Precipitation Frost-snow

temp (°C) temp (°C) (mm/year) period
Arctic < -10 < 10 ± 250 all year Permafrost
Boreal < -7 15 ± 500 Aug-Sept 4-6 months
Atlantic 1-7 15-18 500-2000 (3000) all year Short periods
Central-European -2- -5 18-26 380-635 (1400) all year 1-3 months
Pontic/Pannonian -4 23 <450 May-June 1-3 months
Mediterranean 6-13 21-30 400-1000 (4000) Winter No

75
Table 2: Oak forests in Atlantic Europe of Pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), Sessile oak
(Quercus petraea) and Pyrenean oak (Quercus pyrenaica). Main distribution and
characteristic species are given based on Polunin and Smythies1973, Polunin and
Walters 1985; Noirfalise1987, Rivas Martínez 1974, Braun-Blanquet et al 1956,
Aedo et al.1990).
Vegetation type Characteristic species/ combination Country/region
Boreal Atlantic oak-pine forests Empetrum nigrum, Calluna Norway, Scotland

vulgaris
Pyrola spp
Subcontinental oak-pine forests Eastern Germany
Atlantic oak forests Ilex aquifolium, Blechnum spicant England, Ireland
Oak forest of pleistocene sands Calluna vulgaris, Erica tetralix, Jutland, Lower Saxonia, The
Molinia caerulea Netherlands, Flanders
Athyrium filix-femina, Luzula
Oak-beech forests of tertiary soils The Netherlands, Belgium,
sylvatica Western Germany
Northern xerothermic oak forests Carpinus betulus, Corylus avellana, Germany (Rhine valley and Eiffel)
Luzula luzoides, Genista germanica
Ligerian thermophilic oak forests Mespilus germanica, Ruscus France, (Normandy, Brittany,
aculeatus, Pulmonaria angustifolia Loire valley)
Southern Atlantic forest, Ulex europaeus, U. nanus, Erica France (Les Landes)
oligotrophic soil scoparia, Erica cinerea
Oak forests of the low Pyrenees Quercus pyrenaica, Ruscus aculeatus, France (low Pyrenees)
Hypericum androsaemum
Atlantic-Cantabrian oak forests Quercus pyrenaica, Ruscus aculeatus, Spain (Basque country)
Polistichum setiferum, Daboecia
cantabrica
Western Iberian oak forests Anemone trifoliata, Narcissus Spain (Asturias, Galicia)
triandrus, Prunus lusitanicus
Oak forests of lower hills in Quercus pyrenaica, Q. suber, Ruscus Spain (Galicia), Portugal (Minho)
southern Europe aculeatus, Daphne gnidium
South Atlantic mountain forest Quercus pyrenaica, Draba muralis, Spain (Galicia), Portugal (Minho,
Ficaria verna, Cytisus multiflorus Beira)
South Atlantic wet mountain Quercus pyrenaica, Picris longifolia, Portugal (Minho)
forest Galium rotundifolium
The interaction between climate, bedrock and relief causes differences in soil development. In
the Atlantic climate in Europe podsols can develop whereas young alluvial clay soils are
formed in deltas. In mountains bare rocks give rise to thin, easily eroding soils and snow cover
is characteristic. Climate, relief, aspect, soils and water availability together determine the
natural basis of landscapes and also their diversity. Although there are only three oak species
in Atlantic Europe, a wide range of forest ecosystems exist defined by gradually changing
environmental conditions and different regional conditions in soil and relief and characterised
by a gradually changing species composition (Table 2). One can conclude that under natural
conditions biodiversity is determined by the factors that constitute the natural landscapes.
76
Natural landscapes appear to be determined or characterised by different natural processes.

The most general division is made up of climate followed by geomorphology and aspect.
Although species distribution is strongly related to climate, it is a confusing element in
understanding landscapes, because it only indicates part of landscape characteristics. Potential
natural vegetation as an expression of species combinations appears to be useful to summarise
larger units in Europe that often diverge significantly from real patterns of vegetation. At the
regional level soil can be a useful attribute as well as land cover, although the latter is not
stable. It is an attribute that already has strong links with land use dynamics and landscape
structure. Differences can occur in regions where natural or man-made processes take place
such as bog-formation, wind exposition and land use development (e.g. afforestation,
urbanisation or land abandonment).
Large parts of the Chinese, Japanese and European landscapes have been in traditional
agricultural use for centuries. The history of these landscapes is different from natural
landscapes (Meeus et al, 1990). In agricultural landscapes the decisions made by man are the
main influence on land use patterns. Rural landscapes are, in major part, constituted by farms
territories, which combine each other, and are more or less scattered and dispersed. Each farm
acts upon landscape and Deffontaines et al (1995) state that the "collective" result at the
landscape level is not predictable unless we know about farm technical and social functioning.
The common result can be a characteristic traditional landscape, wild species and special
breed of domestic species.
3 Land use change: homogenisation

Under the influence of changes in food demand, caused by demographic trends, the cultivated
area of Northern America and in Europe has shown considerable fluctuations. Agricultural
areas moving from one region to another, forests are removed in one part of the world and
forests of exotic species are planted elsewhere. In this period the agricultural productivity in
Canada, USA and EU measured in kg dry matter per unit of acreage continues to rise thanks
to ongoing advancements in agronomic knowledge. Through changes in agriculture and
forestry practices, landscapes have suffered rapid and often irreversible changes. These
changes can be classified into two groups (Fry and Gustavsson, 1996):
• Those resulting from the marginalisation of farmland and forests and consequent
abandonment of earlier practices; and
• Those arising from the more intensive use of highly productive land. Such processes have
resulted in less land being farmed, but farming and forestry is done more intensively,
more specialised, and at larger scales.
Intensifying agriculture makes land monofunctional and takes away both cultural and natural
diversity. Intensification by one farmer - reducing production costs - will improve his position
on the market. Also, here we have to realise that the farming market is an international as well
as within the European Union as elsewhere. The farmers in the Paramo of the Andes have to
compete with the large-scale potato farmers in Canada and the Greek farmers have to compete
with the Dutch and the Danish farmers on the cheese market. If the market is not regulated the
farmers in the less favoured regions will marginalise. Both intensive and extensive land use
are expressed in the landscape: the structure of the land, the size of the parcels and the area of
natural and semi-natural vegetation that is present.
Farms constitute complex filters for external driving factors of change (Common Agricultural
Policies, socio-economic changes, etc). Apart from farmers many administrations and
77
organisations directly influence agricultural landscapes, but many do so through agricultural

policies implemented by farmers. Nature conservation policies cannot be designed or imple-
mented in the wider landscape without a proper conceptual framework to link ecological and
agronomic approaches of biodiversity dynamics at the landscape level.
The pressure of economic competition makes the land partly homogenising by disappearance
of (semi-)natural features. This is not a new process but its features become more and more
recognisable. We develop into a homogenised world. De Wit (1992) has carried out an
analysis of resource use efficiency in agriculture. Basic in his theory is a sigmoid curve repre-
senting the relationship between costs of production and yield (Figure 1). Two points are of
interest in an economic sense: The first is the intersection between the minimum cost-curve
and the so-called gross return line. It represents the point of marginalisation. Below this point,
no profitable production systems exist at the availa ble level of knowledge and prices. The
second is the point of the economic optimum that has a tangent of 45 degrees. The point, whe-
re the line through P0 touches the minimal cost curve, is the point of minimum external costs
per unit product. For a realistic representation the costs of internal resources (costs of
machinery, buildings, interest, local and national values and constraints) have to be added.
The higher these costs are, the more the point of marginalisation shifts to the right. This is the
environmental optimum. If there are no regional differences in costs and values then all
systems tend into the same direction: towards homogenisation.
Figure 1. De Wit's curve on the relation of productivity and costs (De Wit 1992).
According to research of Van Rabenswaaij et al (1991) the optimum path for the presence of
critical meadow birds turned out to be the zone between 50 - 150 kg N/ha. If these figures are
combined with De Wit's curve then it appears that this zone is situated at the left side of the
point of marginalisation. That means that economically sustainable agriculture is either being
driven towards an environmental optimum or an economic optimum and it only can have a
meaning for the lower valued vegetation types and non-critical meadow birds. This means,
that flag-species for biodiversity are not supported by modern farming trends.
78
This conclusion is based on research of the type of grassland and farming for fodder
production It can be considered as a "crop". Rough grazing with cattle and for meat pro-
duction is possible at grassland that is in crop terms relatively poor, but in terms of labour
productivity high. The scale and structure of farms using these technologies is however very
different from pure forage producers such as the common dairy farms in The Netherlands
(Rabbinge et al, 1996). It is clear however, that much of the farming in Europe is moving into
the direction of intensive crop-like production.
The results can already be seen for decades in the European landscapes. We see the decline in
diversity in structure in the landscape. Coherency is disappearing. Examples can be found
everywhere. In the Netherlands forests in the floodplains decreased from 1900-1980 with 90%
and hedgerows with 80% (Jongman and Leemans, 1982). In the period 1950-1990 all the open
side channels along the major branch of the Rhine have disappeared (Jongman, 1992). In the
period 1976-1986 the treelines in the agricultural landscape of St Oedenrode decreased with
35%, if taken without the roadside plantings it was even 45%. But it does not only happen in
the Netherlands. Also in the Czech Republic the natural plantings in the cultural landscapes
disappeared nearly completely during the collectivisation process (Lipsky, 1992). Analysis of
changes in the Picos de Europa (Spain) in the period from 1957 until 1990 showed that many
small fields disappeared. In the valley and around villages they became larger agricultural
fields or on the hillside fields and terraces natural areas enlarged due to abandonment
(Ligtenberg & Van Rijswijk 1995). In the UK hedgerows decreased significantly in quantity
and quality in the period 1976-1990. At the local level this means disappearance of species-
rich grasslands, hedgerow species, and birds of small-scale landscapes. On the other hand
abandonment of agricultural land might increase the living space for large mammals and
forest species. The question is now: "does this trend mean disappearance of species and of
biodiversity or is it the opposite?"
4 New functions in the landscape: fragmentation
In western Europe in the urban fringe intensive agriculture used to be an important land use.
Now her role is strongly diminishing, other functions take over, such as horse keeping, garden
centres and recreation facilities (Lucas & Van Oort, 1993). In the Netherlands the claim for
urbanisation until 2020 has been estimated to be 500 to 900 km2 , 2-3% of the total area of the
country. The influenced area will be much larger because of all the other related functions. It
will be comparable elsewhere in Europe. In the competition with urban functions rural
function mostly cannot survive. The increasing road density, building of new railroads and the
intensity of its use lead to an increase of barriers in the landscape. The landscape develops
into a new diversity of elements causing fragmentation for natural features: it can be
considered as a negative landscape diversity. Many animal species are sensitive for
fragmentation. The area that they need for living is depending on the body size, the home
range and the maximum dispersal area. For small species roads are often inaccessible barriers
and that means that they should find living space within the areas. Some animals like
amphibians in spring take the risk of crossing roads towards breeding ponds. Larger animals
will be hampered in their movements by urban areas, roads and unattractive land.
Fragmentation of the landscape has many causes. Increasing traffic and intensifying
agriculture caused many barriers in the European cultural landscape (Jongman, 1999).
Transport infrastructure in Europe (roads, waterways and railways) intersects habitats of
species and thereby decreases the possibilities of species to disperse between different habitats
79
that are divided by traffic lines. Urbanisation, agriculture and in dustry have put increasing
pressure on the total area of landscape and nature. The remaining natural area is fragmented
due to a dense network of motorways, railways and waterways that covers the land especially
in northwestern Europe. This process of fragmentation has resulted in loss of habitats, fauna
casualties, barrier effect, disturbance (noise and light) and local pollution (IENE, 1997).
Fragmentation of natural areas is a spatial problem that can be defined as the dissection of the
habitat of a species in a series of spatially separated fragments (Figure 2) Fragmentation leads
to diminishing habitat area and an increase in barriers or an increase in spatial discontinuity.
Fragmentation is caused by barriers such as roads, urban areas inaccessible agricultural land
or by a decrease of landscape elements (small forests, hedgerows riparian zones). A
consequence can be that the effect of external negative impacts on habitats increases and the
number of suitable and reachable habitat sites decreases.
Figure 2, Fragmentation of the landscape seen by an imaginary species (Opdam, 1991)
Effects are species-specific and depend on the needed functional area, species mobility and
isolating effects of the landscape (roads, urban areas, canals). Both decrease of functional area
of a habitat site and isolation increases the chance of local extinction of populations and
diminishes the chance of spontaneous return of species. The spatial effects are (Mabelis,
1990):
• Decrease in suitable area of the original ecotope;
• Increase in landscape heterogeneity and land use;
• Landscape fragments with subpopulations;
• Source-sink-relationships in natural populations (larger natural areas become increasingly
important).
We can be sure, that this process is surely influencing landscapes negatively. Biodiversity is
declining due to fragmentation.
5 The consequences
Intensive land use also means that there is an impact on nature and the environment.
Sustainable land use and care for the products of a region - or in industrial terminology:
quality control - means that an analysis of the impacts is important. A diverse picture can be
given of the impact of man on the landscapes of Europe, but agriculture, urbanisation and
80
tourism have a major impact on the quality of the land, on its products and the ecology of the
land. It is important to have an overview of the human impact on the larger landscape zones as
well. That can provide a basis for international programmes for land management and quality
control. Of course the processes of changes in a region are interrelated. If abandonment of
agricultural lands takes place then afforestation or urbanisation might be a related process in
that region. Pollution of water, soil and air are related to each other. However, not all aspects
have necessarily the same impact in all landscapes.
We are now becoming more and more aware of these changes that we consider good or bad
depending on social and cultural context in space and time. In the Middle Ages the removal of
forests was at a certain point considered negative and forest protection was developed.
Castles, mills and old farms have been destroyed, later protected and later even restored.
Under pressure of industrial development and expanding agriculture in the 19th century,
nature became an object of conservation. It started with protection of buildings in the
countryside, of sites of special interest and also of elements that were of special traditional
value as remarkable or historical trees.
Natural land cover in Mediterranean countries such as Spain have been highly altered by man
(Pons, 1981; Naveh, 1987; Quezel et al. 1987). Agriculture, grazing, mining and forestry
activities have disturbed natural Mediterranean landscapes. After more than two millennia of
human presence in the 1940s Spanish landscapes were in steady state, as result of a balance of
natural factors and human activities. Since the 1950’s modern pressures have led to
abandonment (Fernandez-Guillén & Jongman, 1994). However, we do not know if this has led
to a decline of biodiversity. No doubt, that grassland species will disappear if farming ceases.
However, does that also mean that species get extinct or will there be alternative places where
species can survive or will grazing been replaced by "natural" grazers as in the Parque
Nacional de Peneda-Gêrez in Portugal where herds of former mining horses (19th century)
graze the heathland and grassland.
Changes in land use in the last decades are not fundamentally different from what has
happened historically, but the scale in time and space and the impact is much greater than
before. That poses the question as to whether the natural system and the cultural landscape can
adapt. It appears that landscape structures and species have difficulties in coping with the
consequences of the Common Agricultural Policy to the open market policy and to
privatisation in central and eastern Europe. That means that a strategy should be developed to
maintain a multifunctional landscape that serves agriculture, forestry, transport and
urbanisation needs, but also the functioning of nature. The survival of species, the
maintenance of biological diversity and its use or consumption by man in all forms of well
being, art and outdoor recreation, has become an element in life that must gain increasing
political importance. If biodiversity is to be maintained in Europe it be clear to all of us, in
Brussels, in the national capitals, in the regions and in the villages what we mean with it: flag-
species, red-list species, common species or even varieties of domestic species. We might be
surprised on the outcome.
There is a relationship between driving factors and the tendencies that are ongoing in land use
change in Europe in both intensification and extensification. The consequences and reactions
of society are complex and they depend on the perception of landscape and nature of man in
its own social context. Landscape and nature conservation policies cannot be designed or
implemented in the wider landscape without a proper conceptual framework to link ecological
and agronomic approaches of biodiversity dynamics at the landscape level. Different actors
81
take the decisions are on different hierarchical levels from European to local. In land use the
actors are:
• Authorities (European, national, regional, local)
• Enterprises
• Interest groups and NGO’s
• The general public
Nature conservation and biodiversity actions are taken on the European, national and often at
the regional level. Grass-root organisations, local interest groups and sometimes communities
drive the landscape concerns. Only a few scientists take part at this level and nearly no
national politicians are interested. The general public is the consumer who uses the landscape
for different functions (housing, recreation travelling, farming, art) and who takes its structure
for granted. These four actor groups interact with different interest. Authorities have to make
the policy rules, organise planning and the other three act within or around these rules. The
more local the decisions are the more they are influenced by all the rules and decisions from
above. However, it is often local decision-making that provides the final action in the
landscape.
6 Conclusions
Land use change has a great impact on biological diversity at all levels through the
mechanisms mentioned above. There is no doubt that by changing the character of the
landscape that has been built up over centuries, species number and ecosystem composition
and structure will change markedly. It is therefore necessary to understand these changes if we
want to maintain the landscapes and the biodiversity in Europe.
Biodiversity and landscape diversity do not cover the same issues. Biodiversity is a political
issue on the world level, on the level of the European Union, national level and regional level.
There is a relationship with landscape diversity, especially in cultural landscapes, but it is not
a straightforward relationship. Changes in land use influence landscapes and in this way
biodiversity. Before stating that change is negative or positive we must analyse the impact in
relation to our objective and the scale at which we think. We might have to think about
European impacts, national impacts and local impacts. We also must take into consideration
the biogeographic position of an area under change as well as its land use history. Only if we
do so and consider the landscape in a holistic way - that means including ecological,
economic, social and cultural aspects - we might come to understanding the consequences of
change and make plans for adaptation, mitigation or enforcement. We might then be able to
design new landscapes that support the biodiversity we want in a new framework.
References
Aedo, C., Diego, C., Garcia, J. Codron, J. & Moreno, G. (1990): El bosque en Cantabria.
Universidad de Cantabria y la Asamblea regional de Cantabria ..
Braun-Blanquet, J. Pinto da Silva, A.R. & Rozeira, A. (1956): Resultats de deux excursions
geobotaniques à travers le Portugal septentrional et moyen, II. Agronomia lusitana
XVIII (III).
Deffontaines, J.P., Thenail, C., Baudry, J (1995): Agricultural systems and land use patterns:
how can we build a realtionship? Landscape and urban planning 31(3) pp. 3-10.
82
De Wit, C. T. (1992): Resource use efficiency in agriculture. Agricultural Systems 40, pp.125-
151
IENE, (1997): Website IENE. http://iene.vvv.se
Fernández-Guillen, M.D. & Jongman, R.H.G. (1994): Diversidad y Agricultura, El Campo,
131, pp. 65-79.
Fry G. & Gustavson R. (1996) Testing landscape design principles: the Landscape
Laboratory. In R.H.G. Jongman [Ed]: Ecological and Landscape Consequences of Land
Use change, pp.143-154. ECNC-publication series on man and nature Volume 2.
Jongman R.H.G. & J.A.A.M. Leemans (1982): Vegetatieonderzoek Gelderse uiterwaarden.
Provincie Gelderland, 99pp + kaartbijlage.
Jongman, R.H.G. (1992): Vegetation, river management and land use in the Dutch Rhine
floodplains. Regulated Rivers 7, pp. 279-289
Jongman, R.H.G. (1999): Landscape ecology and land use planning. In: Issues in Landscape
Ecology. P.112-119. International Association for Landscape Ecology, Colorado, USA.
Jongman, R.H.G. & Bunce, R.G.H. (2000): Landscape classification, scales and (bio)diversity
in Europe. In R.H.G. Jongman and Ü Mander [Eds]. Consequences of Land Use
Changes. Advances in Ecological Sciences 5. Computational Mechanics Publications,
Southampton, Boston, pp 11-38
http://www.agralin.nl/cgi-bin/WebQuery/clcwww?AU=Ligtenberg,+A.+Ligtenberg, A. & Van
Rijswijk, J. (1995) : Effects of marginalisation in European highlands: analysis of
changing land use in Picos de Europea using GIS. MSc thesis Wageningen University
Lipsky, Z. (1992): Use of historic documents about territory for study of landscape
development. In: Proceedings of the field workshop Ecological Stability of Landscape
Ecological Infrastructure Ecological Management, pp.80-87. Federal Committee for the
Environment, Institute of Applied Ecology Kostelec n.C.l.
Lucas P., G. van Oort, (1993): Dynamiek in een stadsrandzone-Werken en wonen in de
stadsrandzone van de agglomeratie Utrecht. Utrecht, Faculteit Ruimtelijke
Wetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. 387 pp.
Mabelis, A. (1990): Natuurwaarden in cultuurlandschappen. Landschap 7, pp. 253-267
Meeus, J.H.A., M.P. Wijermans & M.J. Vroom. (1990): Agricultural lndscapes in Erope and
their transformation. Landscape and Urban Planning 18, pp. 289-352
Moss, D, Wyatt, B., Cornaert, M.-H. & Roekaerts, M. (1991): CORINE biotopes – The
dsesign, compilation and use of an inventory of sites of major importance for nature
conservation in the European Community. Luxembourg, Official Publications of the
European Communities.
Naveh Z., (1987): Landscape ecology, management and conservation of European and levant
Mediterranean uplands, In K. Tenhunen et al. [eds], Land Response to Stress, Springer-
Verlag, New York.
Opdam, P. (1991). Metapopulation theory and habitat fragmentation: a review of holarctic
breeding bird studies. Landscape Ecology, 5, pp. 93-106.
Polunin, O. & Walters, (1985): M. A guide to the vegetation of Britain and Europe. London,
Oxford University Press.
Polunin, O. & Smythies B.E. (1973): Flowers of south-west Europe, a field guide. Oxford
University Press London.
Pons, A., 1981. The history of the Mediterranean shrublands, In F. Di Castri, D.W. Goodall,
R.L Specht, Editors, Mediterranean-type Shrublands. Ecosystems of the World, vol. 11,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 131-138.
Quezel, P, Tomaselli, R. and Morandini, R., (1987): Bosque y maquia mediterranea. Edit.
Serbal-Unesco, Barcelona.
Rabbinge R., Van Latesteijn, H.C. & Smeets, P.J.A.M. (1996): Planning consequences of long
term land use scenarios in the European Union. Ecological and landscape consequences
83
of land use change in Europe, ed. R.H.G. Jongman. Proceedings of the first ECNC
seminar on land use change and its ecological consequences. ECNC series on Man and
Nature 2, pp. 36-51.
Rivas-Martínez, S. (1974): Observaciones sobre la sintaxonomia de las bosques acidofilos
Europeos, datos sobre la Quercetalia robori petraeae en la peninsula iberica. Colloques
Phytosociologiques, III, pp. 225-260, Lille.
Roisin, P. (1969): Le Domaine phytogeographique Atlantique d’Europe. Gembloux.
Van Rabenswaaij, C.W., L.A.F. Reyrink, P.J.A.M. Smeets & J.T.C.M. Sprangers (1991):
Ecologische effecten van aangepaste landbouw. Rapport Centrum voor Agrobiologisch
Onderzoek, Wageningen
Walter, H. & H. Lieth, Klimadiagramm (1964): Weltatlas. VEB Gustaf Fischer Verlag, Jena.
84
TBD
Urban Emanuelsson
Sweden
Relationship between biodiversity and landscape diversity: examples

in Swiss cultivated landscapes
Jeanneret, Ph., Schüpbach, B.
In the context of an evaluation of the effect on biodiversity of a national extensification

programme in agriculture, field data of 3 regions (7km2 each) following a stratified sampling
method were collected. A distribution model of 5 indicator (plants, butterflies, spiders, carabid
beetles and birds) species is related to influencing factors by means of multivariate statistics
(CCA, partial CCA). Hypothetical influencing factors are categorised: (1) habitat factors
(management techniques, habitat type) and (2) landscape factors (habitat heterogeneity,
variability, diversity, proportion of natural and semi-natural areas).
The causal model developed for the spider assemblages revealed that local habitat
factors, directly influenced by management practices are the most important ones. Landscape
variability, heterogeneity and diversity in the surroundings are not significant factors. These
results show that spiders move easily among habitats by ballooning can reach any habitat and
are afterwards influenced by local habitat conditions.
The model developed for butterflies shows that species assemblages are sensitive to
landscape features. Particularly, surrounding habitat type has a major influence. Most of
butterfly species fly over the landscape, visiting small or large areas but need structure to
move and often several habitats to complete their life-cycles.
Troubles with the evaluation of the landscape diversity

Jerzy Solon
Institute of Geography and Spatial Organisation, Polish Academy of Sciences
00-818 Warsaw, Twarda 51/55, E-mail: j.solon@twarda.lan.pl
Analogously to the classic definition of species Alfa diversity, the measure of the landscape
diversity takes into account the number of types of spatial basic units (e.g. ecosystems,
habitats, geocomplexes, biotopes, sites, etc.) and their spatial share.
The evaluation of the landscape diversity depends on: (a) the kind of a feature
analysed (vegetation, land cover, habitats for chosen animals, etc); (b) the kind of basic unit
(e.g. narrowly understood vegetation association versus vegetation formation, or Corine 1st
order unit versus Corine 3rd order unit, etc.); and (c) the spatial dimension of analyses (the
landscape as a whole versus smaller landscape units distinguished according to different
criteria). Results obtained for different features, basic units and spatial dimensions are to some
extent independent and clearly show different levels of landscape diversity.
There is a common agreement that in fact landscape diversity means something
more than only types of units and their spatial shares. In the more complex sense diversity of
85
the landscape also embrace: neighbourhood structure, border contrast, patch sizes and shapes,
another characteristics, for which the term ”heterogeneity” is often applied. In opposition to
the classic index of diversity – which value may be determined on the basis of statistical data,
determinations of those features require detailed analysis of the spatial relations between all
the units within a landscape. They may therefore be referred to as a group of analytical
components of the overall diversity of the landscape.
86
4. Workshop No. 4:
Complexity of landscape management

Berit Hasler, Denmark
Ulf Kjellerup, Denmark
Main speaker: Eirik Romstad, Norway

First opponent speaker: Frieder Luz, Germany
Second opponent speaker: Marianne Penker, Austria
Third opponent speaker: Roman Lenz, Germany
Public landscape goods - an economic framework

Eirik Romstad
Department of Economics & Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway
e-mail: eirik.romstad@ios.nlh.no, http://www.nlh.no/ios/
Abstract
The coming negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on agriculture has triggered
an increased interest in the linkages between commodity production and public goods in
agriculture. This paper takes a closer look at this issue. Particular emphasis is placed on
production economics and policy design issues. Special attention is given to questions related
to incentive compatibility, informational aspects and the participation constraint of policies to
promote public goods production in agriculture.
Key words: multifunctional agriculture, production economics, public goods and resource
allocation mechanisms.
1. Introduction
It is quite obvious that agriculture has a multifunctional role as agriculture provides several
public goods as byproducts to its market commodities. Examples of such positive public
goods include biodiversity, maintenance of traditional landscapes, wildlife habitats and
agriculture's contribution to sustaining rural communities and cultures (Marsh, 1992).
Agriculture, however, also creates some negative byproducts, including pollution of water
courses, ground water and the air from the use of fertilizers and pesticides, soil erosion
resulting from unsustainable farming methods, and the loss of biodiversity caused by
extensive monocultures, fertilization or pesticide use.
While it is generally accepted that agriculture produces positive and negative public goods,
87
there is controversy related to the importance of these public goods and bads,1 and what are
good policies for providing the desired public goods.
− Major food exporters – like Australia, New Zealand and the United States –
emphasize that good policies have minor or preferably no distorting effects on food
production.
− High cost agricultural producers with a strong agricultural lobby – like Austria, Japan,
Switzerland and Norway – tend to emphasize that market distortions are of minor
importance compared to securing current provision levels of the public goods.
Both these positions are extremes as they do not entail a comparison of the marginal costs of
the market distortions in relation to the marginal value of the public goods provided. 2 A
constructive discussion of these issues demands that one has a clear understanding of what
characterize public goods (and other goods classifications), and a concise and systematic
approach to analyze multi-good production.
To avoid having too many objectives for the agri-environmental policies, I suggest a
distinction between the public goods that are site specific and where agriculture may have a
unique role compared to public policy goals like the creation of jobs, where other sectors may
provide these jobs at lower social costs than agriculture. In addition, I also recommend that
agri-environmental policy concentrate on the "everyday landscape" and that special
landscapes or management objectives are the responsibilities of separate policies for nature
conservancies, national parks etc. This distinction reduces some of the adverse selection and
moral hazard aspects that always should be considered in designing policies.
In the next section I present an overview of the theoretical sides of public goods before I
discuss some of the theoretical implications of this for policy design. The following section
deals with production economics before I proceed to discuss policies for promoting the
production of public goods from agriculture. The wide extent of price supports in European
agriculture makes it particularly interesting to investigate the effects of price supports as one
mean to promote the production of public goods from agriculture.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Public and private goods

There is much confusion regarding public goods. More specifically there is confusion
regarding what classes of goods that are unlikely to be efficiently allocated in markets and
those that are not. Randall (1983) is one of the few analytically tractable and systematic
approaches to this question. Figure 1 is a slight modification of Randall (1983). The major
difference between Randall's classification and mine is that he has discrete demarcations
along the two dimensions rivalry and excludability, while I prefer to use continuous scales on
excludability and rivalness.
1
For the reminder of this paper the term public goods relates to both positive and negative public goods. Whenever
a distinction is needed, this is done explicitly .
2
The issue of valuation of non-market goods is not addressed in this paper. A good summary of the discussion of
the valuation of public goods – in particular related to contingent valuation – can be found in the Journal of
Economic Perspectives (1994) in articles by Diamond and Hausman (1994) and Portney (1994). A more
institutional oriented critique of contingent valuation can be found in Vatn and Bromley (1994).
88
Figure 1: Excludable and rival goods (modified after Randall, 1983).
Dividing goods by excludability and rivalness helps resolve the issue of market allocation and
efficiency. Figure 1 shows that the crucial dimension for efficient allocation by the market is
the degree of rivalness as indicated by the jagged line. The more rival a good is, the more
likely it becomes that the market provides efficient allocations 3 as this reduces the likelihood
for free riding behavior. This implies that market intervention may be warranted for more
types of goods than pure public goods, i.e. for other goods than those that have low degrees of
both rivalness and excludability. In such a perspective the term public goods is not very
precise when it comes to providing a demarcation between situations when policy
intervention may be warranted and where the market should be "left to itself". 4
There is no easy way out of this terminology caveat. This is particularly the case when it
comes to agriculture, where its multifunctional character further complicates matters. A way
out of this problem is to ask if any of the goods provided display public good attributes, i.e.
attributes that clearly cannot be efficiently allocated by the market. One implication of such
an approach is that it has clear linkages to the concept of externalities. Such a linkage has two
major advantages:
(1) It directly points to the incentive dimension of policy – some factors are outside the
objective sphere of agents, thereby facilitating a risk that these factors may not be
accounted for unless appropriate policies (incentives) are put in place.
(2) In a cost-benefit perspective on policy, it implies that even if we observe some
externality, it may not be worth while to correct for the externality. More specifically,
the externality may be Pareto-irrelevant (see Dahlman (1979) for further
discussions).
3
Other factors that are important for efficient allocation by the market relate to the market power of the various
market participants. More specifically, are the market participants likely to display price-taking behavior (see any
good book on industrial organization, for example Tirole, 1988).
4
A market cannot be perceived as an institution that just emerges from itself. For any market to function, there
needs to be certain rules on regulations in place, defining the rights of participants and the sanctions facing those
not in compliance with the implicit contract market participation is. In such a perspective, the rights and
obligations of market participants emerge over time. This implies a that a historical and contextual perspective is
needed when analyzing markets and thereby market allocations.
89
In terms of multifunctional agriculture, the latter point is of particular relevance. Agriculture

produces both positive and negative externalities. Due to the information problems associated
with agriculture (for example nonpoint source pollution and its public good attributes – like
biodiversity), many externalities from agriculture are likely to be Pareto irrelevant.
2.2 Some mechanism design theory5

Any economic system or mechanism is a communication process, where messages are
exchanged between agents. Each agent transmits messages to which other agents respond
according to their self-interest. A successful resource allocation mechanism (RAM) utilizes
this, so that each agent without necessarily understanding the complete process, is induced to
cooperate in the determination of a satisfactory bundle of goods and services (Campbell,
1987). As such RAMs are extensions of the principal-agent model. The major implications
of the resource allocation mechanism perspective on agri-environmental are that policies need
to:
(a) Meet the participation constraint. If this condition is not met, the regulator (the
principal) is not guaranteed that providers (agents) of the public goods will
operate.
(b) Be informationally feasible and informationally efficient. A breach of the
informational feasibility condition implies that the policy requires more
information than what is available. Consequently, the regulator is unable to verify
if agents are compliant or not with the policy objectives. The use of
informationally inefficient policies means that there exists some other policy that
produces the same allocation at lower costs. Hence, by definition informationally
inefficient policies cannot result in welfare maximizing outcomes.
(c) Be incentive compatible. If agents are not faced with appropriate incentives, the
regulator is not guaranteed that the desired allocation will emerge.
Setting verifiable policy targets is one of the major challenges for agri-environmental policies.
It is also quite obvious designing transparent, targeted and tractable agri-environmental
polices is difficult. From a legitimacy perspective it may therefore be the case that policy
objectives need to be relaxed in order not to become informationally infeasible or
informationally inefficient.
2.3 Precision vs. costs

Besides setting verifiable (informationally feasible) policy targets, the benefits and costs
associated with relaxing or tightening policy targets should be investigated. A tighter (more
precise) target may "look good", but could come at additional costs that exceed the marginal
benefits.
Consider a situation where there is a reduction in the biodiversity of an area. First, assume
that there exist multiple other areas in the same region with a similar composition of species
and that none of these species are threatened by extinction. In that case, decision makers may
have indifference curves similar to α 1 and α2 in Figure 2, implying that a less precise and less
expensive policy is preferred (A) over the more precise and more expensive policy (B). Next,
assume the converse situation, where the area is quite unique in terms of its biodiversity.
Then decision makers could be willing to spend more money on preserving this area. This
5
This section builds on Romstad, 1998.
90
corresponds to indifference curves similar to ß1 and ß2 , implying that policy B is preferred

over policy A.
Such state contingent differences in policy preferences are quite common. For example, areas
that are important habitats for (threatened) species often undergo far stricter management
practices than areas with few special characteristics. National parks, nature reserves and
landscape management areas are (and should be) managed differently from everyday forest or
agricultural landscapes. This does not imply that it is not worth while to try to maintain or
enhance the qualities of ordinary landscapes, but that the expenditures for management per
hectare of the common landscapes normally would be far below the justifiable expenditures
on areas with more special public attributes.
Figure 2: Tradeoff between costs and precision (after Romstad, 1999a)
3. Some production theory
Multifunctionality implies that several objectives are achieved at once. For now, assume that
this is the situation. To facilitate a graphical analysis, assume two products, y and z, that are
produced simultaneously. In the conventional definition of production possibility sets,
physical input use is assumed constant at the production possibility frontier (Debertin, 1986).
'This also implies that production costs are kept constant for any allocation of y and z on
frontier. In the case of multiproduct - multi-input production, assuming that input use is kept
constant is a restrictive assumption. Letting the production possibility frontier be defined by
any combination of y and z that does not exceed a given cost is a more flexible approach
(Chambers, 1988). With standard assumptions on the second order conditions this gives the
familiar expression for the (marginal) rate of product transformation between y and z:
[1]
The optimal allocation of y and z is therefore partly determined by their relative prices, p y and
p z . This is illustrated in Figure 3. Note that all joint pairs (y, z) on the production possibility
91
frontier (the product transformation curve) can be achieved with the same costs, C.
C. The thin upward sloping sections of the RPTyz indicate a positive relationship between y
and z, while the thick (downward sloping) segment indicates that it is not possible to get more
of one of the goods without getting less or the other. For positive prices on y and z the profit
maximizing allocations must then be located on the thick portion of the production possibility
frontier.
Figure 3: The production possibility Figure 4: Substitution and income effects

frontier and the optimal allocation. when costs are allowed to vary.
Naive understandings of equation [1] may lead to serious misinterpretations of price changes.
Suppose that the price on y, p y, is dramatically reduced. This is often interpreted as a
movement along the production possibility frontier. From the first order conditions it follows
that the price drop changes the optimal use of y, and thereby also the optimal resource use
(costs). Figure 4 illustrates these effects.
In A assume that the scalar a is less than one (like one half). This changes the slope of the
price line, which using a strict cost constraint yields a shift in the optimal allocation from A
to B. However, when costs are not constrained, the production possibility set may shrink.
This yields two effects: (i) the substitution effect from A to B, and (ii) the income effect from
B to D.
In consumer economics one distinguishes between the substitution and the income effect from
price changes when doing demand analysis (Varian, 1984). Generally, the substitution effect
is greater than the income effect, but this is not always the case. This generally also holds on
the production side. Two products are technical complements in some region when the
marginal cost of producing one product declines when more is produced of the other
commodity. For technical complements one cannot analytically sign the total impact of these
effects. Wrt. policy implications this stresses the need to take care when signing the effects
of price changes.
92
4. Policy implications
This section deals with policy instruments for the "every day agricultural landscape". There is
no principal difference in producing public good attributes and private goods. Assume that
the joint cost function Ch (y, z) exhibit the standard properties. In the dual formulation, the
agent's profit function per hectare may exhibit the following elements:
Equation [2] illustrates that policy makers have a wide array of potential instruments at hand
when designing an agri-environmental policy. In the ensuing sub-sections I will discuss the
principal advantages and disadvantages of these instruments.
4.1 Price supports

Price supports, ∆ > 0, imply that the farmers receive more for their agricultural commodities
than the market price. Generally, price supports have two undesirable properties: (i) They lead
to increased intensity (fertilizer, pesticide and labor use) than the market by itself would
indicate. Consequently, there will be a net social loss as the marginal costs of production will
exceed the social value of the marginal product. (ii) Increased fertilizer and pesticide use may
increase overall pollution from agriculture.
Despite these undesirable properties, such price supports could be part of an efficient agri-
environmental policy. Suppose that the relationship between a private commodity, y, and
some public good attribute, z1 , is of the form depicted in panel A of Figure 5. Provided that
there are large transaction costs associated with observing the public good attribute and that
the standard deviation of the probability distribution is small and the probability distribution is
skewed towards the frontier, a correctly set price support could increase the provision level of
z1 . In that case it would meet the necessary RAM criteria (participation, informational
viability and efficiency and incentive compatibility). There are, however, three general
potential caveats from such a policy.
(1) It may not lead to any significant increase in the level of the public good attribute as:
− The price support on the private commodity provides no incentives for increasing
the production of the public good attribute. Any increase in the provision levels
of the public good attribute would be by-product of the increase of the private
93
commodity, and it would depend on how the distribution of the public good
attribute changes with increased levels of the private good.
− Even though a price support has an "income effect" (an outward shift in the
production possibility set), the risk is large that the substitution effect from the
price support may reduce the provision levels of the public good attribute.
(2) It could increase the quantity of y beyond the social optimum. This problem may be
reduced if the price to consumers is set in the market, as the supply increase will lead
to a drop in the market price until equilibrium in the commodity market is restored.
(3) Suppose that there is some other public good, z2 , that also is closely linked to the
production level of y, but that this relationship is inverse. This could imply that less
of the second public good attribute would be provided (see Figure 5). The overall
welfare implication of these changes (a possible increase in the first public good
attribute and a possible decrease of the second public good attribute) depends on the
relative values and magnitudes of the change in the provision levels for the two public
goods in hand.
Figure 5 depicts a situation where a price

support, D, is given. The interaction
between panel Y and panel A in the figure
illustrates what goes on. The increase in the
product price from p to (1+ D)p leads to an
increase in the production of y from y* to yD ,
thereby indirectly increasing the production
of z1 from z1l to z1 h . An unintended side-
effect of the price increase on the private
commodity, y, is an indirect decline in the
production of z2 from z2h to z2l .
Figure 5 illustrates one reason why great
care should be taken when using commodity
price supports to influence the provision
levels of public good attributes. Generally,
such effects will be present. A primary
example of this is how increased production
per hectare often leads to more use of
fertilizers and pesticides, thereby increasing
the risk of pollution from agricultural
commodity production.
The problem illustrated in Figure 5 primarily
stems from applying a functional
relationship between the production of the
market commodity, y, and the public good
attributes, z1 and z2 , i.e., wrongfully
assuming a one-to-one relationship between
private and public goods production.
Figure 5: Intended and unintended Moreover, illustrates of Tinbergen's (1950)
effects on the provision of public famous result that in general one needs one
goods from a commodity price increase. instrument per objective to be achieved.
94
4.2 Direct payments for production of public good attributes

One of the nice features of payments on the public goods provided is that they provide direct
incentives for the production of the public good. This is particularly important if the
relationship between goods and attributes is better described by a production possibility area,
rather than through a functional ("dose-response") relationship, or if production possibility
sets can be perceived as achievable with additional investments (i.e. the "putty-clay"
framework of Johansen, 1972). To see these effects consider Figure 6, where a grand
production possibility frontier with a rather large segment where an increase in y yields an
increase in z. Now, assume three different initial allocations (marked by a dark point, l, and
the initial relative price line marked by a thin dotted line) for two goods, y and z. The
placement of the dot indicates the production possibility set with the least associated costs.
Also assume that at the initial allocation there is too little provided of z.
Figure 6: Initial allocations and the effects of direct payments for z.
In panel A the initial location is such that a change in the relative price alone in the favor of z
(no income increase) is likely to induce the desired changes and increase the provision level of
z at a minor expense of y. As the initial allocation and allocation A are on the same production
possibility frontier, such a move is also welfare enhancing under the assumption that there is
too little provided of z.
In panel B a slight increase in the relative price on z and a reduction in the price of y to offset
the income effect leaves the producer within the same production possibility set, and only
leads to a minor increase in the production of the public good. Here, an increase in the budget
coupled with the right incentives could lead to an allocation close to B, which would mean a
clear increase in the public good provided. A side effect of this is also an increase in the
amount of the private good provided. The main point in panel B is that the potential gains
from a change in the relative price in favor of z and with an offsetting price decrease on y is
likely to be minor as the initial allocation is close to the GPF in an area on the GPF where y
and z are likely to be complements in some other production possibility set.
Panel C depicts a situation that in principle resembles that of panel B. The principal
difference is that while in panel B the distance from the initial allocation to an apparent
complementary region of the GPF is small measured in terms of z, the converse is the case in
panel C, i.e. the distance in z is relatively large, and the slope of the GPF suggests a competing
region. Thus, in panel C one gets a reasonably large change from a relative price change in
favor of z, but the potential gains from facilitating a shift to another production possibility set
are promising. To induce such a shift income also needs to be increased.
95
The feasibility of direct payments depends crucially on the observability of the public good.
Using the RAM terminology, this corresponds to informational feasibility. However, for the
allocation resulting from a direct payment to be a candidate for welfare maximization, the
same allocation cannot be achieved at lower informational costs. If this is not the case, direct
payments constitute an informationally inefficient policy.
Suppose that no other policy achieves the same allocation or an allocation with more of the
public good attribute. In a strict sense, direct payments then become informationally efficient.
This does, however, not imply that the policy per se meets the welfare criteria. Utilizing the
reasoning on costs and precision in Section 2.3, one also needs to compare the marginal
benefits and costs of various policies. Provided that precision is not overwhelmingly
important and the informational costs are high, it is likely that indicator payments or
production factor supports that are closely linked to the provision level of the public good will
be more consistent with the objective of maximizing social welfare.
4.3 Other policy options

Alternate policy instruments for promoting public goods include input regulations, lump sum
transfers and cross compliance payments. The difficulty with these and many other policy
instruments are that they do not provide direct incentives for producing public goods. Hence,
unless care is taken in the design of such policies, undesirable allocations may result.
Still, from a theoretical perspective cross compliance has some interesting properties. Those
who voluntarily subject themselves to a cross compliance scheme do so because their
expected profits from participating exceeds the expected profits from not doing so.
Conversely, if the expected profits from non-participation exceed the profits from
participation, the farmer chooses not to participate. This implies that the farmers with the
least costs of complying with the regulations are more likely to sign up. Such systems could
yield separating equilibria. Under certain conditions separating equilibria are welfare
enhancing (see Rotchild and Stiglitz (1976) for an overview). Note the condition that for
separating equilibria to exist, there can only be one principal.
Consequently, cross compliance may be a cost reducing strategy to meet certain policy
targets. As cross compliance programs can be easily tailored to specific regional needs, or
made to induce that a minimum level of some public good attributes is provided, they are
flexible and targeted. In a way specifically tailored cross compliance programs fall on the
borderline between policies for the everyday landscapes and landscape preserves, utilizing
contracts. This opens up for a wide array of policy options, including auctions to make
farmers provide the desired public goods at the least costs. One potential disadvantage with
such schemes is that the transaction costs may exceed the gains from having the least cost
providers sign up.
7. Concluding remarks
The primary result of this paper is that policies for promoting the production of public goods
should be directly linked to the public goods in question. This result hinges on the assumption
that the information costs of such direct payments are not too large. If that is the case,
payments through some easily observable indicator is the second best alternative. Rarely,
optimal policies contain the use of commodity price subsidies. The primary reason for this is
that price supports lead to substitution effects in favor of the private good and away from the
public good. Only in special cases will the income effect more than offset this substitution
effect. Even in these (rare) cases paying directly for the public goods would entail less costly
96
solutions as the income and substitution effect then work in the same direction.
The World Trade Organization negotiations on agriculture may pose particular challenges for
the production of public goods from agriculture as commodity prices may become so low that
the short term participation criterion (prices exceed marginal production costs) for farming is
not met. This is of special concern if the existence of agriculture is crucial for the production
of these public goods. In these cases differentiated price supports may be justifiable. One of
the major concerns related to the use of price supports is their distortive effects in secondary
markets. By making these payments pure, i.e. by having different product prices to farmers
and the food processing industry, the majority of these distortions can be eliminated.
The argument against commodity price subsidies to meet the short term participation
constraint is that they increase public expenses. As the marginal costs of public funds exceed
one, there exists a potential tradeoff between the distortions in the secondary markets and the
tax distortions. In marginal farming areas at least parts of these price subsidies may therefore
come in the form of import tariffs. This has important implications for the overall design of
policy instruments to ensure the production of public goods from agriculture. Any public
payment for public goods will lead to tax distortions. By equivalence to the above tax wedge
argument for some tariffs in marginal farming areas, a second best optimal policy may seek to
cover some of these public expenses through import tariffs on agricultural commodities. In
principle, these import tariffs should be set so that the marginal benefits from reduced public
expenditures equal the their marginal costs. These costs include changes in allocations
between public and private goods, increased pollution caused by higher product prices, and
the distortions in the secondary markets.
Finally, this paper illustrates the importance of having a good understanding of the production
processes, including using the appropriate modeling framework for multi-product production,
when designing policy instruments for providing public goods from agriculture. An important
feature of the multi-product production framework used in this paper is that production
possibility sets are defined in economic terms, i.e. dependent upon relative price and costs.
This has profound implications for policy analysis.
References
Campbell, D.E. (1987): Resource Allocation Mechanisms, Cambridge University Press, New
York, NY.
Chambers, R.G. (1988): Applied Production Analysis: A Dual Approach, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Dahlman, C.J. (1979): "The Problems of Externality", Journal of Law and Economics,
22:141-162.
Debertin, D.L. (1986): Agricultural Production Economics, Macmillan Publ. Company, New
York, NY.
Diamond, P.A. & J.A. Hausmann (1994): "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than
No Number", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4):45-64.
Johansen, L. (1972): Production Functions, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Marsh, J. (1992): Agricultural Policy Reform and Public Goods, OECD Report 92-56, Paris,
France.
Portney, P.R: (1994): "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care",
97
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4):3-17.

Randall, A. (1983): "The Problems of Market Failure", Natural Resources Journal, 23(1):131-
148.
Romstad, E. (1998): Game Theory and Resource Allocation Mechanisms, Lecture note in
RØ301 Environmental Economics, Department of Economics and Social Sciences,
Agricultural University of Norway (http://kurs.nlh.no/ro301/notes/ram.html).
Romstad, E. (1999): "Theoretical Considerations Regarding Environmental Indicators", pp.
13-23 in Brouwer, F.M. & B. Crabtree (eds.), Environmental Indicators and Agricultural
Policy, CAB International, Oxon, UK.
Romstad, E., A. Vatn, P.K. Rørstad & V. Søyland (2000): Multifunctional Agriculture –
Implications for Policy Design, Report no. 21, Dept. of Economics & Social Sciences,
Agricultural University of Norway, Ås, Norway (WEB:
http://www.nlh.no/ios/publikasjoner/melding/m-21.html).
Russell, N.P. (1993): "Efficiency of rural conservation and supply control policies", European
Review of Agricultural Economics, 20:315-326.
Tinbergen, J. (1950): On the Theory of Economic Policy, Elsevier, North-Holland,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tirole, J. (1988): The Theory of Industrial Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Varian, H.R. (1984): Microeconomic Analysis, Norton, New York, NY.
Vatn, A. & D.W. Bromley (1994): "Choices Without Prices Without Apologies", Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 26(2):129-148.
98
Participatory Approaches in Landscape Ecology –

A Basis for Acceptance and Implementation of Concepts for
Managing Multifuncional Landscapes
Frieder Luz
University of Applied Sciences FH-Weihenstephan, Freising, Germany,
Institute for Landscape Development, Technical University of Berlin
Introduction
In reacting to Eirik Romstad’s paper I first want to state that I am a landscape planner and
-ecologist with a strong social and behavioral interest – I am not an economist. Therefore I am
unable to comment in detail on Eiriks many charts and figures and on his precise evaluations
of policy implications.
However Eirik as an economist and myself as an (applied) ecologist interested in people
in the landscape have several themes of concern in common and of course we differ in several
points.
We both look at the same multifuncional (cultural) landscapes from two different points
of view and draw our conclusions. We represent two (or more) different approaches and sets
of instruments trying to manage multifunctional landscapes in a complexity of ways, which
are the theme of our workshop. In a way we represent a complete set of experts dealing with
sustainable development of landcapes as we focus on economic, ecological and social aspects
of landscapes.
I want to point out some common problems we both may encounter when it comes to
implementing or enforcing policies or concepts for managing landscapes. I hope we can agree
that those problems of acceptance and implementation which are often criticized are shared by
both sides but in offering solutions to improve implementation and acceptance I will focus on
tools for managing landscapes applied in landscape planning and -ecology, the area I feel
saver in than in economics.
In Germany we have a number of tools for environmental planning which should guarantee a
sustainable and multifunctional development of urban and rural landscapes. Landscape plans
include local requirements and measures to implement the aims of nature conservation plans,
requirements for urban development, recreation and the management of open space in the
form of written texts, maps and additional measures. The “Länder” may decide whether the
content of a landscape plan will be incorporated into urban land use or zoning plans
(Umweltbundesamt 1995).
The implementation of landscape plans in the “open landscape” has to adress farmers
and relies on the application of agri-environmental policies and programs. To use Eirik
Romstad’s terms in short: From an ecological point of view a landscape plan tells us on a
local scale where which positive public goods should be produced, and why (or vice versa
where negative by-products of agriculture should be avoided or reduced). In order to
implement these concepts the money provided by european, federal and state policies (for
both “everyday-landscapes” and “special-landscapes”, a segregation used by Romstad which
would need to be discussed) has to be channelled to local farmers. As landscape planners we
mostly prefer the kind of policies which don’t provide a general price subsidy but which pay
for particular contribution to conservation measures, yield reduction or habitat measures to list
a few.
99
Commom problems
From my experience of studying the implementation of landscape plans with farmers since 10
years I see several similar if not same general problems of implementation faced by economic
and ecological experts:
- Classical top-down approaches neglect attitudes and needs of regional and local actors
and stakeholders.
- Policies and concepts for landscape management are often “cooked” by experts far
away from those who are affected.
- Experts often have difficulties in making themselves understood by those who have to
carry out their policies or plans. Each expert uses his or her own language.
- Subjective and emotional factors often play equal or even more important roles for
accepting or rejecting plans or policies than objective and economic criteria.
From the position of socially responsible landscape ecology and -planning I want to go into
more details about problems of implementation and present ways how top-down approaches
can be turned into bottom-up ways of jointly developing perspectives for a sustainable
management of multifunctional landscapes.
Landscape ecological planning schemes in Germany are becoming more open toward new
approaches which involve social and communicative aspects and instruments instead of
focusing mainly on methods derived from natural sciences. Several research projects
contributed to installing participatory measures in practice and resulted in guidelines of
federal and state agencies dealing with nature conservation and landscape planning.
Restoring Cultural Landscapes without people in mind – the neglect of social aspects in
landscape planning and -ecology in the past
Landscape planning and landscape ecological planning projects claim to have their roots in
holistic approaches to deal with landscapes, however, the analysis of cultivated landscapes is
still mainly restricted to bases of planning derived from natural sciences. While data on soil,
climate, water, species, and biotopes are collected with great diligence, nothing even remotely
as differentiated an analysis of the population and its relationship to the landscape is made.
Human beings are seldom to be discerned in accounts of planning methodology or in photos
from the areas being dealt with. At the same time, landscape planning activities should have
every reason to not only take the physical facts of an area to be dealt with as their starting
point, but also the social and economic situation of local people on whose backs the planning
is to be implemented. Finally, statements on landscape planning targets can, as a rule, only be
realised in collaboration with the local actors and stakeholders, namely with farmers. But the
simple fact that the implementation of ecological concepts in ecological activity starts out
from social systems and not from ecological systems (Hirsch 1992) has not yet found
expression either in the performance guidelines nor in the regulations on fees for landscape
planning, even though the democratic strength of user-oriented planning is frequently
underlined. To be clear: as long as socioeconomic and personal factors do not become a
integral part of concepts in landscape ecology, nature conservation and landscape planning we
only do half the job (Nohl 1997) and therefore need not be surprised about the rejection of our
schemes when they reach the local level.
Even if knowledge of the scientific factors in landscape planning must be even more
comprehensive in future, it is even more important to break new ground in the field of social
and behavioral-related bases (fig. 1), as well as to touch on questions of acceptance in a
purposeful manner, and to point out practicable solutions.
100
Fig. 1: Landscape analysis with people in mind

With the introduction of a ”socioeconomic layer” in the superposition of thematic maps the
interests and needs of different landscape users would be taken into account as professionally
as the mapping of vegetation, soils, species or land-use.
101
Methodology:
Behavioral studies as a practical field of research
In the early to mid nineties a number of research projects in Germany dealt with social,
economic and behavioural issues concerning landscape ecology and landscape planning
aiming at improvement of acceptance and implementation (Luz 1993, Kaule et al. 1994,
Oppermann & Luz 1996,). Recently political sciences discovered nature conservation and
landscape ecological projects as a field of research looking for political dimensions leading to
sucess in implementing sustainable development (Brendle 1999).
One of the first projects was carried our within the framework of a so called ”project for
testing and development” spread over six years funded by the German Federal Ministery of
the Environment. Approx. 70 actual planning procedures were examined from landscape-
ecological, social-scientific and business-management aspects over a period of six years
including an evaluation during a follow-up study (Kaule et al. 1994, Oppermann & Luz 1996).
Four communities in the federal states of Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg representing
completely different structural conditions were selected to act as models and to undergo
intensive investigation in a case study and action research approach. Among other things, the
obstacles to implementation were analysed and innovative measures tried out which were
intended to help the planning on to further-reaching implementation. Here the rare opportunity
of observing the social processes set off in the communities concerned through the
implementation of various landscape-planning instruments (local authority landscape plan,
landscape panning in the course of schemes for land consolidation and for habitat network
schemes) allowed to apply methods of qualitative social research over several years. The
empirical basis for this acceptance- and implementaion research was formed by about 200
intensive interviews with the local authority decision-makers, representative bodies and the
farmers affected, as well as the evaluation of the observations made at numerous local council
sessions and public meetings. A large number of conclusions were drawn from this to be
passed on to parliament for adding to the instruments of landscape planning, only a few of
which can be described here from the point of view of acceptance research.
Results
From top-down to bottom-up: communication and cooperation as the basis for
acceptance and implementation
Already in the course of the preliminay study of the project, it turned out during the survey of
experts in 18 local authorities that acceptance problems frequently resulted from difficulties in
communication between the different groups involved in planning. Scientists, planners,
administratives and local stakeholders are often communicating in a typical top-down
direction which is best illustrated in the cartoon of figure 2. which also illustrates that gaps
blocking the flow of informations should be widened and means of communication should be
offered.
102
Fig. 2: From Top-down to bottom-up

The typical top-down flow of information in landscape ecological planning projects between
scientists, planners, bureaucrats and local people is responsible for a lack of communication
(left). Widening gaps and offering communicative instruments allows for a bottom-up process
(right). Graphs: G. Rollett
Three main reasons can be listed briefly for communication problems impeding acceptance:
1. Weaknesses in communication and the holding back of environmental knowledge

The environmental knowledge collected with great scientific and financial effort is rarely
passed on to the decision-makers, or even the affected farmers and landowners, prepared in a
readily comprehensible and simplified form. This ability would seem to be com-
pletely.underestimated in the training of would-be landscape planners. As a result, the people
affected do not only come to feel the ”arrogance of the powerful”, but often also the
”arrogance of those who know” who decide on the future of the cultivated countryside in a
small and elitist-like group. However, any lasting and therefore sustainable acceptance is not
based solely on the ”acceptance” of an innovation, but also presupposes a comprehension of
the planned project objectives from which the changed action is intended to result (Latin
acceptare = understand!). It was possible to demonstrate in several cases that the planners with
their view of things and language were simply not understood, but were themselves
completely unaware of this.
2. Differences in perception and evaluation

Landscape ecologists and planners are seldom aware that they as experts see the landscape
with eyes completely different from those of the local residents and farmers. Thus, for
example, in none of the places studied did the people interviewed perceive landscape changes
affecting the same declining animal species as those the planners dealt with. Amongst locals
there was always talk of the ”large” species which dissapeared, such as the partridge or the
common hare, whereas in the expert reports small species, such as beetles and grasshoppers
were emphasised as indicators. Neverthelss, in one community directions for action for the
realisation of a habitat network scheme were imparted in a simplified manner and on the basis
103
of the large and more perceivable species and thus successfully comprehended. Public
awareness for landscape ecological questions also rose significantly within the case study
communities, when scientists as part of a communicative measure were asked to give informal
talks about their investigations in local meeting places such as community centres or even
pubs. Having to explain their scientific observations in a language free of jargon and making
themselves understood by locals was an unusual and difficult task for highliy qualified
scientific experts. However, this effort lead to a new quality of common views and language
which made discussions about management guidelines a lot more relaxed and reduced
conflicting views.
3. The prehistory of a project

The majority of planners behave as though they were acting on virgin soil in every place. The
fact that many other experts before them may have played a role in achieving a negative or
positive basic attitude among the decision-makers and people affected is seldom discussed.
Yet emotional bias resulting from previous negative key-experiences often represents an
important reason for allegedly irrational reasons for rejection. Who thinks of ”mapping” the
”emotional toxic waste” left by preceding generations of planners, even if this type of waste or
leftover can cause the failure of even highly qualified specialist planning? In the case of one
project which had been written off as a ”dead plan” or a ”planning corpse”, it proved possible
by specifically tackling these points to revive communication between the parties involved
and to work out strategies for implementation. After that it suddenly proved possible to take
numerous steps to provide biotopes on the private land of farmers, something which had
previously been regarded as impossible. These findings especially underline the call for taking
subjective and emotional criteria into serious consideration when analysing landscapes which
are inhabited and managed by people.
Conclusions:
lnvestigate more and communicate better – the basis for communication and
cooperation
Quite independently of the rapidly changing framework and political conditions of landscape
planning, a series ofcriteria from the social environment of a planning scheme can be
mentioned as ”determinants for local acceptance and realisability” (Luz 1993, cf. fig, 3).
Taking these criteria into account in the phase of determining basic information help in
recognising obstacles to implementation at an early stage and in removing them in the
resultant planning and communication process. The ”Mapping in human brains” necessary for
this should be instrumentalised in the form of a pre-study about acceptance which should be
conducted parallel to or even in advance of the determination of the planning bases in natural
areas (Luz 1996). Some detailled expert discussions with representatives of the most
important local actors with as contrary interests in the landscape as possible would already
suffice for this. Such pre-studies on acceptance have been applied in a number of projects and
wait for more intensive recognition. They always uncovered numerous facts about subjective
data which helped to derive strategies for communication and implementation and served as
eye-openers for scientists and planners involved in the communites under investigation.
104
Additional investigation:
- differences in perception and evaluation
- relationship between farmers and non-farmers
- personal appreciation of landscape and environment
- emotional ”prehistory”
- agricultural structure and conditions, perspectives for the future of farming
- marketing prospects for products from sustainable agriculture
- environmental qualifications within local administration
Additional communication:
Passing on the environmental knowledge which was gathered and creation of
environmental competence and awareness through:
- simplified processing and presentation of expert knowledge
- caring for working groups dealing with the development of models
- lectures and walking tours with local residents, farmers, schools
- advice on ”translating” the project objectives into the situation for individual farms,
clarification of the possibilities of obtaining grants
- development ot professional marketing strategies to create regional identity with
regional products from sustainable agriculture.
Conclusion: more investigation – better communication
Fig. 3: Completion of landscape planning instruments

Supplementing landscape analysis with data collected from local actors and by adding
communication tools as additional steps in the planning process.
In the communication phase, the most important point is to ”translate” the planning objectives
from the language of the experts into the language of the decision-makers and farmers. As part
of the study of Kaule et al (1994) in several Bavarian communities, it proved possible to
implement the landscape plan extremely successfully with local farmers because the effects of
the planning objectives on the everyday life of a farm were communicated by means of a
patient farm-by-farm advisory process. The ecological agrarian consultant here appeared, so
to speak, as the landscape planner’s ”building supervisor”. This translation from experts to
farmers’ language is illustrated in the cartoons of figures. 4 and 5.
Since this model-project a real network of self-employed ecological agricultural
consultants developed who serve as mediators between planners and local farmers. Meanwhile
in many communities they contribute to remarkable improvements of project implementation
and also of farmers’ income from state, federal and European conservation programs which
the farmers often are not aware of.
105
Fig. 4 and 5: Bridging ecological and socioeconomic aspects in landscape ecology
Fig. 4:
Birds and insects as indicators for ecological sensibility: One important component of
scientific landscape analysis is information on fauna. Many statements on objectives for
selected habitats can be substantiated by data on rare and endangered indicator species.
Fig. 5:
Cattle and tractors as indicators for economic feasability: Planning goals and measures
derived from scientific data can only be implemented with local stakeholders, mainly with
farmers. Information about their socioeconomic situation needs to be gathered with the same
professional quality as data form birds and beetles in order to communicate the effects of the
measures.
Round Tables and other means of communication

Communicative planning techniques for the involvement and bundling together of the
interests of all the local actors at the ”round table” (Oppermann & Luz 1997) have for the
most part up to now been left to chance or the personal commitment of individual planners or
especially motivated members of the administration. They should become a firm integral part
of a landscape planning oriented towards implementation.
Figure 6 shows the instrumentalisation of the model ”more investigation – better

communication” as a ”round table”. Communication and cooperation of all local interest
106
groups leads to a gradual and steady implementation of landscape planning schemes and to an
integration of local farmers, inhabitants, visitors and the local government. This model has
been developed and tested in several model communities during research projects and lead to
remarkable success.
The translation of such models from research and model projects into everyday practice of
landscape ecologists and planners is the most critical point to develop a more holistic
approach in landscape ecology in which participation of people plays an equal role.
Fig. 6: Round Tables

The instrumeantalisation of the model ”additional investigation and communication” (see fig.
3) by establishing instruments for mediation of conflicting interests and coordination of steps
towards implementation.
Participatory landscape ecology and -planning in practice – applied examples

Since the work of Kaule et al.(1994), Oppermann and Luz (1996), Luz (1996) and others
exploring ways of opening nature conservation, landscape ecology and -planning for local and
regional actors have become more popular in other research projects. Most important: this
work and the awareness of a lack of participation lead to several guidelines and more model
projects in several federal states of Germany.
The Bavarian Ministery of environment issued a guideline for ”Landscape Planning at
the Round Table” which was one result of the described research project. Not only rural
communities but also cities of significant size tend to invest more time into participation and
look for ways of direct implementation already during the planning process instead of long
procedures without visible action.
One of the better known examples from Southern Bavaria is the Region of the Auerberg
where 12 rural communities developed an intercommunal landscape concept employing over
60 working groups with about 300 local citizens involved in the planning and implementation
process (Auweck & Jahnke 1994).
Participation and communication also played a major role in the project for testing and
development ”Revitalising the Lowlands of the River Ise” in Northern Germany (Borggraefe
et al. 1999). The efficiency of communication measures such as round tables, press
107
campaigns, discussions and CD-ROMs on the improvement of implementation of measures

resulting from interaction between managers, planners and local population was studied in
detail. Once more, the results confirm the longterm positive effects of intensified
communication efforts in landscape ecology and nature conservation.
Recent conclusions from an intensive study about the improvement of the efficiency of
the implementation of landscape planning in Bavaria also call for further consideration of
communication measures. Improving communication skills of all participants in landscape
ecological planning will become the core of a multimedial set of guidelines for the
implemantation of landscape plans to be published in spring 2001 (Luz et al. 2000).
Outlook
The examples about participatory approaches in landscape ecology and -planning are
encouraging and innovative and they show a new tendency in contemporary management of
multifunctional landscapes in Germany. However, they are far from being common practice
and widespread agreement amongst experts. Many natural scientists in planning teams remain
very reluctant to taking ”ordinary people” into the boat. To them it remains much saver to
focus on so called objective planning criteria instead of opening the discussion for subjective
or even emotional issues related to landscapes. As long as we cannot accept that the human
dimension needs to play an equal role in landscape analysis and planning we continue to do
”half the job”. If we want to take the claim serious that landscape ecology is a holistic
discipline, we still have a lot to learn from the positive experiences in participatory landscape
ecology.
References
Auweck, F. & Jahnke, P. (1994): Experten- und Dialogplanung. Garten und Landschaft 8, p.
28-32.
Borggräfe, K., Kölsch, O., Lucker, T. (1999): Kommunikationsarbeit im Naturschutz.

Beispiele aus dem E + E Vorhaben Revitalisierung der Ise – Niederung. Naturschutz und
Landschaftsplanung 32 (4), p. 122-125.
Brendle, U. (1999): Musterlösungen im Naturschutz – Politische Bausteine für erfolgreiches

Handeln. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn.
Hirsch, G. (1992): Wieso ist ökologisches Handeln mehr als eine Anwendung ökologischen
Wissens? Überlegungen zur Umsetzung ökologischen Wissens in ökologisches Handeln.
GAIA 2, p.141-151.
Kaule, G., Endruweit, G., Luz, F., Oppermann, B., Weinschenck, G. (1994): Landschafts-
planung umsetzungsorientiert - Schlußbericht zum Erprobungs- und Entwicklungsvorhaben
"Ausrichtung von Extensivierungs-, Flächenstillegungs- und sonstigen agrarischen
Maßnahmen auf Ziele des Natur- und Umweltschutzes mittels der Landschaftsplanung."
Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster-Hiltrup.
Luz, F. (1993): Zur Akzeptanz landschaftsplanerischer Projekte. Determinanten lokaler

Akzeptanz und Umsetzbarkeit landschaftsplanerischer Projekte zur Extensivierung,
Biotopvernetzung und anderer Maßnahmen des Natur- und Umweltschutzes. Dissertation am
108
Institut für Landschaftsplanung und Ökologie der Universität Stuttgart, Verlag Peter Lang,
Frankfurt.
Luz, F. (1993): Social Aspects in Landscape Planning. Anthos 4/93.
Luz, F. & Oppermann, B. (1993): Landschaftsplanung umsetzungsorientiert.

Garten und Landschaft 11/93.
Luz,. F. (1996): Von der Arroganz der Wissenden zur Mitwirkung der Betroffenen - Kriterien
für Akzeptanz und Umsetzbarkeit in der Landschaftsplanung. In Selle (Hrsg.): Planung und
Kommunikation p. 79 - 89 . Bauverlag, Wiesbaden.
Luz, F. & Oppermann, B. (1996): Planung hört nicht mit dem Planen auf - Kommunikation
und Kooperation sind für die Umsetzung unerläßlich. In: Konold, W. (Hrsg.) Naturlandschaft
- Kulturlandschaft. Die Veränderung der Landschaften nach der Nutzbarmachung durch den
Menschen p. 273-287. Ecomed, Landsberg.
Luz, F., Luz, R., Schreiner, M. (2000): Landschaftsplanung effektiver in die Tat umsetzen.
Entwicklung eines Leitfadens für bayerische Gemeinden. Naturschutz und Landschafts-
planung 32(6) p. 176-181.
Oppermann, B., Luz, F., Kaule, G. (1997): Landschaftsplanung am Runden Tisch. Schluß-
bericht zur Erfolgskontrolle zum Erprobungs- und Entwicklungsvorhaben "Ausrichtung von
Extensivierungs-, Flächenstillegungs- und sonstigen agrarischen Maßnahmen auf Ziele des
Natur- und Umweltschutzes mittels der Landschaftsplanung." Landwirtschaftsverlag,
Münster-Hiltrup.
Umweltbundesamt (1995): Glossary of Environmental Terms for Urban and Regional

Planners. Perthel, Berlin.
109
Determinants for Successful Policy-Making in the Field of Landscape

Management
Marianne Penker
When it comes to the issue of multifunctional landscapes the pivotal question is how to
organise state-managed interventions in search of a balance of productive and recreational
functions to guaranty a high societal wellbeing. The proposed paper presents theoretical and
empirical findings of an only recently finished research project on policy-making in the field
of sustainable landscape management.
An interdisciplinary approach - combining theories of environmental economy,
implementation research, new public management, landscape planing, and legal-sociology -
led to a framework of factors determining the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of political
instruments. The paper focuses on determinants for a successful state-managed allocation of
different ecological, economic, socio-cultural and aesthetic functions in the landscape.
The theoretically deduced determinants and additional empirical studies form the basis
of practical recommendations for a more effective and cost-efficient landscape management
by state. The practicability of these partly unconventional proposals has been discussed with
Austrian officials in the field of nature conservation and landscape management.
Basically the paper argues that state-managed interventions in the development of
landscape must follow three principles: that of cost-effectiveness, that of maximum societal
wellbeing, and particularly the principle of avoiding irreversible losses of ecological and
socio-economic development options.
Can we plan landscapes? Aspects of an application-oriented

landscape ecology
Roman Lenz
University of Applied Sciences, Schelmenwasen 4-8, D-72622 Nürtingen, Germany
lenzr@fh-nuertingen.de
To plan landscapes is problematic because of several reasons, especially:

- (Data and) predictions are uncertain
- Different goals and visions are thinkable
- Informatory planning is increasing and may lead to new visions
- Successful planning is – as the problem itself – complex and needs acceptance.
Hence, it is necessary to accompany and guide planning from analysis to realisation, at least in
the fields of:
- Structure and function (system analysis)
- Dynamics and evaluation (scenarios)
- Options and decisions (acceptance)
and this in fact on the integration level of environment-society-systems.
On the basis of various own examples from different projects and landscapes, the above-
mentioned topics will be elucidated. Out of that, the following conceptional tools to cope with
the problems are delineated:
- Strategic cyclic scaling (multi-level-systems approach, meta-planning)
- Inter- and transdisciplinarity
- Problem-solving and planning has to be taken seriously (sustainability).
110
To conceptually overcome these problems, we have worked out an Environmental Impact

Assessment Multi-level Approach ("EIAMA”, or good planning practise approach; Lenz et al.
1996, 2000).
In conclusion, we need a combination of manifold, problem-oriented methods and tools in

order to come to a successful planning from analysis to realisation – although we cannot
predict and somehow really plan landscapes.
111
5. Workshop No. 5:

Jesper Fredshavn, Denmark
Finn Arler, Denmark
Main speaker: Roy H. Haines-Young, UK, Marion B. Potschin, Switzerland

First opponent speaker: Knud Tybirk, Denmark
Second opponent speaker: Hannes Palang, Estonia
Third opponent speaker: Christina Axelsson Lindgren, Sweden
Multifunctionality and Value
R.H. Haines-Young1 & M.B. Potschin 2

1
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Environmental Science and Policy Research Group, Monks
Wood, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE17 2LS, UK & School of Geography,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD E-mail: Roy.Haines-Young@Nottingham.ac.uk
2
Department of Geography, Institute for Landscape Ecology, University of Basel Spalenring 145, CH-
4055 Basel, Switzerland E-mail: Marion.Potschin@unibas.ch
Abstract
If we are to understand and plan for multifunctional landscapes, then we must also examine
the multiple and often conflicting values that people assign to the resources that are associated
with them. The problem of assigning value to environmental resources is complex, but some
progress can be made using the concept of natural capital and the idea that ecosystem
functionality can deliver a range of goods and services to society.
It will be argued that we have to first understand value frameworks of the interest groups
living in an area before we can plan in a multifunctional landscape. These value frameworks
define the range of goods and services people expect or need from the landscapes and the
spatial and temporal scales at which they consider them to be critical. Questions of
sustainability can only be resolved by looking at these value frameworks in relation to the
biophysical properties of the mosaic of ecosystems that constitute a landscape. When planning
for sustainability we need to understand the limiting factors that control ecological processes
within a multifunctional landscape, and how, within these constraints, conflicts between
different value systems can be resolved.
Keywords: Multifunctionality, landscape, indicators, value, sustainability

112
Introduction
Discussion of ‘multifunctionality’ by landscape ecologists is both important and timely. It is
important because it poses difficult questions for our science. ‘Ecology’, or at least
environmental quality, is just one of the many things people demand from landscapes.
Confronted with the concept of multifunctionality, landscape ecologists have to consider just
what kinds of insight their science can give in debates about the way people plan, manage or
exploit landscape resources. The discussion is also timely, because with the human population
set to peak at around 8 900 million in 2050 (United Nations Population Division 1998), the
conflicting demands that people will put upon landscapes will increase relentlessly.
In this paper we consider ideas of multifunctionality in the context of value. We will
argue that the two are inexorably linked. Indeed we will argue that multifunctional landscapes
cannot be understood without reference to some value system. ‘Multifunctionality’ is not a
property of ecological systems per se but a result of the interaction and linkage between
society and environment. We will show that acceptance of this proposition has fundamental
implications for the way in which landscape ecologists approach the practise of their
discipline and the education of the next generation of scientists.
In presenting these ideas we will react to the position taken by some recent
commentators, such as Kerr (in press a, b and c ), who have sought to describe ways in which
ecology can better serve the needs of society. Kerr has argued, for example, for a more
seamless integration of ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ ecology. He also asserts the need for ecologists
to be educated to work in more interdisciplinary ways so that issues spanning ‘esthetics (sic),
economics and ecology’ can be addressed. The development and application of concepts such
as ‘ecosystem health’ and ‘ecological integrity’ are proposed as some of the ways in which
scientist can better engage in public debates about our environmental futures.
Understanding multifunctionality
Multifunctional landscapes have been represented in various ways at this meeting and in the
associated papers. Common to most definitions is the idea that within a given area, different
material processes in nature and society can take place simultaneously. Multifunctionality in
landscapes is thus taken to mean the co-existence of different spheres such as ecology,
economics, culture, history and aesthetics. The concept is more, however, than the recognition
of the association or ‘layering’ of biophysical and human systems. Using the concept it is
further asserted that understanding the interactions between these systems is fundamental and
that conflicts between biophysical and human systems can, in some sense, be better managed
by promoting integrated planning and landscape heterogeneity.
This picture of multiple linkages between human and environmental systems is,
however, a simplistic one. To build theories about multifunctionality on such shallow
conceptualisations would be unfortunate, because the ‘coexistence’ model tells us very little
about how integration might be achieved and how conflicts might be overcome. In order to see
where the key issues lie, let us contrast this representation of multifunctionality with one built
on what we will call the ‘recursive model’.
According to the recursive model, multifunctionality is not simply the coexistence of
material processes in nature and human societies. Rather, it is the proposition that
multifunctionality is essentially a human centred concept that we need to understand how
human value systems successively [or recursively] re-define what is important in terms of
ecological function. In other words, in multifunctional landscapes we are not simply observing
the coexistence of different, independent systems, but rather the reciprocal relationship
between systems. Neither can exist in isolation. Multifunctionality is an ‘emergent property’
arising out of the interaction of ecological and human value systems.
113
Ecosystem health and ecological integrity

The problem with the ‘coexistence’ model of multifunctionality is that it suggests that
conflicts between natural and human systems can somehow be resolved by scientists finding
ways to communicate their measures of ecological condition to the rest of society. Various
tools and techniques are proposed. Environmental indicators are one such approach (Haines-
Young 1999). Similar strategies are tried though concepts such as that of ecosystem health
and ecological integrity.
Kerr (in press a) has argued strongly that if we are to find better ways on managing
human impact on the environment then measures of ‘societal well-being’ should include
measures of ‘ecological health’. For Kerr, measures of ecological heath are based on
assessments of the integrity of ecological systems. For him, integrity means their capacity to
support ‘a biota that is the product of evolutionary and biogeographic processes with little or
no influence from industrial society’ (Kerr in press, a, and see Figure 1). The scale of human
impact is assessed, according to how far society pushes the ecological system away from what
is essentially a ‘natural condition’. Once human actions alter a place so that it no longer
possesses ecological integrity questions of value then arise. At what point Kerr asks, do we
make a judgement that some critical threshold has been crossed and that ‘the situation shifts
from healthy to unhealthy, from sustainable to unsustainable’ (Kerr, in press, a, page 7).
Figure 1: Biological condition in relation to human disturbance, from J. Kerr (in press b)
Biological condition declines away from biological integrity as human disturbance increases.
Biological integrity is the condition of a place that has its evolutionary legacyparts (e.g.,
species) and processes (e.g., nutrient cycles)intact. On the basis of contemporary societal
“Pristine”
Biological integrity
Biological condition
Healthy =
sustainable
Unhealthy =
unsustainable
Nothing
alive
None Severe
Human disturbance
values, a site or region may still be considered healthy despite some decline below integrity.
Biological condition can, however, degrade beyond a threshold (in the vicinity of T) where the
situation becomes unhealthy because it is unsustainable. T is not necessarily an easily
measured threshold, especially over short time scales. Rather it is a biological tipping point
beyond which neither significant components of the natural biota nor human activity can be
sustained in that place.
114
To operationalise the approach suggested in Figure 1, all we need is to find ways of measuring
how far the system has been shifted from ecological integrity. Kerr, like others, have
suggested biological assessments, based on multi-dimensional indices, as one way forward.
Although we have focused here on the work of Kerr, it is important to note that these
ideas are part of a larger body of work. The essential proposition is that ecological condition
can be assessed in an ‘objective sense’ and that indicators can be used to describe the state of
ecological systems and the way they change over time and space. Elsewhere, for example, we
can find this approach played out in the development and formulation of sustainability
indicators at international, national and local levels. It is an attractive and beguiling approach,
for it defines very clearly both a scientific agenda and a role for the scientists in public debates
about the environment. The task for the scientist is to open the channel of communication
between those who understand the properties of natural systems and the rest of society.
Despite its attractions the ‘coexistence’ model has a number of difficulties, particularly when
we consider it in relation to ideas about multifunctionality. Three issues are apparent:
1. The model is one-dimensional: It assumes that the state of ‘ecological integrity’ can be
recognised and that we can agree on how that state can be measured and how departures
from that state can be assessed. Clearly this might be possible if we have access to
‘wilderness’, where we can study natural systems, that is systems unaffected by human
activities, but this is not always the case. How could the concept be applied in the case of
the highly modified but ecologically rich cultural landscape so prised by landscape
ecologists, and more typical of the European situation?
2. The model is static: It assumes that natural systems are in some kind of optimum,
balanced or equilibrium state. But how can this be so? Natural systems both evolve and
respond to changing environmental conditions. The ‘natural state’ is never fixed.
3. The model reduces questions of value merely to discussions of when critical thresholds
are crossed. While it is acknowledged that different groups might have different views
about when the important boundaries are crossed, it does not consider the possibility that
different groups may also define and characterise the structure of ecosystems in different
ways. Consider how a farmer in Australia might define the ‘ecological integrity’ of a
landscape compared to, say, the aboriginal peoples who once had access to the same land.
Most importantly, in the context of the present workshop, the ‘coexistence’ model does not
easily accommodate the multifunctional concept except to say that ‘ecological integrity’ is one
of the things we need or landscape planners to deliver, along with a range of other outputs that
people require. Multifunctionality is, in other words, characterised merely as the coexistence
of biophysical and human systems.
Natural Capital, Ecosystem Services and Multifunctionality

We will suggest an alternative view of multifunctionality based on the proposition human
value systems successively [or recursively] re-define what is important in terms of ecological
function. We will argue that ecological function cannot be explored without reference to a
value system, and that questions of value cannot be resolved unless their connection with
ecological function is understood.
The recursive model of multifunctionality is most easily explained in terms of what
some call the concept of natural capital (Daily, 1998, Turner et al., 2000). Ecological systems
115
can be thought of as elements of ‘natural capital’ because they can deliver a range of goods
and services to people, in just the same way as human made capital can.
Consider, for example, the landscapes of the South Downs of England. This is a rich
cultural landscape, created by the activities of many generations. In ecological terms they are
important for the biodiversity they support. However, biodiversity is just one of the ‘outputs’
people derive from the ecosystems in these areas. These ecosystems have, in the past,
benefited people though the farming and sylvicultural activities that they supported. Today
they are important as the backdrop for a range of recreation and tourist activities. In
biophysical terms, The Downs are an important aquifer, and in a social context represent a
rich historical and cultural resource.
Although as ecologists we map and present ecosystems as objects or habitat patches, in
terms of defining their relationship with society, though the services and benefits they provide
that they are much better represented. The challenge for the landscape ecologist is to
understand how the structural and functional properties of those ecosystems support the range
of outputs, goods and services that people value.
These ideas about natural capital and ecosystem goods and services have been most
widely discussed in the literature of environmental economics (Christensen and Franklin,
1996; Freeman, 1996), and it is in the context of wetlands that they have been most actively
applied (e.g. Turner et al., 2000). The relevance of the paradigm to questions about
sustainable landscapes has recently been discussed by Haines-Young (2000). It is particularly
valuable in the context of the present workshop, because it provides a framework in which
ideas about multifunctionality can be explored and applied.
According to the natural capital paradigm, landscape multifunctionality arises
according to the way in which different people, or groups in society, value the different
outputs from an area. Conflicts arise not only because they may value these outputs differently
(e.g. some might rank biodiversity more highly than others), but also because even within a
single interest group there may be incompatible goals. For example, it may be impossible to
maximise both the conservation of biodiversity and recreational opportunity in the same area.
We may simply not understand what ecological trade-offs need to be made.
What is important to note in the context of the present workshop is that
multifunctionality is not a property of ecological systems per se, but only emerges though the
interaction of human value systems and the capabilities of nature. Real ecological functions
give rise to, or support, the goods and services that may desired by society, but the particular
aspects of ecological systems that are important are defined recursively through the different
value system. Functions that were considered important in the past may, no longer be so.
Alternatively, as human values or needs change, functions that in the past were unrecognised
or disregarded may become significant.
The ‘recursive character’ of the model of multifunctionality that we describe here can
be illustrated by reference to a particular landscape issue that is emerging on the South Downs
of England. This area has long been recognised as one of high landscape and scenic value.
However, where as it was once rejected as a National Park, when the first tranche of
designations were made, today legislation is now being drawn up to accord it National Park
status. The reasons for the change in view are many, but key considerations include the way in
which the context of these landscapes has changed given the surrounding development
pressure in SE England, and the growing importance of these areas for recreation.
For the future, development of the recreational opportunities within the new National
Park will be an important issue, and it may well involve restoration of many of the chalk
grassland areas that have been lost though agricultural improvement. However, while the
landscape ecologist can provide a biophysical model that describes where habitat restoration is
most easily achieved, this scientific understanding is not sufficient for the planner interested in
biodiversity and recreation.
116
In designing these new cultural landscapes we have to take account of the biophysical
limitations and capabilities associated with these landscapes and their potential use by people.
When targeting restoration schemes planners will need to select land parcels that both have
the capability of being restored and which also offer the greatest recreational benefits. Thus
proximity of parcels to the footpath network would be a factor, as would associations with
other historical or landscape features (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Using a GIS to determine multifunctional properties of land parcels on the South
Downs, England.
Value of parcels (shown by different

tones) defined by ecological function
and proximity to footpath network
The land parcels and habitat patches that make up the landscape mosaic we recognise as the
‘South Downs’ have different ecological properties and functional characteristics. However,
which properties or functions we select depends on our value system. As the case of the South
Downs shows, new ecological properties emerge, almost recursively as we apply our human
value systems. The targeting of habitat restoration measures to promote biodiversity and
recreation would be very different from any scheme that pursued either one of these goals in
isolation.
117
Implications of and for Multifunctionality

Natural systems cannot stand as a benchmark against which the scale and nature of human
impact can be judged – because people are just as much part of ecological systems as other
organisms. Indeed, we have to find new ecological configurations within which human needs
can be accommodated, rather than judge all actions in terms of how far the system is shifted
from some idealised ‘natural state’.
In seeking these novel ecological configurations or ‘new cultural landscapes’ as we might call
them, the concept of multifunctionality is particularly valuable. Two key issues are apparent.
First, if we adopt the recursive model of multifunctionality, it allow us to understand
how human value systems define our vision of what is significant in ecological terms, and
how conflicts about the importance of those functions arise. The concept of multifunctionality
when viewed from the recursive perspective, also helps us identify some of the key scientific
issues that need to be addressed if landscape ecologists are to help society plan and build our
landscapes of the future. Questions of landscape sustainability, for example, involve
understand how the outputs goods and services people derive from an area can be maintained,
and how they are supported by underlying ecological functionality. Moreover, in resolving
such questions it is apparent that in order to derive these multiple outputs, trade-offs between
the needs and aspirations of the different groups may be necessary. The goal of
‘multifunctionality’ does not involve the identification of a single, optimal, landscape
structure, but rather the set of landscape configurations that would sustain the outputs that
society values (see Figure 3). The development of tools that help us define the set of
ecologically viable futures represents one of the major challenges confronting landscape
ecology today (Haines-Young, 2000; Potschin and Haines-Young, 2000).
Figure 3: Defining multifunctional space
State
(Multidimensional)
Set of ecologically
sustainable futures in
terms of those which are
capable of sustaining
Future trajectories ecosystem outputs
implied by required by stakeholders
stakeholder
Boundary of multifunctional space defined by

ecosystem capabilities & stakeholder value
Time
118
Second, it helps us define a future educational agenda. When confronted with the concept of
multifunctionality, a typical response is to call for an ‘inter-disciplinary’ approach. To foster
such developments it is often proposed that we have to find better ways of communicating
between disciplines. In contradistinction, the recursive model of multifunctionality implies
more of a transdisciplinary vision. The next generation must not merely be trained to
communicate with other experts, but to have specific competence in other discipline areas.
Scientists must be capable of communicating across the boundaries of their discipline and of
working across them. By stressing the need to combine insights about ecological function and
human value, the recursive model of multifunctionality provides a new focus for those
interested in the education of the next generation of landscape ecologists.
References
Christensen, N.L. and Franklin, J.F. (1996): Ecosystem function and ecosystem management.
In, Simpson, R.D. and Christensen, N.L. (eds.) Ecosystem Function and Human Activity.
Chapman and Hall, New York, p. 1-24.
Daily, G.C. (1997): Introduction: What are ecosystem services? In: Daily, G.C. [Ed] Nature’s
Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, New York, p.1-10.
Freeman III, A.M. (1996): On valuing the service functions of ecosystems. In: Simpson, R.D.
and Christensen, N.L. [eds.] Ecosystem Function and Human Activity. Chapman and Hall,
New York, p. 241-254.
Haines-Young, R.H. (1999) Environmental accounts for land cover: Their contribution to state
of the environment reporting. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24, 441-
456.
Haines-Young, R. (2000): Sustainable Development and Sustainable Landscapes: Defining a

New Paradigm for Landscape Ecology. Fennia 178 (1).
Kerr, J. (in press a): What from ecology is relevant to design and planning? In: Johnson, B.
and Hill K. [eds.] Ecological Thinking for Design and Planning. Island Press, Washington
DC.
Kerr, J. (in press b): Health, Integrity, and Biological Assessment: The Importance of
Measuring Whole Things. In: Pimentel, D., L. Westra and R. F. Noss (eds.): Ecological
Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation, and Health. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Kerr, J. (in press c): Ecological Health and Societal Well-Being. Washington Public Health..
Potschin, M. and R. Haines-Young (2000): Landscape ecology, EIA and sustainable

landscapes. In: Claire, T. (Ed.): Quantitative Approaches to Landscape Ecology. Proceedings
of the 2000 Annual IALE (UK) Conference. Bangor, Wales. 6-10.09.2000 (Forthcoming,
September 2000)
Turner, R.K.; Bateman, I.J. and W.N. Adger (eds.) (2000): Economics of Coastal and Water
Resources: Valuing Environmental Functions. Dorndecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
(forthcoming).
United Nations Population Division (1998): World Population Projections to 2150. United
Nations, New York, United States.
119
Nature values in agricultural landscapes:

different possibilities in organic and conventional farming systems
Knud Tybirk
National Environmental Research Institute, Dept. of Landscape Ecology
Most natural ecosystems are by origin rather poor in nutrients. Through geological eras
nutrients have been washed to the seas and most living organisms have evolved in ecosystems
scarce in nutrients. Only few lowland areas have had nutrient levels comparable to present day
agricultural ecosystems. Farming systems have during centuries formed the landscape in
Northwestern lowland Europe from mainly forested ecosystems through various phases of
opening up the forest by slash and burn and later settled agriculture. Humans have
concentrated nutrients for their benefit around settlements by exploring nutrients in the
outskirts of the villages. Such semi-natural and yet agricultural ecosystems often with heavy
grazing was in favour of a large number of species associated with open animal grazed
ecosystems and scattered trees.
The processes of nutrient concentration in terrestrial ecosystems by humans was indeed

speeded up during the 19th century when nitrogen fixing species were cultivated deliberately
and other sources of nutrients, such as guano and marl, were used to improve croplands. In
Denmark, the changes from stock-holding on large marginal heathlands, grasslands,
shrublands and forested areas between villages was changed into stable based animal
production early 20th century when efficient fences became available.
However, agricultural practices were still relatively extensive until the 1950ies, mainly based
on the principles of circulating nutrients within the ecosystem and hardly any use of chemical
substances. These principles are still today the basics or organic agriculture, but the cultivated
landscape has changed dramatically since the 50ies. Large fields on fewer and larger farms
has become the general picture. The conventional farming system evolved dramatically from
1960-90 with still higher external inputs of nutrients and pesticides and an extreme degree of
homogenisation of the production systems with every inch of potentially arable fields being
cultivated. Under these circumstances, the natural and semi-natural ecosystems with large
numbers of species of conservation interests have indeed been diminished and deteriorated.
Fragmentation, air-borne inputs of nitrogen, pesticide drift, lack of extensive grazing etc. have
reduced the quality of most patches on left-over semi-natural and natural ecosystems in the
agricultural landscape in Denmark.
The development of organic farming in Denmark during the 1990ies is a reflection of what
can be termed a phase of post-productivistic transformation where the key-words are
extensivation of the agricultural production system(less input of nutrients and no pesticides)
diversification (more crops in rotation and more marginal grasslands)
de-concentration and co-operation between farmers (on-farm dairies, exchange of animal
food for organic fertiliser between farms etc)
Optimistic conservation ecologists see these trends as a new possibility to recover the rich
natural and semi-natural ecosystems in a multifunctional landscape. And in principle it should
be possible. However, a number of preconditions have to be changed before this is the case.
The paper presents work on how to introduce nature conservation and nature priorities into
conventional and organic farmers agricultural practices in Denmark. A list of priorities of
120
nature values to be identified and focused on in the planning process are presented, and it is
argued that there is a strong need to focus more on the unique values of nature. The values of
nature for man are often neither exchangeable with other resources nor critical in a biological
of physical sense for the survival of man, but represent what has been termed as unique values
(Arler 2000). Such values can be esthetical, recreational or reflect what can be termed
biological integrity.
The paper will argue that it is essential to leave more room for biological integrity (e.g.
spontaneous processes such as succession and the exclusion of excessive nutrient inputs) to
improve the quality of nature in and thereby add more space to the unique values of nature in
a multifunctional landscape.
121
Defining valuable landscapes for planning purposes

H. Palang1 , H. Alumäe1 , K. Hellström2 , K. Sepp2
1
Institute of Geography, University of Tartu
2
Institute for Environmental Protection, Estonian Agricultural University
This paper presents the preliminary results of a project aiming at defining valuable landscapes
for a county plan. It looks to answer three questions. First, which landscapes should be
considered valuable in Estonian context. Second, how to find and delimit valuable landscapes.
Third, how to assess the different values of these landscapes. Those valuable landscapes
should then be taken into account while compiling county plans, which in turn should foresee
options for preserving these valuable landscapes.
The project focused on two main values of landscape, historical value and identity
value. The first indicates the areas with traditional land use, where changes have been smooth
rather than radical. Such traditional landscapes very often have also high esthetical and natural
values. The second indicates the preferences of local people. It points out places that are of
some importance for locals, including areas with recreational values.
The defining process itself has to find a balance between the opinions of experts and
locals, in order to solve the value conflict between everyday users of the landscape and
"tourists" who come to see the landscape once in a while.
Multifunctional Landscape Planning within Forestry and Organic

Production. A Comparative Analysis from the Visual Quality
Perspective.
Christina Axelsson Lindgren
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Landscape Planning, Alnarp
P.O. Box 58, S-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden
Phone: +46 40415413 Fax: +46 40465442 E-mail: Christina.Axelsson-Lindgren@lpal.slu.se
Forestry may visualise the good life in the landscape, and meet expectations and needs of
people for recreation and inspiration. Forest landscapes may contain qualities of cultural
heritage, health, personal development, aesthetical qualities and a manifold in natural and
cultural experiences. With a Semantic Model for Forest Experience, one may compare and
combine forest environments with different visual characters. Experiental dimensions of
forests environments are 'openness, variation, preference, gender, vulnerability and
extraordinarity'. They may be compared with characteristics for description of the bouquet of
a wine. The bouquet of the product is important, both in wine production and in agricultural
and forestry production, where you simultanously produce landscape qualities. Experiences
created by the composition of forests are of such importance, that people are willing to spend
a lot on aesthetical and experiental forest values. In a comparative project, characteristics of
agricultural landscape elements, which may be parts of organic farming in plains with clay
dominated soils, are presented to subjects. Expectations and demands of urban populations
and farmers on new landscape structures, as multifunctional ‘between fields’-areas, are
analysed. Subjects describe verbally and on maps their conceptions and expectations of how
organic farming may be developed in urban fringe agricultural areas.
122
6. Workshop No. 6:
Ecological aspects of multifunctional landscapes in
historical perspective

Bent Aaby, Denmark
Per Ole Rindel, Denmark
Main speaker: Emily W. B. Russell, USA

First opponent speaker: Kenneth Olwig, Norway
Second opponent speaker: Joep Dirkx, The Netherlands
Third opponent speaker: Ian Spears, UK
Historical Aspects Multifunctionality in Landscapes

Emily W. B. Russell
Department of Geological Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ 07102 USA
Abstract
To study multifunctional landscapes, we must consider past as well as present factors. All
landscapes undergo a series of complex, interrelated changes over time, driven both by
internal forces and by those that originate in more distant culture and economics. I consider
here the last few centuries of change on three landscapes of the northeastern United States -
the Pocono Plateau in Pennsylvania, and the Shawangunk Mountains and Saratoga Battlefield
of New York. They exhibit a variety patterns of land uses over time, but all have changed
from economies that depended on local resource extraction to those that rely more on
recreation and tourism. The consequences of the earlier uses have constrained later uses. By
adopting a landscape-centered approach, the interrelationships among the different players
and activities can be explored in a way that integrates evidence and perspectives from many
disciplines.
Keywords: agriculture, conservation, forestry, Pocono Plateau, Saratoga National Historical

Park, Shawangunks, tourism
Introduction
Landscapes are multifunctional over time as well as space. Using the landscape itself as the
focus for studying change over time, we can integrate the approaches of different disciplines
to arrive at a better understanding of the systems and their potentials (Moss 2000). A typical
progression of landscape functions in eastern North America has been from predominantly
resource extraction and biomass utilization to recreation and conservation. Causes of this
123
progression are complex, including resource depletion, changing economic demands and
cultural values, and use of fossil fuels.
I will illustrate these points with simplified discussions of three landscapes in the
northeastern United States (Figure 1). 1. Pike County on the Pocono plateau of northeastern
Pennsylvania, a landscape dominated by the lumber industry, followed by recreation. 2. The
Shawangunk Mountains in southeastern New York State where very mixed extractive uses in
the 18th and 19th centuries yielded gradually to recreation and preservation. 3. Saratoga
National Historical Park, the location of a critical battle of the American Revolutionary War,
where an agricultural landscape was transformed into a historical park in the early-20th
century.
For each landscape, I will consider 3 questions
1. What are the basic natural features: geology, topography, hydrology and vegetation?
2. How have these features affected how people have seen and used the landscapes at
different times? How have economic forces and cultural values influenced the uses of the
landscape?
3. How have the uses of one time constrained the potentials of a later time?
Pike County, Pennsylvania
The setting
Pike County presents a rugged, glaciated landscape, with poor, very rocky soils developed on
shales and sandstones. Many small streams dissect the uplands, most part of the watershed of
the Delaware River which forms the eastern boundary of the county. Based on witness trees
mentioned in land surveys, it appears that a forest dominated by oak and pine trees blanketed
the region in 1800 AD (M. Bürgi pers. comm).
Period of resource extraction

White pine trees attracted the lumber industry in the beginning of the 19th century, so that by
1846 the county had been “nearly stripped of its valuable timber” (Burrowes 1846, p. 291). In
the second half of the 19th century, the tanning industry, which used ground bark in
processing imported hides, harvested much of the remaining timber, especially oak and
hemlock. By 1880, the scarcity of these trees led to widespread abandonment of tanneries
(Hough 1882, p. 122; PA Dept. For., 1910, p. 156).
After the major lumber-producing wood had been cut and fires swept frequently
through the cut-over forests, the generally less valuable pitch pine remained and even it found
several uses. Long valued for producing pitch (Williams 1980), its greatest use here, lasting
well into the 20th century, was for props for anthracite mines in neighboring counties (Bowen
1854, pp. 192-193; Illick and Aughanbaugh 1930, pp. 49-50; Powell and Considine 1982, p.
3). In most years of the first decade and a half of the 20th century, more timber was cut for
mine props than for any other use. Railroad ties also became a major user of timber as the
mileage of railroads increased (PA Dept. For., 1902-1915). Thus, changing demand as well as
supply determined the major uses of the landscape from 1800 to the mid-20th century.
By the end of the 19th century, logging had left greatly depleted forest resources. A
state survey concluded that, “unproductive areas are large and present a picture of desolation
and depopulation which cannot well be recognized without awakening most serious thought as
to their present and future bearing on the prosperity of the [State]. ...[The land] continues to
this day a literal barren, over which fires have swept and continue to sweep almost every year,
destroying the young forest growth and rendering the soil, after each succeeding
conflagration, more and more barren (Rothrock and Shunk 1896, pp. 33-34).
124
Under these conditions, the private owners of much of this land found it more
economically profitable to abandon their properties than to pay real estate taxes on them
(Rothrock and Shunk 1896, pp. 36-37; Considine and Powell 1982, pp. 33-34). Even so,
lumbering continued to be a major industry well into the 20th century. The amount of lumber
sold in Pike County increased from an average of 400 thousand m3 per year from 1902-1905
to 1.3 million per year from 1912 to 1915.
Embedded in this matrix of timber cutting were a large variety of other land uses,
some profiting from changes wrought by logging. Time has obscured details of the extent and
precise location of these activities, but tantalizing hints abound, often in descriptions of causes
of wildfires. In 1900, a local inhabitant noted that, “Now is the time to burn the woods, in the
old of the moon, when the sap is down, then the pasture will start quickly” (PA Dept. For.
1903-1904, p. 25). Numerous references to fires set to improve pasturage suggest that this
was a common post-logging use of the landscape. Hunting was another widespread and little
documented activity, also noted because hunters set fires in the hope of improving the habitat
for game. Blueberry pickers also intentionally set fires to improve the harvest, while others
set fires for more esoteric purposes, such as smoking squirrels or bees out of trees (PA Dept.
For. 1903-1915).
Transition period
In the early 20th c., the State of Pennsylvania saw degraded forests and the low price of
abandoned land as an opportunity to begin to convert some of the apparently worst land to
productive timber use (PA Dept. For. 1907, p. 129; Rupp 1924). By 1902 the state had
purchased over 17 x 103 ha for this purpose (Anonymous 1903). While much of this land was
cutover and unproductive, a large variety of trees were regenerating where fires had been
prevented. By planting trees and preventing fires, the State hoped to reinvigorate the
production of timber (PA Dept. For. 1907, p. 188).
The few locales with old forests, however, inspired a different response, revealing the
beginning of a shift in perception of the value of the landscape. “It is to be hoped that no
pecuniary consideration will lead to the sacrifice of these primeval forests which the State
now owns, and which soon will be about the only bodies of original timber within the
Commonwealth. But why value these trees solely for their worth in dollars, or as lumber?
Sentiment is not wholly despicable” (PA Dept. For. 1907, p. 128). As old stands became
scarce because most had been cut, they began to acquire value in situ rather than for their
economic value as lumber.
Period of conservation
Easy access from the metropolitan areas of Philadelphia and New York had begun to spur the
development of a flourishing recreation industry by the late 19th century, first dependent on
the railroad for transportation and later the automobile. “Luxurious hostelries and
commodious dwellings” were replacing “the primeval forest.” (Pleasants 1913, p. 67)
Numerous hunting and fishing clubs offered excellent fishing for trout, pickerel, bass and
perch in streams and ponds, hunting for the abundant game birds, squirrels and foxes and
somewhat uncommon deer (PA Dept. For. 1908-1909, pp. 295-296). Waterfalls “present[ed]
scene[s] of singular wildness and beauty” (Burrowes 1846, p. 291).
In the late 20th century, even better road access from the east and inexpensive petrol
led to a burgeoning second home industry in the Pocono region, and even to commuter
housing, for people trying to escape the crowded suburbs of northern New Jersey. In addition,
a National Recreation Area created in the second half of the century offered sightseeing,
hunting, camping, boating and wildlife and bird watching (National Park Service 1975, 1992).
Logging continued, but at a slower pace as recreational development grew. Even
though the forests gained amenity value as lumber became easily available from more distant
125
sources, in the late 20th century 60 percent of the land was still commercial forest land, over
70% of which was privately owned. The USDA Forest Service noted in 1982 that esthetic
enjoyment of land was the prime benefit derived from private land in the region, although they
also noted that forest management for timber could be combined with this enjoyment (Powell
and Considine 1982, p. 79).
The kinds of trees growing in this forest that was now enjoyed for esthetic purposes as
well as timber had changed in the last 200 years. Red maple, which was rare in the colonial
forest surveys, had become the most important tree species (Considine and Powell 1980). The
percentage of pines in the forest had fallen from 27% of the trees to only 7.5%, hemlock from
5% to 2% and chestnut from 8% to less than 1% (M. Bürgi, pers. comm.). Selective logging
of white pine and hemlock, the chestnut blight of the early 20th century that killed all the
mature chestnut trees, frequent fires, and other alterations caused either intentionally or
unintentionally had greatly changed the composition of the forests. However, they were still
valued highly as forests. While the earlier interest in the forest had viewed it as a commodity
to be cut and sold, and had led to depletion of the resource, the late 20th century valued its
continued existence, though this was not the same forest that had covered the land before
logging, in either extent or composition. Only a few small, isolated tracts of old growth forest
remained (Rowland and Smith 1951) The success of the recreation industry and a burgeoning
growth of second homes and commuter homes depended on a wooded and at least
superficially more natural landscape than the congested suburbs farther south and east.
Conclusion
In summary, forests have predominated as the landscape matrix in this part of the Pocono
plateau over the last 3 centuries. This has not been a static matrix, however, as the lumber
industry successively exploited different species. The industry, which was generally not
locally funded, took no consideration of the future supplies of timber, as they could move to
other places (Williams 1989), so the composition of the forests changed. The still-forested
landscape, however, appealed to vacationers from more congested regions to the east and
south, who began their own form of exploitation, building houses, golf courses, ski areas and
other structures on the landscape. The outcome of tensions between passive enjoyment of the
landscape as opposed to more intensive or extractive uses such as golf courses and logging is
yet to be determined, but will continue to reflect local, regional, and extraregional economics
and values.
Shawangunks
The setting
The Shawangunks are a narrow range of mountains underlain by distinctive siliceous
conglomerate rock. This bedrock is very resistant to weathering, producing sharp cliffs and
shallow, low-nutrient soils. More fertile shale and limestone underlie valleys to the east and
west of the ridges, and the Hudson River on the east has provided transportation to New York
City from the earliest days of Euroamerican settlement. This region, too, was heavily forested
when European settlers began arriving in the 17th century. Oaks were the most common trees
mentioned in land surveys. However, on the top of the ridges, pines predominated, especially
pitch pines, and most of the oaks mentioned there were chestnut oaks, characteristic of dry
areas. Both pitch pine and chestnut oak are also very tolerant of fires.
126
Period of resource extraction

By the early 19th c. farmers had cleared most of the valleys for agriculture, leaving only the
more rugged and infertile uplands forested. Unlike the forests of the Pocono region, these
forests never supported a thriving, large scale lumber industry. However, repeated selective
and scattered logging for local industries decimated most of the forest in the region between
1800 and the mid-20th century. Major uses of wood were bark for tanneries, charcoal to fuel
mills, fuel and building wood and barrel hoops. These industries flourished especially after
1828 when the Delaware and Hudson (D&H) Canal was completed to carry coal from
northern Pennsylvania to New York City, via the Hudson River, passing along the western
margin of the Shawangunk region (Booth 1965).
Tanneries. As in the Poconos, large tanneries built near stands of hemlock trees were
processing hides before the second half of the 19th c. These were complex industries,
combining tanning with lumber sales and a variety of mills (Ellenville Journal (EJ), June 29,
1849, July 14, 1849; EJ, March 4, 1859; Sept. 9, 1859). Local lore indicates that the tanning
industry had exhausted adequate the hemlock by the mid-1860’s (Huth and Smiley 1985).
Charcoal and fuelwood. Some woodlots for sale in 1855 along the D&H Canal were
advertised as having 4000 cords (14 x 103 m3 ) of wood, mostly oak with some pitch pine and
chestnut, that would be good for “coal” (EJ, August 10, 1855). Much of the charcoal was
used locally for furnaces and heating, but much was shipped via the canal to New York City
(Poughkeepsie Sunday New Yorker, October 10, 1943). About 50 hearths where wood was
burned to make charcoal have been found in the forests of the central Shawangunks (P. Huth,
Pers. comm.). Most of the wood used for charcoal, such as oak, red maple, and chestnut, are
species that sprout from the stump after they are cut, so the procedure produces a forest of
multiple stemmed trees of species that sprout readily. They are usually cut repeatedly.
Fuelwood cutting took place wherever a farmer had a woodlot, both for local use and
for sale. Almost any kind of wood would suffice: beech, birch, maple, oak, and softwoods
(including hemlock and chestnut). Intensive cutting for fuelwood continued into the mid 20th
century, intensifying in response to the Depression of the 1930’s and shortages caused by the
Second World War. Records for Mohonk Mountain House, in the middle of the
Shawangunks, document cutting at least 60 x 103 m3 of fuelwood on about 2100 ha in the
1930’s and 1940’s to provide energy to this large resort hotel. This was only slightly less than
the estimate of the growth rate of the local woodlands of about 2.5 m3 /ha, so constituted very
heavy harvest of the forest resources (Brown 1979).
Miscellaneous other products. By the late 19th century, the large trees of any value
in areas that were accessible had all been cut; most of the remaining wood was small saplings
regenerating after logging or field abandonment. These were ideal for making hoops, used to
hold together baskets, buckets, barrels and other containers. In 1908 a local hoop
manufacturing plant made over 75 x 106 hoops a year, the largest output of hoops in the
country (Smiley 1986). Larger sprouts served as firewood. Thus most of the original large
timber had been harvested in the 19th century, and the second growth itself was cut from the
end of the century into the 20th century. This procedure favored vigorously sprouting trees
such as oaks and chestnuts over the more slowly reproducing hemlocks.
Even shrubs and herbaceous plants in the forests provided sources of income. The
leaves of wintergreen, a small herbaceous plant, can be distilled to produce oil of wintergreen
for flavoring and medicine. One wintergreen still in the region operated for 75 years (New
Paltz Independent and Times 1940). Local pickers harvested the leaves in 45 kg bags,
providing an extra source of revenue (Smiley 1986).
None of these plants thrived on the high ridges of the Shawangunks. There, the trees
were small, mostly pitch pine, and huckleberries flourished. These latter provided fruit for a
flourishing economy, the sale of huckleberries to the nearby cities. The crop filled dozens of
wagons, each carrying 40-50 20 l boxes in 1878; a factory in 1900 canned about 150,000 cans
127
in one season (New Paltz Independent 1947). In the first few decades of the industry, day
pickers harvested the berries, but by the end of the century, pickers moved to the fields for the
season, living in tent cities. A whole culture grew up around the huckleberry picking, with
families coming back to the same spots year after year (Fried 1995).
In addition to harvesting the huckleberries, the pickers took action to improve the
yield. Huckleberry bushes produce more berries when they are occasionally burned, and the
vegetation of the high ridges where they flourished was especially inflammable. Whenever
statistics were collected on ignition sources for fires in the forests of the northeastern United
States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, berry pickers almost always were included,
and the Shawangunks were no exception (EJ June 10, 1871). For example, one fire set by
pickers in 1939 escaped from their control and burned thousands of ha (Fried 1995, p. 47).
Period of Conservation and Recreation

In the late 19th c., hotels or summer camps were built on all four of the large ridgetop lakes -
Mohonk, Minnewaska, Awosting, and Maratanza. An anonymous writer in 1876 captured the
essence of the appeal to tourists as “the most interesting locality within one hundred, perhaps
several hundred, miles of New York. Many experienced travelers consider them perfectly
unique, and one of the most remarkable bits of scenery in the world” (Trent 1971, p. 126).
Another visitor described a bleaker side of the landscape, “after the lumberman had sacrificed
the primeval forest the land was left to recover itself, but the beneficent processes of nature
have been constantly interrupted by fires that have raged everywhere, often burning deep into
the soil and destroying all hope for the future” (Pike, 1892).
Interest in the region for its natural beauty, mature forests and rare features led to the
development of tourism, with especial efforts by the Smiley family who owned much of the
northern ridgetop area and landscaped the extensive grounds of three large resort hotels to
emphasize their natural beauty. They did this, however, while cutting large amounts of
lumber and fuelwood, maintaining uncut stands and strips to preserve the natural appearance
of the landscape. At one ridgetop site, a concessionaire capitalized on ice caves, providing not
only access, but also lighting for special effects in the caves.
Scientists had yet another view of the area. The ice caves were a very unusual
geological feature of exposed faults which had created the caves that held ice year round.
Some of the highest ridges supported globally rare and threatened dwarf pitch pine vegetation
(Favour, 1977; Thompson, pers. comm.). In addition, the area had several stands of old-
growth hemlock and pitch pine forests, with many trees 300 or more years old (Abrams and
Orwig 1995, Cook 1999).
In the 1990’s, these features stimulated the formation of a consortium of groups
interested in maintaining the scientific, scenic and natural values of the area. This group,
Shawangunk Ridge Biodiversity Partnership, was dedicated to protect “the cliffs, summits and
plateaus of the Shawangunk Ridge [which] form a unique landscape of extraordinary
ecological significance” (Brochure, ca 1995). The Partnership, however, also acknowledged
that a “vibrant local economy” was essential to carry out their conservationist goals. The
main problems now were not resource extraction, but rather the role of fires, whether they
were a positive or negative force in the globally rare communities, how to control and enhance
tourism, and the maintenance of the open space. The scattered though intense extractive
industries and the early growth of the tourist trade had left a landscape rich in rare species on a
naturally appealing landscape of cliffs, waterfalls and ridges.
Conclusion
Over the last 3 centuries, the matrix of the Shawangunk landscape has shifted from all forest
to a mix of forest and agriculture, with most agriculture located in lowlands east and west of
the main ridge. The lumber industry has never driven resource extraction here; local
128
industries and economic interests have had more impact. In the 19th century this was a truly
multifunctional landscape, with agriculture, various timber industries, manufacturing, and
tourism all taking part. Conflicts seem to have been minimal, while integration was the rule.
Glass manufacturing in Ellenville used charcoal produced in the forests of the ridges, while
agriculture provided food and livestock. Hoop pole cutting provided barrels for shipping.
Farms supplied food and forests fuel for the tourist hotels, and the forests were cut lightly
enough to still provide attractive landscapes. Fires were a threat, but they mainly burned areas
that were fire prone and not destroyed by them. By the 20th century, agriculture was no
generally longer viable as an economic mainstay; many farms reverted to woodland, which
supplied fuel wood and other small wood. Fires remained a force until the middle of the
century, when effective fire-fighting and restricted them. Concern then began to be voiced
that the fires had maintained some of the unique habitats and species, so their suppression was
in conflict with conservation. The landscape served fewer diverse functions for people, and
became more attractive to the rare species of plants and animals that may have frequented
them before resource extraction.
Saratoga Battlefield
The setting
Located along the Hudson River several hundred km north of the Shawangunks, this 1400 ha
national park commemorating the battle of Saratoga presents a very different landscape
history, with agriculture rather than forestry predominating. It is located on sedimentary clays
and sands left by a large glacial lake. The Hudson River has cut a deep channel through these,
and has a wide floodplain of rich alluvial soils. Streams flowing down to the river have cut
deep ravines. Deposits of glacial drift cover much of the western third of the landscape. With
the exception of the ravines and bluffs above the river floodplain, the topography is gently
rolling, and the soils are tillable.
Witness tree data are not available for this landscape. While it may be tempting to
correlate the level of detail with the value of the timber resource, it is more likely that the
different systems of land allocation are responsible for the different amount of detail. For this
site, survey descriptions did not include trees, only piles of rocks or stakes to mark property
boundaries. In the region at large, oaks, hickories and chestnut dominated the forest on the
uplands, with more hemlock in steep ravines. Pitch pine may have been locally common on
sand deposits and white pine where there had been forest disturbance.
Period of biomass harvest and resource extraction

We get our first glimpse of this landscape from military maps drawn at the time of the Battle
of Saratoga in September and October of 1777 (Wilkinson 1777). The maps, drawn by the
British surveyor, shows details of farm clearings and the military camp in the northern part of
the battlefield, occupied by British troops. Large fields covered much of the floodplain soils
along the Hudson River, while small farms were scattered in the forest of the uplands, mostly
on deposits of till. The history of the region suggests that wealthy Dutch settlers had cleared
the rich alluvial soils along the Hudson River first, then later colonists from New England had
acquired rights to land in the uplands, in smaller parcels (Miscellaneous deeds). Fields here
were probably at that time no more than 16 ha (Snell 1949; Russell 1994). Crops included
wheat, maize and potatoes, as well as pasture. There were fences around cultivated fields to
keep livestock, including sheep, hogs, cattle and horses, out of the fields, while they grazed in
the forest. Wood cleared to make farm fields fed local mills which prepared it for building
wood as well as selling it to distant markets, and undoubtedly the forest was exploited for
fuelwood and other small wood and game (Federal Industrial Census 1820; Hedrick 1933).
129
By the late 19th century, farmers had cleared most of the forest in the region, leaving
only scattered woodlots and some forested ravines (U. S. Agric. Census Data). This was a
diverse agricultural landscape. Mixed farming prevailed, with wool forming the major cash
crop. Local fulling and carding mills processed the wool (Spafford 1924). Field crops
included oats, maize, rye, potatoes and wheat, while there was a variety of other produce such
as honey, cordwood, hops, peas, beans and fruits (Agricultural Census data). The opening of
a canal along the Hudson River provided a market for the wool and other produce. The canal
itself served as a market, with a turning basin located at the foot of a major ravine, where
mules were sheltered and fed for the night. Sawmills, gristmills and plaster mills operated on
some of the streams, though most of the wood for sawing was imported from farther up the
river (Russell 1994).
The landscape consisted of farm fields separated by stone walls, fences, or banks and
ditches. Crops were apparently rotated with pasture, as there was little permanent pasture.
Orchards of an acre or so and woodlots of 4-5 ha dotted the landscape, especially in ravines
and on other steep banks.. This was a multifunctional agricultural landscape of privately
owned, fairly small farms, but one that depended on distant markets for its economic vitality.
The amount of actively farmed land decreased slowly after about 1880. By 1927 the
proportion of land in open, cleared fields had dropped from 90% to 80% of the land area
(1927 Air Photo). Linear patches of forest were common along fence lines and small streams,
with larger patches on the steep bluffs above the Hudson River and generally adjacent to older
woodlots. While mixed farming continued, many farmers concentrated more on livestock,
especially sheep and cows, and the principal field crops were hay and oats for local feed. A
local cheese factory processed at least some of the local milk products although much milk
was shipped to more distant markets (Bidwell and Falconer 1925). Contributing to landscape
diversity was a local industry driven by distant markets: the mining of sand for making forms
for casting metal, especially brass. Using less than 1% of the land, this mining left a distinct
pattern of soil disturbance (Russell 1995).
Period of historical conservation and recreation

The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a growth of interest in memorializing the
battlefield, adding a layer of functions to the waning farmland economy. The Daughters of
the American Revolution (DAR) inspired and spearheaded a project that erected 22
monuments on the battlefield at key locations, all on privately owned property, and published
a guide to these (McGregor 1945). In 1923 a group of local citizens began acquiring the now
not particularly desirable farmland for a battlefield park, and later in the decade the State of
New York acquired this and additional land for a state park. For visitor use they built picnic
areas, replicas of old buildings and other structures. Sheep farming continued, to keep the
land open so that the course of the battle could be interpreted from various overlooks. In the
1930’s this became the nucleus for the National Historical Park (Russell 1994). Thus as the
value of the land for farming waned, interest in it as a memorial park grew. This was fueled
in part by general sentiment in the nation at large, and in part by the increasing difficulty of
making a living by farming here.
Development of the National Park led to major changes in the landscape. Deciding to
try to recreate the pattern of fields and forest that existed at the time of the second battle of
Saratoga on October 7, 1777, the National Park Service began a program of field
abandonment to allow forest to recolonize areas that had been forest in 1777 but were fields in
1940 (Snell 1949). This led to the current landscape, which serves one primary function:
memorializing the battle. This involved not only abandoning fields, but also building a tour
road and visitor center with parking areas, removing old fence rows and stone walls (which
had marked the original land divisions of the early 18th century), razing buildings erected by
the state and eradicating orchards.
130
Within the primary function of the park, several secondary functions are embedded.
This park serves as public, open space in a region where suburbanization is spreading, so
serves many visitors as nature preserve, bike and hiking trails, and other natural park uses. As
old fields succeed to forest in the surrounding region, the fields kept open here provide habitat
for open-field birds. Archeological excavations are also part of the function of the park.
The long and extensive use of the land for agriculture left a legacy of limited seed
sources for tree regeneration. In some areas tree regeneration is very slow, whether caused by
the lack of seed sources, the changed hydrology due to ditching and plowing the heavy soils,
or the high density of deer. White pines seeding from the older stands and American elms
seeding from hedgerows are the major tree species, and both are affected by disease, so that
they often do not form closed canopy forests. Aspens form large clones with slow
replacement by hardwoods. The only old woodlot that is still extant was half logged in the
1960’s, and the remaining part grows on part of the landscape that was probably cleared in
1777.
Conclusion
The fertile soils of this landscape led to its use as farmland, while its location on a bluff above
the Hudson River led to its importance for the Revolutionary War. In the colonial period it
was a typical multifunctional developing agricultural landscape, with farmers clearing fields
for mixed farming, grazing livestock and hunting for game in the forests, cutting timber, and
trading along the river. While it was actively farmed, uses were also complex, with mixed
farming, woodlots used for a variety of wood products, mills on the streams. Produce was
sold or processed locally or most probably traded via the river and later the canal. There was
some mining, but it was of limited extent or impact. As agriculture became less profitable and
interest in the battlefield grew, the use of the land changed dramatically, so that the value was
in memorializing the battle, and funding came from tourists and the federal government. Most
fields no longer served to produce salable products, but rather were an expense. Former uses
limited the ability of the forests to regenerate where fields were abandoned, and this slow
regeneration limits the faithfulness of how the landscape reflects that of 1777, when the
forests were tall with a closed canopy. Now they are short and open.
General conclusions
All three landscapes were forested in 1700. In the Poconos and the ridge of the Shawangunks
the forest itself was seen as a resource, which was exploited over the next three centuries.
This exploitation never led to complete deforestation or replacement of the forest by open
vegetation for more than short periods, but it led to changes in species composition as loggers
removed those species that were most valuable at the time, and introduced diseases eliminated
others. The forests at Saratoga were also a valuable resource, which was most probably cut
for timber as well as fuel wood, but once removed it was not allowed to regenerate. The
entire landscape shifted to one of agricultural fields interspersed with small woods, the inverse
of the Pocono landscape that had forest interspersed with small fields.
In both the Poconos and the Shawangunks farms dominated lowland landscapes. In
the Poconos, the forest products served industries and activities generally removed from the
local landscape, such as mining in adjacent counties, processing hides shipped in from abroad,
and timber for shipment to a distance. This separation of resource use from production most
likely led to the disregard for the condition of the forests and the abandonment of land for
unpaid taxes. It also led to major changes in species composition of the forest and the
impossibility of replacing the prior uses. They were not sustainable as practiced. In the
Shawangunks, on the other hand, forest products served more local interests, and ownership of
131
the land was mainly more local. This led to more concern about the land, perhaps, and to
repeat use, for example for charcoal, fuelwood, or blueberries. At Saratoga, the farm
economy depended on markets far removed from the local landscape, so as these markets
dwindled the value of the farmland also dwindled.
In all of the landscapes, the value and productivity of the landscape decreased over
time in terms of resource extraction, but its recreational value increased as lands nearby
became more densely settled and transportation by car the norm. This has led to the current
use of all three landscapes primarily for recreation, potentially a more sustainable use. The
landscapes that exist today are quite different from those of 1700 because of intervening uses,
use of fossil fuels, changing cultural values and economic conditions, which have conditioned
the current value of the landscape.
Immersing oneself in a landscape and attempting to see it from the viewpoints of
many different actors at a time, and different actors over time, provides a basis for evaluating
the potential for a complex of different functions to coexist and to build on each other over
time (Bürgi 1999). While historical sources constrain the level of detail that can be attained,
integration of a variety of disciplines can provide templates to understand this shifting mosaic
of multifunctional landscapes over time.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the organizations which have supported this research, especially the U.S.
National Park Service, The Nature Conservancy and The National Science Foundation. I
would also like to thank Matthias Bürgi for use of his data from the Poconos and very helpful
comments on earlier version of this paper.
References cited
Abrams, M. D. and D. A. Orwig. (1995): Structure, radial growth dynamics and recent
climatic variations of a 320-yr old Pinus rigida rock outcrop community, - Oecologia
101:353-360
Anonymous. (1903): Pennsylvania’s forest reserves, - Forest Leaves 9:23
Bidwell P. W. and J. I. Falconer. 1925. History of Agriculture in the Northern United States,
1620-1860. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC
Booth, M. A. (1965): The Delaware and Hudson Canal, - M.A. Thesis, State University of
New York College at Oneonta
Bowen, E. (1854): Pictorial Sketch-Book of Pennsylvania, - Philadelphia, PA: W. White
Smith
Brochure, ca (1995): Shawangunk Ridge Biodiversity Partnership
Brown, C. T. Jr. (1979): Progress Report on Forestry, - New Paltz, NY: Report to Mohonk
Mountain House, 1942, repr., Research Report for the Mohonk Trust
Bürgi, M. (1999): A case study of forest change in the Swiss lowlands, - Landscape Ecology
14:567-575
Burrowes, TR. H. (1846): State-Book of Pennsylvania .- Philadelphia: Uriah Hunt & Son
Considine, T. J. Jr. and D. S. Powell. (1980): Forest Statistics for Pennsylvania - 1978, - -
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin NE-
65
Cook, E. (1999): tree ring data at www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ftp-treering.html
Favour, P. (1977): Boundary Study Report for Ellenville Fault - Ice Caves Registered Natural
Landmark, - New Paltz, NY: Smiley Research Center, Mohonk Mountain House
132
Fried, M. (1995): The Huckleberry Pickers, - Hensonville, NY: Black Dome

Hedrick, U. S. (1933) A History of Agriculture in the State of New York, - New York State
Agricultural Society, Albany, NY
Hough, B. F. (1882): Report on Forestry.- Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,
USDA. Vol. 3
Huth, P. C. and D. Smiley. (1985): Forest vegetation changes: a plant community in
transition - per stirpes, - New Paltz, NY: Research Report to Mohonk Preserve
Illick, J. S. and J. E. Aughanbaugh. (1930): Pitch Pine in Pennsylvania - Research Bulletin 2,
Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Dept. of Forests and Waters
McGregor, J. (1945): “DAR markers guide travelers to battlefield,” - The Saratogian, Aug. 3.
Moss, M. R. (2000): Interdisciplinary, landscape ecology and the ‘Transformation of
Agricultural Landscapes,’ - Landscape Ecology 15:303-311
National Park Service. (1975, 1992): Delaware Water Gap Pamphlet, -n.p.
Pennsylvania Department of Forestry. (1902-1915): Reports, - Harrisburg, PA
Pike, M. H. (1892): Shongum. -II, - Garden and Forest 241:472
Pleasants, H. (1913): A Historical Account of the Pocono Region of Pennsylvania, -
Philadelphia: John C. Winston
Powell, D. S. and T. J. Considine, Jr. (1982): An Analysis of Pennsylvania’s Forest
Resources, - USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Resource
Bulletin NE-69
Rothrock, J. T. and W. F. Shunk. (1896): Report for 1895, - Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania
Department of Forestry
Rowland, H. B. and W. H. Smith. (1951): Reclaiming ‘Pennsylvania’s Desert,” -
Pennsylvania Forests and Waters 3:4
Rupp, A. E. (1924): History of land purchase in Pennsylvania, - Journal of Forestry 22:490-
497
Russell, E. W. B. (1994): Cultural Landscape History, Saratoga National Historical Park, -
Boston, MA : Report submitted to the National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional
Office
Smiley, D. (1986): Resource Industries of the Shawangunks, - Mohonk Preserve
Historical/Cultural Note #16
Snell, C. W. (1949): A Report on the Ground Cover at Saratoga National Historical Park,
October 8, 1777, - Saratoga NHP, Administrative History Files
Spafford, H. G. (1824) : Gazetteer of New York, - Albany, NY: B. D. Packard
Thompson, J. (1996): Vegetation survey of the northern Shawangunk Mountains, Ulster
County, New York, - Troy, NY: Report to the Nature Conservancy, Eastern New York
Chapter
Trent, G. D., ed. (1971): The Gentle Art of Walking. A Compilation from the New York
Times, - New York: Arno Press
Wilkinson, W. C. (1777): The Encampment & Position of the Army Under His Exc.y L. G.
Burgoyne, at Swords and Freeman’s Farms on Hudsons River near Stillwater. Saratoga
National Historical Park
Williams, M. (1980): Products of the forest: mapping the census of 1840, - Journal of Forest
History 24:4-23
Williams, M. (1989) : Americans and Their Forests: A Historical Geography, - Cambridge:
Cambridge University
133
"Historical Aspects Multifunctionality in Landscapes"

- Opposing Views of Landscape
Kenneth R. Olwig
Geography Department, NTNU, Trondheim's University, Norway
Abstract
An explosion of interest in landscape in the humanities and social sciences has created the
basis for a "reflexive" conceptualization of landscape. This reflexive approach is used here to
generate various opposing views to the landscape scenarios presented in Emily W.B. Russell's
paper. This "opposition" concludes with a proposal to rethink landscape in non-scenic terms
as a means of facilitating the development of multifunctional landscapes within the context of
a non-authoritarian and democratic society.
Key Words: reflexive theory, scenery, political landscape, surveillance, cartography,

planning
Introduction
The role of the "opponent" is to problematize the thesis of the first speaker and to thereby help
move the session and conference toward recommendations for continued multi-disciplinary
research on the perception and/or measurement of multifunctionality in "landscape." This
includes suggestions for the adoption/consideration of multifunctionality in planning and
management. The opponent, in this case, is supposed to do this through a response to Emily
W. B. Russell's paper with the above title.6 This response will first seek to illustrate the uses
of multi-disciplinary approaches in relation to the examples given in Russell's paper. It will
then conclude with a discussion of the implications of this approach for planning and
management.
We have seen an explosion of interest in landscape within the humanities and
social sciences (e.g. Barrell 1972; Williams 1973; Barrell 1980; Cosgrove 1984; Olwig 1984;
Bermingham 1987; Cosgrove and Daniels 1988; Jones 1991; Bender 1993; Ingold 1993;
Mitchell 1994; Schama 1995; Cronon 1995; Spirn 1998). This interest is related to a parallel
awareness of the reflexivity of disciplinary knowledge. This means that disciplines do not
simply study some external objective phenomenon that is "naively given." Disciplines are
rather created during particular historical junctures in which the disciplines themselves are
actively involved in shaping their object of study. Michel Foucault helped inspire much of
this interest with his brilliant studies of how our notions of such key subjects as language,
economy and nature (ecology means the economy of nature) were developed at particular
junctures in history and subsequently influenced the course of that history (Foucault 1973).
This inward reflexive turn toward disciplinary epistemology and ontology is by no means
limited to Foucault's followers. It is now characteristic of just about every serious discipline
within the social sciences and humanities – including contemporary archaeology and history.
This interest also extends to the construction of the natural sciences as disciplines, as seen
from the perspective of the social sciences and the humanities. In-so-far-as as the natural
Notes
6
I apologize for the incompleteness of my references. I received the paper a month after the deadline,
which meant that I wound up writing this while vacationing in a remote corner of cyber space.
134
sciences tend to define themselves as arising purely through the objective empirical study of
objective material phenomena, disciplinary reflexivity is in fundamental conflict with both
their ontology and epistemology, and hence difficult for them to broach. 7 The illusion of
"natural" science objectivity is much more difficult to sustain in the social sciences and the
humanities, where the scholar, as a human being, clearly is implicated as a subjective
component of the object of study.
Landscape provides an ideal focus for the interest in disciplinary reflexivity
because it becomes clear, upon reflection, that landscape is not simply a natural phenomenon
that we can perceive and measure from different angles, like a bug under a microscope. The
predominant modern meaning of landscape, studies show, was literally constructed at a
particular juncture in history within particular social and political contexts. The "object"
perceived is thus itself the creation of a particular mode of perception and measurement. In
this sense, the landscape is a little like the eye we see in the mirror of the microscope.
Landscape, to begin with, is not a word, like quark , or chloroplast, that springs
from the natural sciences and is defined by them. Landscape is the common property of the
living Germanic languages of Europe, and no individual authority has the power to make the
definitive definition. We must live with a word that history has given us, and the populace
feels the right to use, because the concept's power in planning and management lies in its
mediating position between the realm of technocracy and that of the polity. Philology,
however, can make the concept's complexity clearer so that we, as scholars, can develop a
more precise conception of this mediating role. Taking this point of departure, it can be
helpful to start with the definition from a scholarly English etymological dictionary, that gives
the evolution of a word's meaning in the order of its development (Merriam-Webster 1995:
landscape):
land·scape
Etymology: Dutch landschap, from land + -schap –ship, Date: 1598.
1 a : a picture representing a view of natural inland scenery b : the art of depicting such
scenery
2 a : the landforms of a region in the aggregate b : a portion of territory that can be viewed at
one time from one place c : a particular area of activity : SCENE [political landscape]
3 obsolete : VISTA, PROSPECT
Emily W.B. Russell's case study of Saratoga National Historical Park provides an excellent
point of departure by which to illustrate the implications of the contemporary "reflexive"
approach to landscape in relation to the evolution of the word's English meaning as sketched
in the above definition. Russell's text also provides a useful basis for exemplifying the
implications of this reflexive approach for the subject matter of this conference session.
Landscape as Scene of Power
The first English meaning of landscape listed above is: "1 a : a picture representing a view of
natural inland scenery." Battlefield sites, like Saratoga, inevitably have interpretation centers
7
An example of the lack of reflexivity in the natural sciences is their wariness of footnotes. Footnotes
allow for a two tiered text in which complex arguments can be given an extra dimension (for those
interested), that does not interfere with the flow of the text. Footnotes also draw attention to the fact
that they are part of a text that is largely about other texts, not a naively given segment of "reality." An
apparent natural science bias in this conference is suggested by the instructions to authors that they
"avoid footnotes" – not a good way to attract writers from the humanities!
135
that include interpretative maps, landscape scenes and dioramas illustrating the array (or
disarray) of the troops. A later development of landscape's meaning is: "2 b : a portion of
territory that can be viewed at one time from one place." It is typical of such scenic battlefield
interpretations that they are viewed from a position far above the action. From a vantage
point the "theater of war" is spread out before the spectator in such a way that the chaotic
violence of battle, as experienced by the soliders, is reduced to something approaching the
logical movements of chessmen across the squares of a map-like and panoramic chessboard.
Dioramas are often constructed so that the visitor shares the same commanding panoramic
perspective upon the scene as that surveyed by the generals depicted in the painting or
diorama. Perhaps the generals, like the viewer, have a map or plan of the battlefield site in
hand, and perhaps they are using it to plan their next strategic move through the landscape
below.
The battlefield scene, I have described above, of a modern visitor sharing the
view point of an historic wartime general, illustrates a "reflexive" approach to landscape. This
is because the modern viewer is not just sharing the surveillant gaze from a particular concrete
elevated ridge or bluff, in a particular place. The viewer is also sharing a particular way of
conceptualizing landscape. This conceptualization of landscape was, I would argue, partly
constituted through the practice of planning battles in this particular way, according to
particular stated and unstated rules. The modern viewer, at an interpretive center, is thus not
only looking at an objective representation of a particular event, the viewer is also
experiencing a particular interpretation of a particular event that is built into the very concept
of landscape represented at the interpretation center. This concept, itself, has its origins in an
authoritarian approach to human organization which, among other things, organized the rituals
of war in such a way that battles were played out by soldiers who, from on high, were
manipulated by generals as if they were so many chess pieces. This mode of conceptualizing
landscape is so pervasive that it is easily taken for granted today. It now pervades our very
language, where it is common to speak of "commanding" "surveying" landscape views from
"vantage" (advantage) points, without giving a thought to the military surveillance origins of
these expressions (on surveillance more generally, see: Foucault 1979).
The vantage point gives us a visual perspective on the scene of battle, but this
perspective also is an expression of a particular point of view that is simultaneously
constituted by the mode of perception. Thus, when we conceptualize the battle as represented
by the painted landscape prospect or diorama, we are placed within a framework that is
bipolar in structure. This approach divides the world into centrally placed individual outsider,
whose distanced and elevated gaze controls the scene of action, and hence the mass of
insiders. In this case the insiders are the regular soldiers who bodily act out their roles on the
field of battle as if in a play – hence the expression "theater of war." By accepting this
representation, however, we are led to forget that wars, for example, need not be fought that
way. Guerrilla warfare is thus "irregular" and against the rules of war, but it can be highly
effective, even if it does not lend itself to representation in landscape panoramas. In guerrilla
warfare it is difficult to tell the insiders from the outsiders, the generals (if there are generals)
and spectators from the fighters and the people. The battlefield site at Saratoga, with its
elevated vantage points, is suited to a particular form of war (and social organization), and
(not coincidentally) to a particular form of landscape representation and understanding.
State Regimentation and the Origins of the Landscape Scene
Military interests arguably played a central role in the development of the modern concept of
landscape as a portion of territory that can be viewed, as a scene, at one time from one place.
The development of the state as a powerful centralized body in the Renaissance was linked, in
136
great measure, to the exigencies of the increasing social presence of a professionalized, state
controlled military. The court surveyor, or architect, played an important role in these
developments as the designer of evermore sophisticated fortifications and their environs. This
required the development of scientific surveying and cartographic techniques that were also
applied, as at Saratoga, to the mapping of the fields of battle. It was discovered that by using
cartographic methods it became possible, for the first time in modern history, to create
pictorial central point perspective "landscape" scenes of places.
The court surveyor's talents were not used only for "practical" military ends,
but also for ideological purposes, as when they were employed to create the first modern
theaters staged with a perspective scenic illusion. The theater became the vehicle by which
the court could envision, and promote, the perspectives offered by a centralized state
organized according to rational, strategic, plans (a plan being a synonym for map), like those
of the military. The stage was structured with a floor plan upon which the scenery was
constructed and this provided the setting upon which the drama was played. The head of state
was given a commanding perspective on the scene from a throne placed at the point where the
lines of perspective converged on the audience. From here the head of state could, in certain
forms of court theater known as a "masque," oversee each progressive change in scenery as a
vision of the progress made by the material body of the state under central rule (on the above,
see: Olwig forthcoming a.). As Régis Debray reportedly put it: "Because nobody has ever
either seen or heard a state, a state must, at any price, make itself visible and let itself be
heard: It is the theater of the state which creates the state, just as the monument creates
memory."8
In England, the court used the theater to support the absolutist ambitions of
James I of England, and his desire to unite the geographical body of Britain as one state under
his natural law. One of James' enthusiastic supporters in this endeavor was his chancellor and
legal advisor, Sir Francis Bacon. Bacon did everything he could to thwart the power of
Parliament and supplant the particular bodies of customary/common law (that divided
England and Scotland) with rational and universal statutory law based on "natural" principles.
Bacon's ideal state was an autocracy advised by a college of scientists. The power of this
"sciental" state to transform the environment, and hence society, was envisioned by the court
through the use of landscape scenery in the court theater. According to Stephen Orgel, a
leading authority on the Renaissance masque, this form of theater sought to envision "among
the promised benefits of the new learning the most fabulous wonders . . . : dominion over the
seasons, the raising of storms at will, the acceleration of germination and harvest." The
masque was thus "a celebration of this concept of science, a ritual in which the society affirms
its wisdom and asserts its control over its world and its destiny" (Orgel 1975: 55). In the
masque the spectators, particularly the monarch on his throne of state, overtakes the role of
the general in a battle, commanding a scene, orchestrated by his lieutenants (the court
architects and planners). Contemporary cartographers called their atlases "theaters" and a
playhouse could be called "the Globe." "All the world" came to be seen as a vast "stage," to
paraphrase Shakespeare, upon which the historical drama of the nation state was to be played.
This conceptualization of landscape embodied a temporal scene by scene, stage by stage,
progressive narrative development that eventually stimulated the modernist idea that science
and the state would be able to pave the way for the progress of society through the
manipulation of the landscape scene (Olwig forthcoming b.). What is interesting to us, is that
landscape scenery, from the very beginning, was connected to a project involving a strategic
alliance between Baconian scientist/technocrats and the state to command the landscape (and
with it the people). It is disquieting, in this light, to consider that it was also part of a project
to install absolutism and the expense of parliamentary democracy and common law.
8
Unfortunately, I do not have access to the reference for this quote.
137
Landscape as the Theater of War
The landscape at Saratoga National Historical Park is almost literally that of a theater of war.
Its stage has been set and managed by the (armed) rangers of the United States National Park
Service, dressed in uniforms resembling the garb of Teddy Roosevelt's elite "Rough Riders" in
the imperialist Spanish American war. Such battlefield sites also provide the stagelike setting
for costume drama reenactments, as well as the model for dioramas and other theatrical
interpretive devices. Saratoga memorializes a new American Nation's critical battle against
their external British overlords, thereby underlining the role of regular military organization in
the birth of the nation. The Saratoga landscape provides the stage upon which this new nation
was supposedly baptized in fire and became one with the soil upon which its blood had fallen
in battle. Once baptized, according to the familiar national narrative, "manifest destiny"
would then lead the American nation west, bringing civilization to landscapes hitherto
populated by wild and nomadic savages (Boime 1991). This imperial destiny, ordained by
God and Nature (capitalized, like God) was to be memorialized in the world's first National
Nature parks, and it was here the earliest rangers needed to use their guns to defend American
nature lovers from the "Indians" – a native people that was relegated, in name, to a foreign
continent (Olwig 1995b).
By using a reflexive, interdisciplinary approach, drawing, among other things,
on art history, literary history, legal history and geographical history, I have sought to provide,
above, some background for understanding the social importance of the Saratoga "landscape."
This approach is "reflexive" in that it shows that the way landscape is defined, as scenery, is
part and parcel of the way a nation state defined itself, in terms of a natural geographical
body, as "American." The American continent was thus defined as the landscape scene upon
which a national identity was to be built and the national drama to be played out. In this
building process the conquest of the geographical body of the American continent, and with it
the "uncivilized" Indians, not to mention the Spanish Mexicans, was central to the formation
of national identity. This, of course, was a further development of a theme already staged by
the court of King James I when England subordinated Scotland and conquered Ireland.
America was at one and the same time a territory, defined literally by the map's lines of
longitude and latitude, and a landscape scene beckoning its population toward the infinite
spaces and possibilities of its western horizon (Boime 1991; Cronon 1992). Much as the
"British" nation derived its identity from the landmass of the British Isles, the Americans
derived theirs from the landmass of America – and to this day, if you are born on American
soil you are automatically an American citizen.
Once one begins to grasp the role of landscape scenery in the formation of
American national identity, it becomes easier to understand the significance of the Saratoga
landscape described by Russell. It becomes clearer why fortunes have been spent, and the
local citizenry's lands appropriated, and the memory of their cultural landscape erased, in
order to re-create the landscape stage upon which the battle at Saratoga was fought. This
landscape, as known from military maps, has been staged by the National Park Service, to set
the scene for a particular, privileged, story of national development. From various
"overlooks" the visitor attains a top down commanding view of the scene of battle from
above, as if he or she were a sentry or general. This is a story which was initially enshrined
and monumentalized (22 monuments were built) by a notoriously chauvinistic, elitist,
quintessentially WASP – White Anglo-Saxon Protestant – organization known as the
Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), before the battlefield became the property of
the National Park Service. The landscape, of course, could also be used to tell other stories.
The Revolutionary War may be over-rated. Today, for example, the political rights of U.S.
citizens and Canadians are comparable, yet the Canadians never fought a revolutionary war.
One also has to wonder whether a Mexican wetback, living as a second class citizen in the
138
American State of New Mexico, feels that it was God's and Nature's "manifest destiny" that
the American Southwest was taken from the Mexicans? There are different ways to
"Remember the Alamo." Perhaps America is, more importantly, the story of differing peoples
learning to live peacefully together, than it is a story of battles and conquest fought to secure
the landscape scene? Russell's presentation suggests that such a story might also be told about
the Saratoga landscape, with its long heritage of multi-ethnic settlement.
As a landscape, Saratoga is generic for countless similar sites in the world,
such as Denmark's National Dybbøl Battlefield Site near the contemporary border between
Denmark and Germany. This carefully landscaped battlefield monumentalizes the struggle to
define the border between Denmark and Germany. It was the site of a Danish victory over
German troops in 1848, and a Danish defeat in 1864. This struggle was not just waged
militarily, but also by scholars, who battled to show that it was their nation state that had
grown, stage by stage, out of the natural landscape and soil of the land dividing Denmark and
Germany, thereby legitimizing the hegemony of their particular nation state. Germany, at this
time, was much in the position of 17th century Britain and 18th-19th century America, as a
state consolidating its territorial identity as a nation. The Germans, like the Americans, used
natural boundaries to define their territorial prerogatives, and this is one reason why they saw
peninsular Jutland as naturally belonging to Germany. The Danes, on the other hand, used the
dividing line of the Eider River as their natural demarcation.
Blood and soil nationalism, in which the nation, following the tenets of
environmental determinism, was seen to grow and expand, stage by stage, out of the
landscape, was not peculiar to Germany, but the Nazi excesses of W.W.II gave Germany, and
landscape with it, a particularly bad name. This approach to landscape, unfortunately, is
undergoing a revival due to the nationalistic reaction against globalism, internationalism, and
population mobility, that has led to a revival of blood and soil nationalism in ecological guise.
This is illustrated by the arguments of Professor Bent Muus, a prominent member of a number
of major Danish and world nature organizations. He has termed the "adulteration" of the
Danish "fauna, flora and landscape" by non-native species an "abomination." Muus' call for
floral and faunal authenticity recalls the racism and nationalism identified with eugenics at a
time when Danish racism and xenophobia, often linked to "landscape values," is becoming
increasingly manifest on the national political scene – a phenomenon that is by no means
limited to Denmark (Lowenthal 1994; Lowenthal 1996). Muus argues, however, that: "The
suppressed aversion of many Danes to the immigration of greater numbers of Asians and
Africans is due, in reality, to the intellectually analogue situation that immigrants, in their
appearance and culture, are not authentic North Europeans." "But this is not," Muus claims,
"racism in the negative sense, it shows, on the contrary, respect for cultures" (Muus 1996). It
helps, when evaluating the claims of biologists like Muss, to have a reflexive understanding of
the landscape concept's history and its links to suspect theories of racial hygiene and eugenics
(Gröning and Wolschke 1985; Gröning and Wolschke-Bullmahn 1987; Tokar 1988; Groening
and Wolschke-Bulmahn 1989; Groening and Wolschke-Bulmahn 1992). The concept of
landscape, in my opinion, can provide wonderful insights into society/nature relations, if used
critically, but it is important that it not be discredited, as happened after W.W.II through
misuse in projects of questionable scientific validity and dubious social merit (Framke 1979;
Olwig 1996a).
Landscape as Narrative
One problem with the conceptualization of landscape as a series of layered scenes is that the
very structure of this conceptualization implies and structures a narrative, whether or not one
is conscious of this. In some cases, the fact that one emphasizes the stage by stage
139
development, upon a given natural foundation, tends to imply a form of evolutionary soil to
blood environmental determinism. This approach makes the spatially inscribed vertical
process of development seem "natural," whereas "horizontal" processes of change, coming
from outside the parameter of a supposedly "naturally" bounded territory, are seen to be
unnatural. This approach underplays the enormous social and environmental importance of
spatial interaction, while playing up the "authentically" native (and inbred). Insight into the
sometimes hidden workings of such structures is provided by the development of discourse
and narrative theory in the humanities and social sciences (Mitchell 1981; Bruner 1986). This
theory can thus help explain how the changing landscape scene can provide the framework for
a story that will tend to be interpreted, consciously or unconsciously, in relation to a number
of familiar structural patterns – such as that of comedy or tragedy. Such insight, in turn,
provides a means of guarding against the inadvertent ideological misuse of landscape
research. Part of the problem with such narratives is that they can easily provide a sub-
conscious pre-structure for the way landscape change is represented and interpreted. It might
thus be argued that Garrett Hardin, in his influential environmentalist tracts, tells the story of
the commons as a "tragedy" because this is compatible with a larger conception of the stages
of human development held by Hardin (and conservative Americans more generally) (Hardin
and Baden 1977). For this reason, he interprets the landscape of the commons in a way that
fits the structure of a tragedy. There are those, however, who cogently argue that Hardin's
interpretation is a distortion of history (McCay and Acheson 1987).
Multifunctional Landscapes and Multidisciplinary Insights
In Emily W.B. Russell's study of multifunctional landscapes, Saratoga National Historical

Park provides a particularly apt example of the use of landscape, conceived as scenery, as the
stage setting for a national historical narrative. Russell's example from the Pocono plateau of
northeastern Pennsylvania, on the other hand, tells a somewhat different sort of narrative of
the "interrelationships among the different players" (Russell 2000: 1). Here the baseline is not
landscape of Revolutionary America, but the distant era when the plateau's "basic natural"
geological features were formed. These natural features, in turn, are of interest because of the
way they are seen to have affected the use and perception of landscape, thereby determining
the constraints for subsequent landscape layers.
Russell presents the Pocono plateau as an area where external economic forces
have been allowed to exploit indigenous resources. This has apparently resulted in the
creation of a relatively monotonous landscape that resists multifunctional usage. The Pocono
plateau provides the negative background against which the more positive multifunctional
situation of the Shawangunks is measured. In the Shawangunks, we are told, the control over
the environment has been much more locally based and small scale, while benefiting, at the
same time, from the interest of a large estate owner, the Smiley family, in landscape
gardening. In this way a "truly multifunctional" landscape developed that in the 1990's has
aroused the interest of a consortium of environmentalists, called the Biodiversity Partnership,
dedicated to the protection of the "'unique landscape'" with its "'extraordinary ecological
significance'" (Russell 2000: 4-6).
Russell does not discuss, in this paper, what she means by landscape in relation
to the differing meanings of landscape, thus leaving it to the reader to reflect on her use of the
concept. The reflexive approach to landscape, outlined above, can be of help in this situation,
precisely because of its reflection upon the historically situated meaning of landscape as a
concept (rather than a naturally pre-given object). It can be useful here to discuss Russell's
use of the word landscape in the light of the dictionary, as quoted above. A philologist or
historian of ideas, using the techniques of discourse and narrative analysis, might note that
140
Russell describes the landscape as something that is "seen" from differing "viewpoints" by
"different actors" or "players" (Russell 2000: 9, 1). Her language thus suggests that she has
adopted the scenic notion of landscape (definitions 1a,b, 2b, 3) upon whose stage we are all
players. This fits with her presentation of the landscape in terms of a geological stage floor,
with varying layers of vegetation and culture developing, in stages, upon this surface. Each
stage is seen to be interesting because of the way it effects "how people have seen and used
the landscapes at different times" (Russell 2000: 1). Russell's landscape is not just a scene, it
is also a bounded unit (definition 2a), although the principles and criteria used to define the
landscape's boundaries are unclear. Are they political, as in the case of Pike County,
Pennsylvania, or are they geological, as in the case of the Shawangunk Mountains? This
confusing of the physical and political character of landscape is not new, as has been seen.
There seems to be a hidden natural moral imperative in Russell's landscape
structure. The landscapes that are seen to reflect positive qualities of multifunctionality and
biodiversity are those that have developed endogenously, primarily on the basis of local
interests and values. Negative qualities, be they human or natural (e.g. diseases), are almost
always identified with exogenous factors, such as the growth of cities, transport, trade,
"luxury" tourism and capitalism.
Landscape Narratives
The landscape scenes described by Russell might be interpreted as the setting for differing
narratives with characteristic structures, such as that of comedy or tragedy in theater. The
story of Pike County might thus be viewed, using modern narrative theory, as a story of
environmental declension, in which an environment tragically loses diversity through the
workings of alien forces (Merchant 1995). The literary theorist might call it a "negative
pastoral," in which an initially virginal and Edenic landscape is transformed into a negative
image of itself (Olwig 1981). In this story, the pre-settlement landscape, though rugged and
poor, was authentic and diverse, like the mythic hills of ancient Arcadia in Greece, the home
of pastoral poetry. Rapacious timber barons, however, rapidly destroy this landscape, leaving
it to urban tourists for whom it is "at least superficially more natural landscape than the
congested suburbs farther south and east" (Russell 2000: 3).
Studies of declensionist forms of environmental narrative have remarked upon
the way such narratives tend to structure the treatment of some "facts" while causing others to
be overlooked. These studies have recently had considerable impact showing that such
narratives, be they from the "Dust Bowl" of North America, the forests of Eastern Africa or
the eroding slopes of the Himalayas, have had a tendency to exaggerate the positive qualities
of the past, while overplaying the negative qualities of the present (Worster 1979; Leach and
Mearns 1996; Slater 1995). This sort of narrative structure seems to be at work in the telling
of the story of a Pike County that was "nearly stripped of its valuable timber" by 1846, then
cut over and burnt to the degree that vast areas are described as being "a picture of desolation
and depopulation." The unspoiled nature of Pike County manages, however, to be stripped,
and denuded of its virgin landscape several times, and this weakens the narrative's credibility.
Thus, we are told that, at the beginning of the 20th century, the county, despite its
environmental rape, still somehow managed to retain "the only bodies of original timber
within the Commonwealth [of Pennsylvania]." This virginal "primeval forest" is then
replaced by Babylonian "luxurious hostelries and commodious dwellings" and the depredation
of record lumber production (where does all this wood come from?) (Russell 2000: 1-4).
Personally, when I compare the dreary climes described by Russell, with the beloved Pike
County of my youth, I begin to wonder about what has been left out of her narrative, such as
the Native Americans, liminality, rites of passage and, oh yes, sex!
141
Native Americans, Liminality, Rites of Passage and Sex!
It is curious to note that none of the examples given by Russell mention the Native
Americans, though their former presence is suggested by names like Shawangunk , Pocono
and Saratoga. Adding the Native Americans, perhaps, would have muddied the neat narrative
from nature to culture presented in Russell's scenarios. For the Native Americans, of course,
these landscapes would not be authentic pristine nature, but a culturally shaped environment
(Cronon 1983). This was as true prior to white settlement, as it is now. Human beings
(including both Native Americans and modern geo scientists), as creatures of culture, can only
know nature through culture (even natural science is a form of culture).
Students of the concept of nature know that one of the classic ways in which
humans define the natural is through rites of passage. For the Native Americans this might
have been an initiation rite, by which the youths were brought out into the margins of their
territory, where they crossed not only a physical boundary (limen), but also a social boundary
between childhood and adulthood (and hence also into sexual maturity). It is here, on the
margins of society, that the initiates explore their inner nature, as well as the nature of their
attachment to their collectivity and its environment (Turner 1974; Olwig 1995a). We still
engage in rites of passage, of course. For some of us, as Boy and Girl Scouts from East Coast
urban working class districts, the vicinity of the Poconos along the Delaware, was the location
of the camps where we were initiated into nature (and the lore of the Native Americans)
(Olwig 1985). For us, this was, and is, nature, even if Russell finds it lacking in "old growth
forest" (a notoriously slippery concept) and deems the area only "superficially" more natural
than the "congested suburbs" we ourselves called home (Russell 2000: 3). The Poconos,
however, are primarily famous for another rite of passage involving nature, the honeymoon.
This is the place where ordinary people from New York and Philadelphia have gone to spend
their honeymoons in designated resorts that specialize entirely in providing just the right
natural setting for post-nuptial sex (on landscape and sex see: Olwig 1993).
If the Poconos attracted urban scouts and ordinary honeymooners, the rich and
educated had classier "natural" places to go to, following the upper class trail of Teddy
Roosevelt. These were more exclusive and tasteful natural sites, but never too far from a
comfortable, well-landscaped lodge in which to bed down. The most notable East Coast
example of this is the Shenandoah National Park. This area was a cause célèbre for the elites
of Washington DC, much as Yosemite was for the elites of San Francisco, with George
Freeman Pollock, and the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club, playing an analogous role to that
of the Sierra Club. Much as the emparkment of Yosemite meant the eradication of its Native
American population and the loss of their cultural landscape, the "restoration" of the
Shenandoahs' nature involved the uprooting and removal of several thousand mountaineers
(450 families) who had dwelled in the area since the Eighteenth Century (Pollock 1960;
Reeder and Reeder 1978: 69-87; Heatwole 1992: 27-44). Winding through the new nature of
the park, the 470-mile long mountaintop Skyline Drive, stretching from the Great Smokies to
the Shenandoahs, provides a modern American equivalent of the scenic paths that wind
through the landscape parks of British landed estates. As with their British forebears the road
links a progression of scenic spots from where the motorist can stop and survey a countryside
framed by nature (Pollock 1960: 211-233; Heatwole 1992: 27-43 Wilson, 1992 #746: 33-37).
There is even a countryseat of sorts in the park. This is Pollock's resort called Skyland, where
those who can afford it can still recreate in genteel surroundings. The role of Pollock and
Skyland in the Shenandoahs' appears to be analogous to that of Smiley and his three resorts,
including(?) the Mohonk Mountain House, in the Shawangunks. The emparkment of the
Shenandoahs has been so successful that the area is now seen to be a wilderness and moves
are being taken to severely restrict the recreative use by ordinary campers. We all have our
ideas of what is authentic nature, and they usually say more about our social background, than
142
about the innate qualities of the areas we designate to be nature. Nature, after all, is probably
the most value-laden word in our language.
Paradise Regained?
The Poconos case study provides the negative narrative foil against which the reader is led to
measure the Shawangunks in Russell's paper. The story of the Shawangunks is not that of
paradise lost, but paradise regained through the wonders of science (Merchant 1995). This is
a narrative with roots in ancient myth, but its most famous incarnation is no doubt that of
Bacon's Atlantis. In this modern version, due to the locally oriented small scale economy of
this area, and the presence of a wise estate owner (a classic figure in 18th Century British
Whig ideology) with a taste for landscape aesthetics, this area was spared the depredations
visited upon the Poconos. It became instead "a truly multifunctional landscape, with
agriculture, various timber industries, manufacturing, and tourism all taking part. Conflicts
seem to have been minimal, while integration was the rule" (Russell 2000). Times have
changed, however, and agricultural land has been abandoned and paradise is threatened.
Fortunately, a consortium of environmentalists, the Shawangunk Ridge Biodiversity
Partnership , is poised to attack the problem from its ridge top vantage point. The noticeable
attraction, evinced by this paper, of scenic elevations to environmentalists is curious, given the
fact that when it comes to biodiversity (a notoriously nebulous concept) stinky, fetid, buggy,
flat, non-scenic, counter-functional environments like swamps are probably the more
important.
One problem with the paradise regained through science narrative is that there
is a lot of evidence to the effect that scientific management, be it of sea or of land, rarely
works as well as it is supposed to, and is often quite disastrous. The world is littered with
examples of failed scientific management schemes ranging from those of the former "Eastern"
Europe to the forests of Germany to the game reserves of Africa (Scott 1998). Part of the
problem is that the complexity of historically generated human environment relations, that
create valued environments, is often well beyond the comprehension of scientists and
managers who seek to preserve or develop these environments. In this case, the Shawangunk
Ridge environmentalists recognize the need for a "vibrant local economy" (Russell 2000: 6),
but one wonders how well they are equipped to help generate such an economy? I would
suggest that rethinking the concept of landscape might facilitate insight into how societies
sometimes succeed in generating multifunctional and diverse environments.
Rethinking Landscape
The example of the Saratoga Battlefield provides an interesting counterpoint to the example of
the Shawangunks. Here, a multifunctional and diverse, biologically and culturally rich
environment developed that was not planned by wise estate owners, or batteries of ecologists.
It developed, instead, through a long period of agrarian settlement going back to the Dutch
farmers, and, no doubt, to the Native Americans before them. I would suggest that
environmental historians could learn a great deal about past human/environment relations by
explicating the past not just in terms of what we mean by such terms as landscape and nature,
but also in terms of what the people of the past meant by these terms. The case of the Dutch is
particularly interesting here because the dictionary tells us that the word landscape entered the
modern English language from the Dutch, who spelled it landschap.
If we could have asked the Dutch settlers what they meant by landschap they
probably would not have described it as a layered scene built upon a geological foundation.
143
To the Dutch, as to other speakers of Germanic languages, the primary meaning of landscape
was something approaching what the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as: "c : a particular
area of activity : SCENE (political landscape)" in which "scene" means "the place of an
occurrence or action" (Merriam-Webster 1995: landscape, scene). Landscapes, put simply,
were generally historically generated quasi-independent countries or polities that were usually
organized on the basis of customary law, rooted in social practice, as formalized by
representative legal bodies (Olwig 1996b). In such institutions active agents represented the
land or country through discourse (hence the word parliament) with other representatives.9
The notion of landscape as historical polity, rooted in customary law, provides
a poor framework, unlike the scenic concept of landscape, for a unilinear, stage by stage,
narrative story. The law of custom is based on the constant conscious interpretation and
reinterpretation of multiple narratives rooted in precedent and concrete practice, in which
humans, not the landscape scene, is the active agent. The Netherlands were thus essentially a
union of lands or landscapes organized according to principles in which power devolved to
those local bodies best able to plan and manage in a given situation. It could be argued that it
was the ability of these lands to manage complex systems of dikes and drainage that not only
created the dry land upon which the Netherlands were largely built, but which also
strengthened their position against the encroachment of jealous authoritarian inland
centralized states. The Netherlanders, of course, were not inbred homebodies, confining
themselves to a "natural territory." They were inveterate traders and travelers, and that is why
we find them as the earliest white settlers of Saratoga.
If we come down from the commanding viewpoint afforded by scenic
mountain ridges (balloons, spy-planes and satellites), and if we begin to root our arguments in
human law and history, rather than natural law and bedrock, then we may be able to develop
an approach to landscape that can help us to understand the significance of, for example, Pike
County, Shawangunk or Saratoga, as landscapes defined by people, rather than by God,
Nature or National destiny. Thus, if we want to understand how pre-park Saratoga developed
into a multifunctional and environmentally diverse place, it would be useful to understand
how the Dutch, and later settlers from the British Isles, developed customs and common laws
for the organization and management of this complex environment. This approach to
landscape has, of course, much wider applicability today, when, especially since the
formulation of Agenda 21 at the Rio conference, the emphasis in environmental policy and
planning has been placed upon local initiative.
The Planning and Management Imperative
As I have suggested above, differing conceptions of landscape are historically related to

differing ideals of government and polity. Landscape is not an objective, God given entity, or
a Ding an sich, but a way of conceptualizing the world that has developed through human
history. Conceived as scenery, landscape was well suited to the Renaissance state's desire to
plan and manage an ideal realm in accordance with what it defined as nature. Landscape
scenery provided a visual means of comprehending a hierarchically and rationally planned and
managed state. This planning ideal was propounded to counter to the "unnatural" rule of
9
Many of the quasi independent polities within Schleswig were such "landscape" countries (spelled
Landschaft in German). The largely Frisian landscape territories along the coast of the Wadden sea
survived through centuries through their ability, as political communities, to manage a complex wetland
environment that environmentalists now see to be of enormous biological, as well as cultural,
importance (Olwig 1996).
144
custom, as embodied in Parliament. The historical origins of these differing ways of thinking
about the organization and management of landscape are still pertinent.
The reflexive approach to landscape that has developed recently can be
interpreted as a response to the failures of modernism's centralized, technocratic state planning
and its grand narratives of unilinear progress through stages of development (Olwig 1999;
Olwig in press). The critique of landscape as the expression an authoritarian outsider's, top-
down, perspective is similarly linked to the search for alternative ways of thinking about
landscape. These critical reflections are highly pertinent to the issue of how we think about
environmental management and planning. Agenda 21 and various related "alternative
development" strategies are providing an alternative to the top-down approach, but neither
modernistic planning, nor the centralized nation state that fostered it, are dead. In many
places today state bureaucracies are tightening their grip on academic research, and erasing
former distinctions between applied governmental and basic academic research institutions.
State agencies generally expect researchers to provide unambiguous "scientific" data suitable
for central state planning and management, and this conflicts with the scholarly imperative to
think critically and reflexively. A rising European tide of national xenophobia has
simultaneously given new impetus to national romantic conceptions of landscape as scenery.
It is imperative that researchers reflect on the planning and management implications built
into the very concept of landscape, and use this reflection to foster multifunctionality within a
diverse, and democratic, political landscape.
References
Barrell, John (1972): The Idea of Landscape and the Sense of Place. – Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Barrell, John (1980): The Dark Side of The Landscape: The Rural Poor in English Painting
1730-1840. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bender, Barbara [ed.] (1993): Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. – Oxford: Berg.
Bermingham, Ann (1987): Landscape and Ideology: The English Rustic Tradition. – London:
Thames and Hudson.
Boime, Albert (1991): The Magisterial Gaze. – Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Bruner, Edward M. (1986): Ethnography as Narrative. – In: Turner, Victor; Bruner, Edward
[eds]. The Anthropology of Experience. – Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 139-
55.
Cosgrove, Denis (1984): Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. – London: Croom Helm.
Cosgrove, Denis; Daniels, Stephen [eds.] (1988): The Iconography of Landscape. –
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cronon, William (1983): Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New
England. – New York: Hill and Wang.
Cronon, William (1992): Telling Tales on Canvas: Landscapes of Frontier Change. – In:
Prown, Jules David, [ed.]: Discovered Lands, Invented Pasts. – New Haven: Yale
University Press, pp. 37-87.
Cronon, William, [ed.] (1995): Uncommon Ground: Towards Reinventing Nature. – New
York: Norton.
Foucault, Michel (1973): The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. –
New York: Vintage.
Foucault, Michel (1979 (orig. 1975)): Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (orig.
title Surveiller et punir). – Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Framke, W. (1979): Rager den tyske geografis udvikling den faglige diskussion i Danmark?:
Et debatoplæg. – Aarhus: Geografisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet.
145
Groening, Gert; Wolschke-Bulmahn, Joachim (1989): Changes in the philosophy of garden

architecture in the 20th century and their impact upon the social and spatial
environment. – Journal of Garden History, Vol. 9 no. 2, pp. 53-70.
Groening, Gert; Wolschke-Bulmahn, Joachim (1992): Some Notes on the Mania for Native
Plants in Germany. – Landscape Journal, Vol. 11 no. 25, pp. 116-126.
Groening, Gert; Wolschke-Bulmahn, Joachim (1985): Die Landespflege als Instrument
National-sozialistischer Eroberungs-politik. – Arch +, no. 81, pp. 46-59.
Gröning, Gert; Wolschke-Bulmahn, Joachim (1987): Politics, planning and the protection of
nature: political abuse of early ecological ideas in Germany, 1933-45. – Planning
Perspectives, Vol. 2, pp. 127-148.
Hardin, Garrett; Baden, John (1977): Managing the Commons. – San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman.
Heatwole, Henry (1992): Guide to Shenandoah National Park. – Luray, Virginia: Shenandoah
Natural History Association.
Ingold, Tim (1993): The Temporality of Landscape. – World Archaeology, Vol. 25, no. 2, pp.
152-172.
Jones, Michael (1991): The elusive reality of landscape. Concepts and approaches in
landscape research. – Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift; Vol. 45, pp. 229-244.
Leach, Melissa; Mearns, Robin [eds.] (1996): The Lie of the Land: Challenging Recieved
Wisdom on the African Environment. – London: International African Institute in ass.
with James Currey.
Lowenthal, David (1994): European and English Landscapes as National Symbols. – In
Hooson, David [ed.]: Geography and National Identity. – Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 15-38.
Lowenthal, David (1996): Possessed by the Past. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of
History. – New York: The Free Press.
McCay, Bonnie J.; Acheson, James M. [eds.] (1987): The Question of the Commons: Culture
and Ecology of Communal Resources. – Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Merchant, Carolyn (1995): Reinventing Eden: Western Culture as a Recovery Narrative. – In:
Cronon, William [ed.]: Uncommon Ground: Towards Reinventing Nature. – New York:
W.W. Norton: 132-159.
Merriam-Webster (1995): Collegiate Dictionary. – Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
Mitchell, W.J.T., [ed.] (1981): On Narrative. – Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mitchell, W.J.T. [ed.] (1994): Landscape and Power. – Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Muus, Bent (1996): Eftermiddagens indlæg, Professor Bent Muus, Zoologisk Museum. – In:
Vibeke Andersen [ed.]: Natursyn: Miljø- og Energiministerens konference med
organisationerne om natursyn, KolleKolle, – Copenhagen: Miljø- og Energiministeriet,
Skov- og Naturstyrelsen, pp. 40-41.
Olwig, Kenneth R. (1981): Literature and 'Reality': The Transformation of the Jutland Heath.
– In: Pocock, Douglas C.D. [ed.]: Humanistic Geography and Literature. – London:
Croom Helm, pp. 47-65.
Olwig, Kenneth Robert (1984): Nature's Ideological Landscape: A Literary and Geographic
Perspective on its Development and Preservation on Denmark's Jutland Heath. London:
George Allen & Unwin.
Olwig, Kenneth (1985): At vandre ud i naturen og ind i sig selv: Friluftsliv og identitet i
Aquehonga. – Jordens Folk: Etnografisk Revy, Vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 183-190.
Olwig, Kenneth Robert (1993): Sexual Cosmology: Nation and Landscape at the Conceptual
Interstices of Nature and Culture, or: What does Landscape Really Mean? – In: Bender,
Barbara [ed.]: Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. – Oxford: Berg, pp. 307-343.
146
Olwig, Kenneth Robert (1995a): Landscape, landskap, and the body. – In: Nilsson, Jan Olof;
Linde-Laursen, Anders [eds.]: Nordic Landscopes: Cultural Studies of Place. –
Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, pp. 154-169.
Olwig, Kenneth Robert (1995b): Reinventing Common Nature: Yosemite and Mt. Rushmore-
-A Meandering Tale of a Double Nature. – In: Cronon, William [ed.]: Uncommon
Ground: Towards Reinventing Nature. – New York: W.W. Norton, pp 379-408.
Olwig, Kenneth R. (1996a): Nature – Mapping the 'Ghostly' Traces of a Concept. – In: Earl,
Carvill: Mathewson, Kent; Kenzer, Martin S. [eds.]: Concepts in Human Geography.
Savage, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 63-96.
Olwig, Kenneth Robert (1996b): Recovering the Substantive Nature of Landscape. – Annals
of the Association of American Geographers Vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 630-653.
Olwig, Kenneth R. (1999): The Destruction and Construction of Place: Landscape, Utopian
Displacement and Topian Identity. – In: Slettan, Dagfinn; Maehlum, Brit; Stugu, Ola
Svein [eds.]: Stedet som Kulturell Konstruksjon. – Trondheim: The University in
Trondheim. 27: 53-74.
Olwig, Kenneth R. (forthcoming a.): Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic: From Britain's
Renaissance to America's New World (working title). – Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Olwig, Kenneth R. (forthcoming b.): Landscape, Place and the State of Progress. – In: Sack,
Robert David [ed.]: Progress (working title). – Baltimore: John's Hopkins University
Press.
Olwig, Kenneth R. (in press): Landscape as a Contested Topos of Place, Community and Self.
– In: Hoelscher, Steven; Adams, Paul; Till, Karen [eds.]: Textures of Place. –
Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
Orgel, Stephen (1975): The Illusion of Power: Political Theater in the English Renaissance. –
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pollock, George Freeman (1960): Skyland: The Heart of the Shenandoah Nation Park. – n.p.:
Chesapeake Book Co.
Reeder, Carolyn; Reeder, Jack (1978): Shenandoah Heritage: The Story of the People Before
the Park. – Washington, D.C.: The Potomac Appalachian Trail Club.
Russell, Emily W.B. (2000): Historical Aspects Multifunctionlity in Landscapes. –
Multifunctional Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Research and
Management, Centre for Landscape Research, University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Schama, Simon (1995): Landscape and Memory. – London: Harper Collins.
Scott, James C. (1998): Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed. – New Haven: Yale University Press.
Slater, Candace (1995): Amazonia as Edenic Narrative. – In: Cronon, William [ed.]:
Uncommon Ground: Towards Reinventing Nature. – New York: W.W. Norton, pp.
114-131.
Spirn, Anne Whiston (1998): The Language of Landscape. – New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Tokar, Brian (1988): Social Ecology, Deep Ecology and the Future of Green Political
Thought. – The Ecologist, Vol. 18, no. 4/5, pp. 132-141.
Turner, Victor (1974): Dramas, Fields and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. –
Ithica: Cornell University Press.
Williams, Raymond (1973): The Country and the City. – New York: Oxford University Press.
Worster, Donald (1979): Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s. – New York: Oxford
University Press.
147
Historical ecology of Dutch cultural landscapes

Joep Dirkx
Wageningen University and Research Centre, Alterra, The Netherlands.
e-mail: g.h.p.dirkx@alterra.wag-ur.nl
The historical grown variety in Dutch cultural landscapes is disappearing rapidly, causing a
great loss of regional identity. Landscape planning has not been able to stop this. The great
efforts the Dutch government is making to develop an National Ecological Framework, in
order to stop the loss of natural values, also does not stop the decrease of landscape quality.
The fact is that the main target of the framework is to restore nature, not to increase the
identity of cultural landscapes. In some cases nature restoration even caused loss of landscape
identity.
At this moment the sense is growing that it might be more effective to associate nature
conservation targets with a reinforcement of landscape identity. A helpful source of
information to realise this, turns out to be historical ecological research. It provides
knowledge of the relation between the great variety in historical cultural landscapes and the
natural values that used to be associated with them. The results help to decide about the
relevance of landscape patterns and elements and their potential for nature conservation
targets. In the paper this will be illustrated with the results of one or two casestudies.
Integrated Assessment of Historic Landscapes in England, Wales and

Germany
Ian Spears
Landscape planners at the University of Rostock have developed a methodology for the
evaluation of historic landscape components, including their ecological distinctiveness and
contribution to landscape quality. Through appraisal of the archaeological and ecological
dimensions of sites in Germany and England, the value of an integrated approach to the
assessment of historic landscapes has been examined. To further develop the German
methodology the project explores the interaction between ecology and archaeology and
assesses the human impact on the landscape by identifying the processes of change. These
have been conducted by undertaking a number of different levels of study. At the widest level,
broad correlations between archaeology and ecology have been examined using county
databases. At the site level plant distributions have been recorded and archaeological
assessment undertaken to evaluate the intricate associations between plant species and
archaeological features. The surrounding landscape of some of these sites has also been
considered so that they can be set in a broader historic landscape context. The results of the
project show the value of an integrated approach to the study of historic landscapes by
demonstration the association between archaeological features and plant species.
148
149
IV. Draft on “Recommendations on

Interdisciplinary Landscape
Research”
150
151
Second draft of
“Recommendations for Interdisciplinary Landscape Research…”
Workshop No. 1: “The landscape – from vision to definition“
Proposed by Bärbel & Gunther Tress
Centre for Landscape Research, University of Roskilde, P.O. Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde,
E-mail: baerbel@ruc.dk and gunther@ruc.dk, http://www.geo.ruc.dk/vlb/bgt
In collaboration with Zev Naveh, Grigoriy Kostinskiy, and Olaf Bastian.
I Problems in current landscape research

(1) Landscape is a subject of research in many disciplines: architecture, arts, biology,
economics, geography, geology, history, law, philology, philosophy, physics, planning,
psychology, sociology, and others. Each discipline has its own interests and preferences in
investigating landscape issues. In some disciplines, landscape is a more central issue than in
others. However, landscape research is seldom seen as an opportunity for collaboration among
disciplines. On the contrary, a given academic discipline frequently looks for its “own piece of
landscape.” This is a valid approach, resulting from different academic traditions. But
academia cannot shut out the outside world. Landscape research faces demands and
challenges from society, government, and the economy, which seek answers to their questions
and problems. The complexity of the real world and its environmental problems cannot be
solved by any single discipline. Until now, the answers to these questions largely came from
single disciplines or at best from two or more closely related disciplines. At present, the
complexities involved in understanding, planning, and managing landscapes prevent single
disciplines from solving past problems and facing future challenges. Communities, legislators,
industry, business, local stakeholders, and the public at large demand much of landscapes,
based on differing concepts of landscape and its processes. Landscape research can help solve
these conflicting demands. In order for future landscape research to meet the challenges with
which it is faced, it must be approached as a common effort by all disciplines.
II General recommendation: The need for a transdisciplinary

approach in future landscape research
(2) If scientists intend to make a significant contribution to the solution of the above-
mentioned problems and conflicts, they have to break down the tacit infrastructure and rigid
boundaries of scientific thought and specialisation in the academic and professional
disciplines in which they have been educated. Future landscape research should be holistic,
oriented toward problem-solving, and rooted in systems theory with its integrative and
complementary approach to thought and action.
(3) Future landscape research demands a transdisciplinary approach that goes beyond the
efforts of interdisciplinary research. In interdisciplinarity, attempts are made to hybridise two
or more disciplines, but the goals remain mostly within the framework of disciplinary
research. It operates on a single level despite the multiple goals of these. “Classical” landscape
152
ecology has depended on interdisciplinary work, which has resulted in many cases in the
transfer of methods from one discipline to another. In transdisciplinarity, by contrast, we cross
different disciplines, as the prefix “trans” indicates, and go beyond them, to reach a higher
level of integration. Driven by the imperative of unity of knowledge, transdisciplinarity aims
to study unified global reality. Although it is organised according to the multiple goals of
different disciplines, it works toward a common, overarching purpose on a higher system
level. Transdisciplinarity has its theoretical foundation in the systems view. To reach
consensus on the overarching “supergoal” is imperative and it can be achieved only if all
members of a research team share a similar holistic worldview with a broad conceptual
foundation and meta-theory on the multifunctional and mutually reciprocal roles of landscapes
in nature and human society.
(4) The realisation of transdisciplinary landscape research demands reflection and revision of
all disciplines’ approaches and methods. All disciplines have to re-orient themselves to
develop common research strategies. The ability to re-orient and to reach the above-
mentioned consensus, and to collaborate in the framework of a well-coordinated team is one
of the greatest difficulties and obstacles for transdisciplinary research.
(5) All disciplines can contribute to such a strategy and all disciplines are needed. No one
discipline predominates over the others or possesses the “right” definition and interpretation
of landscape. The sciences, social sciences, humanities, arts, as well as physical planning,
should not be seen as competitors. On the contrary, they should all contribute to problem-
solving associated with the understanding, planning, and managing of landscapes. Landscape
ecologists in multidisciplinary research team have dual roles: they serve as specialists in their
own fields and, more importantly, as integrators of other team members.
(6) Transdisciplinary landscape research should not only consider academic traditions, but
also local and ethnic/cultural traditions, the interests of stakeholders, and those of the public at
large.
(7) Landscape research should be considered a service to society . To maximise the benefits
resulting from landscape research findings and to ensure their widespread application, such
research must stress practice, not academic theory. The results must be relevant to planning
and management, and must be promoted by different media. Researchers must ensure that the
results of their efforts are available to the public and decision-makers.
(8) Everybody involved should be aware of the fact that transdisciplinary research is more
difficult and therefore demands more time and money than any other type of research. As
such, special efforts must be made to bring its importance and necessity to the attention of
local, regional, and international institutions and persons with the resources to sponsor
research.
153
III Specific recommendations regarding landscape theory and its

application
For workshop no. 1 “The landscape – from vision to definition”, a common effort rests on the
answers to the following questions:
a) How can we define “landscape” for future landscape research?

b) How can we include/consider the multifunctionality of landscapes in a transdisciplinary
approach to landscape and landscape research?
c) How can we arrive at a transdisciplinary approach to future landscape research?
a) Towards a definition of landscape for future landscape research
(9) The term “landscape” has various meanings depending on the context in which it is used.
In a biological context it has a different meaning than in the context of sociological research.
Geology uses landscape in a different manner than cultural studies. Use of the landscape in the
arts may vary from its usage in politics, law, or planning. Numerous visions and definitions of
landscape exist. Progress in landscape research will depend on the development of a definition
of landscape that is not just borrowed from any one discipline, but rather represents several
visions.
(10) Several variants on such a definition should be discussed; one working variant is
proposed here. Landscape represents conjoined natural and cultural components articulated on
the earth’s surface, which possess corporeal integrity and semantic unity. By “corporeal
integrity” we mean an intelligible construction that functions seamlessly in our consciousness
as an external to human beings’ continual environment.
(11) The Total Human Ecosystem is suggested as a guiding conceptual principle for the
holistic meaning of landscape. It is the overall entity, the sum of all global landscapes, in
which the human is integrated into his/her entire environment including all living organisms
and their total environment.
(12) Landscapes should be regarded as holistic systems, which consist of the physical
geosphere and biosphere and the mental noosphere. These three fields are closely related and
influence one another.
(13) Therefore, landscapes are multi-dimensional. The mental dimension of landscape is as

important as its physical (spatial) dimension. Neither physical processes nor human actions
nor human perceptions alone shape the landscape. Physical processes and human activities,
taken together with human attitudes toward them, shape and create the landscape at several
levels from the smallest landscape unit (the ecotope) to the largest global landscape of the
ecosphere, the Total Human Ecosystem.
(14) Landscapes and humans developed together in a co-evolutionary process. Landscapes

would not exist in their present shape without human influence. Therefore, humans should not
be considered merely as external disturbances, but as creative individuals.
154
(15) A mutual relationship exists between people and the landscape. Not only do people
influence the landscape, but landscape also influences people. This co-dependency is the most
important linking factor between natural- and human-oriented sciences in landscape research.
(16) Landscapes are not static; they change constantly. Contrary to the homeostatic climax
idea, landscapes are dynamic and are changing constantly and slowly through time together
with the biological evolution of their natural elements. Landscape evolution occurs much
faster insofar as it intersects with the cultural evolution of human society and the dynamic
interactions between humans and landscapes, especially since the Industrial Revolution. The
rate of change is becoming more and more rapid due to growing human influences. These
dynamic changes in landscape pattern and processes are important characteristics of
landscapes.
b) Towards a consideration of multifunctionality in a transdisciplinary approach
(17) The expression “multifunctional landscapes” refers to the different material, mental, and
social processes in nature and society that take place simultaneously in the landscape and
interact accordingly. Multifunctionality in landscapes means the co-existence of ecological,
economic, cultural, historical, and aesthetic functions. Although there are different ways to
classify landscape functions, all lead to the same conclusion that landscapes are
multifunctional.
(18) In general, landscape research must recognise that all landscapes have the potential to be
multifunctional, but to different extents. But often multifunctionality is overlooked in the
interests of promoting one function and subordinating all others. Such landscapes may be
called monofunctional, even if they have the potential to be multifunctional.
(19) Landscape multifunctionality is not synonymous with multiple land uses. Different land
uses can be a criterion for multifunctionality in landscapes, but a single land use can involve
numerous functions. Different land uses can result in different functions, but not all functions
can be expressed as land uses. Agricultural used land has, for example, economic, aesthetic,
and recreational functions, but only one land use, namely, agriculture.
(20) Depending on the individual’s perspective, different functions can come to the fore in the
same landscape. A farmer looks at an agrarian landscape in a different way than a tourist or a
painter. A young person may not have the same perception of a landscape as an old person. A
person with certain knowledge about this landscape may see different functions than a person
without that knowledge. The position and perspective of individuals play an important role in
the perception of multiple functions. From a contextual systems point of view, all these
different perceptions should be recognised. One of the important tasks of landscape research
is, insofar as possible, to provide tools for optimising these functions to yield maximum
benefit for nature and human society.
(21) When applying a transdisciplinary approach to future landscape research, methods and
tools must be appropriate to the characteristics of landscape multifunctionality. Research
methods should not only consider land use, land cover, distribution of landscape elements, and
functional demands on a given landscape, but also the individual’s perspective on it and the
plurality of its functions. Landscape multifunctionality cannot only be surveyed with
quantitative measurements, but must also be evaluated using qualitative assessment tools.
155
(22) Multifunctionality is not only really a question of scale. It may seem easier to identify
multifunctionality on a larger scale, but it is possible to discern multifunctionality even on
smaller scales. One must ask whether it is advisable to focus only on land use when looking at
landscape functions. While the recreational or aesthetic functions of a large agricultural or
urban area can hardly be identified on a large scale, a smaller scale can reveal these
distinctions.
(23) Landscape multifunctionality supports the principle of sustainability, which aims at

integrating ecological, economic, and social functions. Multifunctionality can further
sustainable development.
(24) Finally, we have to conclude from all the different points mentioned above that study and
evaluation of landscape multifunctionality depends on a complementary transdisciplinary
approach.
c) Towards a transdisciplinary approach to future landscape research
(25) There is general consensus that a landscape consists of both a natural and a cultural
dimension, often regarded as diametrically opposed to one another. The perceived division
between nature and culture has divided the academic world into a group of researchers in the
sciences, which concerns itself with landscape’s natural dimension, and a group of researchers
from the humanities, arts, and related disciplines that deals with cultural phenomena. In the
case of landscapes, this divide is counter-productive and must be rejected. A first step towards
transdisciplinarity is mutual acceptance of attitudes and views as a precondition for
collaboration. The systems view has been developed as a perceptive and scientific window
through which we are able to look at complex ecological and societal phenomena within the
observed context. This contextual window view is highly relevant to transdisciplinary
landscape research.
(26) To develop transdisciplinary research strategies, each discipline must critically discuss
theories and methods they have applied recently. Only a critical review of past research can
open new perspectives for future research. Transdisciplinary landscape research demands
teams of researchers made up of people representing different interests in society.
(27) Considering the distinct positions and perspectives of individuals toward landscape and
its functions, it is impossible for a single researcher to thoroughly investigate landscape
multifunctionality. Therefore, groups of researchers should work together. Each of them
should seriously consider this limitation when starting new projects.
(28) Experiences in transdisciplinary research projects have to be collected and must be

available for all parties—not just scientists, but also politicians, planners, and other decision
makers—interested or involved in future landscape research. To improve the
interchangeability of research efforts, we suggest the foundation of an international discussion
and information group on transdisciplinarity that could assist in future landscape research. A
network must be built in which common problems of transdisciplinary research can be
discussed and experiences exchanged.
(29) Results from future landscape research must be published and promoted in a way that
makes them available and useful for academics outside specific disciplines, decision-makers,
and the general public. The communication process among scientists and others has to be
156
given much higher priority. Discussants must give up fixed positions and embrace open
dialogue.
(30) If we wish to promote our holistic, future-oriented transdisciplinary approach in

landscape ecology, we must expend much more effort on education, not just research, toward
this goal.
157
First draft of
"Recommendations on Interdisciplinary Landscape Research" –
Workshop No. 2: Monitoring multifunctional terrestrial landscapes
Prepared by Jesper Brandt

Centre for Landscape Research, University of Roskilde, Bldg. 19.1, P.O. Box 260,
DK-4000 Roskilde, e-mail: brandt@ruc.dk
1. Integrating trends in the growing need for terrestrial landscape monitoring
Terrestrial landscape monitoring is still at the foundation stage, mostly seen in a goal-oriented
context of a biologically oriented terrestrial monitoring for nature-policy purposes. It should
however widen to a broader perspective, since there are many important development trends
these years that merges together in an interest for monitoring at the landscape level. One
should be aware of these other aspects that might support the monitoring, which is often an
expensive, time-consuming and organisationally complicated activity. Among these trends the
following should be mentioned:
1. A growing understanding of the connection between a variety of environmental problems

and land use processes has been recognised at the political level resulting in different
types of direct or indirect regulations of land use and its intensity. Since this connection
however obviously differs between different types of landscapes at different geographical
levels, a linkage of environmental monitoring to a landscape-oriented land use and land-
cover monitoring is more and more recognised.
2. Landscape-related regional and local differences in population density, in intensity of
economic activities as well as in traditions concerning the management of the culturally
transformed landscape, offers different opportunities and obstacles in solving
environmental problems. The resulting differentiation in economic activities and
environmental problems will give rise to economic, social and political tensions that has
to be studied also in a context of on-going changes in landscape structure and function.
3. Recent changes in agricultural policy seems to give rise to a general shift in land use
strategy in many types of agricultural landscapes, often described as the post-productivist
transition. Within this frame, a productivist phase of intensivation, concentration and
specialisation resulting in growing contradictions between the natural structure and
dynamics of the landscape and a monofunctional and homogeneous type of land use
seems to be gradually replaced by a trend towards extensivation, diversification and
dispersion of land use activities, that furthers a more multifunctional land use, where each
function is less intensive and thus more landscape-adapted than hitherto. It is however
probable that the productivist and post-productivist strategy will develop parallel and
mutually, which only deepens the need for systematic studies of the trends that in any of
the two cases will influence and be influenced by the different conditions given in
different types of landscapes.
4. The technological changes of the productivist phase of modern agriculture were often
characterised by labour-saving investments, not sensitive to a differentiation in
environmental and landscape conditions. So, in general this type of 'non-spatial'
technology has often focused on the shaping of common environmental conditions, not
only furthering the segregation in land use and monotonisation of agrarian landscapes, but
also ignoring the landscape dimension within planning and management in general.
158
Especially the development within information technology has recently changed this
situation, so that today’s land use technology is much more oriented towards the
economical as well as ecological advantages of adapting the land use processes to the
landscape conditions. This development will indeed also influence the trend of the post-
productivist transition.
5. Regional planning in the productivist phase was often supporting the 'non-spatial'
technology by economic support for homogenisation of environmental conditions in form
of melioration, farm amalgamations etc. as well as zonal legislation, giving regional or
local priorities to intensive monofunctional types of land use. Along with the post-
productivist transition and the changing technological possibilities, growing endeavour for
more sophisticated types of direct or indirect land use regulations develop, gradually
replacing the former tradition of planning for a segregated land use. This is however only
possible if a better understanding of the linkage to differences in landscape conditions are
known and recognised, and the conflicts related to these matters are better regulated.
6. Finally trends in urbanisation processes towards much a more dispersed pattern of
settlement and economic activities can be observed. This is primarily linked to the
development in transport technology and networks, but also trends in information
technology, growing amount of leisure time and dissatisfaction with the environmental
and social conditions in the existing urban areas (e.g. many cottage settlements) is given
rise to urban sprawl that in different ways calls for a more multifunctional use of our
landscapes.
All these trends are giving rise to considerable changes in land use and land cover as well as
in the natural and social functions of our landscapes. Whether these changes are developing in
a direction towards a more sustainable use and management of our landscapes is an open
question. It should however be suspected that both positive and negative trends can be found
and that trends related to both changes and landscape functional consequences can be related
to natural, socio-economic and cultural characteristics of landscapes nested together at
different levels. An overall goal for terrestrial landscape monitoring should be to detect such
trends in a systematic and reliable way. A monitoring of multifunctional terrestrial landscapes
include additionally the thesis that the systematic monitoring of different aspects of landscape
functionality might add to the understanding of ongoing landscape changes and widen the
possibilities for the formulation of policies for a more sustainable use of our landscapes.
Based on the experiences developed mainly through landscape-ecology-oriented research on

landscape surveillance gradually developing towards a '1. generation terrestrial landscape
monitoring', a variety of preliminary guidelines for the further development of monitoring of
multifunctional terrestrial landscapes can be stated. Three different main areas for
recommendations for future research can be derived:
a. The need for strategic conceptualisations for the monitoring system, making it possible
to integrate variables and indicators in a way that can support policy- or management-
goals.
b. The need for the development of a dedicated landscape model, related to basic categories
on landscape (multi)functionality, including a classification of functions that can take into
account both more or less well-formulated policygoals and more long-sighted
perspectives.
c. The need for organisational models ('handbooks') for multifunctional landscape
monitoring systems that can catch the variety of detailed, but important experiences on the
development and maintenance of such monitoring systems.
159
2. The need for strategic conceptualisations for the monitoring system
To support policy- and management goals, a landscape monitoring system should go beyond
the detection of changes in the state of the landscape and reflect information on landscape
processes, including its socio-economic aspects. Although landscapes – and also historically
developed cultural landscapes - functions as integrated systems, where all parts can be
mutually dependent on each other, problems of landscape management can often be
conceptually linked to an environmental disturbance chain. Such chains should be reflected in
the monitoring system. Models like the Pressure – State – Response (PSR) Model of the
OECD or the Driving forces – Pressures – State – Impact – Responses (DPSIR) Models used
by the European Environmental Agency (EEA), are examples to be transformed into a
landscape context. Although short-termed specific policy goals might dominate the immediate
demands on a landscape monitoring system, these should be subordinated more broader goals
linked to a long-sighted maintenance of the landscape monitoring system that will increase its
value considerably.
3. The need for the development of a dedicated landscape model
If emphasis shall be given to the opportunities to include functionality-shifts and other

functionality-considerations in the monitoring system, these aspects have to be integrated at
all levels. Basically it will be necessary to develop
a. a hierarchically structured classification of landscape functions with a basic division into
ecological functions for the maintenance of the integrity of the landscape system and
related ecosystems, and socio-economic and cultural functions related to different types of
land-use more or less adapted to the landscape.
b. A functionality-relevant landscape classification system of natural land units, land cover
and land use, supporting a time-dimension in the allocation of spatial functionality.
c. A system for analysis and description of functional potentials of natural land units that
allow for a systematic analysis of the spatial conformity of land use and management with
the natural conditions.
Integrating the functionality-classification in a time-sensitive landscape model will allow for a

spatial distinction between three main different types of multifunctionality:
a. Multifunctionality as a spatial combination of different functions related to separate land
units.
b. Multifunctionality as different functions devoted to the same land unit, but separated in
time, typically in a certain cycles.
c. Multifunctionality as integration of different functions at the same or overlapping land
units, at the same or overlapping time.
Since a land use segregation strategy is based on a systematic implementation of type a -

eventually related to a zoning that furthers a simplification of the spatial land use pattern –
even this strategy will express a certain multifunctionality, that increases with the spatial level
of registration.
A land use integration strategy should however rather follow the technical and social
possibilities for spatial integration of functions based on flexible, 'soft' or extensive ways of
land use, thus of type c, where the degree of multifunctionality is less related to the spatial
level of registration.
160
Due to chorological connections between most functions in landscapes, integration of or

conflicts between different functions will however exist in all three types of
multifunctionality, with the degree of multifunctionality much related to the chorological
structure of the functional land units, and a clear distinction between the three types will
probably be difficult. A supplementary analysis of landscape multifunctionality should be
related to a spatial analysis of boundaries between different functions in the landscape
('functional ecotones').
4. The need for organisational models ('handbooks') for multifunctional landscape

monitoring systems
A system for monitoring of multifunctional terrestrial landscapes has to be based on extremely

strict scientific principles. Due to the complex scientific character, and to the complicated
organisational way of data collection and storage there will be a strong need for systematic
collection of experience from scientific practise devoted to the development of landscape
monitoring systems. Among guidelines already collected the following should be mentioned:
a) Remotely sensed earth observation data is an indispensable source for landscape

monitoring. Either air photos or recent developed satellite data with high geometrical
resolution are indispensable tools by the detailed preparation of the survey, by the survey
of many types of land cover, by the detection of many different types of structure and
changes and for the extrapolation of results derived from a landscape monitoring system.
Due to the detailed character of much ecological oriented landscape information and due
to the need of integrating functional information related to land use, a landscape
monitoring system has however basically to be performed through detailed field surveys.
b) The extent and components of the total landscape being monitored must be explicitly
stated as a baseline for the monitoring, to sharpen scope, accuracy and statistical
confidence in any results or descriptions.
c) For economic, time-, and organisational reasons landscape monitoring has mostly to be
based on a very limited sample of the total area surveyed. The targeting of samples is
crucial to maximise returns on effort, and should in general be related to an appropriate
and statistically rigorous stratification.
d) All land units, land covers and land uses within each sample area should be surveyed in a
mutually exclusive way to allow for comparable time-series analysis. No types of units
should be omitted.
e) The same sample locations should be revisited, so that real change can be recorded, and
the time between surveys should be long enough to allow change.
f) Since surveys has to be based on interdisciplinary teams with different experiences and
altering from survey to survey all terms and methods should be fully explained in a field
handbook, and a clear communication between all involved should be established and
controlled, e.g. through field training courses that can ensure a standard level of expertise
for surveyors/interpreters.
g) Standard methods of recording that minimise modifications, additions and subjective

decisions and judgements among the field workers should be established for all types of
161
information collection. Decisions and judgements should be made in the field, not by the
data storage.
h) The very different approaches for the monitoring, ranging from remote sensing to detailed
ground photos, and from field surveys and to interviews and archive searches can be
difficult to standardise and integrate. It is however important to combine different sources
of information to maximise their strengths. By reclassifications, and by data-correction
related to later observed data-errors different information sources (e.g. air and ground
photos) can be a necessary support.
i) Data-control should be an inherent part of the monitoring system. This should not only be
related to field survey checks, but also by systematic control in connection with the data
storage. Integrated GIS-layer model that can support detailed time-series analysis of the
monitored data, can be an important tool for the successive control and improvement of
data quality among different stages of the monitoring process.
j) By result communication, accuracy should be tested through quality assurance exercises

and results guided by descriptions of confidence where possible. Due to the complex
character of landscape dynamics, result should preferably be presented in a variety ways.
162
First draft of
Workshop No. 3:
Biodiversity versus landscape diversity in multifunctional landscapes.
Proposed by Line Magnussen1 , Hans Henrik Bruun2 , Henning Adsersen3
Botanical Institute, Univ. of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 2D, DK-1353 København K
E-mail: 1 linem@bot.ku.dk, 2 hanshb@bot.ku.dk, 3 adser@bot.ku.dk
Biodiversity has become an issue of concern for all parts of landscape studies. The
formulation of the concept landscape diversity is an expression of this interest. In the context
of multifunctional landscapes landscape diversity may be one of the key stone concepts.
One reason for the focusing on biodiversity - understood as biological diversity – is that
diversity measures are holistic attributes of complex systems. Within biology, systems that
may be studied are hierarchically organised, and holistic diversity measures may be attributes
to any of the hierarchical levels: genetic diversity is an attribute of a population, species
diversity is an attribute of an ecosystem, and ecosystem diversity is an attribute of a
landscape. All the three mentioned biodiversity measures are specifically highlighted in the
Rio convention.
Biodiversity as a formulated concept appeared in the eighties, but nevertheless, biodiversity

was a focus of ecological studies during the last half part of the 20th century, especially on the
genetic diversity and species diversity level. Paradigms have arisen, methodologies have been
developed and the principles have been applied in practice. Biodiversity has therefore the
status of a well-defined concept with a certain background of scientific thinking and research.
Biodiversity as a concept encompasses the multitude of biological expressions within a certain

level of the biological hierarchy. It can be expressed in terms of diversity indices that are
analogous or comparable to condition descriptors as entropy from thermodynamics or
information from cybernetics. Biodiversity is often considered a multistructural concept but as
the elements considered (genes, species, and ecosystems) are functional biological units there
is a strong multifunctional bearing in the use of the word.
The title of this workshop, by the use of the conjunction versus, seems to allege differences
between biodiversity and landscape diversity. One obvious difference is that landscape
diversity has no such basis with a tradition and a generally known conceptual frame as
biodiversity. This difference is an appetising challenge to this workshop: we may tread new
trails and influence future understanding of landscape diversity.
It is important that the workshop addresses other, more substantial questions:
1.Can we construct a landscape diversity concept

• that is a holistic measure of an attribute of a landscape or a region
• that has any relation to other holistic measures (e.g. biodiversity)
• that can be assessed reasonably precisely
• that can be used in comparative procedures (monitoring (time-time) or inventorying
(space-space)
163
2. How much of the theories and experiences about biodiversity can be applied on landscape
diversity
• the biogeographical approach: gene flows, migration of species, ecosystem succession
• the resource-dimension – diversity approach: population size versus genetic diversity, area
or energy availability versus species diversity, age versus diversity
• the diversity - stability approach: are diverse systems more stable – or are stable systems
more diverse?
• the intermediate disturbance and intermediate fertility hypothesis: diversity has a bell-
shaped relation to disturbance and to fertility.
3. In the context of the multifunctional landscape approach, what is the value (or virtue) of
biodiversity and of landscape diversity?
4. How can we in practice influence biodiversity and landscape diversity of a region?
5. The organisms constituting biodiversity are – under the constraints of genetic laws, life
cycle traits, and ecologically caused evolution, migration and extinction – self-replicating
biologically without interference of man. Due to this, biodiversity possesses natural
sustainability. Human impact may impede this process severely. How do we ensure that some
landscapes or landscape elements remain undisturbed, so that regional sustainability can be
achieved also in terms of biodiversity?
Preliminary recommendations
After a thorough consideration of these questions, and discussions with colleagues at home
institutions and at the conference, we hope that the participants in workshop 3 will agree on
explicit recommendations to a research strategy on the topic of the workshop. The organising
committee of the conference has asked the “workshop guides” to propose a series of
preliminary recommendations. It should be stressed that this procedure is meant as an aid to
prepare and structure the discussion, not as an attempt to present a pre-approved manifest.
During the whole period till the conference our Emails will be open to responses from you.
We have chosen to group the recommendations according to the questions above:
Ad 1. In the search for a meaningful concept and measure of landscape diversity, the
following issues should be scrutinised:
• multistructurality versus multifuntionality

• diversity versus heterogeneity versus complexity
• should landscape diversity include biodiversity, geodiversity and perhaps diversity of
interactions with culture?
• should landscape diversity be a “within landscape” or a “between landscapes” measure?
Ad 2. A landscape diversity concept should be evaluated in relation to other holistic measures

of complex systems, and analogies and differences should be critically examined. Theories of
164
disciplines treating complex systems could be of strong interest for multifunctional

landscapes. Among such theories could be mentioned:
• Ecology (biodiversity)
• Cybernetics (information)
• Thermodynamics (entropy)
• Linguistics? (semiotic measures?)
• Economics? (???)
Ad 3. Objective 1 of the Rio convention is ”to conserve the maximum possible biological
diversity for the benefit of the present and future generations and for its intrinsic value”. In a
multifunctional approach it becomes a challenge to assess the mentioned “benefit” and
“intrinsic value” of biodiversity. As far as landscape diversity encompasses ecosystem
diversity, the Rio convention will oblige landscape management as well as wildlife
management. As a consequence:
• Multifunctional landscape research should comprise studies and assessments of benefit to

man of biodiversity and landscape diversity
• Multifunctional landscape research should comprise studies and assessments of intrinsic
values of biodiversity and landscape diversity
In biodiversity conservation, the concepts of authenticity and rarity or uniqueness play a large
role. These concepts fall partly under the intrinsic values. There are many examples where
these concepts are related to low rather than high biodiversity
• Multifunctional landscape research should set up criteria for assessment of landscape

authenticity and rarity/uniqueness
• Multifunctional landscape research should examine the relationships between these
concepts and landscape diversity.
Ad 4. Technology offers almost unlimited possibilities to manipulate with biodiversity and

landscapes. Somebody may interpret multifunctional landscape management as landscapes
manipulated in multiple ways. Irresponsible or careless use of technology may disturb or
destroy landscapes and their biodiversity, but on the other hand well-planned and careful
technology use may help to limit adverse effects on undisturbed landscapes and help
restoration of damaged landscapes.
• Multifunctional landscape research should contribute to assess “good technological

practice” and “good management practice” whenever technological (incl.
biotechnological) enterprises have effect on the landscape scale
• Multifunctional landscape research should participate in identifying technologies
applicable to landscape restoration or reclamation.
Ad 5. There are many organisms and ecosystems that are extremely vulnerable to disturbance.
A multifunctional approach to management of the landscapes they inhabit may be deleterious.
In fact many severe conservation problems are due to over-exploitation or to management that
try to exert too many functions in the same landscape. Some conservation problem may only
be solved by exclusion of human entrance and impact.
165
• It should be acknowledged within multifunctional landscape research that a high degree of

multifunctionality may have adverse or deleterious effects on biodiversity and landscape
diversity.
• It should be acknowledged within multifunctional landscape research that in order to
preserve the biodiversity of some landscapes they need to be without human interference.
• It should be acknowledged within multifunctional landscape research that biodiversity and
landscape diversity exist, sustain and evolve also where there is no multifunctional
management.
166
Second draft of
Workshop No. 4: Complexity of Landscape Management
Berit Hasler and Ulf Kjellerup
Commented and supplemented by Eirik Romstad, Marianne Penker and Roman Lenz.
These preliminary recommendations embrace statements and discussion points regarding

some of the problems and disciplines associated with the complexity of landscape
management and regulation.
Regulation and management of landscapes are complex, both because of the multifunctional
character and definition of “landscapes”, and because of the manifold disciplines involved in
both practical management and landscape management research; e.g.. landscape planning,
geography, economics, law and sociology. A basic problem regards how multifunctionality in
the open countryside can be, and are viewed, from the different social and/or cross-
disciplinary sciences, because these different disciplines and approaches results in different
recommendations regarding management and regulation as well as further research.
Focus on the workshop is on the use of regulatory and non-regulatory instruments - efficiency
- participation and compliance from the view of these different social sciences. Because
agriculture is a major land use factor in many countries, focus is concentrated on the
multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes.
The basic understanding of the statements and discussion points in a regulatory- and informal-
perspective and framework is intrinsically linked to a simple functional model consisting of
four basic elements:
Goals/objectives – Regulatory and non-regulatory Instruments -

Output – Outcome
“Goals” or “objectives” can be interpreted as targeted values in landscape and nature

policies. Regulatory and non-regulatory instruments consist of e.g. permissions,
prohibition , preservation, planning/ zoning, economic incentives, information and voluntary
agreements, and the term "output" consist of behavioural changes induced by the regulatory
and non regulatory instruments, as well as public services of landscape management. The term
“outcome” consists of intended and unintended changes in landscape and nature quality from
the agents behaviour and from public services, as well as the consequences for the economy
and institutions. This term is important because the incentives in the policy can be efficient
with respect to behavioural changes, but the effectiveness regarding the nature and
environmental objectives can be low, because of a lack of knowledge in our understanding of
the relationship between intervention and management, and landscape quality.
167
If it is difficult to find verifiable environmental goals (i.e., it is costly or technically difficult to

measure these goals), changes in agent behaviour can be used as a proxy. This is a "second-
best" setting, and one must take care not to mix-up changes in agent behaviour with
achievement of the ultimate environmental goals.
1. Taking different disciplinary approaches into account, but also different management
practices, multifunctionality can be regarded:
(a) A specific goal or objective for the policy and instruments implemented, or
(b) A consequence of the implementation and integration of different policies, e.g.
agricultural, recreational, landscape, nature and resource protective policies. In other
words multifunctionality can be regarded an integrated outcome of these policies.
One example of (a) is the suggestions of cross compliance policies for both production and
environment within the agricultural policy in EU. An example of (b) is that the agricultural
price policy influences the attributes of landscapes as both selection of crops, husbandry
production etc. are affected i.e. permanent and extensive grasslands are a by product of a
certain husbandry production, extensive cattle production.
The two approaches (a) and (b) will apparently influence the efficiency of the policies in
different directions. From an economic point of view (a) will not lead to an efficient
regulation and management, but as some policies result in multifunctional attributes coming
across, multifunctionality has to be discussed and analysed from the (b) perspective. In other
words, multifunctionality can be regarded a feature of the production of multiple products (the
multi-production function). From the perspective of management and regulation (policy) the
major problem is that only some of the attributes are currently paid for, mainly the private
good components like yields.
The presence of unexpected or adverse effects from one policy (e.g. the price policy) on other
policies (e.g. environment and landscape policy) is inherent in many policy contexts and
production systems to varying degrees. From this point of view the efficiency of all the
policies involved depends on how well one is able to utilize the inherent linkages. One other
aspect is that it is imperative for policies that incentives to reach these goals are clear.
More specifically discussion points are:
2. Different perspectives and disciplines points at various regulatory and non-regulatory

instruments as efficient to attain goals of landscape management and/or goals of
multifunctionality. As efficiency can be defined from many perspectives, this discussion
includes discussions of efficiency from the scope of the different sciences (social sciences)
involved in the workshop.
From an economic perspective parts of this regard how to pay producers for the production of
multiple products, including the efficiency problem of paying for nature production/nature and
landscape amenities. If transaction costs, i.e. administrative and information costs, are not too
high, direct "performance" payments, i.e., paying directly for producing the public goods in
question is preferred. The parallel is easily seen in nonpoint source pollution, where the first-
best solution is penalizing decreases in ambient quality, the "second-best" is penalizing
168
emissions, and the "third best" is regulation agricultural practices (like fertilizer taxes, catch
crop requirements, etc.)
Another part regards if nature/landscape amenities should be produced publicly or privately,

and if it is possible to create efficient markets for all products. Most of the landscape
amenities display public good characteristics that make it difficult to have an efficient private
demand side, and most of these amenities must be paid for via public budgets.
3. If multifunctionality is a goal or a product itself, or should be interpreted as a mix of

products created in the same area/landscape, as a result or "by-product" of integrated or
separate policies, it can be discussed and analysed from theoretical, disciplinary perspectives.
But it can also be discussed within more empirical settings and frameworks, e.g. involving
examples from national policies to illustrate consequences of these two approaches and or/
international analyses involving WTO, the CAP.
When multifunctionality happens as a by-product, it is certainly a good idea to focus on

certain landscape qualities, and leave other, more site specific, for nature protection and
explicit nature policy. If one goes through existing public policies in many countries one sees
that this kind of separation exists, as rare landscapes of high value are protected as national
parks, nature preserves, etc. In other countries the production of nature goods are more reliant
on the agricultural policy, as important nature and landscape values are tied to development of
the agricultural production. This happens in countries where agriculture are area consuming
compared to other types of land use.
4. With respect to the recommendations for further landscape research from the perspective of
management and regulation, the need for conceptual and empirical models can be stressed.
These can be top-down or bottom-up approaches, disciplinary or integrated social and
environmental/landscape ecological analysis.
Within landscape and integrated environmental/social science research there are several
examples pointing out that it is a possible, but a difficult and time consuming task, to establish
credible interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary models as tools in the analysis of landscapes and
environment as such. Furthermore these models are used in analyses of multifunctionality
in/of landscapes. The modelling efforts can serve as an analytical tool as well as a tool
providing information for the administrative- and political level.
5. Both for modelling studies and more conceptual approaches the definition of landscapes are
difficult to handle as it is problematic to view landscapes as a distinct category in regulation
and research into Regulation. Often landscapes are interpreted as land-use or land-cover,
reducing the inherent qualities as well as the multifunctional dimensions. A question is
whether we need an explicit definition of Landscapes (from the point of social sciences) as a
distinct category in order to cope with Multifunctionality, and if such a defintion can identify
important characteristics of landscapes from the points of social sciences. From an economic
perspective this can be reduced to an identification of the externality problem.
6. The right and access to landscapes will influence the choice of regulatory and non-
regulatory instruments, and the efficiency of the mentioned approaches regarding
multifunctionality as a by-product or a goal in it self. From an economic point of view, right-
to-access implies that it becomes even more difficult than under closed access to charge the
169
public, and thereby finance policy by such means. This implies that the only way to pay for
public goods is through public budgets, one way or another.
7. Creation of valuable landscapes in a multifunctional policy context can be desirable with

respect to control, information and enforcement when it comes to the management of
widespread “everyday” landscapes without unique characteristics, but that the preservation of
rare and high-value, unique landscapes has to be protected by more costly policies directed
towards the high values.
8. Efficient methods and instruments to improve awareness and education for multifunctional
issues in the specific landscapes are important, both towards farmers and other users of the
landscapes. As a growing share of the population is getting a more remote relationship to
landscapes (think about the game boy generation), this poses a severe challenge to policy
makers. Without awareness, the public support for policies to enhance or preserve landscape
qualities is likely to decline. Primary school is probably an important institution in terms of
"educating" the public about landscape values. Demonstration areas (with nature paths etc.) is
another important educational tool. A point of concern: public preferences have changed, and
will continue to change over time. At the same time we know that "preferences are created" –
one example is marketing for commercial goods.
170
First draft of
Workshop No. 5:
Proposed by Finn Arler and Jesper Fredshavn2
During the latest decades we have witnessed a growing awareness of the kinds of landscape
values or nature qualities sometimes referred to as “post-productive values,” i.e., values which
are not related directly to traditional production activities like farming, forestry, mining or
industry. It is not always easy to distinguish between productive values and post-productive
values, of course. Farming, for instance, is not just a way of extracting foodstuff from an
ecosystem, it is also a cultural activity with a variety of attached values. Or take the various
new landscape elements like amusement parks and holiday camps, many of which are quite
difficult to put on either side exclusively. Still, in most cases it is fairly obvious what is meant,
when we say that the gains we get from the productive activities should balanced with other
kinds of values.
The main subjects of Workshop 5 are these post-productive landscape or nature values and
qualities, understood as values and qualities which are (or are considered to be) important to
few or many people, who are living in, related to, temporarily placed in, or otherwise engaged
in a certain landscape. These values and qualities can be different from each other in many
ways. Some of them are obvious for all to see, others are only recognized by few (biologists,
historians, gardeners, painters, etc.). Some may be easy to measure, others may not. Some
values and qualities are fairly permanent features, whereas others only exist temporarily. Etc.
etc. Because of these and various other dissimilarities it can be quite difficult to pay due
respect to all of them in a landscape assessment.
On this background, the workshop 5 shall focus especially on the following questions:
1. Which kinds of values are relevant, and which of these should be considered main values?
2. To whom are the values relevant? Are they all relevant for everybody (actually or
potentially), or are some of them never going to appeal to more than a few experts and
connoiseurs?
3. How and by whom should the relative importance of these often apparently
incommensurable values be estimated? Are there some relevant objective or generally
acceptable measures, indicators or methods available?
4. How and by whome should they be balanced against values related to productive
activities? Is it possible to imagine a multicriteria optimization method, which could help
us solve the problem, or should one simply forget about general methods, and rely on
political decision procedures?
The following recommendations for landscape research in general, and workshop 5 in

particular, are related to these four question.
171
Recommendations:
ad 1. It is an important part of landscape research to identify and, as far as possible, rationally

evaluate landscape values and nature qualities, both in order to describe the present state of
the landscapes and their qualitiess, and to set goals for future landscapes. At least three main
sets of values and qualities are likely to be of fundamental importance: aesthetic and pictorial
qualities, historical and narrative qualities, as well as biological (together with geological)
diversity and uniqueness. These sets of values can then be subdivided into more specific
categories. The first task of workshop five will be to try to make a general and ordered
checklist of relevant values, and try to qualify the reasons for their relevance.
ad 2. It is important to identify the values and qualities of a landscape, and not just
identify the present stakeholders and interest groups and the values they may simply happen to
have for the time being. Values and qualities are features which can be rationally discussed
and evaluated. It is therefore not particularly “objective” or “democratic” simply to refer what
people for the time being happen to consider to be valuable, compared with substantial
discusions of relevance and relative value. However, it is also a highly relevant question to
ask what status experts (e.g., of ecosystems) or connoissurs (e.g., of pictorial qualities) should
be given, and whether the values and qualities they identify should be given particular
consideration. This will be the second subject for discussion in workshop 5, and quite
important for landscape research in general, of course.
ad 3. Some kinds of values and qualities are measurable to some extend, or there may at least
be some good indicators on whether they are present or not. Species diversity can be measured
directly, for instance, and water quality can be evaluated in various direct and indirect ways
(chemistry, visibility, indicator species, etc.). Good indicators are usually extremely helpful
when one tries to assess the qualities of the landscape, to identify the possible threats to these
qualities, and to describe the impact the presence and considerations of these qualities have on
other qualities and the future landscape development. Other kinds of values are far more
difficult to evaluate. This is the case with the atmosphere of a landscape, for instance, or the
historical importance of some of its elements. Therefore, the question arises whether or how it
is possible to deal with such unmeasuable values and qualities, and whether there are any
methods available which makes it easier to deal with apparently incommensurable values. If
there are such assessment methods available, how we can we make sure that unmeasurable
qualities are being systematically underestimated.
ad 4. The balancing of post-productive qualities against each other is only one part of the
general balancing or landscape assessment process. The post-productive qualities need be
balanced against values related to productive activities, too. In principle, one can imagine four
different ways to carry out this assessment. The first one is to rely on economics, i.e., to put an
economic value on each and every kind of value and quality, put them all into an
econometrical computer programme, and see which combination comes out on top. As an
alternative to economic valuation, one could use a kind of multicriteria assessment scheme,
process the data and other kinds of inputs and see which combination scores highest on most
indicators. A third alternative is to sit down and watch the fight between interest groups,
accepting that the strongest group with most members or persuasion skills shall win the battle.
The fourth and last alternative is the perhaps fairly idealistic proposal to see the political
process as primarily a rational deliberation process, which cannot be reduced to an arational
battle, and which often ends up with results which are at least as good as those made by
economical or multicriteria assessment methods. A process, i.e., in which landscape
researchers have a chance of being heard whenever their arguments are sensitive and reasoned
172
out carefully enough. The way landscape research is carried out is quite dependent on which
of these procedures to rely on, and the question of procedures will therefore be the last
question taken up in workshop 5.
173
First draft of
Workshop No. 6:
Ecological aspects of multifunctional landscapes in historical
perspective
Proposed by Bent Aaby
I Problems in present landscape research
(1) The landscape acts as a frame for many activities such as cultivation, transport, recreation
and so on and each research discipline has priorities and makes demands in relation to
landscape use. How can these legal expectations be fulfilled at the same time and in the same
area without creating social conflicts? Interdisciplinary approaches to landscape research and
management play a key role in answering this question. Each research discipline often focuses
on features in the landscape from its own interesting point of view depending on academic
traditions. But the academic society is not a world apart. Society, politicians and other
landscape consumers make many demands, but their concept of landscape and the way they
understand the processes within it differs from that of individual research disciplines. This is
one of the challenges faced us in present investigations of cultural landscapes; another
challenge is the historical aspect. The present landscape is the result of a long term
evolutionary process which sometimes has resulted in rapid and dramatic changes as well as
more gradual variations and phases of stability. Cultural landscapes retain features – hidden or
visual – from the different phases in the development of those landscapes.. How can we
benefit from this cultural heritage in our present use of the landscape without destroying the
historical identity of an area? A change to a more holistic research strategy based on
multifunctional landscapes may be one of the solutions to the above mentioned questions.
II General recommendations on future landscape research from workshop group 6.
(2) Future landscape research should be multidisciplinary and focus more on time-related
processes. Information of this kind is often difficult to perceive by modern observations but
can be detected and quantified by palaeoecological methods.
(3) Present day biodiversity is determined by a number of factors including the historical
dimension. Palaeoecological, historical and archaeological knowledge is an important issue in
landscape research and contributes to a holistic perception of the modern landscape.
(4) Historical ecological research provides knowledge of vegetation types, their use in past
societies and the natural values that were associated with them. This information is obtained
on various areal scales depending on the source material. The scale of area is an essential
issue when evaluating scientific results and only information related to the same scale of area
should be used in comparisons.
174
III Recommendations from workshop no. 6:

Ecological aspects of multifunctional landscapes in historical perspective
(5) The pre-industrial landscape was based on multifunctional use. Forest ecosystems, for
example, served as a source for wood and hay production, grazing and hunting. During the
19th and 20th century land use became intensive and mainly uni-functional. Today there is a
common demand for co-existence of different functions including ecology, economy, culture,
aesthetics and recreation.
(6) Integrated use of land and resources in pre-industrial Europe enhanced the adoption of
local ecological and environmental conditions to different needs.
(7) The multifunctional use of the historical landscape facilitated the formation of different
habitats, supported biodiversity and met the goal of sustainability.
(8) Multi- and unifunctional use may both lead to overexploitation and landscape
degradation. History has taught us that disturbance should be regulated to avoid ecological
landscape degradation.
(9) Disturbance influences biodiversity and a moderate level of disturbance often supports
species richness.
(10) Pre-historical and historical landscape components contribute to landscape quality and
improve the ecological dimension of the area.
(11) The ecological functionality and the diversity of forests, river systems, and signs of
historical land-use should be taken into account in regional planning of multifunctional land
use.
175
V. Papers presented in parallel

sessions
176
177
1. Session A:
Landscapes in theory
In alphabetical order of the names of the authors.
Landscape theory - a way out of the conceptual mess

Peter Frederiksen
RUC-19.2, P.O. Box 260, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark, e-mail: pfred@ruc.dk
The article suggests a definition of landscape and a way to build a theory of landscape through
a number of statements: (1) landscape is just one among many objects of study in the
universe, (2) a transdisciplinary theory of landscape is a contradiction in terms, (3) a theory
requires a common, scientific language for all of landscape, (4) this language may be
developed in (a) an empirical-inductive manner from the existing, conceptual chaos to new
theories, or (b) by using mathematical principles and theories as the theoretical foundation of
landscape, mathematical models to describe landscape, and mathematics to guide the
formulation of non-mathematical models, (5) complex adaptive systems (biosystems) and
other dynamical systems (geosystems), which is emerging as a common denominator for a
wide variety of natural, social and cultural phenomena, is a good candidate as a language, (6)
complex adaptive landscape systems are symbol systems (language, knowledge, ethical,
aesthetical), arenas (political, economic and social systems) and ecosystems – a multitude of
terrestrial and aquatic subsystems; landscape geosystems are the lowermost atmosphere,
landforms, drainage basins and their interaction produce landscape - i.e. systems at the land
surface and its immediate surroundings, (7) the real issue for the human complex adaptive
system is how to interact with the rest of landscape, and (8) a landscape theory must therefore
also be able to describe the problems and solutions of this interaction. A series of arguments
in favour and against the statements are presented.
Multifunctional landscape assessment –

a step nearer transdisciplinarity
Gary Fry
Norwegian Institute for Nature and Cultural Research, PO Box 736 Sentrum
N-0105 Oslo, Norway
One of the problems facing landscape professionals is the task of assessment across sectoral
boundaries. This paper examines the barriers to such work and the results of two projects in
Norway that specifically set out to explore ways around the problems. The first project set out
to incorporate landscape ecological concepts into archaeological prediction models to identify
Viking grave mounds, and the second project investigated the role of landscape structure for
biodiversity, cultural heritage and human experience of landscape. In both studies we found
the following differences between academic disciplines of particular importance; language
178
and concepts, differences in approaches to qualitative and quantitative data, the role of
scientific literature and academic traditions, and spatial scale. Results found that for many
landscapes management choices would have to be made, as what was found positive for one
subject interest was not necessarily good for others. Landscape grain size was found an
important factor for most interests with fine grained landscapes reflecting historical
continuity, abundance of wildlife habitats and positive landscape experience.
Main disciplinary models in landscape ecology: limits and advantages

Vittorio Ingegnoli * and Elena Giglio Ingegnoli **
* University of Milan, Faculty of Natural Sciences
** University of Milan
During the Fifth World Congress of IALE (1999) the President noted that the variety of topics
and approaches represented in the literature testifies to the diversity of landscape ecology as a
discipline.
This diversity is at once its great strength and its potential weakness. If we compare
the main topics of landscape ecology, we arrive to recognise four principal disciplinary
models.
The first (geographical) is associated with the interrelation between natural and
human components, from the point of view of geomorphology, botany, architecture, etc., led
by geography toward an interdisciplinary science.
The second (chorological) is rooted in population ecology and zoology, driven by the
need to develop spatial characters and scale processes in general ecology.
The third (matrix-configured) is related with the attempt to study the ecology of land
ecosystems.
The fourth (holistic) derives from an holistic view, dealing with landscapes as open,
adaptive, self-transcendent systems of natural and human elements.
Each point of view defines the landscape in different manners. In our opinion it is
necessary to arrive to a new disciplinary model capable to utilise and to integrate the best of
all the others. We could call it “holistic unifying”, because the holistic model has the best
epistemological basis to do this, but needs some integration.
Approaches to landscape research in Russia

Alexandre.V.Khoroshev, Yury.G.Puzachenko
Landscape science in Russia has developed on the basis of Hettner and Humboldt concepts
within geography. Landscape was defined as relatively homogeneous in space natural system
with similar type of relations between components. Notion of hierarchical organization of
landscape was formulated as important empirical generalization. Landscape is treated as main
unit of physical geography - territorial system occupying first hundreds of square kilometres
formed on the section of the Earth`s crust with unified geological composition, history of
development, morphological structure, defined by regular combination of relief, soils,
vegetation, animals, hydrological and geochemical regimes. Such system determines forms of
human activity. Landscape is divided into morphological units of different scales forming
179
hierarchy - up to 5-6 levels. Repeated in space types of combination of units can be structural
elements of landscapes. Landscapes are individual phenomena and serve as elements of
physical-geographical regionalization. Within this concept research of landscape structure was
carried out aiming at investigation of mechanisms of hierarchical organization, borders
between landscape units. Methods of landscape mapping are worked out. Present-day methods
of quantitative analysis of landscape structure afford to form basis for modelling dynamics of
complex natural and anthropogenic systems in different spatio-temporal scales.
WYGIWYS - What you get is what you see: The understanding of

'landscape' between traditional epistemology and constructivism
Stefan Lang
Virtually every practical application and most of the methodical issues in landscape ecology
deal with 'landscape' as an entity, thus as a concrete object of investigation. Reflections and
more extensive considerations are rare, standard definitions are unhesitatingly adopted. By
that we have to admit that our discipline is built upon a slightly shaky fundament and is
composed by somewhat blurred imaginations. Hot discussions took place in the 1970ies
driven by epistemological disagreements among the then leading German speaking
geographers and a young critical fellow named G. HARD. Starting there the paper is supposed
to give a comparing overview over the further development within the understanding of
'landscape'. Several approaches will be discussed all of them aiming at finding scientific
foundations for the realm of landscape ecology. These ones point to three directions: the
classical view of the German geography and its critic, the system theoretical approach
particularly pushed by Z. NAVEH and the pragmatic view of an organism-centered perception
of 'individual' landscapes formed by a specific mosaic of 'patches'. Although the paper will
indicate shortcomings in every approach, 'landscape' is not supposed to keep indefinable. For
that finally the author pleads for a intentional and flexible synthesis of some core ideas
distilled from the different attitudes. Being conceptualized to cause ongoing discussions the
paper was mainly driven by some general considerations concerning questions like these: - are
'landscapes' existing independent from our thinking or are they merely a product of perception
and only explicable by an epistemological constructivism; (how) can we deal with a 'blurred'
imagination of what 'landscapes' could be; can a 'patch' or a 'landscape-unit' be considered as
the realization of emergent properties above the organism; - is then a landscape consisting of
patches a further level in this hierarchy?
Fundamental problems of ecolandscape theory and their application

in environmental planning and management.
The Thon Nguyen
Ecolandscape is a present territorial complex, which has the geographical landscape structure
and the ecological function of ecosystems which exist and develop on that territory.
Ecolandscapes are distinguished by landscape structures and different ecological functions in
different territories. The paper presents a geosystem model of geographical landscape, an
ecosystem model and their integration in an ecogeosystem model of ecolandscape. The
180
structure and multifunction of ecolandscape include: 1) geographical landscape structure with

ecosystem structure, 2) natural multifunction of geographical landscape with ecological
multifunction of ecosystems. Ecolandscapes are classified according to the use of their socio-
economic functions. Ecological territorial systems in ascending scale of territory consist of:
ecolandface, ecolandshape, ecolandscape, ecoregion, ecoprovince, ecocountry, ecostate. The
paper emphasizes that ecolandscape and ecological territories are biotope or habitat of a
humane ecosystem. Environmental science is the science of humane ecology therefore
ecolandscape is the object of environmental science studying the habitat territory of human
being and other creatures. The theory of ecolandscapes is applied to study of environment.
Environmental planning and management is carried out territorially, hence ecolandscapes play
an important role in environmental planning and management.
The project of landscape identification and characterisation for

Portugal. Presentation of a methodology for defining and
characterising landscape units as basis for land use planning
Teresa Pinto-Correia and Alexandre Cancela d'Abreu
University of Évora, Colégio Luis Verney, 7000 Évora, Portugal
tel.351.266 745334, fax.351.266 744968/971, E-mail: mtpc@uevora.pt
The project of landscape identification and characterisation in Portugal is being undertaken by

a interdisciplinary team at the University of Evora, as a command by the Environment and
Planning Ministry, to be finished in summer 2001. The aim is to identify lansdcape units for
the whole country, and to characterise these units, leading to the undertsanding of the main
processes and trends going on, and giving orientations for future management. This paper
relates to the methodology defined for identifying these landscape units, which combines
objective data as lithology, land forms, land use, farm structure, settlement pattern, etc, with
more subjective information and sensitive judgement as the local and regional culture, identity
and the character of the landscape. The characterisation of the units combines all this
information with the temporal dimension: the past influences, the most relevant historical
features and, for the future, the factors and perspectives of change. The paper focus mainly on
the problems, on one side, and potentialities, on the other, of such a work and specially of the
methodology defined, and on the questions arising from the combination of an objective and a
subjective - based on expert judgement - approach.
On landscape boundaries and how to bound contemporary

landscapes
Mattias Qviström
Department of Landscape Planning/Alnarp, Box 58, 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden
Boundaries are a central feature in all landscape studies, even though the character of the
boundaries studied varies a lot. However, contemporary landscapes and its boundaries seem to
be hard to understand using conventional modes of landscape analysis, based primarily on the
study of maps and the information given by visual analysis. New modes of transport and
communication in the 19th and 20th century, have offered new ways of establishing boundaries
181
in time and space, boundaries invisible for many landscape researchers. These boundaries
have a great impact on the landscape of today. In this paper I will argue for the need of a time-
spatial analysis where speed and boundaries are understood as closely related phenomena, to
facilitate an understanding of contemporary landscapes. As a point of departure, the
importance of boundaries in landscape research will be analysed. Thereafter the time-
spatiality of the 20th century boundaries will be discussed. The discussion will be focused on
the boundaries caused by the late 20th century roads, and is based on studies in semi-urbanised
areas in southern Sweden.
Landscape as an object of investigation of various disciplines

Andrzej Richling
Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies, Warsaw University, Poland
The term landscape is used in various disciplines of science. In physical geography this term
is most frequently used as a synonym of geocomplex (geosystem) and is hierarchically
classified. The concept of geochemical landscapes stresses the role of the mutual
subordination of units bordering each other. Landscape phytocomplexes are distinguished and
characterised on the basis of type and areal distribution of the types of physiocenosis. In
architecture landscape is understood as the shape of terrain (visible landscape). At the same
time in common speech, the word landscape is used to denote the natural scenery (rural and
industrial landscape, winter and summer landscape, ugly and nice one, etc.).
Landscape definitions rarely determine its taxonomic rank, although it is widely
accepted that landscape is a large spatial unit sometimes identified with a region. In the
taxonomy of physico-geographical units landscape is divided into smaller units, called
morphological parts of landscape. In the systems of vegetation classification the aspect of
superiority of landscape is also emphasised.
In landscapes delimiting two basic approaches can be used; the morphological and the
functional. The morphological approach defines the areal extent of the unit, whereas the
functional outlines the change of states and of processes within the units’ limits.
The more complete definitions of landscape are formulated by the representatives of
landscape ecology. Discussed notion is used here to denote a "complete", though
heterogeneous whole functioning in accordance with the laws of nature, capable of self-
regulating and marked with a certain individuality. Each landscape should be characterised by
spatial dimension and the structural, functional and visual features.
Towards a theory of the landscape:

The ”Aegean Landscape” as a cultural image
Theano S. Terkenli
Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Karantoni 17, Mitiline 81100, Lesvos, Greece,
Tel: 3-0251-36414, Fax: 3-0251-36099, E-mail: t.terkenli@aegean.gr
For landscapes to fulfill their multifunctional roles as sustainable milieux of human

livelihood, the question of scale, and thus the criteria by which objectives are negotiated and
outcomes measured, is vitally important. The plethora of processes of action and interaction
182
among the various components of a landscape dictate that there are almost no methodological
frameworks and tools that would have no application in landscape study, planning, use or
policy implementation. If emphasis is retained on characteristics distinctive to the landscape
context, however, such as the visual--cognitive--experiential interface and bio-physical--
human interaction in the landscape, the beginnings of a theory of landscape as a stage set for
human life may thus be established.
Towards this goal, this paper represents an attempt to apply concerns about scale and
appropriate methodology on landscape form, function and meaning in delineating a
framework of analysis for the «Aegean landscape» of Greece. Such a challenging goal may
best be approached through critical geographical perspectives. In terms of theory,
«Aegeanity» is negotiated on the basis of geographical scale and cultural meaning,
encompassing distinctive landscape characteristics as presented above. In terms of Aegean
landscape analysis, goals and criteria of assessment are interwoven into appropriate
methodological schemata.
183
2. Session B:
Functions of agricultural/rural landscapes
Spatial structure and multifunctional use of agricultural landscapes

Ann-Margreth Berggren Bärring
Department of Landscape Planning, Alnarp, Sweden
Three agricultural areas in Scania (southern part of Sweden) exemplifies change of landscape
pattern from 1947 and onwards. The study attempts to quantify spatial changes relevant to
ecological function and visual qualities. The use and reliability of this kind of planning
information is also discussed. Aerial photos (1:30 000) are used as primary source of
information. Agricultural development has steered the change of landscape. Other forms of
use are regarded as being of secondary importance. Economical benefit of agricultural
production, and physical and other conditions within a specific area influence the
development, leading to different levels of change among areas. Change of spatial structure -
size or shape - influence the conditions for abundant species and simultaneously affects the
visual qualities of the landscape. Interest in products from alternative farming increases.
Agricultural ideals as ”giant fields” are fading. Politicians stress the importance of regional
identity. There are good opportunities for the creation of a landscape more suited for multi-
functional use. Descriptions of landscape spatial structures and their history are valuable
planning information when coming changes of land use are discussed.
Developments of hedgerows and wood lots: farmers’ decision making

Anne Gravsholt Busck, Lone Søderkvist Kristensen and Jørgen Primdahl
The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Department of Economics and Natural Resources
Farmers are the primary landscape managers in Danish agricultural landscapes. Understanding
landscape changes and the role of public policies, in that process, require an understanding of
farmers' motives to carry out landscape changes. However there is little knowledge about
farmers' decision making concerning the landscape. With hedgerows and woodlots as the
point of departure the paper will explore farmers' decision making process concerning
landscape changes. Development of hedgerows and woodlots are used as indicators of
structural landscape changes, because they represent widespread and long term decisions and
because we expect farmers to have different attitudes toward the two types of elements.
Farmers’ motives to plant, remove and renew hedgerows and wood lots are analysed utilising
data from recent studies of landscape changes in different agricultural landscapes. Also the
farmers’ use of personal network, when deciding on landscape changes and how this
influences the farmers decisions, is explored. The results are discussed and related to how the
184
knowledge can be used within physical planning and advisory services to improve locations
and compositions of plantings.
A bottom up method to map the farming structure and agricultural

intensity at the landscape scale
Tommy Dalgaard† and Hild Rygnestad ‡
†Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Agricultural Systems
‡Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics, Dept. of Agricultural Policy
The EU agricultural policy, Agenda 2000, aims at a multifunctional use of the agricultural
landscape, where productivity is only one amongst many aims, including environmental
protection, better use of resources, preservation of the cultural landscape and rural
development. To change the development of the intensive agricultural landscape of Western
Europe towards more multifunctionality, geographical related knowledge about farming
structure and agricultural intensity is needed. However, existing statistical (top down) data
from EUROSTAT are based on statistical samples that are too small to be used for analysis at
the landscape scale. In this paper, a new method to map the farming structure and agricultural
intensity at the landscape scale is presented and then applied to a 31 km2 agricultural area of
Denmark. Denmark has been a pioneer collector of digital farm information so it is possible to
use a bottom-up approach, where the EUROSTAT farm typology is applied to all farms and
mapped at the landscape scale. The spatial distribution of farm types and the agricultural
intensity is analysed and then compared to maps of other landscape functions. For example,
the results show that areas with drinking water magazines or designated for afforestation
contain a disproportionately large number of part time farmers.
Key-words: Farm typologies, bottom up, structure, region, scale
Impacts on farmland biodiversity of large-scale changes in arable and

pastoral landcovers
Dennis, P.1 , Cole, L.J.2 , Milligan, A.L.3 , Furness, R.W.3 , McCracken, D.I.2 , Murphy, K.J.3 and
Waterhouse, A.2
1
Integrated Land Use Systems, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen,
AB15 8QH, UK (e-mail: p.dennis@mluri.sari.ac.uk).
2
Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr, KA6 5HW, UK, (e-mail: l.cole@au.sac.ac.uk).
3
Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences,
University of Glasgow, University Avenue, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK,
(e-mail: a.milligan@bio.gla.ac.uk).
A study was undertaken of the plant and animal diversity in a Scottish river catchment
classified as predominantly under agricultural land use. Sampling of a range of biological taxa
was carried out on representative agricultural landcovers, replicated across the river catchment
to allow the analysis of the relative influence of landform and land use. Standard field
methods were used to survey vascular plants, bryophytes, birds, beetles and spiders. Data on
land form and land cover were extracted from National landcover, soils and digital elevation
185
databases, along with finer resolution data collected by field survey on arable and pastoral
landcovers, field boundaries and remnant biotopes. Management data were collected from
landowners and farmers for each of 61 fields where the biota were sampled.
This work contributes to the development of a model to express biodiversity at the river
catchment scale, based on the context of agricultural land covers with alternative land covers
and landform. The model will be used to estimate the effect on farmland biodiversity of
different scenarios of change in agriculture. The compatibility of changes in agricultural
landcovers, necessary to maintain a viable agricultural sector, with the sustainability of the
natural heritage function of agricultural landscapes, will be discussed.
Plant diversity and habitat networks in agricultural landscapes

Willemien Geertsema
The network of semi-natural landscape elements is crucial for the survival of many plant
species in agricultural landscapes. We studied the effect of habitat quality, age and the spatial
arrangement of habitat on the survival and diversity of wild plant species in a network of
ditches in an agricultural landscape in the Netherlands. The habitat quality within the network
was very heterogeneous in space as well as time. In such a system the species might function
as a metapopulation. Plant species with contrasting dispersal and seed bank characteristics
were studied. The influence of agricultural activities on the adjacent fields appeared to be very
important for some plant species, for others the vicinity of seed sources was more important.
The results of observational and experimental work were used for the development of a
spatially explicit simulation model. Using this model, the effect of spatial arrangement, the
quality and the dynamics of habitat on the population dynamics and the survival of plant
species with contrasting dispersal and seed bank characteristics can be studied. The results of
the empirical and modelling work will be presented and discussed.
Planning biodiversity in agricultural landscapes:

development of a decision support system
Jan T.R. Kalkhoven
Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, NL
In the highly cultivated landscapes of Western Europe the green and blue veins, that is the
small landscape elements like hedgerows, road verges, ditches and ponds, are the places
where nature quality is still retained. These green veins have there own nature quality and are
connecting elements in the networks of large nature areas. In the same time they have a
function for recreation and water retention.
In the urgent planning of ‘sustainable agricultural in a sustainable landscape’ a tool is
desirable, to ensure a certain nature quality in the agricultural landscape. Such a tool will be
developed as a decision support system: regional landscapes are described with physical and
ecological parameters and possibilities; these parameters form the first axis of a matrix. The
second axis consists of parameters for several functions of the landscape: nature quality,
recreational activities and retention of water. For each function the essential landscape
parameters are indicated. The matrices of different landscapes will be linked with GIS-maps
186
and can be used for designing scenario’ s of the agricultural landscapes or comparison of the
scenario’s.
Sustainable Planning in Agricultural Landscapes

Burghard C. Meyer (*), Heidrun Muehle, Ralf Grabaum
Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle, Germany
(*) corresponding author. Fax: +49 341 235 2219. E-mail address: meyer@alok.ufz.de
At past and at present, man have intervened in terrestrial ecosystems, often ignoring any
principle of sustainability. In Central Germany, based on very fertile black soils, agriculture
has predominated for hundreds of years. It is characterised by short crop rotations, large fields
and only few hedges, fruit trees, rows or copses in the landscape. In many cases the intensive
agricultural management is the cause of the threats to soil, water, atmosphere and biosphere.
The project presented focuses a method on the development of scenarios under different land
use options as a tool for farmers, landscape planners, environmental and agricultural
authorities to assess the results of land use changes. These scenarios are based on methods
assessing the landscape functions in relationship to the protection of other functions like soil
erosion, water discharge regulation and agricultural production capability in a multifunctional
view. The method uses a database which is integrated into a geographic information system,
and a method of multicriteria optimisation. The method of optimisation achieves results which
can be considered as compromises between different landscape functions. Beside landscape
assessment and optimisation a quantification of changes of the landscape balance, based on
scenarios under different land uses is necessary.
The hunted landscape

Carsten Riis Olesen* & Jørgen Primdahl**
* National Environmental Research Institute, Dep. of Landscape Ecology, Kalø.
** Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Dep. of Economics and Natural Resources,
Copenhagen.
Hunting for recreative purposes is a popular activity in Denmark. Approx. 250.000 people are
national game licence holders, 170.000 hunters pay the early fee, although only 120.000 file a
resulting annual bag report other than zero. The living conditions of wildlife are to a large
extent defined by the landscape structure, but the local hunting management does also affect
the game species. Substantial proportions of farmers’ landscape decisions are associated with
interests in hunting. Detailed analyses of the importance of hunting in a landscape perspective
are presented. An extensive survey of land use and landscape changes on more than 700 farms
and private forest properties, including personal interviews of all the owners serve as the
primary data material. Of the total area studied (app. 14.000 adjoining ha) 16% are not subject
to hunting. These areas are primarily intensively cultivated open farmland. However, some
aggregation appears, forming larger areas of non-hunted pockets in the landscape. Spatial
descriptions of the farms on which the owner does not want hunting and the ecological
importance of these non-hunting areas are evaluated. Reviews of the local game bag records
indicate distinct differences in wildlife densities in different types of landscape. Implications
for the future landscape- and wildlife management are discussed.
187
Changes in landscape structure: a vector based analysis of three NW

European agricultural areas
R.G. Roepers * & C.R. Baltjes
Wageningen University. Department of Environmental Sciences, Land Use Planning Group, Gen.
Foulkesweg 13, NL-6703 Wageningen, The Netherlands.
*
Author for correspondence: Fax: + 31 317 482166; e-mail: Reinetta.Roepers@users.rpv.wau.nl
Agricultural areas in Europe are under going complex changes that involve socio-economic,
biotic and abiotic factors. Landscapes change constantly, especially under human influence. It
is well known that there is a close correlation between land cover, landscape structure and the
intensity of land use. Understanding land use changes and the consequences for landscape
structure is important to support planning, policy making and management related to land use
as well as the landscape. Within three case study areas, sample areas of one square kilometre
are selected according to certain criteria. A three step historical analysis is based on 1:25.000
topographical maps. Land cover classes are defined so that classes are comparable through the
years. Analysis are carried out with ARC-VIEW in vector based shape-files related to
different themes. A description is made of the land cover change. The spatial structure of the
landscape is analysed and described by indices like number, size, perimeter, fractal dimension,
diversity and nearest neighbour. The followed approach gives a good indication of changes in
land cover and landscape structure. Farm characteristics and policy explain to a certain extent
the observed changes. Main points of the used method are (1) the level of detail possible, (2)
interpretation of information and (3) invested time for analyses. If only broad classes are used
analyses based on topographical maps are use full and, especially in the future with the
availability of digital maps, can be very efficient.
Keywords: landscape structure, land use, methodology, GIS

188
3. Session C:
Functions of urban and recreational landscapes
Improvement of Agricultural Research Components in Urban

Landscape and Greenery of Kuwait
Mahdi Abdal and Majda Sulieman
Aridland Agricultural Department, Kuwait institute for Scientific Research
Agricultural development in Kuwait faces many problems and obstacles such as limitation of
water resources for irrigation, soils conditions, climatic extreme particularly during the
summer periods, and train manpower. With all these extreme conditions for agricultural
development in Kuwait, there is strong demand from both the public and the government for
agricultural activities. Urban landscape and greenery is one of the agricultural activities that
have extreme demand from both the public and the government. Travelling around the world
enhanced the public for the important of urban landscape and the beautification of the urban
areas. Planning urban landscape and greenery for Kuwait need various variables and efficient
management of all the limited resources. Irrigation water is very limited in Kuwait and the
quality is deteriorating from over pumping the underground water and increased soil salinity
by over irrigation and lack of drainage. Efficient irrigation water management can be
improved with the enhancement of irrigation research activities in Kuwait and implementation
of the outputs. Research can be concentrated also on water evaporation, which is very high,
and the introduction of mulching materials to improve water irrigation efficiency. Most of the
soils in Kuwait are sandy with limited organic materials and plant nutrients. Research in soil
fertility and plant uptake of nutrients is very essential for any agricultural activities.
Introduction of ornamental plants with tolerant to drought, salinity and heat is continuous
research component of urban landscape and greenery in Kuwait. Training local staff in basic
agricultural activities and research development will improve resources management and
enhanced greenery of Kuwait.
Key Words: agriculture, irrigation, salinity, fertility, ornamental, drought, heat, drainage,
evaporation, and greenery.
189
Recreation and Nature Conservation – two conflicting functions in

multifunctional Central European Urban Landscapes
Jürgen Breuste
Cities in Central Europe are still growing. They especially enlarge their area, not growing by
their number of inhabitants. The agglomerations are allready much bigger than the so called
core cities of agglomerations. In many parts of Central Europe – incuding Germany - exist
allready enlarged urban landscapes. The sources of urban growth are individual livestyles, the
cheep mobility and the nearly zero-costs of nature in economic process. When we accept that
city dwellers still need contact and recreation in an natural environment, that cities also in the
near fututre will further on grow and that nature must be secured also in urban landscapes,
than the conflict between nature conservation and recreation in urban landscapes is clear
visible. The starting question is: How to qualify and possible quantify the demands of urban
dwellers for recreation in natural environment and how to compare these demands with the
reality of nature conservation strategies in urban landscapes? The investigations on borth
fields were made in empirical studies in the urban agglomeration of Halle-Leipzig (Germany).
It could be showed that the trends for natur-near recreation goes outside the cores of urban
landscapes and that the accaptance for „new“ urban nature ist still low. The existing nature
potentials are not recognized and used for recreation. On the other hand natur conservation
strategies dont really include the utilization of natur by recreation. Mostly it fights against
more intensivly use by people. The strategies of urban natur conservation in Halle and Leipzig
had been evaluated for this task. The results showed the contradicting demands for nature, the
existing potentials of nature and the conservative protection strategies of institutional nature
conservation. These are the reasons of the conflicts. The study shows some possible ways how
to come out of the conflict. One is the acceptance of multifunctional utilization of urban natur
– especially by the nature conservation, the other is the strength of accaptance of all kinds of
urban nature potentials and the nessesary incease of knowledge and experience with different
forms of urban nature for different groups of urban dwellers. This shows a perspective for
further mulitfunctional development of urban landscapes as living space for people and
natural environment.
Visionary entrepreneurism forges Monaco’s multifunctional

landscape
Anne-Marie d’Hauteserre
Department of Geography, The University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand. E-
mail: adhautes@waikato.ac.nz:
When Monaco in 1999 celebrated the fiftieth year of the reign of Rainier III it justly
celebrated his entrepreneurism which guided a 3000% economic growth over the same period
while total population increased by only 67%. This economic and demographic development
required structures to be fitted in a restricted geographic space. This paper will show that the
prince’s vision has been to accommodate this growth in a multifunctional landscape that has
maintained the fragile balance between humane development and neo-liberal market forces. It
has encouraged meaningfulness to structure social relationships rather than erect a
superstructure hiding the ever more rapacious mechanisms of capital. Monaco’s socially
constructed multifunctional landscape is dynamic, in a constant process of construction and
190
reconstruction of both its physical elements (buildings and natural features) as well as of its
conceptualization. It is a worked upon lived in place while it is also a fantasized landscape by
both promoters and potential visitors. This paper will also demonstrate that Monaco’s
multifunctionality has many dimensions: temporal, physical (both vertical and horizontal),
economic, conceptual and that the dynamism of the principality is the result of tensions
between those dimensions.
Keywords: visionary entrepreneurism, social construction, multifunctional landscape,

geographic space.
Defining urban biodiversity — a matter of scale, function and values

Mats Gyllin
Department of landscape planning Alnarp, Swedish university of agricultural sciences
PO Box 58, S–230 53 Alnarp, Sweden, phone: int+46 40 15410, email: mats.gyllin@lpal.slu.se
To many biologists urban biodiversity is less valuable than rural biodiversity, which m i plies
that human influence is thought of as a negative, or even disqualifying, factor, even though the
number of spontaneous species in many cases is much higher within the urban areas than in
surrounding agricultural areas. However, some of the most highly regarded rural
environments are very much dependent on man for their existence, e.g. hay meadows, so there
have to be other, less clear reasons than simply the presence of man. On the other hand, there
is a tendency for non-biologists to regard urban biodiversity as a simple visual impression,
thus disregarding the underlying ecological processes and reducing it to "green with more or
less structural variation". It is the objective of this paper to discuss the values attached to
urban biodiversity from different views and in different spatial and temporal scales. Since
biodiversity is highly scale dependent, it is very probable that communication failure between
different interest groups is due to lack of precision regarding scales. It is concluded that urban
biodiversity should include all organisms, spontaneous or not, to be a useful concept.
Rural road networks in multifunctional landscapes

Ir. C.F. Jaarsma and Ir. G. Willems
Land Use Planning Group, Wageningen University, Gen. Foulkesweg 13, 6703 BJ Wageningen,
The Netherlands, Telephone +31 317 482050, Telefax +31 317 482166,
E-mail: Rinus.Jaarsma@users.rpv.wau.nl
Nowadays landscapes have to serve different functions simultaneously, such as recreation,

nature and agriculture. For optimal functioning all these functions require full accessibility by
a well-equipped road network. However, this seems to be a contradictio in terminis, because
such a network also has harmful effects on several functions. One would like to see a road
network, which could serve interests of both accessibility and a sustainable environment.
Many roads, especially the Minor Rural Roads (MRR’s) are not equipped for the
desired traffic volumes and mix of modes. The traffic-concept ‘Traffic Calmed Rural Area’ is
developed to regulate traffic flows better over the whole road-network. With this concept one
can take area-specific measures on the scale of a road section by down- or upgrading of roads.
191
Before applying this concept one wants to know the implications for the landscape, in
order to preserve and/or strengthen the valuable landscape. Therefore Hauptmeyer (1998) has
developed a method, determining the landscape value of MRR’s. The method gives a ranking
of characteristic landscape features, like: scale, historicity, naturalness and functionality. This
method will be demonstrated in a case-study, where agriculture, nature, recreation and the
landscape are integrated in a sustainable mosaic.
Ways of perceiving a recreation forest - a case study in southern

Finland
Eeva Karjalainen
Finnish Forest Research Institute, Unioninkatu 40 A, 00170 Helsinki, Finland
Tel. + 358 9 85705766, fax + 358 9 85705717,
eeva.karjalainen@metla.fi, http://www.metla.fi/pp/Ekar/ek-ep.htm
This paper presents a case study on visitors’ perceptions of a recreation forest in southern
Finland. During the summer of 1998, a total of 22 visitors of the area were interviewed. The
researcher walked together with each visitor along a one-kilometer long path, and each visitor
was allowed to comment freely about the environment. Interviews were audio-recorded and
tapes were transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis.
Following ways of perceiving and evaluating the recreation forest were identified; social
environment, biological environment, setting for activities, economical environment, place for
experiences and exploring, environment for others, and educational environment. One person
could experience the environment in several differing ways. Visitors compared the forest to
other places; to urban environment, to other natural areas and to their childhood environment.
Some visitors indicated that their perceptions of the forest depend on their state of mind,
current situation and the purpose of their visit.
Variations of the Treescape in a Chinese City: The Case of Nanjing

Chen Shuang and C.Y. Jim
Department of Geography & Geology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Urban trees, as prominent landscape elements of cities, have received much attention from
both practitioners and academics. Trees in Chinese cities hitherto have received little detailed
analysis from the viewpoint of urban forestry or landscape analysis. This study attempts a
comprehensive evaluation of the tree population in Nanjing, which has the best green cover
amongst Chinese cities, and to illustrate the intimate association between urban development
and the companion trees in China. Based on a survey of 6527 trees, the results show that trees
in institution grounds have higher species diversity, bigger size and better performance than
the other habitat types. The condition of trees in residential neighbourhood is rather poor.
Along roadside, over 40% of trees are large with DBH > 25 cm. Factory is a potential urban
tree repository with abundant small trees. The variations are largely related to tree site
condition, which is largely determined by land use and development intensity. The tree
management systems varying with habitat types also augment the treescape differences. The
192
relationship between treescape and habitat type could furnish hints for urban forest
management and planning in conjunction with urban planning.
Which kind of planning is needed for an ecologically sustainable

development of urban landscapes?
Ulrike Weiland
Technical University Berlin, Institute for Management in Environmental Planning, FR 2-7,
Franklinstrasse 28/29, D-10587 Berlin, Tel: +49 30 314 27692, Fax: + 49 30 314 73517, email:
weiland@imup.tu-berlin.de
Spatial and environmental planning shall implement the spatial and the environmental aspects
of the sustainable development conception. This requires modifications of spatial and
environmental planning and implies for new contents, methods and instruments in both
planning forms, especially in planning for urban landscapes resp. urban areas. Spatial
planning shall implement all spatial aspects of the sustainable development conception, while
environmental planning shall implement only a part of them, i.e. the environmental aspects.
This agrees in general with the usual relations between spatial and environmental planning,
but has to be modified in order to fulfill additional conditions due to the implementation of the
sustainable development conception. Prerequisition of a clear definition and assignment of
sustainable development and its environmental aspects is a model, which describes the
relations between the environmental, social and economic aspects of spatial development for
urban landscapes taking into consideration the long-term perspective and the people involved.
In order to implement the conception of an ecologically sustainable development of urban
landscapes spatial and environmental planning have to cooperate closely, and they have to
become "fivedimensional". Planning has to consider the five "dimensions" area, volume, time,
and actors involved and to scope with the following planning tasks:
1. + 2. dimension: space management,
3. dimension: resource management,
4. dimension: consideration of long-term perspectives,
5. "dimension": information, participation and cooperation with all concerned resp. interested
societal groups.
The report will be based on my postdoctoral thesis and explain the model of how spatial and
environmental planning can cooperate in order to implement an ecologically sustainable
development of urban landscapes, and it will elaborate on the "five dimensions" of planning.
The evolution of old Su Zhou city’s environment ecology

Jing Huai Xu
E-mail: zrmo@sune250.szrtc.edu.cn
Suzhou is world-famous for its more than 2500 years long history and its city's location which
has never been changed. This article will discuss the following content: Lanes of rivers and
lakes,local-style dwelling houses and classic gardens ,reflecting the advanced oriental
dewelling civilization which was "the people in harmony with the place", still have significant
meanings to the evolution of old Suzhou city's environment ecology and the future
193
construction about human settlement environment, especially today when there have great
contradicitions between economic development and the old city's protection.
A multicriteria approach to evaluating habitat change in urban

areas: an example from the Black Country (UK).
C.H.Young* and P.J.Jarvis (*Author presenting the paper)
School of Applied Sciences, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, United
Kingdom WV1 1SB, Tel: (00 44 1902) 322170, Fax: (00 44 1902) 322680, e-mail: in5398@wlv.ac.uk
Using a combination of weighted criteria a habitat value index (HV1) was derived from all
habitats patches (a total of 877) within four 1km grid squares in Wolverhampton. Two years
after the initial survey a follow-up evaluation was carried out to identify areas of substantial
change and the new data used to amend the baseline value map. Where there is no change in
patch boundary just a change in internal characteristics this is reflected in a change in the
HVI, however where there is a change in patch configuration the effect of this on the patch
HVI and its contextual relationship with the wider urban landscape can be seen. The HVI
method is quick, simple and consistent and allows direct spatial and temporal comparisons to
be made. This consideration in vital in monitoring landscape change and in providing
quantitative information for decision-makers in a constantly changing environment.
194
4. Session D:
Landscapes as places for experience, perception and
identification
Quo vadis savannah – hypothesis ? – How a change in paradigm of

anthropology would effect modern landscape aesthetics
Holger Behm
Universität Rostock, Institut für Landschaftsplanung und Landschaftsökologie
J. – v. – Liebig – Weg 6, D – 18051 Rostock
The savannah – hypothesis (BROOM 1933) states that the Australopithecines and Homo
habilis, our phylogenetic ancestors, developed bipedalism and other human features as
savannah hunters. These is the background for explanations in modern landscape aesthetics on
human habitat preference, e.g. for savannah – like park landscapes Since 1995 new
discussions in palaeoanthropology (TOBIAS 1995 and other) have lead to a very critical view
of some scientists on the savannah – hypothesis. The background therefore are new fossil
findings in South – Africa. These scientists around the eminent South African palaeontologist
Prof. Phillip Tobias believe that water has played a much bigger part in hominisation and that
hominids where upright before the forest shrunk.
If that is right, many aspects of asthetic values of landscapes will arise in another light.
The paper would like to show, based on a critical view on the discussions in palaeontology
and anthropology and their aplication in landscape evaluation and design , if or how a change
in paradigm would effect modern landscape aesthetics. These includes design principles,
landscape evaluation and recreational values of landscapes.
Visions of Sherwood
Roy Haines-Young & Jorge Rubiano
School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD
This paper describes the issues surrounding the recreation of the landscapes associated with
‘Sherwood Forest’. Not only is the landscape itself multi-functional, in the sense that it
delivers to the local communities a range of goods and services, but also the people who live
and work their have multiple visions for the future of this area.
The paper describes the development of a set of GIS tools that allows the different
groups that have a stake in the landscapes of Sherwood Forest to storyboard their ideas about
the development of the area. These tools have been created in the context of the ‘natural
capital paradigm’. The paper will show how these tools and concepts can be used to identify
both the conflicts that exist between the different visions and their sustainability.
195
Creative conservation or faking nature:

a critical review of the ethics of landscape restoration
John Handley & Robert Wood
Centre for Urban and Regional Ecology, School of Planning & Landscape, University of Manchester
During the past three decades ecological science has made an increasingly significant
contribution to the restoration of damaged landscapes and the mitigation of the impacts of
development. Attempts at landscape restoration have become increasingly ambitious
involving, for example, restoration blasting to create simulated ‘daleside’ landscapes in
limestone quarries and large-scale translocation of primary habitats such as woodland,
heathland and grassland in the face of urban development. The paper would review the current
‘state of the art’ in creative conservation and would then reflect on the implications for
environmental ethics. Are we creatively channelling the development process towards
rebuilding environmental capital or undermining ecological integrity by ‘faking nature’?
Wired Nature?
Cultural aspects of Defining One European Landscape
Ib Kristiansen
The notion of ecological networks has within the last decades developed fast on a regional
and national level in Europe as a new approach in nature conservation. On a European
supranational level, a network of ‘Natura 2000' sites of European importance, has been
adopted as well, and promoted as a European flagship concerning nature conservation. The
article reviews this development in the light of the multitude of changes and increasing
interconnectedness the European societies are exposed to by the new information
technologies. As a consequence of the increasing speed in the flow of environmentalised
information there is a development towards a culture of ecological modernisation, and a
development of our culture/nature relationship towards the perception of, what might be
called, a science fictious ‘third nature’. The cultural transformation of the European continent
has several dimensions. One crucial dimension is centralised European governance through
environmental standardisation and a widespread tendency of centralisation of the institutional
power. The supranational environmental policy is constructing a new European order and
coherence, widely relying on science, construction of ‘objective’ factors, distribution of
reliable and harmonised environmental information, and implementation of environmental
standardised legislation. However, this causes alienation towards national, regional and local
situated cultures. Thus, in spite of the good intentions, there is the risk that the ecological
networks and the protection of nature become enclosed information of environmental data
among politicians connected to closed networks of nature conservation bureaucracies and
semi-political expert-groups. Contrary to the ideals of a centralised European governance, a
future potential of the new information technologies could be to create bottom- up webs of
networks and make possible a more interactive performance between the top-down and
bottom-up approaches. Accordingly limits should be set towards technical standardisation of
nature and its protection - to protect natural as well as cultural diversity.
196
Outsiders in the British landscape? An analysis of ethnic minority

landscape genesis projects in North-east England
Macfarlane, Robert
University of Northumbria, Division of Geography and Environmental Management,
Centre of Environmental and Spatial Analysis, UK, robert.macfarlane@unn.ac.uk
The rational for landscape projects often comes directly from social and cultural forces; in
common with the conservation effort at large, these forces may be mediated by scientific
judgements about typicality, rarity, history and appropriateness, but personal environmental
values are often constructed with reference to the everyday and the familiar. Just as historical
antecedents are often analysed at length in determining appropriate management strategies for
designated and protected conservation sites, such histories may all-important at a personal and
community level in determining the level of interest and involvement with conservation
projects. Ethnic minority groups are often highly marginalised in the environmental and
conservation movements and there is an extensive literature on the "cultural Exclusiveness" of
many of the pillars of UK conservation, perhaps most notably the English countryside, and
external efforts to involve ethnic minority groups with urban conservation projects have only
met with very limited success. Environmental initiatives by ethnic minority groups in the UK,
which have embraces community gardens, sacred lands and food gardens, are fundamentally
about the creation of meaningful areas of "nature" and cultural landscapes. These often
communicate ideas about ecology, landscape and nature that need to be accommodated in the
wider thinking about landscape management, ecological restoration and urban conservation
initiatives. The research is analysing a number of landscape genesis projects in Tyneside, from
highly personal spaces through to wider public areas. The implications of the meanings and
motivation, which are driving such projects, for present local authority activities are evaluated
and a more widely references approach to landscape and ecological restoration project is
developed.
Cultural heritage and the new estate identity in the agrarian

landscape
Ole Mouritsen
Ariktektskolen i Aarhus
The rural landscape visualises an ambiguous scenery of the cultural heritage of the agrarian
production still physically present, but containing new urbanised functions and of the big scale
farming almost hidden but being a possible new manor house landscape in embryo. The
agrarian landscape does not represent a true telling. The splendour of the manor houses is a
part of the romantic view of the landscape aesthetics with their readable narratives. Contrary
to that, the big scale farming is in general opposed to or even in conflict with the rest of the
society. The development is forced by economic demands but culturally and aesthetically
there is a void still to be fulfilled by the big scale farming as being a desirable addition to the
cultural environment of the agrarian landscape. A new concern of the estate identity (unity) –
as well as the buildings and the farmland – could pay and important role of giving a positive
contribution to the image of the farming and its landscaping by representing a true narrative of
“what goes on out there”.
197
How do people evaluate native vegetation in agriculural landscapes?

An application of Inglehart’s Materialist-Postmaterialist Social
Values Theory
Jean Sandall, Geoff Kaine

School of Marketing and Management, University of New England, Australia
Inglehart’s Materialist-Postmaterialist Social Values theory would suggest that the

characteristics that appeal to people in agricultural landscapes and the positions they take on
environmental issues will reflect the social values they hold. In this study, we conducted 200
interviews with people from various groups with a stake in conserving remnant native
vegetation in agricultural landscapes to investigate: 1) whether there were systematic
relationships between the characteristics that people find appealing in agricultural landscapes
and the social values they hold; and 2) whether there were systematic relationships among
people’s social values, the characteristics that people find appealing in agricultural landscapes,
and the stakeholder group they were drawn from. Analysis of the interview data revealed that
there were systematic relationships among people’s social values, the characteristics that
appealed to them in agricultural landscapes, and the stakeholder group they were drawn from.
The findings indicate that the conflict over conserving remnant native vegetation in
agricultural landscapes is rooted in fundamental differences in the social values held by
different stakeholders.
Assessing public perception of landscape: The Welsh experience

Alister Scott
Assessing public perception of landscape continues to be both an academic and policy

challenge. Landscapes can mean different things to different people and invoke different
psychological responses. The involvement of the public in landscape matters has been and
continues to be controversial. Constraints of time and resources, together with a reluctance to
delegate responsibility to the public have generally limited the scope and influence of much
participation to conventional reactive strategies. This paper assesses the potential of a new
methodology to identify public perception of landscape in Denbighshire. Forming part of a
wider initiative known as LANDMAP, a technique adopted by the Countryside Council for
Wales for identifying distinctive landscape areas, household questionnaires and focus groups
have been used to evaluate public perception in response to carefully selected photographic
media. The results afford important insights into public perception and allow particular
landscape types to be evaluated in both quantative and qualitative terms. For the first time it is
possible to evaluate public perception results in conjunction with other factors within GIS
applications for landscape management decision making. Analysis of the results for two
selected areas shows that the public has strong attachments to managed rural landscapes in
general and wish to see more integrative and participative strategies for landscape protection
and management. Such attitudes challenge planners and policy makers to rethink their
approaches towards conventional landscape management strategies and planning.
Key Words: LANDMAP, public perception, citizen participation, focus groups,

methodology, and re-appraisal of planning policy
198
Cognitive mappig: a method for assessing biodiversity perceptions ?

Katriina Soini
Agricultural Research Centre of Finland, Resource Management Research. FIN 31600 Jokioinen. Tel
+358 3 4188 3191. email. katriina.soini@mtt.fi
In the recent agri-environmental and rural policy the role of local natural and cultural heritage
has been highlighted as a mean for sustainable spatial development. The emphasis has been
placed on the multifunctional rural space: on conservation and creative management of
landscapes. However, this kind of development cannot be reached only by implementing ‘top-
down’ policy measures. The focus should also be on landscape perceptions and experiences of
local people. In this research the landscape perceptions of four rural communities are
examined with a special focus on biodiversity. The perceptions will be studied by cognitive
mapping and the results will further be compared with ‘scientific’ biodiversity measured in
the same areas. In this study, cognitive maps are understood as a continuum of several types
of mapping (traditional cognitive mapping, concept mapping and symbol mapping). The
ultimate aim of the research is to find out relationships between the perceived and scientific
values of biodiversity and actions of rural communities. The paper illustrates the way
cognitive mapping might be used in landscape perception research.
Keywords: multifunctional landscape, environmental perceptions, landscape assessment,

spatial development, cognitive mapping.
Various aspects of the landscape values considered as national

heritage
Krzysztof H. Wojciechowski
Environmental Protection Dept., Earth Sciences Institute, Maria Curie Sklodowska University
Lublin, POLAND
National heritage can be defined as a set of objects (material and immaterial) which are
preserved , popularised and put to represent to „others” in order to symbolise and sustain some
particular combination of values , myths and outlooks actually common to the group of
individuals recognising themselves as a nation .
In particular landscape (or their aspects) can be valued as :
- specific or representative fragments of unchanged nature ,
- conserved elements of nature , examples of human care for nature ,
- scenery of past events worth to be remembered ,
- testimony of skills or artistic tastes of past generations ,
- living and material legacy of ways of lifeof the past generations,
- objects of art. and/or achievements of engineering ,
- sceneries inspiring aesthetic experience ,
Contemporary societies tend to treat as its heritage both (defined by J.B.Jackson) types
of landscapes deserving protection : most renowned ones , belonging to the class of the former
„political landscapes” (also called „emblematic landscapes”) and landscapes presently
recognised as cultural monuments , belonging in the past to the class of „vernacular
landscapes”
199
5. Session E:
Landscapes between continuity and change
Kurgans: Historical and ecological heritage of the Hungarian Plane

Barczi, Attila & Joó, Katalin
Szent István University, Dept. of Landscape Ecology
Basically the Great Hungarian Plain which is part of the Carpathian basin has a mosaic-like
structure, and rich in living areas because of its hydrographical conditions. The isolated
hillocks which called “kunhalom” (it means: Cumanian hillock, kurgan) by Hungarian people
belongs to the landscape of the Great Hungarian Plain. Sizes show big variety: between 20-90
metres in diameter, 0.5 - 12 (possibly 20 metres) in heightand so-called “shield-size” is
between 50 to 160 metres. Their sketch generally a round-like oval. They are hemisphere- or
cone-shaped structures. Some of the Cumanian hillocks were settlements at the ancient time,
so they lived through from the levels of damaged and reconstructed houses from time to time
in several thousand years. This structure of settlements existed at two periods of the
prehistoric age: late new Stone Age (4000-3500 B.C), and early and middle Bronze Age
(2600-1500 BC). These structures were connected with the special agricultural system of
SouthEastern Europe and Asia Minor. Another big part of the Cumanian hillocks served as
burial ground for the settlers of the Carpathian basin. These hillocks were erected in a short
time period, from the surrounding ground to comply with the requirements of prehistoric
funerals. The Cumanian hillocks could fulfil another functions beyond that. Small hillocks,
wich were to serve safety with making signs and news passing easier and faster were
frequently situated mainly on the Great Hungarian Plain and the East-Transdanubian region.
The forming of border hillocks was connected with signing the country’s or settlement’s
border. Cumanian hillocks are inestimable treasures of our country. They have significant
value in archeology, landscape, botany and soil science. Archeologists suspect that the
dreaded Hunan leader Attila was buried in one of these hillocks. Most of our relic from the
10-15th century comes from these Cumanian hillocks or their surroundings. Their landscape
value makes the monotonous flat horizon a bit various. The Hungarian heath-plant vegetation
of loess is the most western appearance of the continental grass vegetation. In undisturbed
state it’s extremely rich in living areas, and a suitable place to get food, for reproduction and
rest for the living organisms, and it can be a reservoir area for them at the winter time. On the
hillocks, which are in the best condition, we find a relatively weedless loessgrass, but it often
has a limited species number. These living areas should play a great part in the biological
“green passage system” or the restoring of the original vegetation to the area. The values of
Cumanian hillocks in soil science can be understood when you think about the task of the soil.
The soil is the most important factor among of the conditionally renewable natural resources.
It is the integrator, reactor and transformator of some other natural resources; scene of the
biomass production; a natural reservoir of the heat, the nutrition elements and the water; a
200
natural filter; a big capacity of buffered area; an important gene-reservoir; raw material of the
possible technical utilization; a place to build, and the archives of the Geo- and Cultural
history. These functions are well-reconcilable with the possible Cumanian hillocks researches
so we can get useful information for the soil-formation, and the properties of the buried soil
layers with the investigation of Cumanian hillocks in soil science.
Long term retrospective landscape ecology –

some Methodological reflections
Ole Hjorth Caspersen and Bo Fritzbøger
The aspect of retrospective landscape ecology is central for the landscape ecological discipline
in order to gain adequate understanding of the composition and functioning of the present and
future landscapes. Nevertheless an acknowledgement of the importance of this perspective is
often committed in landscape ecological research. The implementation of older maps are
time-consuming, changing classifications and new methods for map-production, etc. makes
the interpretation difficult. These problems increase when maps and data from 19th century or
beyond are employed. Typically, these maps are hand-drawn and have local projections.
However information regarding former land use considered in a system context, is often
important to the understanding of the present use and are valuable when assessing the
possibilities for future land use in the form of scenario studies. This paper discusses the
expediency of applying a retrospective methodology that combines landscape ecology with
the traditional historical approach. This method is applied to an investigation area for the
period 1680-2000. By use of agricultural census combined with older maps within a GIS, a
125 km2 area in Jutland is analyses with respect to land use and landscape dynamics within a
landscape ecological perspective.
Characters of traditional and modern vegetation landscapes

Ulrich Deil
Department of Geobotany, Institute of Biology II, Schänzlestr. 1, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany
To study the effects of the cultural transition from a selfsustaining society via an
preindustrial to an agroindustrial system for the plant cover, three Mediterranean
mountains are compared at the plant community and at the landscape level. They are
located in the mountainous arc from southern Portugal via southwestern Andalusia to
northwestern Morocco. The methodology is on the one hand „location-for-time-
substitution“, on the other hand a retrospective approach by comparing the actual
(90ies) and the former (60ies) landuse pattern. Qualitative (species composition,
vegetation types) and quantitative (alpha-diversity, cover degree of landuse-types)
parameters are used. In Spain, where agroindustrial management is prevailing,
multifunctional landunits and shifting cultivation are disappearing. Big landownership
creates scoarse grained landscapes there. In Portugal, medium-size farming is
dominating. The transformation to a market oriented production depends from the
accesibility and productivity of the sites. In Morocco, selfsustaining agriculture and
shifting cultivation give origin to weed communities with high alpha-diversity and to a
201
small scale pattern in land use types. Every technological level produces specific plant
associations. Common elements are roadside verges and other ruderal communities.
„Modernisation“ of vegetation landscapes ends up with a more trivial and scoarser plant
canopy.
Comparing long term landscape-development around

Three Danish lakes
Peter Eigaard & Bernd Münier
The overall aim of our work within the research project 'AGRAR 2000' is to trace landscape
development around three Danish lakes during the past 200 years. These areas have developed
differently, determined by varying geo-physical settings and cultural heritage. Nowadays,
intensively utilised areas tend to develop towards increasingly uniform landscapes, but they
still maintain different landscape functions and ecological importance, reflecting their regional
historic development. To trace landscape dynamics, we have set up a spatio-temporal map-
database using a Desktop GIS linked to agricultural census data stored in a Relational
Database Management System. Main data sources are sets of scanned topographic maps and
census data from the middle of the 19th century onwards. Digital maps on soil properties and
morphological features supplement the main data set. Integrating spatial and temporal
dimensions in analysing landscape-development enhances understanding the dynamic of
landscape processes. The key landscape elements dealt with are forest types, wet meadows,
dry grasslands and heathlands. Analysing long-term landscape-development can be used for
identifying landscapes of potentially high nature quality and/or cultural heritage. These
aspects are important when discussing potentials and plans for managing future landscape-
development and protection.
Agricultural landscape dynamics in Switzerland: a model using the

brown hare as an indicator of the evolution of ecological qualities.
Corinne Gilliéron
Changes in the Swiss agricultural landscape have been observed through five periods from
1950 to 1990; data were obtained from historical statistics, aerial photographs and maps from
944 communes (out of a total of 2128 in the study area) for which data were available. The
data-set consists of 25 variables reflecting land-use, agricultural practices, sociology,
meteorology and geomorphology. Seventeen of these are relevant for the brown hare (Lepus
europaeus). The other eight are needed to explain land-use changes.
A theoretical index of hare density can be calculated using three of our variables and the
observations and counts of hares made by the Swiss Ornithological Institute of Sempach. This
way of integrating the biologists' observations into our spatio-temporal model of the
landscape's qualities is innovative and demonstrates the problem of linking different scales.
The other twenty-two variables are used as input to our model, which is derived from a
hierarchical multivariate divisive model called PEGASE* . This model is then used to explain
hare density index evolution. The central point of our research is to integrate the temporal
202
aspect in our model by defining types of evolution curves, constructed on five observations in
time.
* Partition d'un Ensemble Géographique pour l'Analyse Spatiale Ecologique, M. Phipps, Department of
Geography, University of Ottawa, Canada
Land use history and changes in biodiversity of riparian landscapes

(illustrated by the examples of the Rhône and Isère rivers valleys)
Jacky Girel
Université Joseph Fourier, Centre de Biologie Alpine, U.M.R. Ecosystèmes et Changements
Environnementaux, B.P. 53, F 38041 GRENOBLE (Cedex 9), jacky.girel@ujf-grenoble.fr
Since the Neolithic period, riparian landscapes had been severely modified by the cumulative
impacts induced by man. The anthropogenic disturbances have concerned the fluxes (in the
case of engineering works such as diking, channelization, drainage, artificial silting, gravel
mining and hydroelectric development) or directly the alluvial vegetation (in the case of land
clearing, cultivation, tree plantation, establishment of alien invasive plants). Since the 19th
century, technological advances have allowed the development of large scale engineering
works which modified sometimes in an irreversible way the movements of the fluxes of water,
sediments, organic matter and plant species. The biological systems respond to these
perturbations in different ways: i) morphological changes and physiological adjustments of
the plant to the new environmental conditions; ii) death of hygrophylic and mesohygrophylic
communities and conversely demographic explosion of mesic plants and communities.
Through the examples of alpine riparian landscapes (the Rhône river and tributaries) it has
been shown how the modifications which have disturbed the floodplain dynamics and
function patterns also have changed landscapes and plant biodiversity.
Coherence of Cultural Landscapes:

A New Criterion for Evaluation the Impacts of Landscape Changes
Ülo Mander and Marika Murka
Institute of Geography, University of Tartu, 46 Vanemuise St, 51014 Tartu, Estonia
Phone: +37 27375819, Fax: +37 27 375825, e-mail: mander@ut.ee
We propose a new method for calculating the coherence of cultural landscapes. It refers to
accordance of potential (natural) and actual (cultural or man-made) landscape diversity. To
measure the natural landscape diversity an index was worked out that considers the number of
soil types, number of soil patches, contrast between two adjacent soil patches, and patch
perimeters. Ecological diversity of cultivated landscape is estimated according to ecotones´
density defined as transition belts between agricultural lands and natural biocenoses. We
assume that the changes in landscape structure, especially of ecologically compensation areas
(e.g. woodlots, hedges, riparian zones, natural/seminatural grassland patches, ponds etc.),
should be in certain accordance (coherence) with the local geomorphological and soil
conditions. In 195 land reclamation areas from all landscape regions in Estonia we analyses
the soil structure, diversity of landscape before and after land reclamation (i.e. in 1972-74 and
1975-76, respectively), and the current situation. During the repeated visits to study areas,
203
appearance of soil erosion, deflation, bank erosion, level of humus mineralisation and changes
in scenic values was documented. We have found out that marine sandy plains and limestone
plains, as the areas with the simplest geomorphology and soil cover structure, and, on the
other hand, all hilly areas (except drumlin fields and till-covered kame fields) with the most
complicated structure of abiotic factors, are the most vulnerable landscape types. It means that
the simplification of landscape diversity, determined on the base of ecotones´ network density,
could be least in landscapes with both very simple and very complicated potential diversity,
determined by heterogeneity of abiotic factors. Currently, majority of these former
agriculturally used areas is abandoned. This concept is useful in landscape planning
evaluation the impacts of landscape changes causes by land reclamation or conversion to more
intensive management.
Cultural Environments – changing in the past and continuing in the

future
Per Grau Møller
Centre leader of Changing Landscapes, Cartographical Documentationcentre, University of South
Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK 5230 Odense M
This paper will deal with a Danish approach to the administration of the cultural landscape,
called cultural environments (kulturmiljø). With basis in the cultural historical projects of the
ongoing strategical research project Changing Landscapes it will be stressed that to
understand the landscape of the present it is necessary to impose a historical view of the
landscape. The landscape turns out as multifunctional and diverse, but to understand the
multifunctionality an explanation of its history will help to alter or continue the structure of
the landscape. I will focus on four elements to understand the structure of the landscape: the
settlement in the landscape, the land use, the borderlines and the infrastructure. My examples
will derive from the agricultural landscape of historical times and of the present. Dealing with
the very common and misused word sustainability it will be shown that a cultural, human
dimension is lacking in its implementation. To make a development ecologically and
economically sustainable it will be necessary to have a cultural, historical understanding of the
landscape. It must be stressed that the intention is certainly not to make a museum landscape,
but to make people continue their lives in the landscape conscious of the legacy of our
forefathers. A point will be that we must learn to live with the history in the landscape. This
still gives us lots of opportunities to act as man in the present.
Cultural Landscape Dynamics in the NW-Himalayas and Hindukush:

A Human-Ecological Monitoring Approach Using Repeat
Photography
Marcus Nüsser
Department of Geography, University of Bonn, email: m.nuesser@uni-bonn.de
This paper presents contemporary land cover and land use changes in the high mountain
regions of northern Pakistan. The regional land use system in these marginal belts of human
habitat is based on irrigated crop cultivation in the valley bottoms, combined with mobile
204
livestock keeping, and forest utilisation in the upper ecological belts. The altitudinal zonation
of environmental conditions stipulates a vertical and seasonal migration pattern as part of an
adapted agro-pastoral economy. A human-ecological analysis of landscape transformation
processes requires a research perspective which takes into account environmental resources as
well as historical and socio-economic aspects of land use systems. Based on repeat
photography, emphasis will be laid on contemporary vegetation changes and landscape
dynamics.
For the Nanga Parbat region (NW-Himalayas), a comprehensive collection of historical
landscape photographs taken there by members of the German Himalaya expeditions of 1934
(by R. Finsterwalder) and 1937 (by C. Troll) forms a valuable data-base for comparative
studies. The second study area in the eastern Hindukush was studied (and photographed) by a
scientific expedition in 1966. Recent fieldwork (1992-1997) rendered it possible to repeat a
great number of historical photographs from viewpoints identical to the earlier ones, which in
turn serve to illustrate cultural landscape changes over the last decades.
Landscape mosaics: recognition and changes over time

Roldán, M.J.*; Martín de Agar, P & de Pablo, C.L.
Dpto. Interuniversitario de Ecología. Facultad de Biológicas. universidad Complutense. 28040 Madrid,
Spain. *mjroldan@eucmos.sim.ucm.es
Studies of landscapes and their changes in time are based on the identification of the patches
they are comprised of, their cartography and the analysis of their temporal changes. The
landscape, however, is made up of groups of patches or mosaics, rather than isolated patches.
This paper develops a methodology to identify and characterise the mosaics present in a
territory and their changes in time. A mosaic is defined as a characteristic spatial set together
of patches, including their relative spatial positions in a determined physical environment, at a
determined scale of detail. Land use maps were obtained from aerial photography of the area
from 1946 to 1999. The patches contacting with each other patch were registered. These
contacts are the boundaries. We designed a patches x boundaries matrix and carried out a
multivariate ordination, and with the ordination co-ordinates of the observations (patches) we
did a cluster analysis. The spatial projection of the clusters provided a map of mosaics. We
mapped the mosaics at different cut levels of the cluster hierarchy. We analysed the main
temporal change tendencies of the mosaics with the use of this cartography.
The role of land use in the differentiation of natural units –

a historical perspective
Stefan Zerbe
The differentiation of natural units on the basis of abiotic (climate, geology, hydrology, etc.)
and biotic factors (flora, vegetations, etc.) has to be considered as an essential part of the
geographical and landscape ecological analysis. Additionally, the anthropogenous influence
on landscape development and especially the secular development of settlements and landuses
can be derived from investigations of the cultural history of landscapes. With the „Sandstone-
Spessart“, a natural unit in SW Germany, as the example, the influence of man on the
205
differentiation of the natural landscape through different forms and intensities of land use is
shown. It is obvious, that different abiotic and biotic site conditions within the natural unit
have led to a spatial differentiation of the landscape. However, economic and political factors
also play a major role in the historical development of relatively homogeneous natural units.
Accordingly, on the basis of a cultural historical analysis in combination with an investigation
of the actual vegetation, four natural sub-units can be differentiated in the Sandstone-Spessart.
This combined approach of landscape ecological analysis and cultural historical investigations
provides a useful basis for the regional differentiation of nature conservation and landscape
planning objectives.
206
6. Session F:
Observing landscapes
GIS for NATURA 2000 - Monitoring Europe's Nature Conservation

Sites
A. Annoni, S.Christensen, S. Peedell
European Commission - Joint Research Centre, Space Applications Institute, Agriculture and Regional
Information Systems Unit, I-21020 Ispra (Va) – Italy
Natura 2000 is a European network of Nature Conservation sites designated by Member

States under the Birds Directive 10 and the Habitats Directive 11 , where human activity must be
compatible with the conservation of sites of natural importance. The creation of the Natura
2000 network is the cornerstone of Community Nature Conservation policy and a major
challenge for the European Commission and the Member States. Contrary to what is widely
believed, the Natura 2000 network does not only comprise National Parks, but include large
areas of productive land. Natura 2000 is strongly based on the concept of sustainable
development, where productive activities must be integrated with the requirements of nature
conservation. Environmental concern is increasingly being integrated into EU policy measures
such as Agenda 2000. The Natura 2000 sites are numerous and cover a significant area of the
EU territory – by 2004 there are expected to be some 15000 sites, covering more than 10% of
the EU territory. Enlargement of the EU will increase the number of sites significantly. Many
Natura2000 sites can be considered as multifunctional and facing pressures such as
urbanisation, agriculture and recreation, but there is currently no clear definition of how these
sites should be assessed and monitored at European level. The lack of harmonised spatial data
at European level presents a significant barrier to the development of monitoring systems.
The diversity of the Natura2000 sites, combined with the heterogeneity of existing data held
by different organisations throughout Europe, requires a concerted approach based on clear
requirements of site management. Under an agreement between the Joint Research Centre and
Directorate General Environment, the fundamental issues in creation of a harmonised spatial
database for Natura2000 are being addressed. By establishing a Geographic Information
System (GIS) for Natura2000, a standard set of applications will be available to allow the
analysis and definition of standard measures to support site monitoring.
10
Council Directive79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.
11
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora.
207
Integrated monitoring for the countryside; the Flemish experience.

De Blust, G. (1), M. Antrop (2), V. Van Eetvelde (2) and M. Van Olmen (1).
(1) Institute of Nature Conservation, Brussels, Belgium
(2) Department of Geography, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
For the rural areas of Flanders (Belgium) an integrated monitoring scheme is elaborated,
intended to assess the state of terrestrial bio-diversity outside nature reserves. The purpose is
to monitor changes in bio-diversity directly related to potential causing factors, e.g. land-use,
environmental conditions, spatial characteristics of habitats. ‘Integrated’ refers to two aspects:
1) selection of key indicators following as much as possible pressure-state-response models;
2) spatially combined monitoring of parameters within selected sites (1 x 1 km2). Both ensure
that functional interrelations between indicators will contribute to understand observed
changes in bio-diversity. In this paper we will focus on some critical problems to be solved in
order to reach the final goal: the implementation of a methodology for the integrated
monitoring of complex landscapes in relation to bio-diversity. Problems of concern are among
other things:
• How to translate a broadly stated and open-ended policy theme into a precise and
unequivocal scientifically sound monitoring scheme?
• How to attain a representative selection of monitoring sites?
• What variables for what purposes?
• How to achieve a maximal output from a minimal programme, a prerequisite for a
successful adoption by environmental policy?
Developing a landscape monitoring program for Sweden

Jonas Fridman, Göran Ståhl
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Resource Management and
Geomatics, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden
In the new framework for national environmental monitoring in Sweden, adopted by the
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, a programme for monitoring of landscapes is
included. The main focus of the programme is on biodiversity, although aspects on land cover,
land use, and cultural heritage sites may also be incorporated. The programme is scheduled to
start in 2003. Until then, development work will be carried out. As a basis for this work, the
idea is that the monitoring programme should involve three levels:
1) Census information from satellite imagery
2) Air photo interpretation of sampled landscapes (typically 1x1 km in size)
3) Field inventory in the sampled landscapes
Primarily, the programme is intended to provide results for strategic environmental decisions
at regional and national levels. These results will be obtained mainly from the assessments in
the last two levels. The census satellite information is planned to provide local level data as
input for local level decisions. These data will, however, be quite coarse due to the mostly
limited correlation between field conditions and satellite data. The work to develop the
programme started in 1999. The aim of the presentation is to communicate the results from the
initial studies, including work on what indicators to assess and what specific design to use. In
addition, the results from a first pilot test will be presented.
208
Towards an interdisciplinary monitoring of European floodplain

landscapes: Geo-ecological approaches of terrestrial monitoring in
floodplain forest within an urban landscape
Dagmar Haase
Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle, P.O. Box 2, D-04301 Leipzig,
e-mail: haase@alok .ufz.de
The region of the Leipzig floodplain wetlands with one of the most beautiful floodplain forest
in Europe as well as strongly degradated areas contains. The rivers of Weisse Elster and
Pleisse are examples of the strong human impact on wetland ecosystems. The open pit mining
around Leipzig and the chemical industries, were the sources of millions of tons of toxic
organic and inorganic contaminants of which some have been accumulated in the floodplains
of the floodplain ecosystems. Moreover, the floodplains and their forest are important
elements of the German wetlands and considerable retention areas for flora and fauna that are
in danger of becoming extinct. Furthermore, intensive land use has a long history in the
floodplain regions around Leipzig. Since centuries there has been functioning a certain
interaction of ecological (e.g. changing of the atmospherically inputs) and socio-economic
factors (e.g. migration processes, variation of the land-use structure, developing aesthetic
understanding of nature) within the floodplain landscape which must be regarded as important
for the further development of both, the floodplains and the city of Leipzig. But, which are the
main factors of the development of the floodplain ecosystems and how the society needs to
control it? Within the presented research paper different methods have been used to generate
an interdisciplinary approach of terrestrial monitoring to find out the “hot spots” of the
floodplain landscape development.
The impact of disturbance on landscape diversity

Anke Jentsch (& Peter S. White)
Landscapes are dynamic, with natural or anthropogenic disturbances being among the most
important sources for gradual or abrupt change. In this contribution we review essential
findings from disturbance ecology on the impact of disturbance on landscape diversity and
landscape equilibrium. The size of a landscape is considered relative to the scale of its
disturbance dynamics. Focusing on the multiple patch scale we explore whether landscapes
exhibit constant and predictable structures at large spatial scales, despite high variance in
disturbance dynamics at smaller scales. The dominant scale issue here is the question of patch
dynamic equilibrium. Disturbance regimes contribute significantly to biotic diversity and
spatial heterogeneity of landscapes. They produce a continuum of conditions from primary to
secondary succession and leave behind a wide range of legacies from the predisturbance
ecosystem. These legacies often create further heterogeneity within landscapes, with different
species favoured in different kinds of patches. In most landscapes disturbances also interact
with human-imposed scales and boundaries, and in turn boundary conditions affect
disturbance frequency and magnitude. On the search for generality in disturbance ecology we
seek to understand the causal interaction of spatial and temporal patterns of disturbance with
landscape configuration across diverse landscape and types of disturbance. It is important to
study disturbance, because disturbance is present in all landscapes, it occurs across a wide
range of scales, it creates patchiness and affects landscape composition and functioning.
209
Disturbance is essential to the maintenance of biodiversity, it plays a critical role in climate

change and exotic species invasion. Humans alter disturbance regimes and need to understand
subsequent landscape dynamics for developing models with predictive capabilities. We
propose that the diversity of landscape pattern is among others the product of a few
fundamental variables describing disturbance regimes. Nevertheless, we are challenged with
spatial and temporal variation in disturbance events and ecosystem response, with variation of
absolute values along gradients within and between landscapes, with variation in species
adaptations among ecosystems, and with variation in sampling and analysis.
Monitoring and Evaluating the Nature Space Potential in Suburban

Spaces Using Remote Sensing Data and GIS
Maik Netzband
University of Leipzig, Faculty of Physics and Earth Sciences, Institute for Geography
The redevelopment process in east German urban regions since the reunification is a process
which brought forward structurally modified and often disperse settlement structures in an
extraordinarily short period of time. This very dynamically running impact has led to a clear
re-evaluation of the surrounding countryside and to an absolute deconcentration of population
and of work-places. In this project an analysis and an evaluation of the nature space potential
for the suburban space are to be made by means of remote sensing methods including
geographical information systems (GIS). With the results derived a progress control of desired
planning goals can be made. Within the last ten years landscape structure indices have been
implemented on remote sensing image data for different mapping scales. As original input
data topographic maps, aerial photographic data as well as satellite images have been used.
Thus the analysis of historical samples represents the base for the comparison of current as
well as of future landscape structures and enables predicates to evaluate the dynamics of the
landscape. A methodological approach is presented, after which monitoring and evaluation of
a landscape diversity in suburban landscapes are feasible on the basis of high resolution
satellite data.
Monitoring "Kolbental" - a concept for the protection of a wetland

area and its sustainable use for drinking water supply
Jürgen Ott
In this paper the general concept of the monitoring project "Kolbental" near Kaiserslautern
(Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany), which began in 1998, and some first results are presented.
In this protected wetland area with lots of endangered species and biotopes an organisation for
drinking water supply (Zweckverband Wasserversorgung Westpfalz) will start the extraction
of groundwater - about one million cbm per annum - in 2001. The use of this area for drinking
water supply was only allowed by the local governement, if the extraction will take place in
accordance with the presented monitoring programme. During the first 3 years the basic
investigations, and thereafter during a five year period the investigations to determine the
possible impact are taking place. Beside abiotic factors like climate, soil moisture etc. and
210
intensive mapping of a broad spectrum of biotic factors takes place (biotopes, flora, carabid
beetles, grasshoppers, butterflies and dragonflies). This long term programme should ensure,
that the extraction will be in a sustainable way and will not harm significantly the biocoenosis
of this wetland area.
Analysis of landscape changes with integrated criteria:

application to sustainable management of natural resources
P. Pérez Gutierrez, C. T. López de Pablo, P. Martín de Agar, F. Díaz Pineda
Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de Biología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040 Madrid
(Spain).
A methodological procedure for the integrated analysis of the landscape and its evolution,
with sustainable management in mind, is shown. By mean of a cluster analysis over the matrix
of data, obtained from the thematic maps of the territory, internally homogenous groups of
observations can be recognized at different levels of similitude. Cartographic expression of
these levels gives different ecological maps. Landscape analysis can be done considering the
boundaries of patches, focusing both on the characteristics of each patch and the whole
landscape. By comparing the values obtained in the different years, the changes in the
landscape and in the interactions between patches can be characterized. This procedure has
various advantages, in that:
• it is an objective and contrastable analysis of the relationships taking place in a territory.
• It detects the main elements of a territory and their interactions in the functioning of the
landscape, as well as their temporal evolution, considering different levels of detail.
In the other hand the relationship between changes in landscape characteristics and other
ecological parameters that are harder to acquire can help to design policies for managing the
characteristics of the landscape for different exploitation objectives.
Mitigation and Monitoring of Ecological and Visual Impacts of

Projects Subject to EIA in the UK
Elaine Quinn
A mandatory requirement of the environmental impact assessment regulations in the UK is a

description of the measures to mitigate significant adverse environmental effects resulting
from a proposed development. However, there are no mandatory requirements for monitoring
the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed measures. The basis of this investigation
is to explore the nature and extent of monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of
ecological and visual impact mitigation measures in the UK. Firstly, the quality of ecological
and visual impact assessments in the UK is evaluated through the review of environmental
statements. From this sample, 12 case studies have been selected. Site visits and interviews
have been undertaken to ascertain if the mitigation measures proposed in the environmental
statement have been implemented and are proving to be effective. For the monitored projects
the data is evaluated to assess its reliability and adequacy for auditing impacts, evaluating the
effectiveness of mitigation measures and testing the accuracy of predictive techniques. For
211
projects without monitoring, site visits and interviews have been undertaken to determine
whether the absence of monitoring is permitting unnecessary environmental damage.
A methodological approach of an ecological process classification in

the landscape research shown with the Rostock Hierarchical Ozone
Monitoring (RHOM)
Stüdemann, Otto; Sabine Eckert; Sandra Odya; Dörte Krüger
University of Rostock, Research Group Applied Meteorology and Ecosystem Analysis
Usually multifunctionality of a landscape refers to ecological, economical and production

functions. Furthermore multifunctionality refers to the formation of hierarchical classified
processes. These processes result in phenomena of landscapes by them showing the coupling
of numerous functions. Aims of an ecological process classification will be derived.
Process analysis with the example of the Rostock Hierarchical Ozone Monitoring:
Episodes with high ozone concentrations near the ground are linked with a hierarchical system
of processes of the dynamics in the atmosphere coupled with processes forcing the formation
of anthropogenic abiotic and biogenic as well as naturally biogenic ozone precursors.
Together with air- , airchemical and photochemical processes these processes result in
landscape-dependent ozone concentrations. Based on the ozone deposition rate of the plant
(and of man of course) and their controlling mechanisms we can define the local-specific
ozone effect potential. The processes of damage genesis on plants can be showed as sequences
for every organismic organization stage: cell stage, tissue stage, organ stage and the whole
plant. By analizing the landscape related ozone formation, the local-specific as well as the
plant-specific ozone effects the genesis of a geographic pattern of phytotoxic effects of near
ground ozone can be described. According to the methodological rules of process research
(Landscape ecological Axiom, Multiscale Analysis, element , partialcomplex- and landscape-
related process structure) the nature of processes can be described by the process categories
process genesis, process dimension, process constellation, process function and process
regulation. With a developed tool-box so for every causality problem a process classification
can be derived. The tool-box contains the subject, the methodological approaches, criteria for
the classification and examples for every process category. Strict working during process
classification guarantees the validity limits of the correspondence of aim, content and method.
So gaps of the process analysis are realized. The lecture is completed by posters.
212
Convergence of land attributes (soil, geology, geomorphology and soil

water) with site productivity in plantations of Norway spruce in
western Denmark.
Henrik Vejre* and Casper Szilas**
*Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University,
Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C
**Chemistry Department, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Thorvaldsensvej 40
1871 Frederiksberg C
* Corresponding Author
The convergence between soil type, soil nutrients, soil water, geomorphology, geology and
site productivity (tree growth) was tested at 57 sites in western Denmark, all vegetated with
even aged Norway spruce stands. Site productivity was lower on dune landscapes as
compared to glaciofluvial plains and moraine landforms. Productivity was highest on glacial
till, followed by glaciofluvial sand and eolian sand. Entisols and Inceptisols were common on
sandy till sediments, while Spodosols and Entisols with spodic characters were commonly
found on eolean sand. 60 % of the soils were podzolized, and they dominated the old moraines
and glaciofluvial plains, whereas no specific soil type characterized young moraines.
Glaciofluvial plains converged generally with glaciofluvial sand, but was often covered by
eolean coversand. Eolean sand occured commonly on moraine land forms. The soil
phosphorus status was highest on glacial till and glaciofluvial sand, as compared to eolean
sand. Accordingly, young moraines were generally rich in phosphorus. It is concluded that
geomorphology is a poor predictor for site productivity, whereas the sediment type is more
reliable. The spatial variation in land attributes was strong, implying problems with
extrapolation from single observations, and homogeniety in one attribute does not imply
homogeniety in others. The assumption of convergence among land attributes in land
evaluations should be tested before any major site classification system is employed.
Key Words: Soil, geology, geomorphology, site productivity, Norway spruce, land attributes,
soil nutrients, soil water.
Detecting and classifying change transitions in the landscape using

combined spatial data sets.
Niina Vuorela
Department of Geography, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland
e-mail: niina.vuorela@utu.fi, tel. 358+2+3336287, Fax. 358+2+3335896
Key words: landscape change, environmental variables, spatial data, GIS
Analysis of landscape changes requires information of different environmental variables

contributing to the characteristics of the landscape. These variables are both natural and
anthropogenic. Representative information can be obtained from several sources, such as
remotely sensed images, landscape descriptions, maps, historical records and photographs,
which represent the landscape at different times and from variable perspectives. This study
aims to detect and classify change transitions in the landscape bases on combined use of
spatial information about different environmental variables. The case study area, the island of
213
Ruissalo, represents a unique biodiversity site in SW Finland with largest oak populations in
the country. The island is also an important recreation and conservation area. The research
approach has three major phases. Firstly, current landscape patters are observed and classified.
Secondly, change transitions in the landscape are detected. Thirdly, landscape is re-classified
according to the nature of these change trajectories. The approach requires use of multi-
temporal data sets, which vary according to spatial, temporal and thematic contents. Digital
management of the data sets based on Geographic Information was use in the detection of the
change transitions. With the aid of data combination it is possible to characterise landscapes
according to their spatio-temporal nature. This could be of use in future evaluations of
biodiversity, where it is relevant to consider both the current biodiversity and landscape
change dynamics.
214
7. Session G:
Diversity and heterogeneity of landscapes
Comparing Biodiversity and Landscape Heterogeneity at Different

Scales
Carl Beierkuhnlein
Landscape Ecology, University of Rostock, Justus von Liebig Weg, D-18051 Rostock
Germany
Biodiversity became an important issue since the UNCED-conference. Meanwhile most

countries have signed the biodiversity convention and are obliged to contribute to the
conservation of biodiversity. To reach this goal, the identification and monitoring of
biodiversity is necessary. These data can also help to register vegetation response to climate or
landuse change. Information about spatial aspects of biodiversity within an area can be gained
by the analysis of similarity or dissimilarity between plots. The heterogeneity or homogeneity
of vegetation and the occurence of ecotones are important aspects of biodiversity. Following a
systematic distribution, the sampling of data was performed in two Central European
landscapes on the basis of a grid size of 106 m2 for the total area. A grid with quadrats of 104
m2 was used for a selected subset of plots and of these records another subset was divided into
fields of 102 m2 . Patterns emerged from these data and were related to site conditions and to
landuse. A scale dependence can be found within the actual data. Based on these results it can
be concluded that various qualities of global change might be effective at different scales.
Multifunctional connectivity analysis of landscape elements

Thomas Blaschke
The developing field of landscape ecology has provided a strong conceptual and theoretical
basis for understanding landscape structure, function, and change. Growing evidence that
habitat fragmentation is detrimental to many species and may contribute substantially to the
loss of regional and global biodiversity has provided empirical justification for the need to
manage entire landscapes, not just the components. Developments of GIS technology have
made a variety of analytical tools available for analysing and managing landscapes. Much
emphasis has been placed on developing methods to quantify landscape structure and a great
variety of landscape structural indices have been developed for this purpose. The study of
landscape patterns, however, has to focus on interactions among patches within a landscape
mosaic, and how these patterns and interactions change over time. These interactions are
complex and their explanations depend heavily on the view of the observer (scale, resolution,
thematic interest). A multifunctional approach is devoloped to allow for a multifunctional
215
modelling of connectivity between landscape elements considering the development and

dynamics of spatial heterogeneity and its affects on ecological processes and the management
of spatial heterogeneity. The approach aims for overcoming the ‘binary view’ of a landscape
(habitat – non-habitat) which is underlying most statistics based on nearest neighbor distance
at the patch, class, and landscape levels.
Landscape homogenisation and fragmentation:

Changes in the spatial organisation of the Madrid landscape (Spain)
Corbacho, P.P ; Zárate, A.; Rebollo, J.C ; & De Pablo, C.L*.
Depto. Interuniversitario de Ecología, Facultad de Biología. Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid,
Spain.
*Tel: 34-91394.5083 Fax: 34-91394.50.81 e-mail: cldpablo@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
Landscape changes were studied from 1956 to 1972, 1980 and 1991. Four sets of 676 plots
were located on aerial photographs in each year. The cover of 26 land-uses was noted. A
hierarchical clustering of the plots according to the land-uses for each year was made. Maps
were produced from the spatial projection of those clusters, then fragmentation can be
measured. To choose the hierarchical level to be mapped, the hierarchies were analysed using
niche width measures (A) of the land-uses in the clusters, based on entropy indices. The
minimum overall A value permits to recognise the hierarchical level that best define the
landscape structure in each year. The value of this minimum is a measure of the spatial
heterogeneity of the map. The A value of each land-use permits to identify those ones that
best segregate in the different clusters (map sectors). A considerable change in the structure
took place since 1980. The sectors defined in the previous years lose definition and fragment.
There is a more indiscriminate distribution of land-uses in the sectors. The landscape had
become fragmented and homogenised, changing from a structure with clearly differentiated
sectors in 1956 to one that was equally homogeneous at any scale of detail.
Is a geodiversity a part of landscape diversity

Marek Degórski
Institute of Geography and Spatial Organisation, Polish Academy of Sciences, 00-818 Warsaw, Twarda
51/55, E-mail: m.degor@twarda.pan.pl
According to the classic definition of landscape as a system of abiotic and biotic elements and
to the assumption of biodiversity as a one of the outer expression of total system diversity, it
is possible to say that biodiversity is determined by the interaction between all elements of the
system. Irrespective of the nature level (e.g. species, biocenotic), biodiversity is conditioned
by the quantity and quality of available resources, which are strong connected with abitotic
conditions (geo-conditions). Study was carried on the different scale of landscape units, from
the landscape units of the lower rank as habitats or ecosystems, to the regional scale. It was
noticed different environmental components which were most important to spatial variability
of geodiversity, from the geochemical level (content of nutrients, moisture, reaction) to the
geomorphological one (land form). Geodiversity is also very important element for the
anthropogenic activity in the environment, where one of the form of expression in the
216
landscape is land use and land cover. Presented study showed strong correlation between
geodiversity and landscape diversity depends on the scale and level of spatial organisation.
Theoretical landscape indices meeting data from the real world

Fjellstad, W.J.1 , Dramstad, W.E.1 , Fry, G.L.A.2 & Mathiesen, H.F. 1
1
Norwegian Institute of Land Inventory; 2 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
Recently, the use of mathematical indices as tools to quantify and communicate information
on various aspects of landscape has become increasingly common. Among planners and
policy-makers in particular, these simple numbers conveying objectivity and scientific rigor
have gained considerable popularity. However, any attempt to describe something so complex
as a landscape in very simple terms, should meet certain scepticism. This has been the case for
landscape indices, and the debate regarding their use and potential misuse is ongoing. In the
Norwegian monitoring programme for agricultural landscapes, several indices are used,
including indices of landscape diversity and heterogeneity. To ascertain whether these index
values contain landscape information of relevance to e.g. biodiversity has been an important
issue in the development of the monitoring programme. Index values were therefore related to
field data on birds, vegetation, bumblebees and butterflies. This paper presents results from
the 1998 monitoring squares. The results show significant correlations between number of
bird species and both landscape diversity and heterogeneity values. Number of plant species
was significantly correlated with heterogeneity values, whilst number of recorded insect
species showed no relationship to either diversity or heterogeneity. Both results and the
influence of sampling methods are discussed.
Connections between landscape diversity and modernizing

agriculture in rural landscape
Reija Hietala-Koivu
Landscape diversity from the point of view landscape ecological theory and methods can be
analysed by quite a many indices. For instance, Shannon's diversity (SHDI), Shannon's
evenness (SHEI), patch density (PD), edge density (ED) and landscape percentages
(%LAND) describe landscape structure and composition. Variables describing modernization
are the numbers of farms and tractors, which are measured in relation to field area. Modern
agriculture requires more and more field area and farming machinery for ones living. In a case
study of three areas, landscape diversity and modernization of agriculture were studied in
1954-1998 in Finland. Changes in distribution among patches were indicated to be decreasing.
Changes in patch densities and patch shapes imply noticeable effects in simplifications of the
visual landscape. At the same time, two thirds of the farms gave up agriculture and field sizes
per farm doubled. In addition, in all three areas field area per tractor decreased remarkably,
because of agricultural mechanization. Furthermore, decreased landscape diversity along with
modernized farming practices will be highlighted from the viewpoint of human diversity.
217
Rebuilding the post-industrial landscape: interaction between

landscape, diversity and biodiversity on derelict land.
Chris Ling1 , John Handley1 , John Rodwell2 & Julian Dring2
1
2
Unit of Vegetation Science, School of Planning & Landscape, University of Lancaster
In the older industrial regions of Europe the transition from a heavy industrial to a knowledge-
based economy has left extensive tracts of derelict and damaged land in its wake. Where it is
possible and appropriate this land is being treated and restored for ‘hard’ end-use such as
housing and commercial development. However in many cases this is neither cost-effective
nore appropriate and alternative ‘soft’ end uses provide the alternative. An approach to land
restoration which works ‘with the grain’ of natural recovery has been shown to produce
attractive, biodiverse and cost-effective landscapes. Understanding the relationship between
landscape diversity and biodiversity is central to this approach.
Asessing the influence of patch type in determining patch structure:

Studies in the Western Ghats, India
Harini Nagendra
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
Telephone/Fax: (91-80) 360 1453, Email: harini@ces.iisc.ernet.in
Current research suggests that metrics of landscape pattern can act as indicators of ecological
processes and biodiversity maintenance. This paper assesses the influence of patch type in
determining patch structure. Studies were carried out in 13 landscapes between 9-54 km2 in
the Western Ghats of India, a highly heterogeneous hill chain considered one of the world’s
biodiversity “hot-spots”. Landscapes were mapped into 5-9 patch types. Three metrics were
identified as concerned with aspects of patch size and shape, and inter-patch distance. An
analysis of variation revealed that the within-type component of variation in patch metrics was
dominant, accounting for much as 85-99% of the total variation in landscape patch structure.
Between-type differences in patch structure were correspondingly minor. No significant
differences in patch size, shape or distance could be established for different patch types,
using data pooled across landscapes. Further, dendrograms of patch type similarity
relationships varied widely from landscape to landscape. This study establishes the dominance
of context (landscape) over type (patch identity) in determining patterns of patch structure, for
the tropical landscapes of the Western Ghats. A possible explanation is provided by the
predominance of local-scale, historical and human-influenced drivers of landscape change.
218
The Living Landscapes Project:

Exploring the link between landscape character and biodiversity
Jonathan Porter, Geoffrey Griffiths & Steven Warnock1 , Eunice Simmons 2
1
The Department of Geography, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading,. Berks, UK RG6
6AB. e-mail: j.r.porter@reading.ac.uk
2
T.H. Huxley School, Imperial College at Wye, University of London, Ashford, Kent, TN25 5AH
The Living Landscapes Project is developing a system of landscape character mapping to

provide a framework for ecological monitoring in the wider countryside. The project involves
the University of Reading and Wye College, with funding from English Nature, the
government agency with responsibility for nature conservation in England. With growing
evidence that present day processes of change often degrade the character of the countryside
and its wildlife, there is an urgent need to develop a robust and widely accepted character
bases framework that takes proper account of the natural, cultural and visual dimensions of
the landscape. The paper will report on the GIS-bases characterisation process and
demonstrate how the base mapping of Land Description Units (LDUs) are classified into
distinct ecological types that reflect differences in the distribution of species and the type and
structure of habitats within the wider countryside. field survey, supported by species
distribution data and existing information on habitat type and extent from air-photography and
published sources, is being used to validate the ecological typology. A novel aspect of the
validation process will be to compare the distribution of indicator species, selected from
published sources and the Biotope Preference Database of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology,
against ecological landscape type. The paper will report on results from this process, to
demonstrate the extent to which the ecological typology for seven counties in the English
Midlands, reflects the differences in the ecological character of the landscape
Assessment of landscape diversity using arial and space images

Yury G.Puzachenko, Gleb M.Aleshchenko
Image is treated as a method of measurement of physical properties of land surface in

determined interval of waves length. General purpose is obtaining useful information about
structure of the territory reflected by signal. In multichannel photo image is transformed by
principal components method, and image in each component is treated separately. On the
basis of two-dimensional spectrum fractal dimensionality is calculated, number of existing
hierarchical levels and parameters of interrelation "number of level - linear sizes" are defined.
For different hierarchical levels by slipping square of corresponding size parameters of image
texture (diversity, richness, fragmentation index, fractal dimensionality) are assessed.
Multidimensional analysis of image is realized by segments (squares) received as a result of
shift of image relative to itself on the number of pixels corresponding to average linear size of
selected level. Dimensionality of selected level and its reflection in corresponding factor space
is defined by method of multidimensional scaling. Classification of image is realized using k-
means method with number of classes defined by dimensionality. At the next step for each
class dimensionality is defined over again and classification is repeated for the second level.
This procedure is repeated until difference of classes extracted becomes statistically
insignificant from homogeneous ones. Classification of image is realized simultaneously in all
channels. Image with extracted classes of texture for each hierarchical level is the basis for
219
assessment of landscape diversity. Classification can be realized simultaneously by space

image and image of relief affording more complete representation of landscape structure.
220
8. Session H:
Evaluating landscapes
Landscape evaluation of natural protected areas

Atauri, J.A. & de Lucio, J.V.
Departamento de Ecología. Facultad de Ciencias. Universidad de Alcalá. Alcalá de Henares. 28871
SPAIN.
Designation of natural protected areas has historically been the result of a mixture of criteria
(politic, aesthetic and ecological) often not well defined. Currently there is a concern for the
implementation of objective criteria for the designation of protected areas: the future network
of protected areas for the UE (Nature 2000) is based upon the importance for certain species
or habitats. Nevertheless there is a growing awareness of the need of conserving global
processes acting at landscape scales. The development of a concise set of indicators of
landscape quality is therefore a priority for landscape evaluation for conservation. In this
work, a multicriteria evaluation is carried out in the Madrid region comparing two different
sets of criteria: species richness and a set of indicators of landscape processes. Our concern is
to asses the integration of two different systems of protected areas (natural parks and Natura
2000 network) and their contribution to the maintenance of environmental services provided
by landscape. Results of landscape evaluation are compared with the existing system of
natural protected areas to assess to what extent it account for the conservation of either species
diversity or landscape processes, and also to assess to what extent these criteria have been
implicitly considered for designation. Results show quite different outputs for each set of
criteria. The existing set of natural protected areas does not fit with areas of highest total
species richness, but fits quite well with those areas with highest scores for rare species of
birds, revealing its importance in the designation process. Regarding landscape processes, the
existing set of natural protected areas does not correspond with those areas with highest value
for preservation of landscape processes, as many areas of high value for the selected
indicators are not included in any protected area. This study highlights the need of
consideration of global processes and the conservation not only of endangered species but also
of the functions and services provided by natural areas in the design of networks of natural
protected areas.
221
Assessing the visual impact of agroforestry management with

landscape design software
Daniel Auclair 1 , Jean-Francois Barczi1 , Frédéric Borne 1 , Michel Ëtienne 2
1
CIRAD – INRA ; UMR de Modélisation des Plantes (AMAP) ; TA40/E ; 34398 Montpellier cedex 5 ;
France auclair@cirad.fr http://www.cirad.fr/presentation/programmes/amap.shtml
2
INRA – domaine st. Paul ; Unité d´Ecodéveloppement ; Site Agroparc ; 84914 Avignon cedex 9 ;
France etienne@avignon.inra.fr
Trees are generally considered as important cultural features of the landscape. Forestry and
agroforestry management can offer many opportunities for enhancing the aesthetic value of
forest or woodlands, the resulting visual aspect is however not easy to convey to decision
makers and to the general public. Landscape design and visualisation software can be of great
help as a decision support system. In a case study of in the Cévennes (France), various
agroforestry management options have been simulated with the AMAP Landmaker©
software. The terrain was described through a digital elevation model. Information concerning
the farm structure (land tenure, land use units) was integrated in a geographic information
system. The AMAP database provides accurate 3-dimensional plant architectural models, built
according to the botanical concepts developed by the Montpellier school of botany. individual
tree computer mock-ups were computed for each species present, at the desired ages, in order
to simulated landscape evolution with time. Images of the scene were computed through
IMAGIS© and observed on the screen from several virtual viewpoints. Various management
options have been tested and visualised, providing a basis for discussion between partners
concerning spatial organisation, such as the layout of forest and agricultural plots.
Contribution of multiscale remote sensing data for landscape

evaluation in the Dnister region (Ukraine)
Bettina Baruth, Erik Borg
German Remote Sensing Data Center, 17235 Neustrelitz, Germany
One of the central aims of the German - Ukrainian interdisciplinary research project
„Transformation processes in the Dnister region (west Ukraine)“ (http://www.dnister.de) is
supplying the evidence that landscape structure can be described and quantified from remote
sensing data for nature conservation concerns. Specific methods and image processing
algorithms are necessary. Landscape structure is an important parameter, because landscape
patterns, ecological and environmental processes can be linked quantitatively.
In order to take full advantage of this information, methods of structural analysis have
to be developed and applied. A multiscale remote sensing data set is used to analyse landscape
structure (landscape composition, size and shape of objects, adjacent objects, spatial
relationships among objects) and to bring these results in relation to endangered breeding bird
habitats in central Europe.
The selection of suitable ecological parameters will be discussed as well as the choice
of qualified corresponding image processing methods. Furthermore, own developments for
characterising the Ukrainian landscape will be presented.
222
Multiple Goals and Outputs in an Agricultural Landscape

Charles A. Francis
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0949, USA
Understanding the complex structures and multiple functions and outputs from
agroecosystems in agricultural landscapes is key to design of efficient integrated systems for
the future. When people and groups with divergent goals and vested interests are studied as
key determinants in management of the landscape, this human dimension introduces potentials
for conflicts and competition for resources and space. Different opinions on land use must be
resolved if people are to work in harmony and make best use of resources. Since it is essential
to find support from society at large, to place an appropriate value on the ecosystem services
and agricultural outputs from the landscape, it is important to prepare and present coherent
plans and be able to articulate them well. Boundaries between different activities must be
defined and appropriate. If coordination of people and co-location of activities can inform the
design of efficient and sustainable landscapes, then the emergent properties can add value to
the human efforts and biological processes in the landscape. Rational design of rural
landscapes is essential to the sustainability of agriculture and society.
Agricultural functionality and landscape heterogeneity:

Multifunctionality in Danish agricultural landscapes
Pia Frederiksen1 , Esbern Holmes2 , Jesper Brandt2
1
Dept. of system Analysis, National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark
2
Dept. of Geography and International Development Studies, Roskilde University
A characterisation of the multifunctional use of a landscape might to a certain degree be

derived from the structure of the land cover. To evaluate this possibility a detailed monitoring
system for Danish agricultural landscapes has been used: Information on farm level of the
degree of agricultural specialisation and other types of land use has been related to the degree
of landscape monotonisation (measured by land use structure and the related biotope
structure) within each holding. Differences in geo-ecological conditions are taken into
account. The investigation show that the most heterogeneous landscapes are clearly related to
intensive pig-production combined with intensive pig-game (in- and outside the farm) and
golf. A national-wide implementation of this type of multifunctional land use in advocated.
Landscapes’ stability and diversity as strategies for development

Michael Grodzinski
University of Kiev, Ukraine, Sichneve Povstannia 3/97 Kiev-10, Ukraine 252010
michael_grodzinski@hotmail.com
Concepts of stability and diversity of landscapes are regarded by many landscape ecologists as
tools for making their science to be more applicable for developmental decision-making
process. For the decision-makers, however, the landscape ecological ideas on stability and
diversity become much more attractive if they are formulated in a quantitative terms. The
223
decision-makers are interested in approaches and results of measuring how stable and divers
the landscapes are.
The concept of landscapes’ stability developed in Ukraine is based on the general
principles of the reliability theory from the applied mathematics. The adaptation of this theory
to landscapes allows measuring different forms of stability (inertness, recoverability, and
plasticity) using a variety of indices. Most of them are of probabilistic terms and could be
calculated by different techniques. According to a particular problem one could choose the
most appropriate stability index, and according to data available – the most appropriate
technique for its estimation.
The same approach is used for landscapes’ diversity estimation. We distinguish four
types of landscape diversity (natural, anthropocentric, biocentric, and perceptual) and for each
the special indices are developed. On the basis of these estimates a collection of maps of
landscapes’ diversity are composed and then used for solving a variety of conservational
issues.
Interdisciplinary evaluation of land use

Roswitha Katter
New land use alternatives obtained must refer to specific regions and must be evaluated as to
their expected future effects by means of a combined evaluation procedure. The Project
Potential land use after mining" is funded by the Federal Ministry of Science and Transport
and the Styrian Government. The aim is to at define measures for ensuring the sustainable
development of abandoned mining areas as for example in the Eisenerz Region in Styria
(Austria). The investigation process is supported by an interdisciplinary evaluation system
developed by the project team taking into account natural sciences, sociological and
humanities aspects. The analysis of the target situation from the point of view of the various
disciplines as well as the evaluation criteria and indicators constitute an integral part of this
interdisciplinary evaluation model. The criteria applied in the disciplines ecology,
geosciences, archaology, history and socioeconomics are defined and set in relation, as part of
the evaluation model, to represent the effects of land use. The interdisciplinary evaluation
system is developed and applied primarily to assess different land use scenarios. In order to
increase the chances of implementation, residents of the region are invited to participate in the
project in a dialogue process right from the start.
Nature conservation evaluation of the inanimate natural components

of the landscape
Gábor Kiss
University of Debrecen, Department of Applied Landscape Geography
The conservation of biological diversity, the protection of botanical and zoological values are
the fundamental tasks of nature conservation. The basis of this consideration is due to the
large-scale endangerment and deterioration of these values. We think that the living world-
centric concept is basically right since the impoverishment of the living world endangers even
the human species in a long run. Nevertheless, we think it important that the values of
224
inanimate nature and the soils will get the right weighting as to their significance. These
formations constitute equal parts of the natural systems and they may be taken individually
also as values worth for conservation.
The decision of which objects are worthy for conservation among the inanimate natural
formations and soils needs scientific research. With regard to earth sciences, however, the
number of those special studies whose objective is the determination of natural values is
relatively small, and currently there is no elaborated method which would enable us to select
the most valuable formations on an exact basis. From the aspect of nature conservation, the
geomorphologic and especially the pedological values are the most neglected from among the
value types belonging to the scope of earth sciences.
We drafted the objectives of our research in the following points:
• Determination of the circle of geomorphologic and pedological values.
• Elaboration of methods for the determination of the nature conservation value of
landforms and soils.
• Elaboration of an exact method for the selection of typical formations of natural value.
This is the first step in the determination of nature conservation value.
• In our lecture, we illustrate the method for determining the value of typicalness through
examples of periglacial landforms, as well as lessivated and podzolised brown forest soils.
In the cases of these types of landforms and soils, our objectives are to determine the
characteristics of the typical formations on an exact basis, to prepare evaluation tables
enabling us to evaluate the value of typifiedness, and to select the values on the basis of
the results.
Problem of landscape pattern indication for their protection:

A case study from young and old glacial areas of North Poland
Mariusz Kistowski
University of Gdansk, Poland
Since 1991, Polish law concerning nature protection has made it possible to create protection
landscape complexes, covering areas of especially valuable natural and cultural landscape in
order to preserve their esthetical value. The basic problem in indicating the areas for
protection is the assessment of the visual value of landscape. This value is a result of the
layout of the landscape mosaic, changing in space and time (seasonally and in long-term).
These layouts result mainly from the features of relief, hydrographic network and land cover.
However, due to the differences in landscape structure of the young and old glacial areas,
slightly different criteria and manner of assessment have been suggested for these two types.
On the regional level, the assessment of landscape attractiveness is performed within basic
square fields (1 or 4 km2 of size) by calculating the relative altitude, length of lake and sea
shoreline or length of rivers and the number of vegetation patches. An additional criterion is
the occurrence of historical and cultural objects, such as old villages, palaces, manors, wind
or water mills, paved highways, etc. On the detailed (local) level, the visual attractiveness of
the landscape is assessed on the basis of the information on its local diversity, harmoniousness
of the natural and cultural relations in the landscape, the state of its quality, and the way in
which anthropogenic objects are incorporated into the landscape. The suggested method has
been tested on the area of Gdañsk Region in northern Poland and a part of Podlaskie District
in eastern Poland. A comparison of these two areas is interesting due to their natural and
225
cultural differences resulting from different history of these areas. The results of this study
were presented by means of GIS MapInfo and Vertical Mapper software.
Water supplier and forestry service, competitors to be in the use of

forested catchments? – A case stuy from the Western Ore Mountains,
Saxony, FRG
C.Lorz
Institute of Geography, University of Leipzig, Johannisallee 19a, 04103 Leipzig, FRG,
lorz@rz.uni-leipzig.de
The upper parts of the Western Ore Mountains, Saxony are almost completely covered with
spruce stands (Picea abies). These are differently used in historic times by man and recently
by foresters and water suppliers. While naturally the production of timber is the main interest
of the foresters, the water supplier are using these areas as catchments for the inflows for
water reservoirs, which supply the drinking water for the bigger cities of southern Saxony.
These systems show periods of instability, which leads to the phenomenons of forest decline
and stream water acidification. Characteristics of forest decline as lost and browning of cones,
higher sensitivity to insects, and windthrow are observed all over the area. Typical
phenomenons of water acidification are low pH-values with very low periodic pH, and high
amounts of Aluminum and Manganese. Reasons for these malfunctions (in an anthropocentric
sense) are the preindustrial overuse and the input of acidifiying substances in the industrial
period in combination with the natural properties of these areas. Direct remediation activities
are restricted to liming, which is planed and carried out by the forestry service. Aim of these
activities is the reactivation of the nutritient cycle and the mobilization of the nutrients fixed
in the inactive organic layers. Aims of the water suppliers to interfere in these catchments do
not exist till now. Moreover, the effects of liming on the quality of stream water are still hard
to predict. In a micro-catchment, Große Pyra, Western Ore Mountains no remarkable amounts
of heavy metals were observed. But for the nitrate concentration higher amounts as in unlimed
comparable areas nearby (Lysina-catchment, Western Czech republic) were found. This is
consistent with data of the water quality control in the drinking water reservoirs and their
inflows. How much of the nitrate origins from higher mineralisation rates in the organic layer
through liming and how much from the increasing atmospheric N-input in the last 30 years is
hard to judge. Finally, liming did not prevent the ecological important episodic drops of the
pH during storm events and snowmelting. The colaboration of water suppliers and foresters is
in the beginning. First projects to change the spruce stands into mixed beech-spruce stands are
made, but the economic pressure on the forestry is to heavy to carry out this alone for the
whole area. Therefore, it must be one of the most important aims of the development in this
area to free the forestry sevice from their economic constraint and to involve the water
suppliers financially and conceptionally in the managment of the forested catchments.
226
Watershed erosion response model (WERM) for prioritization and

management of multifunctional watershed: Experience from Western
India
A.K.Sinha* and Mahaveer Punia**
*Environmental Geology Lab,Department of Geology, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur-302004,India.
Email:sinhaaa@jp1.dot.net.in and sinha_1415@hotmail.com
**Birla Science and Technology Centre, Malviya Nagar Industrial Area, Jaipur-302017.
Watershed represents an ideal multifunctionl landscape which is arena of varied biophysical

and cultural activities .Environmental degradation of a watershed is threat to a reliable and
acceptable water supply which ultimately control the other ongoing functional processin the
system . Due to various natural and anthropogenic factors watershed gets frequently
degraded. Sedimentation and changing pattern of the stream , owing to erosion, which
seriously reduces the water availability and quality for both domestic and productive
purposes , are the major manifestations of such degradations. Need for increased water
security and thereupon food security has led to the increasing realization that watershed
approach and watershed management are the essential component of the sustainable
development process. The main purpose of the watershed management is to ensure that
hydrological , soil, and biotic regimes on the basis of which water development projects are
planned and community base activities are envisaged are properly maintained or even
enhanced. In order to have effective and targeted watershed management, prioritization of
watershed is a highly viable proposition as the exercise considerably reduces the cost and time
in the watershed management perspective. Prioritization of watershed means the location and
determination of vulnerable watershed which is in state of environmental degradation. With
the existing resources of manpower and financial needs particularly in developing countries ,
treatment of complete watershed area may not be possible and so there is a need for precise
identification and selection of problematic micro-watershed for treatment on priority basis.
Moreover, the entire watershed do not degrade uniformly and hence problematic area
demands more attention than the rest. The present paper discusses the WERM and the
prioritization process adopted for prioritizing the Watershed in Shahabad tehsil of western
India which served as the basis for selection of relevant watershed management approaches
for the remediation of the vulnerable watershed .
227
9. Session I:
Policy and planning of multifunctional landscapes
Impacts of changing agri-environmental policy on countryside

conservation: A comparative study of selected designated areas in
New York, US and England, UK
David Gross and Nelson Bills
Cornell University
This paper deals with contrasts between the American and British experience with
management of rural landscape. In the US interventions on behalf of farming and the
environment have focused on two distinct policy tracks: farmland protection and soil
erosion/water quality. Each track has its own constituency and an exclusive list of policy
remedies. Consequently, US agri-environmental programs operate in roughly parallel
universes. Missing in this bifurcate policy environment is a broad view of agriculture’s
position in the rural landscape. In this paper we discuss insight obtained by reviewing the
British experience with countryside management. While patterns of land settlement,
greenfields development issues, and the status of water quality are debated in the UK, policy
dialogue and design often arcs over these matters with countryside management as the
interlocking theme. This framework has provided the conceptual underpinnings for the series
of British schemes designed to engage the agricultural community in environmental
improvements. We want to investigate the possibility of enriching the American experience
with this broader, landscape-based approach to agri-environmental programs.
Regional nature protection based on nature management and agro-

environmental subsidies.
Rita Merete Buttenschøn
Most protected nature in Denmark is management dependent. An evaluation of the effect of

management through the nature management, respectively, agro-environmental funds of these
types nature showed that whereas the agro-environmental subsidies in particular are important
for the maintenance and re-establishment of extensifying agricultural practices on so called
§3-habitats, the nature management funds were used mainly for management within the
conservation order areas and for public access facilities. The studies and analysis behind this
evaluation was made as case-studies in Nordjyllands and Ribe county based on information
from the period 1989 to 1999. They clearly demonstrated that the agro-environmental
subsidy-agreements made after the transfer of the administration resort to the counties:
• have encompassed more management extensifying agreements;
228
• have reduced the use of fertilisers;

• have cover a larger proportion of §3-habitat.
The evaluation concludes that there is a need for a better integration of the apparatus into the
different levels of the physical planning process and hereby:
• securing continuity in the in the agreements’ content;
• securing a temporal and spatial continuity of the agreement areas;
• securing that the highest prioritised areas are given the subsidies.
The contribution of mountain policy to maintain multifunctional

landscapes and to support rural development in Austria
Thomas Dax and Gerhard Hovorka,
Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen, Möllwaldplatz 5; A-1040 Wien; Austria
e-mail: thomas.dax@babf.bmlf.gv.at, gerhard.hovorka@babf.bmlf.gv.at
The landscape in Austria is characterised by the high proportion (70%) of mountain areas.
Although the Austrian mountain areas have long been more than just an agricultural region,
mountain farming still bears the key role in safeguarding the sensitive eco-system and thereby
the multifuncional landscape and the general living and working space. The Austrian
economic and territorial policy started to put particular importance on regional development
of mountain areas and the impact on landscape very early. Since the early 1970s a special
Mountain Farmers Support Programme and specific regional policy measures has been
established which were adopted several times to new challenges. The paper will analyse and
evaluate the Austrian mountain area policy, in particular mountain farming policy and
elaborate on the implications of recent evolutions of policy reform (Agenda 2000) for
preservation and development of mountain areas, mountain farming and multifunctional
landscapes. Conclusions for important generalisable criteria for a successful mountain area
policy will be drawn. Also the particular relevance of “rural amenities” for the local/regional
potential of regions like the mountain areas will be discussed.
Multifunctional landscapes and agriculture in a Danish region and

targeting of agri-environmental policies
Berit Hasler (AKF)* and Ole Hjort Caspersen (FSL), DK
*Corresponding author: bh@akf.dk phone 45 33 114 59 49 – 40
The analysis incorporates a GIS analysis of the agricultural land use in the Danish region
Bjerringbro-Hvorslev tied to an analysis of the possibilities and limitations of directing the
support schemes to the most valuable landscape elements. Hereby it can be possible to obtain
a higher participation rate among farmers who manage valuable nature elements. The valuable
landscape elements are identified by a GIS analysis of the land use in a period of 200 years
(1800-1995) in the region, which facilitate the pinpointing of continuously managed
grasslands valuable from a nature and landscape point of view, but loosing economic value in
agricultural production. This analysis shows large changes in the management of the
grasslands in the period, and that the remaining valuable areas to a large extent are managed
by part time farmers. In addition, interviews and GIS mapping of the regulatory zones shows
229
that only a small part of these fields are protected by nature conservation, and that they are not
under environmental friendly management agreements either. The ability to target the agri-
environmental schemes to these valuable areas are analysed and discussed involving farm
level economic analysis for different production lines, as well as sector economic analysis of
the potential future economic development of agriculture in this region.
Traditional Land-Use Patterns in Korea:

From a Cultural Corridor of the Far-Eastern Landscape Perspectives
Hong, S.-K. and I.-J. Song
Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742 and Seoul Development Institute, Seoul
Modernization is threatening the coexistence of the human being and ecosystem. Feng-shui
theory is emerging as a new notion of land-use strategy for Asia those have the limited human
settlement area and natural resource. This theory originated from China had been
differentiated to several ways by distribution pattern and arrangement of the distinct
land(scape) elements composed of Asian landscape. Korea which have an important role of
cultural corridor connected among Asian countries has been used this theory for many
empirical ways in populated area. Under the principle of Feng-shui, people determines the
optimum location, which is consistent with ecological and cultural attributes as well as bio-
geoecology integrated. This paper is focusing on the changes of land-use and its pattern of
Seoul Metropolitan area in Korea. Land cover maps showed that the area of vegetation altered
by plantation and housing, and also stream and river corridor became straight. Landscape
change of urban area was related to the cultural changes initiated by socioeconomic
development. We explored the quantitative spatial structure and pattern of several human
dominated landscapes as Feng-shui based prototypes identified in ancient literature. Finally,
we propose guidelines based for the Feng-shui for urban landscape-ecological planning in
Korea.
The agricultural multifunctionality and multifunctional landscapes –

policy options under different trade regimes
Steinar Johansen and Geir Inge Orderud
Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research
Agnar Hegrenes
Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute
The pressure for opening up the food sector for international trade has increased during the
last decade. As a result, the focus on the multifunctional agriculture: i.e. indirect effects of
farming and forestry, also has increased, including the agiculture’s production of cultural
landscapes. The question posed is whether the different landscapes formed by agricultural
activities defend a protectionist policy and subsidizing measures. Given a positive answer, the
focus is on the links between different landscapes and different agricultural practices, and then
ask whether a policy focusing more on the landscape effect also require the development of
new policy measures and instruments. The paper will give an outline of the possible reasons
for accepting agriculture as a multifunctional activity, and then concentrate the discussion on
230
policy issues related to the link between agricultural production and production of landscapes
and settlement, based on a Norwegian setting.
Green network as an integrative planning tool in ecological landscape

management in Estonia
Mart Külvik 1 , Kalev Sepp1 , Jüri Jagomägi2 and Ülo Mander2
1
Environmental Protection Institute, Estonian Agricultural University
2
Institute of Geography, University of Tartu
In the 1999 the Estonian Government issued the degree on “Defining environmental
conditions for the development of land-use and settlement structure” for second phase of
country planning. Planning of green network is oriented at achieving the following goals:
• to maintain the natural self-regulation of the environment at the level necessary for human
existence
• to protect valuable associations
• to allow sustainable economic management, recreation as well as guarantee the
availability of natural zones to the public;
• to maintain and promote historical, cultural and esthetical identity and awareness of the
areas of natural and cultural inheritance.
Generally, it is possible to divide the green network designing into three stages: to develop the
methodology and basic criteria for designing green network planning; analysis of the green
network with other infrastructures (defining barriers, conflict etc) and to work out
recommendations for maintenance and designing of green network. The new methodology of
defining green network in spatial planning was developed and applied. The designation of
structural components (core area, corridors, nature development areas) of green networks is
bases on:
• morphometrical parameters of the elements (core areas – territorial extent, strip structures
– width)
• nature conservation and environmental protection values.
Integrating agricultural policies with planning and environmental

policies
Jørgen Primdahl1 and Teresa Pinto-Correia 2
1
Agricultural University, Denmark,
2
University of Evora, Portugal
New developments and old policy objectives are characterising rural areas and public policies
throughout Europe. These contradictions between changing development patterns and
outdated policies have challenged traditionel agricultural policies, planning, and nature
conservation strategies. In the context of multifunctional landscapes, policy integration is a
key word. The various reforms of the common agricultural policy within the EU which have
been implemented the last ten years are analysed from a policy integration perspective
focusing on the agricultural landscape. This is done first for EU member states as a whole
with the emphasis on the coordination of agricultural, environmental and planning
231
objectives. Using Denmark and Portugal as case studies policy integration is described in
more detail on the background of current changing patterns of Danish and Portuguese
agricultural landscapes. It is shown that clear tendencies towards more multifunctional
landscapes at the local landscape level occur but the way public policy is supporting this
process is complex and policy integration is not working well in any of the two countries.
Major obstacles to the integration of landscape concerns into agricultural and planning
policies are discussed and proposal for improvements are presented.
Integrated land use planning: a case study from Ghana

Anita Veihe
Department of Geography and International Development Studies, Roskilde University, House 19.2,
PO Box 260, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Land use planning activities are often characterised by different actors with their own specific
goals. The aim of this study was to produce land use scenarios for the introduction of vetiver
grass (Vetiveria zizanoides) in order to minimise soil erosion. Three key actors had been
identified (the farmers, the government and a soil conservationist) with different planning
objectives. Based on a regional soil erosion risk map derived using the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE), GIS and linear programming techniques, different land use scenarios were
identified reflecting the actors objectives and incorporating both bio-physical and socio-
economic parameters. A land use scenario taking into consideration the goals of all three
actors simultaneously was also generated. Scenarios varied considerably and the study showed
that when soil loss is minimised, input costs is the limiting factor whereas labour is the
limiting factor when gross margin is maximised and that it would not be economically viable
to introduce vetiver hedges if gross margin is to be maximised alone. If maximising yields,
both labour and input costs are limiting factors. In the final scenario taking into account goals
of all three actors, it was demonstrated that by relaxing the soil loss minimisation goal it was
possible to achieve both high yields and a high gross margin. At the same time, soil loss could
be minimised and with the help of GIS, areas for planting vetiver hedges could be identified.
Landscape Indicators at the European Level

Dirk M. Wascher
ECNC
The objective of this paper is to present landscape indicators as adequate tools for (1)
measuring the impact of agriculture on the environment, (2) monitoring the effects of existing
and future measures related to agricultural policies, and (3) using this knowledge to achieve a
better integration of landscape concerns into agriculture. An analysis of the existing policy
background demonstrates that there is a long history of landscape legislation, protection and
planning at the national level. At the international level, landscapes are getting increasing
policy attention as documented by a number of new environmental programmes and policies,
among which a number of European initiatives but also amendments to the Convention on
Biological Diversity. A review among European countries demonstrated that approaches
towards landscape assessment are relatively similar in terms of scope, objectives and their
focus on landscapes. While landscape character and functions related to perception, ecology
232
and sustainable use are forming main assessment targets, technical standardisation (e.g. by
remote sensing, photo interpretation) as well as the identification of distinct landscape units as
geographic references form the base for many methodological concepts. Following the
Driving Force-State-Response framework, landscape descriptors have been differentiated
according to driving force and state issues. Some of these issues can be considered to form a
pool for the identification of landscape indicators. It is also illustrated that both state and
driving force issues can vary from region to region, pointing at the need for region-specific
approaches when developing an adequate indicators system. The selection of agri-
environmental indicators should be based on criteria such as efficiency, reliability and spatial
validity. In terms of operational efficiency at the international level, the wide range of actual
landscape descriptors and hence potential indicators points at the need to employ widely
harmonised statistical and geo-referenced data. Constraints in terms of scale, aggregation,
accessibility to and existence of harmonised digital data on the one hand, and the level of
detail that is required to assess essential landscape functions on the other hand, pose major
methodological challenges. The third important task to better understand the complex links
that exists between agricultural practices and their effects on landscapes. At the international
level, it must be considered as useful to identify key rural processes as horizontally operating
driving forces. Attempts to analyse such driving forces are likely to generate a set of
indicators in correspondence to indicators on landscape functions. The paper closes by
presenting a list of candidate indicators for both driving force (rural processes) as well as state
(landscape functions and character) issues.
233
10. Session J:
Managing multifunctional landscapes
The use of remote sensing and anthropological tools to define

multifunctional landscapes in Thailand.
Niels Broge 1 , Lotte Isager2 , Ukrit Uparasit 3 , Somporn Sangawong4 , Harold Kirsch5
1
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Denmark
2
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
3
Thailand Development Research Institute, Thailand
4
University of Chiang Mai, Thailand
5
Geoscientific Research & Consulting, Thailand
In Thailand, decades of population increase combined with economic and infrastructure

development has put forest areas under pressure. The urgent need to conserve remaining
forests has been acknowledged by Thai political decision-makers as well as by the general
public. But striking a sound - or “sustainable” - balance between forest conservation and
economic development for the often poor forest-dwellers has proven a difficult task and,
indeed, a highly politicised task at both local and national levels. In this paper, it is argued that
satellite images combined with anthropological analysis of land-use change and management
represents a useful tool for landscape management in Thailand. Satellite imagery from 1980 to
1999 is used to define land-use classes and classify the park and buffer-zone area using a
standard classification key for Thailand. These classes are then reproduced as land-use maps
from which regional changes in land-use over time are identified and analysed. This analysis
is supplemented by an anthropological study of political and socio-cultural aspects of land-use
transition in the area, including local people and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the
changing environment. The complementarity of satellite image analysis and anthropological
studies is discussed and is argued to strengthen the overall analysis of the complexity and
multi-functionality of the landscape.
The methodology of drawing maps of environmental complexity for

the needs of environmental management
Jolanta Brzóska, Stefan Zynda, Andrzej Kijowski
In 1994 a statutory obligation was imposed in Poland to the effect that complex studies of
natural and socio-economic space should be conducted for the needs relating to the
management of territorial self-government units (i.e. cities, towns, communes and provinces).
The methodology of drawing maps of environmental complexity for the needs of
environmental management is based on:
• using up-to-date cartographic materials and aerial photographs;
234
• using GIS techniques in the process of preparing thematic layers of information on a

particular city, town or commune;
• drawing a ”model map” presenting the functional structure of local natural environment;
• preparing a sozological layer of information on existing threats, pollution and degradation
of local natural environment;
• drawing a ”model map” presenting the environmental evaluation as the basis for
determining the directions of environmental management.
The methodology of drawing complex thematic maps of natural environment involves the
application of quantitative and qualitative techniques to compile thematic databases and
collect information on the local area. When conducting inventory surveys the particular
environmental media constitute distinct layers of information. Only when drawing a map
presenting the functional structure of the local natural environment the media are treated
comprehensively, which makes it possible to carry out an environmental evaluation of the
local space. Finally, the environmental management strategy is devised for particular
territorial self-government units (communes).
Forms of historical and current land-use of the Leipzig floodplains-

anthropogenic influences, aspects of actual land-use conflicts and
conflict management
Vera Denzer & Dagmar Haase
University of Frankfurt, Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle;
V.Denzer@em.uni-frankfurt.de, haase@alok.ufz.de
This paper focuses on regional landscape planning in the region of the Weisse-Elster-Pleisse
rivers (Germany) floodplains which have been influenced and transformed by man since
centuries and today present a typical middle-European cultural landscape. Up to nowadays
economic and recreational land-use demands, intensity and dynamics of anthropogenic
influences on the floodplains have been intensified. After the political change in Eastern
Germany 1990 there is forced the “renaturation” in form of artificial overflowing of
floodplain forest stands which are positive for the equilibrium of the forest but a danger to the
cultural landscape structures, buildings, sports grounds and other current land-uses. Moreover,
the prognostic land-use conflicts initiated by flooding measures concern different land-users
such as farmer, the forest department, private landowners and the city government of Leipzig
and demand a form of conflict management as well as the development of a detailed planning
conception of this cultural landscape as one of the most important recreation areas of the city
of 500,000 inhabitants. Within such a conception of which parts will be presented within this
paper there should be taken into account the ecological functionality, the diversity of forest
and river systems and aspects of preservation of the cultural monuments and forms of
historical lands-uses.
235
Community participation in the land restoration process

Emma Griffiths, Chris Ling & John Handley
The restoration of land which has been damaged by former industrial activity is usually
considered to be a technical problem; the province of the civil engineer and the
environmental scientist. The communities that helped to create these landscapes have a strong
interest in reclamation outcomes but their sense of isolation and social exclusion is all too
often reinforced by the technocentric land restoration process. This paper will report the
results of a critical assessment of a major land restoration programme in England and Wales
(‘Changing Places’) which is led by Groundwork – an environmental NGO. Groundwork is
committed to an ecologically informed and participative approach to land restoration which
makes full use of innovative community involvement techniques such as ‘planning for real’.
The paper will explore the effectiveness of this approach, the barriers to effective participation
and ways in which they can be overcome.
Boundaries in the landscape –

results and experiences from interdisciplinary landscape research
Tove Hels and Kjell Nilsson
Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Hørsholm Kongevej 11, DK-2970 Hørsholm.
E.mail: the@fsl.dk
Boundaries in the landscape makes up a five year long concerted research effort, joining 13
scientists from disciplines as different as botany, jurisprudence, history, economy and
filosophy. The subprojects focus on exploitation of natural resources, both by man (production
and recreation) and other beings, how exploitation is interpreted, valued and ranked by
humans, how this in turn leads to regulations and eventually, how regulations affect the use of
natural resources. In our presentation we firstly review the recent political background for
interdisciplinary landscape research in Denmark. Secondly, we review the interdisciplinary
process within the project Boundaries in the landscape. Our study revealed three rather
distinct phases towards the development of interdisciplinarity: the first and very time
consuming phase focused on clarifying definitions of concepts and methods. The second
phase focused on data collection and elaboration of a common data base in the 156 km2 study
site, shared by all subprojects. The third phase was characterised by writing, commenting and
collecting contributions to a joint output of the project: a collection of essays describing the
results of the sub-projects. Through structured interviews with the participating researchers
our study revealed that the main benefits of interdisciplinarity is clear albeit difficult to
validate: development of an ability to relate more critically to current paradigms and methods
within one’s own research field. The cost of interdisciplinarity is primarily the increased
amount of time spent compared to ordinary disciplinary research, plus the difficulty in getting
interdisciplinary manuscripts published.
236
Ecological safety of landscape management as exemplified from

South Siberia region
Sergey B. Kuzmin
Institute of Geography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
1Ulanbatorskaya St., Irkutsk 664033, Russia, E-mail: kuzmin@irigs.irk.ru Fax: (3952) 467717
There are many ecological problems occur in South Siberia region due to landscape
management. The main one is the protection of natural monuments. Lake Baikal is the most
value natural monument where recreation and ecological tourism are the main types of
economy. It requires certain landscape management as there are series of natural hazards on
the Lake Baikal shore. Under study is Preolkhon region located in the central part of the
Baikal Rift Zone. Main natural hazard occurs from recent tectonics and seismicity controlling
the topography. Preolkhon landscapes are formed by the Primorsky Fault Zone. Three
criterions are used for geomorphic hazard assessment: 1) gradient of heights, 2) density active
faults, 3) activity of geomorphic processes. The maps of appropriate criterions are
constructed. Three parameters has been used to risk assessment: 1) geomorphic hazard, 2)
antropogeneous destruction of landscapes, 3) perfection of economy. Geomorphic hazard is
background natural parameter inducing the initial factor of anxiety of managers concerning
landscape disasters. Anxiety increases when antropogeneous destruction of landscapes,
instability of landscape, unpredictability of disasters are rised. The third parameter shows as
far as the man is capable to secure itself and enclosing landscape at realization of concrete sort
of economy. The high ecological significance and low stability are typical of Preolkhon
landscapes. Urgent improvement of recreation is necessary to lower risk and to reduce
negative effect on landscapes. Landscape management should be implemented: 1)
administrative control over the activities of travel companies and agencies; 2) adaptation of
experiences of other countries with a high level of tourism; 3) lowering of unorganized
tourism; 4) tourism instructing; 5) prohibitions of unauthorized dig operations; 6) recultivation
of the broken grounds; 7) planning and regulation of motorways and foot tracks network; 8)
definitions of an optimal amount of tourists, which are capable to sustain the natural systems
at the expense of stability and self-cleaning ability; 9) attraction of the investments to
ecological rehabilitation of lands; 10) attractions of public institutes and movements, initiative
groups in promoting nature protection activities.
A Cartographic Tool to Support Public Access to the Countryside

Dorthe K. Larsen and Jesper Brandt
During recent years there has been a growing interest in using the Danish countryside for non-
agricultural purposes, including settlement and recreation. Despite a zoning legislation
enforced in 1970 restricting land use and use of buildings in rural areas to agricultural
purposes, a degree of 'hidden urbanisation' of the countryside is observed. A liberalisation of
this regulation can be expected, resulting in a new wave of settlement, among other things
based on the recreational potentials of the countryside. Alongside this development, the legal
possibilities for open access to the countryside has been widened. The Nature Protection Act
from 1992 specifies the rights of the public to access different types of public and private
areas. In the planning of the countryside a growing number of paths and tracks are developed,
partly in co-operation with the owners. Most Danish farmers by tradition accept that people
237
trespass their private property, provided they do it thoughtfully, and people will rarely
experience problems if the farmer is contacted beforehand.
To further the recreational use of the countryside there is, however, a strong need for
better access to information on:
1. The landscape values; where do we find a certain type of landscape feature or what do we
find of interest in a particular area ?
2. The rights of access; which type of access right applies to a certain area, or where are we
allowed to go by bicycle?
3. The owners/tenants; who do we ask for permission to visit a particular location or route
without access right ?
This sort of information provides the means for handling possibilities as well as constraints of
access to the countryside in a pro-active way that can serve to minimise conflicts between
land owners and recreationists. This paper presents a computerised cartographic tool for
providing such information for the Danish agricultural landscape. The tool utilises the
flexibility of digital map data and simple GIS functions in different ways. Firstly, in terms of
variable map scale and detail: Hikers need a large scale map with footpaths whereas access by
motorised vehicles calls for a medium scale map showing primarily motorable tracks.
Secondly, the tool supports variable map contents based on a range of different map layers.
This gives the user the option to select the appropriate map contents for a particular purpose.
Thirdly, information and search facilities are available for providing information on particular
features; a description of a site, the name and telephone number of the land owner, etc. The
cartographic tool is implemented for a typical Danish agricultural area based on a compilation
of available existing digital information on topography, landscape values (e.g. areas under
general protection and archaeological/historical sites) and a national cadastre.
Management of alluvial forest remnants in a New Zealand

agricultural landscape
Craig Miller
Department of Conservation, Private Bag 701, Hokitika, New Zealand, Cmiller@doc.govt.nz
Pastoral agriculture is concentrated on recent alluvial soils of the west coast of the South
Island, New Zealand. These soils account for 6% of the land area, and were once covered in
tall podocarp (Podocarpaceae) forest. Now only 0.8% of the original forest cover remains as
small scattered patches. This forest type is under-represented in the protected area network
despite 76%, or 1.8 million ha, of the West Coast being protected for nature conservation
purposes. Consequently the major land management issue is how to protect and maintain these
remnants on private land and, if possible, increase their area without reducing the available
area of prime agricultural land. Flood disturbance was the major physical process that resulted
in regeneration of these alluvial forests prior to human clearance. Now flooding is contained
by stop banking and where it does occur land management ensures that pasture rather than
forest is reestablished. Stock grazing is now the main disturbance regime in many remnants.
This is known to reduce the availability of palatable native species, and may also have an
influence on the regeneration of podocarp seedlings. This paper examines the effects of
decoupling alluvial forest remnants from flood disturbance and of stock grazing on remnant
condition. The short to medium term future of these remnants is modelled, and scenarios for
remnant management and enhancement are presented.
238
Economic and Voluntary Instruments for Agricultural Landscape

Management
Jesper S. Schou*, Berit Hasler**
*National Environmental Research Institute, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark,
JSS@DMU.DK
**Institute of Local Government Studies, Nyropsgade 37, DK-1602 Copenhagen V, Denmark,
BH@AKF.DK
Economic aspects are important for both the attainment of public goods form agriculture, as
well as for the economic consequences of policy measures applied, necessary to achieve
environmental objectives. In other words preservation and development of future landscapes
is dependent of economic factors, which sets out the reference for the production activities as
well as the funding for the public effort of landscape preservation. Economic instruments, e.g.
farmers’ voluntary participation in financial support schemes, are used as incentives for
farmers to improve multifunctional qualities of the landscape. Because of the voluntary nature
of these approaches, they do not necessarily secure fulfilment of the environmental and
landscape objectives. Consequently, unique and valuable nature qualities must be protected by
conservation. On the other hand, the voluntary approach can be efficient for the provision of
more widespread nature goods and landscape qualities from agriculture. In this paper the
economic factors and the agronomic restraints that govern farmer’s choices of landscape use
and landscape management is presented in conjunction with the potential for a more
comprehensive use of voluntary and economic instruments in landscape management.
Different types of nature goods connected with agricultural landscapes, are identified, and the
potentials and limitations of voluntary approaches are discussed.
239
VI. Poster presentations

240
241
GIS for NATURA 2000 –

Monitoring Europe's Nature Conservation Sites
A. Annoni, S.Christensen, S. Peedell
European Commission - Joint Research Centre, Space Applications Institute, Agriculture and Regional
Information Systems Unit, I-21020 Ispra (Va) – Italy
Natura 2000 is a European network of Nature Conservation sites designated by Member

States under the Birds Directive 12 and the Habitats Directive 13 , where human activity must be
compatible with the conservation of sites of natural importance. The creation of the Natura
2000 network is the cornerstone of Community Nature Conservation policy and a major
challenge for the European Commission and the Member States. Contrary to what is widely
believed, the Natura 2000 network does not only comprise National Parks, but include large
areas of productive land. Natura 2000 is strongly based on the concept of sustainable
development, where productive activities must be integrated with the requirements of nature
conservation. Environmental concern is increasingly being integrated into EU policy measures
such as Agenda 2000. The Natura 2000 sites are numerous and cover a significant area of the
EU territory – by 2004 there are expected to be some 15000 sites, covering more than 10% of
the EU territory. Enlargement of the EU will increase the number of sites significantly. Many
Natura2000 sites can be considered as multifunctional and facing pressures such as
urbanisation, agriculture and recreation, but there is currently no clear definition of how these
sites should be assessed and monitored at European level. The lack of harmonised spatial data
at European level presents a significant barrier to the development of monitoring systems.
The diversity of the Natura2000 sites, combined with the heterogeneity of existing data held
by different organisations throughout Europe, requires a concerted approach based on clear
requirements of site management. Under an agreement between the Joint Research Centre and
Directorate General Environment, the fundamental issues in creation of a harmonised spatial
database for Natura2000 are being addressed. By establishing a Geographic Information
System (GIS) for Natura2000, a standard set of applications will be available to allow the
analysis and definition of standard measures to support site monitoring.
Regional differentiation of landscape modification in the Polish

Carpathians
Jaroslaw Balon, Wieslaw Ziaja
Jagiellonian University, Institute of Geography, Cracow, Poland
The Polish Carpathians are the northernmost part of all European montainous arcs of the
Alpine orogeny, and the southernmost part of Poland. The Polish part of Carpathians contains
20000 km2 which is 6% of Poland. Their position and small altitude – 97,5% of their area
12
Council Directive79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.
13
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora.
242
below 1000 m a.s.l. – determine a comparatively gentle climate. There is big population (2,4
milion) and dense settlement and transport network in the mountains, bordering on a coal
basin (Upper Silesia) which is a big emitter of atmospheric pollution. The mountain landscape
state and dynamics depend mainly on the interaction between men and environment in the
past and today. The following results of that interaction are visible in the Carpathian
landscape:
- reduction of a forest cover to ca. 40% of the mountains’ area, for settlement and agriculture,
- replacement natural mixed or deciduous forests with spruce monocultures in places,
- degradation of forest biocenoses because of industrial and urban atmospheric pollution,
- spread of ploughlands in the past, extension of grass-lands and afforestation of marginal
grounds today,
- diminution of wetlands and flooding some river valleys (dams).
Spatial differentiation of the landscape modification is described in the regional scale,
through dividing 25 mesoregions into types.
Does the involvement of stakeholders facilitate the implementation of

research results? Experiences from a participatory-based project in
Brandenburg (Germany)
Elke Baranek1 , Tina Boeckmann2 , Kirsten von der Heiden2 , Rosemarie Siebert2
1
Humboldt University
2
Center for Agricultural Landscape and Land Use Research (ZALF e.V.) Institute for Socio-economics
Contents: The co-operative research project GRANO – Approaches for Sustainable

Agricultural Production in North-eastern Germany is sponsored in the context of the national
research focus “Ecological Concepts for Agricultural Landscapes”. Six research initiatives
from Berlin and Brandenburg (Germany), in co-operation with stakeholders from two model
regions in Brandenburg, are developing concepts for sustainable land use on a regional level.
GRANO is following a participatory approach: the project phases, from the problem
definition to the results analysis, are designed in co-operation with decision-makers and public
and private stakeholders. The “action research approach” is applied in this context. The
project is in the third of the four-year time span. The poster provides a brief review of the
participatory approaches and an insight into the initial findings and empirical results.
Goal: Concepts for sustainable land use are being developed and tested with respect to
their transferability. Concrete improvements which will extend past the time span of the
project are also being initiated in the model regions.
Hypothesis: The early participation of farmers, farmer associations, extension workers,
politicians, government agencies as well as environmentalists ensures that during the project
time span, concepts with a high acceptance are developed for a motivated and long-term
implementation.
Initial results: During the process of a participatory situation analysis and co-operative
selection of work focuses, four project areas were created:
• Decentralisation and flexibility of agroenvironmental policies
• Agroenvironmental Extension and Knowledge System
• Regional Marketing: Agriculture and Tourism
• Regional Site Management
Since then, numerous individual activities and projects have resulted from the project areas.
The stakeholders participation will be analysed with our developed indicator system. In
243
addition, the development of a procedure called “controlling by stakeholders” allows for a

continual feedback possibility for involved stakeholders. The description of the projects with
respect to the indicators developed in the project for determing stakeholder participation as
well as encouraging stakeholder feedback comprise a main part of the poster presentation.
Evaluation: The new roles of all the participants in the research process (“action
research”), initial feedback and the factors which support as well as hinder the implementation
of results are shown.
Application of GIS in erosion mapping on the Tihanyi Peninsula

Centeri, Cs. – Barczi, A. – Pataki, R.
Saint Stephan University, Dept. of Soil Science and Agrochemistry, 2100-Gödöllö, Páter K. u. 1.,
Hungary. T: +36-28-420-200/1815, C: +36-30-202-7336, F: +36-28-410-804, E-mail:
centeri@freemail.com.au
The area of Hungary is 9.3 million hectares, out of which 6.4 million hectares are covered by
agricultural lands. We might declare that most of agricultural lands are effected by erosion
that means half of the country´s area. General erosion maps have been made on the scale of
1:75 000 and 1:200 000 of the hilly and mountainous areas. The soil erosion map on the scale
of 1:500 000 was ready for the whole country in the 1950´s. The maps indicate three degrees
of soil erosion plus sedimentation. Introduction of GIS made revolution in agricultral mapping
and planning. The first, most commonly known erosion model was the Wischmeir-Smith´s
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). There are thousands of plot data for the USA that
might be useful for estimating the certain factors for USLE under Hungarian circumstances
until it is measured in situ. USLE is the official erosion mapping model of Hungary. We chose
the Tihanyi Peninsula to evaluate an erosion prediction map at the scale of 1:10 000. We were
curious how the USLE model works at this scale and what kind of modifications are needed to
make the model more precise. We were also trying to find sediment area using GIS. As well
known USLE is not capable for this.
Multidisciplinary studies - a basis for the planning of the sustainable

development of Cluj-Napoca city (Romania)
V. Cristea, I. Goia, C. Baciu, D. Gafta, I. Coroiu
The largest town of Transylvania (Romania) does not possess a General Urbanistic Plan yet.
This is why a team of researchers has initiated a complex, multidisciplinary study as part of
the grant 179, financed by a loan from the World Bank. The main partial results have shown
the following aspects:
a) the radon content of underground waters is strictly related to the nature of the rocks;
b) there are three areas of geomorphological risk;
c) a series of groups of organisms (diatoms, lichens, mosses, nematodes, Lepidoptera, birds
and micromammals) can be used as bioindicators as well as a measure of the hygiene of
the various districts;
d) there is an increase in population, which does not occur by natural growth but by the
immigration of people from the periurban villages;
244
e) the use of urban and suburban agricultural land has become intensive, being
predominantly focused on plant growing and less on animal breeding and beekeeping;
f) green spaces have diminished by 3.6% in the last ten years in favor of the various
constructions;
g) the architecture of the "intra-muros" space tends to "brusselize" through constructions
that do not integrate with the traditional style;
h) the touristic pressure in the forests increase the border effect.
It is estimated that the General Urbanistic Plan should take into consideration the possibilities
ofered by the corridor of the Somesul Mic river and the results of complex studies, as a
scientific base for its achievement.
Regional GIS-scenarios for Land Use

Tommy Dalgaard1 , Hild Rygnestad2 , Andreas Höll3 , Erling Andersen3 , Jørgen Dejgaard
Jensen2 , Poul E. Larsen1 , Troels Degn Johansson3
1
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Agricultural Systems
2
Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics, Agricultural Policy Research Division
3
Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute
How do policy measures affect the environmental and socio-economic impact of agriculture?
To answer this question, a method to assess the policy impact of different policy measures on
the rural landscape in Denmark has been developed14 . An economic agricultural sector model
is linked to a Geographical Information System containing single farm data for land use and
animal husbandry. Changes in land use, nitrogen use and gross margins due to policy
initiatives are mapped as indicators of environmental and socio-economic impacts. This poster
illustrates two measures for subsidised afforestation within a 43 km2 study area:
1) Open invitation to tender to all farms in the study area,
2) Standard flat rate payments restricted to designated afforestation areas.
Results indicate that with a fixed total subsidy amount, measure 1 leads to a larger forest area.
However, this area does not always coincide with the areas designated for afforestation. Thus,
the environmental benefits of measure 1 may be inferior to those of measure 2. The poster
discusses which of the two strategies is likely to give the best result for the total available
budget. The analytical framework demonstrated can help such an evaluation, not only related
to afforestation, but also a range of other policy measures.
Long-term Changes in Danish Agriculture

Tommy Dalgaard1 , Arne Kyllingsbæk1
1
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Agricultural Systems
This poster presents some preliminary agroecological analyses of changes in Danish

agriculture during the 20th century. The investigations were carried out as a part of the
14
The method is developed under the project Landscape Assessment Scenarios
(Fremtidsscenarier for kulturlandskabets udvikling), funded by the Danish Environmental Research
Programme 1997-2001 (see www.ou.dk/Hum/ForandLand/English/Index.htm)
245
research project AGRAR 200015 , which investigates changes in the Danish agrarian landscape
on the time scale of centuries. The materials used are historical agricultural statistics,
combined with existing digital agricultural data within a geographical information system.
Most of the present agroecological methods available to investigate impacts of farming are
made on a temporal scale of a few growth seasons and a spatial scale of a farm or a field. New
methods are therefore needed to describe changes on spatio-temporal scales of regions and
centuries. Preliminary maps of the spatial and temporal change in livestock production and
land use reveals drastic changes. A more detailed investigation of the regional differences is to
be carried out within five kilometers radiuses around nine selected lakes covering the regions
of Denmark. Time series of three key indicators for the environmental and landscape impact
of the changes in Danish Agriculture are illustrated: 1) the nitrogen balance, 2) the fossil
energy use, 3) the land use distribution. The question is whether present agriculture is
sustainable. A comparison with historical agrarian systems, which “have stood the test of
time” might provide new information to answer this question.
Cultural Landscape Research in Austria

Claudia Dankl
The Austrian research programme “Sustainable Development of Landscapes and Regions” –

“Cultural Landscape Research” for short – addresses problems such as the unplanned
settlement in the open country, soil sealing, exodus from peripheral regions, increasing traffic
volume or the loss of species. From its very beginning, the research programme has been a
research and socio-political experiment relying on interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. ∗
The experience made with the programme shows that practical implementation of
interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity is very difficult. The programme management
therefore tries to create an adequate framework that supports interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary work: by interdisciplinary modules, financing of the project co-ordination
expense, interdisciplinary expert valuation, accompanying research, PR and marketing, by co-
operating with artists, pupils, youth groups, with planning offices and with farmers. Quality
criteria, methods and operational procedures for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work
are developed. The programme now comprises forty modules, in which approximately 350
researchers participate. The modules are assigned to the following research fields: indicators
of sustainability, biodiversity and quality of life, genesis, transformation and perception of
landscape, multi-functionality and conflicts of use, control and implementation, social
infrastructure, sustainable use of water and wetlands, cities and their surroundings, sustainable
rural development. About one third of projects performs tasks supporting the overall
programme: science marketing, PR work, accompanying research, evaluation of the use of
new media. Moreover, the Ministry of Science tries to make a contribution to other socio-
political objectives by means of focused research programmes: For example, the programme
“Advancement of Women in Science” increased the share of female researchers in project
teams from an average of thirty to forty percent.
15
A research Project funded from 1999-2002 by four Danish Research Councils: Natural Science,
Humanities, Agricultural Science and Social Science (see www.natmus.dk/agrar2000/)
∗
“Interdisciplinarity” describes a form of co-operation among several disciplines by which the borders
among disciplines are crossed. "Transdisciplinary" projects are characterised by the “border of the
system in which the production of knowledge takes place”: Knowledge is not only generated for but
together with the practice and implementation is an integral part of the project.
246
An ecologically based decision process for land reorganisation

Geert De Blust and Mira Van Olmen
Institute for Nature Conservation, Kliniekstraat 25, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: geert.de.blust@instnat.be; mira.van.olmen@instnat.be
As a result of social pressure during the last decades, the instrument of land consolidation in
Flanders had to evolve from a pure sectorial instrument in favour of agriculture to with
broader societal aims. To optimise the ecological share in this evolution, a method for an
ecologically bases decision and planning process for land consolidation was developed. In a
first part it is explained how nature within the area of reorganisation should be described and
analysed, how this all can be translated to reorganisation measures and management. A
second part offers background information on techniques, theories, concepts and models that
can be useful during the process. Through the systematic analyses of the ecology of the land
consolidation area, of the possibilities for nature development, the societal value and the
applied policy, one should come to fair handling of and planning for nature. Moreover, the
developed method should make it possible to deliberate the final results upon the initial
situation of nature in the area and the aims of land consolidation as regards that nature, what’s
essential for a proper evaluation in the end.
Integration of qualitative properties into landscape research

Ralph Donner
If quality is considered to be the matching complement to quantity, then qualitative properties

are the expressions of inter-relationships between individual geofactors which cannot be
measured in any immediate form. The method of qualitative research discovered and
described by the author closes the gap between the scientific quantitative approach on the one
hand and qualitative-aesthetic phenomenology on the other. Science and art are thus brought
together to create an understanding of the landscape. The integration of qualitative properties
incorporates correlations, the relationships between the components and entirety of a
hierarchically structured landscape model and aesthetic features. The poster presents selected
aspects of this approach, partly in comparison with quantitative methods.
An analysis of farmers reservations towards participation in

voluntary agro-environmental agreements
Peter Ritzau Eigaard1 and Berit Hasler2
1
National Environmental Research Institute, Department of Policy Analysis, Frederiksborgvej 399, P.O.
Box 358, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
2
Institute of locale Government Studies – Denmark, Nyropsgade 37, DK-1602 København V
Denmark
Within the subproject “Economic Incentives and farmer’s production of Nature Quality”
under the research project “Boundaries in the landscape” a questionnaire examining farmers
participating in support schemes for environmentally sensitive areas has been carried out. The
247
schemes, EU-2078, are offered by the EC. The questionnaire has been carried out within the
project site in Bjerringbro/Hvorslev, in the designated areas for these schemes. Both part time
and full time farmers participated in the questionnaire. The answers shows that the overall
interest in the support schemes is not very high in the area. The part time farmers has not been
aware of the possibility to participate, although having areas with potentials for scheme
agreement. Full-time farmers are more aware of the possibilities in participating in the
agreements, but their interest in examining the economic possibilities has been modest.
Conclusions on the questionnaire is that part time farmers should be provided with more
information, and comparison with other analyses indicates that the objectives of the schemes
should be more clear and focussed towards nature preservation. By mixing environmental
goals of nutrient reduction together with nature-preservation goals , the nature-preservation
goals gets overseen.
Action Research and Learning in Agriculture and Food Systems:

Moving Activities into the Rural Landscape
Charles Francis (University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE USA)
Geir Lieblein (Agricultural University of Norway, Aas, Norway)
Juha Helenius (University of Helsinki, Viiki-2, Helsinki, Finland)
Lennart Salomonsson (Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, Sweden)
John Porter, Hanne Olsen, N. Sriskandarajah (KVL, Taastrup, Denmark)
A Nordic MSc degree program in Agroecology and Ecological Agriculture has recently been
established through NOVA University and the member universities of the consortium in the
region. In addition to focus on transdisciplinary research and education in ecological
agriculture and food systems, this program is introducing innovative learning approaches into
the courses and curriculum. Experiential learning and problem solving skills can be built on
theory and lectures from the classroom and library research, but there is no substitute for
hands-on experience working with real-world challenges in the field. The new program
includes class projects that are assigned to student groups who interview residents in the
agricultural landscape, determine their goals and assess their resources, and then work
together with local people to envision a positive future wanted situation. With goals and
visions well understood, it is possible to design a path to achieve those goals in their
agroecosystems that are imbedded in multifunctional agricultural landscapes.
Soil changes in relation to landscape and changes in management

regime
Ege Lau Frandsen
Department of Geography and International Development Studies, Roskilde University,
Denmark, elf@ruc.dk
In Denmark, most of the original forests, grasslands and wetlands have been transformed into
cultivated landscapes, which has resulted in an extensive loss of biodiversity. Today,
approximately 65% of Denmark’s total area (43,000 km²) consist of arable farmland. Over the
past decade there has been many calls for environmental protection and action plans have
248
emerged. Until now there has been a tendency to protect areas with little economic value for
the farmer, and more detailed examination on both soil and semi natural vegetation in
previously cultivated well-drained dry farmland with a high potential production capacity is
missing. This part of the research project shows the results of the soil forming processes that
have occurred on three landscape types (inland dunes, out wash plains, and hill island) in
Denmark, in a period of 2-30 years fallow.
Landscape changes due to a linear infrastructure in a sensitive land

unit: a springs area in an agricultural landscape
Gibelli M.G. 1 , Santolini R.2
1
School of Landscape Architecture, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
2
University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
The linear infrastructures are one of the major font of fragmentation in european landscapes.
Otherwise the increasing of railways is an important way to decrease the traffic pressure over
highways. So we need some methods to measure the impact over the landscape at the different
scales in which it does occur. This problem is efforted in an area of the typical agricultural
landscape of the Padana plan. In the last fifty years, the intensive agriculture has completed
changed the original landscape, which once was characterized by crops and trees, wet
meadows and a lot of channels due to the presence of spreading grounds. Up to now the more
evident effects of this process are: the increasing of the landscape contrast due to the lost of
the seminatural features and of many ecotones between urban and natural landscape, the
decrease of interactions between complementary ecosystems, the banalization of ecosystems
with the decreasing of biodiversity. The infrastructural network, has also increased the
fragmentation of the landscape mosaic. All these processes involve a lost of the landscape
selfregulation capacity so that the system has become more and more instable and sensitive.
In this situation a new railway can produce an heavy impact, so we need an ecological
approach to point out the metastability conditions of the landscape and the means to get a new
suitable metastability. We must know the effects of impacts and measure them to look for
actions which are able to mitigate, compensate and also improve the actual critical conditions.
Landscape ecology approach gave a substantial contribute either in the analysis and in
assessment phases, suggesting methods and indexes to study the landscape structure and
functions, to measure impacts, to simulate the different alternatives of the study area recovery,
and to chose the best solution
Differentiation between abandoned fields and grasslands from

satellite images through the use of phenological and structural
vegetation parameters
Michael Glemnitz
The proportion and assemblage of semi-natural habitats are strongly correlated with the
habitat function of landscapes. Reliable and accurate data on the biotic inventory of regions
and the development of methods for their periodical update are required for monitoring and
evaluation of the habitat function. In addition to meeting requirements for successful
249
differentiation of different kinds of biotopes, the data should also help support direct
conclusions concerning ecological characteristics. Based on this background, investigations in
an area of 2500 km2 east of Berlin (Germany) were used to identify important classes of semi-
natural grassland habitats and abandoned fields. These habitat groups are characterised by
their species composition, structural and phenological parameters as well as by the seasonal
changes of these parameters throughout the vegetation period. Results show main differences
in ecological characteristics between several groups of habitats and suggest possibilities for
the monitoring of these habitat groups through the use of satellite images. Satellite images
were interpreted by combining spectral and multitemporal classifications. The interpretation
procedures reflect differences in surface coverage, amount of litter, the dominance of several
species groups, differences in vitality and the seasonal dynamics between the groups of
investigated habitats.
Agrolandscapes dynamic of North-Western European Russia

N.Guzel
The process of reduction of agrolandscapes has taken place some decades in the North-
Western European Russia. Karelian Isthmus is heterogeneous territory. 11 types of landscape
are presented here. Agricultural lands occupy landscapes such as kames, sandy, sandy-loam,
clayey plains, sometimes with excess moistening, sandy fluvioglacial plains, loamy morainic
plains, mesotrophic and evtrophic peat-bogs. During 100 last years the area of agricultural
lands have reduced in 1,4 times on the Karelian Isthmus. The most part of it had been
abandoned after change of State border after of the Second World War. Overgrowth processes
on neglected agricultural lands are going on unequally in different types of landscapes. Four
stages can be revealed of the processes of natural reestablishment of vegetation.
I - (period to 20 years after termination of agricultural use) - grass-herb meadow
with unclosed brush
II - (20 - 40) - shrub layer with closed or low-closed canopy and unclosed or low
closed small-leaved regrowth
III - (40 - 80) - closed small-leaved forest, sometime including the coniferous trees
IY - predomination of the coniferous on small-leaved trees
Reestablish vegetation successions can be realised by different ways, with different rate,
including various trees and ecological groups of species in different landscapes. Now most
area occupy a former agricultural lands, inhering on III stage and presenting itself small-
leaved forest.
The Place of Forestry in Modern Welsh Culture: How individuals

and communities perceive and relate to aspects of their landscape
specifically in relation to modern forestry practice.
Sue Hunter, Karen Henwood & Nick Pidgeon
University of Esat Anglia
Four areas of Wales, chosen for their contrasting socio-geographical status (Wrexham, rural-
industrial North Wales, Milford Haven, rural-industrial South Wales, Lampeter, rural mid-
250
Wales and Cardiff, and urban/industrial connurbation), were examined using a series of 19
focus groups and paper tasks, investigating a total of 105 participants drawn from a sample of
the local communities. The questions asked concentrated on the importance of woods, forests
and trees to the life and culture of people in Wales, how woods and trees were perceived at the
level of public and personal understandings, and if different meanings and experiences tended
to be associated with woods and forests depending on regional location. Here we focus on one
interesting aspect of the findings, which was the sense of ‘home’ or ‘heritage’ associated with
the natural landscape, and the fragmented nature of this concept depending on length of
residence and association with the community of the area, which we hypothesise also
corresponds in some measure to a sense of empowerment and control over issues pertaining to
the environment as a whole and thus perceptions of it both personally and culturally.
Farm System and Landscape Pattern in a Traditional Rural

Region in the Eastern-Carpatheans
Zoltán Ilyés
In the humanized landscape, it is often the traditional peasant farming forms that
maintain landscape patterns (hedgerows, rows of trees as ecological corridors, relict
spots, traditional medow farming on marshlands and mountain medows etc.) of
significant ecological values. The selected sample area is Ghimes in the Eastern
Carpathians (Romania), which has a traditional landscape, where due to isolation,
relative autarky, the absence of collectivization, late development of bourgeois
mentality, the forming factors of traditional historical landscape still have their effect
and characteristics of landscape structure still can be seen. Cadastral maps from 1874
and 1909 have been evaluated from the point of view of landscape utilization. In a
historical geographical fieldwork they have been compared to the recent landscape
pattern. The social-economical circumstances of the transformation of hedgerows
between farms of different utilization (mainly between hayfields and pastures) formed
as a result of parcelling in traditional landscape are presented.
Interdisciplinary evaluation of land use

Roswitha Katter
New land use alternatives obtained must refer to specific regions and must be evaluated as to
their expected future effects by means of a combined evaluation procedure. The Project
"Potential land use after mining" is funded by the Federal Ministry of Science and Transport
and the Styrian Government. The aim is to at define measures for ensuring the sustainable
development of abandoned mining areas as for example in the Eisenerz Region in Styria
(Austria). The investigation process is supported by an interdisciplinary evaluation system
developed by the project team taking into account natural sciences, sociological and
humanities aspects. The analysis of the target situation from the point of view of the various
disciplines as well as the evaluation criteria and indicators constitute an integral part of this
interdisciplinary evaluation model. The criteria applied in the disciplines ecology,
geosciences, archaology, history and socioeconomics are defined and set in relation, as part of
251
the evaluation model, to represent the effects of land use. The interdisciplinary evaluation
system is developed and applied primarily to assess different land use scenarios. In order to
increase the chances of implementation, residents of the region are invited to participate in the
project in a dialogue process right from the start.
Abandoned anthropogenic landscapes: Are they potentially

multifunctional?
Pavel Kovár
Department of Botany, Charles University, Benátská 2, 128 01 Prague 2, Czech Republic
Abandoned landscape artefacts such as dumps or deposits of sedimentation basins give the
possibility to monitor spontaneous environmental differentiation of semicultural or cultural
areas. Stress and disturbance on one hand, and diversity features given by different rates of
vegetation succession on the other, enable some general estimates of the potential habitat and
landscape multifunctionality. Development of landscape ecology needs to be more
experimental when we expect higher credibility within exact and theoretical disciplines, and
simultaneously more friendly to nature if we may support the nature-like functioning
landscape elements. In this respect, restoration ecology offers fruitful outputs for ecology of
landscapes. Long-term study of different types of waste deposits has shown various trends of
the ecosystem development according to the sediment properties. Substantial factors for
decision making on landscape parts are the scale of functional heterogeneity and the regional
context which could be demonstrated by the case studies.
Evaluating species related patch connectedness for animal dispersal

modeling in heterogeneous landscapes
Stefan Lang
Landscape ecology emphasizes the meaningful relationships between spatial configuration

and ecological processes. These patterns can be characterized by countless quantitative
measures, of which the Proximity Index is one of the most common metrics. Relating the
patch size to the distance between patches it distinguishes sparse distributions of small habitat
patches from clusters of large patches. However, inter-patch distances are not Euclidean, but
are a complex function of relative patch frictions to moving organisms. In general movement
patterns differ from Euclidean distance according to a respective organism specific spatial
behavior. This is mainly influenced by a specific perception. The connectedness of patches is
by that a function of the underlying landscape mosaic and the animal dispersal of a specific
organism or species. Binary landscapes cannot properly model this complicated movement
path through the 'matrix'. 'Proximity' is by that turning to a relative concept primarily
depending on the movement possibilities and perceptions of organisms. In the presented study
several simulation techniques were used to evaluate the ecological stability of altered
configurations. Besides that a path modeling was performed in order to show the effects of a
organisms centered view of patch connectivity within heterogeneous landscapes. A friction
surface on a raster layer served to simulate the characteristic dispersal of several species.
252
Toolkits for Community Led Regeneration of Derelict Land

Chris Ling
Industrial and urban restructuring has left significant areas of derelict and under-used land in
urban and urban-fringe areas in many parts of the E.U. While many sites have been
successfully reclaimed to conventional ‘hard end’ uses, a significant number of sites cannot be
regenerated in this way. Many in this category are situated in close proximity to residential
areas, whose communities are often themselves socially and economically disadvantaged.
Local communities have a strong interest in the sustainable regeneration of such sites as this
can enhance local image and community confidence, create local amenities and can provide
opportunities for local job creation and vocational skills training. These sites also offer the
opportunity to adopt innovative, ecologically-informed approaches to regeneration which can
contribute to significant enhancement of bio-diversity. The objective of this project is to
develop comprehensive ‘toolkits’ package to assist and promote community participation and
ecologically-informed approaches to the process of regenerating derelict land. The aim is to
significantly enhance the capacity of community groups and other actors to adopt such
approaches.
Functions and values of agricultural landscapes: The pseudosteppes

of Castro Verde, a case study from southern Portugal.
Marta, C1., Freitas, H1 & de Groot, R2 .
1
Departament of Botany. University of Coimbra. Portugal; cmarta@ci.uc.pt; hfreitas@ci.uc.pt
2
Environmental System Analysis Group. Wageningen University. Neatherlands;
Dolf.deGroot@Algemeen.CMKW.WAU.NL
Agricultural landscapes represent the end product of the transformation of natural areas by
humans, for the purpose of agriculture. The complexity of the european agricultural landscape
structure and function, as well as its evolution in the last thirty years, has been dominated by
the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Actually, CAP has been reshaping the agricultural
landscape of rural Europe, through intensification or land abandonment. The so-called agri-
environmental regulation (EEC 2078/92) represent an effort to integrate the overlapping
agricultural and environmental traits with the maintenance of the countryside.In Portugal only
one zonal programme was implemented under the scope of agri-environmental measures, in
Castro Verde, Alentejo. This programme aims primary at the maintenance of traditional
extensive farming systems on which various bird species with particular conservation status
rely. The region of Castro Verde is dominated by pseudosteppes and it is marginal from an
economic point of view, requiring concern on agroforesty land use due to its environmental
characteristics. The soils of this region are characterized by scarcity in organic matter,
thinness and low water capacity. The traditional agricultural land use, with crop rotation,
represents a management practice that optimizes system productivity without disrupting its
functioning and properties. In addition to its importance for certain bird species and overall
biodiversity, this semi-natural landscape could also be highly valued for a wide range of
ecological functions, scenic qualities, of cultural and socio-economic significance. We present
a preliminar approach to develop a comprehensive famework in order to assess the functions
of this landscape and its associated values.
253
Changes in water and rush vegetation of the Lake Skrzynka

(the Wielkopolski National Park, Poland) in the last 70 years
Nagengast, Barbara & Pelechaty, Mariusz
Department of Hydrobiology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Marcelinska 4, 60-801 Poznan, Poland, e-
mail: marpelhydro@poczta.onet.pl
In the summer season of the year 1996 survey of the water and rush vegetation present in the
Lake Skrzynka was carried out. As a result 10 associations were distinguished. Phytocoenoses
of most of the associations found build peat-bog which is an important structural and
functional element of the lake landscape and tell the Lake Skrzynka from the other ones
located in the Wielkopolski National Park. The following associations were distinguished:
Potamogetonetum natantis, Polygonetum natantis, Nupharo-Nymphaeetum albae,
Phragmitetum communis, Scirpetum lacustris, Thelypteridi-Phragmitetum, Caricetum elatae,
C. rostrate, C. diandre, C. lasiocarpe. Acquired results were compared to the previous
literature data concerning the vegetation of the Lake Skrzynka in the years 1929, 1952, 1957,
1972, 1988, 1992 and 1993. According to this comparison, changes in the species
composition, structure and area of the water and rush communities, which were followed by
the landscape changes, were established. Especially, decay of submerged vegetation built by
Utricularia vulgaris, U. minor and Myriophyllum verticillatum was observed. Generally, 6
percent of new species were found (mostly trees and bushes) and 12 percent of species
decayed. Associations present in the Lake Skrzynka are typical for two different types of
habitats: dystrophic and eutrophic. The lake investigated is subjected to low anthropopressure
so the changes observed could be considered as a result of natural processes taking place in
this lake.
Land Use Change and its Effects on a Sample Area in the Tokaj-
Foothill Region (Hungary)
Rita Nyizsalovszki
The Tokaj-Hegyalja Region due to its advantageous features, it is the northernmost wine
region of Hungary. The territorial changes of the vineyards supported with statistical data may
be only traced from 1873. In the middle of the previous century, the area of the vineyards was
not much different from the present. Nevertheless, the territorial situation of the plantations
has undergone great changes.The second more significant reconstruction happened in the
sixties. The vineyards moved down to the lower areas which could be easily mechanised. In
my research area the change in landuse was the following between 1870 and 1990. The ratios
of arable land (to 43%) and vineyards (to 45%) show decrease. However, the ratios of gardens
and orchards (with 78%), lawn (with 180%) and areas withdrawn from cultivation (with
300%) have grown. The territory of forests did not change. At present, the area of fallow land
is growing year by year. The oldest fallow lands occupy the highest areas which are difficult
to approach and to cultivate. The ratio of vineyards planted on disadvantageous surfaces are
gradually repressed from the 1990s, their place is taken by orchards and arable lands.
Summing it up, it may be concluded that a significant part of the fallow lands are situated on
areas with favourable endowments. Their re-cultivation would be favourable from the aspect
of the quality of wine.
254
Urban pressure on woodlands

Å. Ode 1 , G. Fry2
1
Department of Landscape Planning Alnarp, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 58,
S-230 35 Alnarp, Sweden, email: asa.ode@lpal.slu.se
2
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Dept. of Landscape Ecology, Dronningensgade 13, 736
Sentrum, N-0105 Oslo, Norway , email: gary.fry@ninaosl.ninaniku.no
The concept of urban woodland can be defined by the influence of urban processes. The aim
of this study was to analyze urban pressure on woodlands for major cities in Scania, Southern
Sweden to identify which woodlands that could be characterized as urban. The approach used
can function as a framework for discussing management strategies for woodlands. To
determine urban pressure, three models were used for woodlands within a 10 km radius of
urban areas.
• Model of settlement pressure. Woodlands were given values based on their distance to
settlements weighted by population.
• Network model with analysis of accessibility and a time-cost analysis, where woodlands
were given values according to their accessibility and travel costs
• A visual intrusion model in two steps. 1) Visibility of woodlands from urban areas. 2)
Visual intrusion of settlement, roads and powerlines into the woodlands. Urban pressure
on woodlands was assessed based on the visual influence of urban structures and visibility
from the urban areas.
The results of the analyses were used to classify woodlands by urban influence. The study
further aims to provide an index of urban influence to apply to woodlands and assist in
comparing results of research on urban woodlands.
Evidence of spatial differentiated dynamic of ozone injuries

(Nicotiana tabacum L. Bel W3) at the southern Baltic coast
Odya, Sandra; Otto Stüdemann; Sabine Eckert
Universität Rostock, AG Angewandte Meteorologie und Umweltanalyse, D-18051 Rostock)
The process orientated Rostock Hierarchical Ozone Monitoring (RHOM) was used for
proving geographical pattern of ozone effects in the range of a mesochoric climate sequenze
along the southern Baltic coast. Location specific ozone effects are a function of ozone
concentration, autecological impacts at the location of growth and plant specific ozone
sensitivity.
Results:
1. Evidence of location specific ozone effects in a mesochoric climate sequence for the
ozone indicating plant Nicotiana tabacum L. Bel W3 by means of a developed evaluation
scheme for macroscopic damages related with AOT401 concentrations for the plant
specific growth period
2. Mathematical proofs of the significance of differences in location specific damage levels
3. Estimation of location specific deposition rate depending on ozone concentration and
location specific autecological impacts for the ozone indicating plant Nicotiana tabacum
L. Bel W3.
Conclusions: The extent of the damage follows a geographic pattern. Preliminary fixing of
plant physiologically relevant thresholds therefore should be plant specifically and depending
255
on landscape - corresponding to the ozone formation potential and ozone effect potential of
the respective location. The presented results form the basis for the creation of such potential
maps for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
1
) AOT40 accumuleted exposure over treshold concentration of 40 ppb
Derivation of plant physiological thresholds for ozone near the

ground by means of standardized ozone indicating plant Nicotiana
tabacum L. Bel W3
Odya, Sandra; Sabine Eckert; Otto Stüdemann
Universität Rostock, AG Angewandte Meteorologie und Umweltanalyse, D-18051 Rostock
Presently applied values of allowable ozone concentration like AOT40 (accumuleted exposure
over treshold concentration of 40 ppb) only relate to ozone concentration of the air, but not to
actual ozone deposition rate. Strict estimation of injurious ozone concentration has to be based
on the evidence of irreversible plant changes. For derivation of location specific plant
physiological thresholds outdoor plants of the accepted ozone monitor Nicotiana tabacum L.
Bel W3 were analized concerning to ozone effects at different biological organisation levels.
The evidence of primary damages and the documentation of typical process effects were of
particular interest. The first discovered injury symptom referring to ozone were very small
paracrystalline structures in cells of the green assimilation tissue. The identification as
Ca(C2O4 ) . H2 O was achieved by means of transmission electron microscopy with analysis of
elements ESI1 / EELS2 and microscopy by use of polarization. On the histological level the
development of necrotic tissue is illustrated, beginning with the destruction of the cell
membrane of sporadic palisade cells, leading to the dying of individual cells and finally the
occurrence of well defined areas of necrotic tissue concerning the complete profile of leaf.
1
) ESI Elektron Spectroscopic Imaging
2
) EELS Electron Energie Loss Spectroscopy
Local parks as a network component in a multidimensional approach

of conservation
Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, Marco Baietto
University of Milano-Bicocca, p.za della Scienza 1 -20126 Milano – ITALY, consbiol@disat.unimib.it
Continental and regional ecological networks are quite well investigated, while the local level
begins now to be studied. It is necessary to integrate a local scale in a district scale, and then a
district scale in a regional perspective. The local level is important in order to protect
ecosystems that can support small networks. In the surroundings of Milan, the conservation
for local scale may interact in an agricultural landscape, where man management changed
completely the original land use, and where now it is necessary to protect ecosystems like
fields with hedgerows, or residual wooded areas. The Agricultural Park “Sud-Milano” is a
park (about 46.000 ha) that has been instituted in order to realise a green belt around the
southern part of Milan, but the increment of urbanization is the main ecological problem. In
256
this work we show how a small reserve in the western part of Agricultural Park “Sud-Milano”
can be considered as an important component of an ecological network. Analysis on the
biodiversity (birds, mammals carnivores), on the remaining hedgerows network, on the land
use and on the historical transformations underline the important role that this area can play in
the future to construct a multidimensional network for the conservation.
Habitat diversity of the lake ecosystem

Pelechaty, Mariusz
Department of Hydrobiology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Marcelinska 4, 60-801 Poznan, Poland,
e-mail: marpelhydro@poczta.onet.pl
In the summer season of the year 1998 habitat investigations of the water and rush vegetation
along three transects in three lakes of the Wielkopolski National Park (Western Poland) were
carried out. The physical and chemical properties of habitats studied (28 of water and 23
properties of substrate) were presented at the background of the water and sediment properties
of the deepest part of the lake (“mid-lake”). As far as the intensity of anthropopressure,
reflected by nutrients load from external sources, is considered, the lakes are considerably
differentiated. Habitats of the following communities were examined along the transects: Lake
Góreckie (the lowest load of nutrients): Caricetum acutiformis - Phragmitetum communis –
mid-lake; Lake Jaroslawieckie (the highest load of nutrients): Phragmitetum communis –
community built by Fontinalis antipyretica and Nuphar luteum - Nupharo-Nymphaeetum
albae (Nymphaea alba) – mid-lake; Lake Budzynskie (mean load of nutrients): Thelypteridi-
Phragmitetum - Phragmitetum communis - Typhetum angustifoliae - Myriophylletum
verticillati - Nupharo-Nymphaeetum albae (Nuphar luteum) – mid-lake. As a result it was
established that communities were differentiated due to the majority of properties of their
habitats and the differences due to the substrate properties were more pronounced. In respect
to some properties, the differences between values of the water and substrate properties of
phytolittoral habitats and the water and sediment properties measured in the mid-lake were
more expressed. The properties of mid-lake seemed to be depended on the width of the
phytolittoral, which is to be observed in the Lake Budzynskie. Values of the water and
sediment properties of mid-lakes of the other lakes under study reflected external influences
on those ecosystems. It was especially remarkable when taking into account concentrations of
nutrients. Based on this observation, it could be said that phytolittoral as a particular element
of the landscape appearing between adjacent water and land ecosystems (transition zone)
plays important role in the lake ecology.
257
Edge Effect of Successional Communities and Restoration of Forest

Fragmentation in Low Sub-tropics of South China
Peng Shao Lin
Guangzhou Branch, Chinese Academy of Sciences,Guangzhou 510070, PR China,
Phone: +86 20 87606709,Fax: +86 20 87775791, E-mail: slpeng@ms.gzb.ac.cn
Zhao Ping
South China Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, PR China,
Phone: +86 20 87639381, Fax: +86 20 87701031, E-mail: heshanstation@scib.ac.cn
We studied the dynamics of an ecotonal forest community that was located in between a Pinus
massoniana pine forest and a mixed forest community in the low sub-tropics of China based
on field data collected over a16-year period. Several community attributes were examined,
including species richness, diversity, leaf area index, biomass and productivity. Comparative
ordination and cluster techniques were used to analyze the effects of adjacent forest stands on
the structure and dynamics of the ecotonal community. The results showed that the ecotonal
community, which was characterized as a pine forest 16 years ago, rapidly changed to a mixed
forest while its adjacent communities (pine and mixed forests) remained unchanged. The
boundary of the ecotonal community moved over 100 m into the pine forest. Duration of edge
effect lasted about 20 years in this type. The consequence of edge effect was consistent with
the direction of succession in this region, suggesting that the landscape context played an
important role in determining local community structure and dynamics. Because the ecotonal
community became increasingly similar to one of its neighboring forest communities (i.e., the
mixed forest), the degree of landscape fragmentation was substantially reduced.
Changes in the forest boundaries within central Greater Poland over

the last 200 years
Maciej Pietrzak
Changes in the area and distribution of forest complexes as well as in the configuration of
their boundaries are conceived of as a common and the most spectacular manifestation of
man-induced landscape changes, at the same time testifying to the increasing deforestation. In
view of this, changes in the location of forest boundaries occurring within central Greater
Poland over the last 200 years were studied for a number of periods (Pietrzak, 1998) on the
basis of surveys conducted within particular spans of time (i.e. 1793-1830, 1830-1933, 1933-
87). The distribution of forest complexes within the studied periods is shown on the attached
map, which illustrates the location of the forest complexes within particular time-intervals,
and thus, in a sense, shows the dynamics of their changeability. Also evident are the stretches
which, throughout the whole studied period, were invariably covered by forests, whose
hypothetical area is 34.4 square km (8.6 percent of the total studied area). Obtained data on
the area of the forest complexes and the length of their boundaries point to the non-rectilinear
and non-regressive character of changes occurring over the studied span of time. The highest
degree of afforestation (22.5 percent) and the highest density of forest boundaries (0.72
km/square km) were reported in 1830 as well as in the case of the most recent period (22.35
percent and 0.58 km/square km respectively). At present, however, the fragmentation of the
forest areas is much limited in comparison with the past periods. The lowest degree of
afforestation (13.4 percent) and low density of forest boundaries (0.43 km/square km),
258
accompanied by high fragmentation of forest complexes, are shown on the map drawn in the
1930s. Within the whole studied period (194 years) an increase in forest surface was reported
(12.2 square km or 15.8 percent), and the length of the forest boundaries increased by 64.1 km
(38.4 percent). Thus, the average ”rate of increase” stood at 0.06 square km/year and 0.33
km/year respectively. A considerable increase was reported also in the years 1793-1830 (the
first time-interval) and 1933-87 (the third time-interval) - 12.8 square km and 122.8 km, and
35.8 square km and 57.5 km respectively. A sharp decline was reported in the case of the
second time-interval (1830-1933), when the forest surface was reduced by 36.4 square km and
the length of the forest boundaries decreased by 116.2 km. At that particular time the degree
of afforestation dropped to merely 13.4 percent, and the forest complexes were characterised
by the highest degree of fragmentation.
The use of vegetation structure and composition measures to improve

habitat classification in rural landscapes
Luis Quinta-Nova
Escola Superior Agrária de Castelo Branco, Quinta Sr.ª de Mércules, 6000 Castelo Branco, Portugal, E-
mail: lnova@esa.ipcb.pt
Keywords: Landscape Ecology, Wildlife-Habitat Relationships, Habitat Classification,

Vegetation Structure
The methods used to determine habitat classifications are important to planning and
management. Therefore, the use of wildlife communities to improve habitat classification is
crucial in Landscape Ecology. The importance of vegetation in the habitat use characteristics of
breeding bird communities occurring in Évora and Setúbal (Portugal) was studied. Those areas
have different land use gradients resulting from their management. Four transects were censured
to provide distributional records of all species in order to investigate the relationship between
vegetation structure and ornithological abundance. Multivariate ordination methods were used
to classify the habitat on each transect as suitable or unsuitable for avian species, using foliage
diversity measures and other structural measures. After calculating avian similarities among
vegetation types, cluster analysis was used to group vegetation types into similar habitats based
on wildlife species composition. This approach for classifying physiognomic types in rural
landscapes allows consistent development of wildlife management strategies.
Methods of studying biodiversity in relation to landscape pattern of

Estonian coastal areas
Rivis, R.,1 Ratas, U.,1 Puurmann, E.2
1
Institute of Ecology, Estonia 10137, Tallinn, Kevade St. 2.;
2
Läänemaa Centre of the West Estonian Archipelago Biosphere Reserve, Estonia 91301, Läänemaa,
Vormsi
The biological diversity connected with landscape diversity. Every landscape represents a
system of closely interrelated components (abiotic and biotic), being a definite structural
complex that is constantly enriched with new features in the course of its development. The
259
regularities of landscape diversity are expressed in its relations with the natural background
and socio-economic conditions, as well as changes within the landscape type.Estonia is a
small country at the Baltic Sea with long shoreline (3790 km) where coastal landscapes form a
remarkable part. Being located on the boundaries of terrestrial and marine systems, coastal
landscape represents a specific structure. The maps of nowadays coastal landscapes in the
scale 1 : 10 000 served as a basis for our research. The landscape fragmentation on the map
expressed by vegetation types. The method of landscape profile has been used for studying the
landscape structure and mutual relationships between their components. The lists of vascular
plants, bryophytes and lichens were compiled. Beside variability of nature, landscape pattern
depends on the intensity and character of land use. Mainly human activities modify the
vegetation. To compare the maps of different times a unified classification of the land cover
types was used.
Anthropogenic transformation of cork oak-dominated landscapes in

Spain and Portugal
Mirijam Seng
Dept. of Geobotany / Institute of Biology II, Albert-Ludwig University of Freiburg
Schänzlestr. 1, D-79104 Freiburg / Germany, sengmiri@uni-freiburg.de
Cork oak forests have been influenced by man for at least several hundred years. In recent
decades, rural exodus and the introduction of industrialized agricultural techniques have
dramatically altered traditional land use in the mediterranean area. These factors and their
effects on forest vegetation can be observed with different intensity and time lag in various
regions of SW Iberia. We quantify landscape and vegetation pattern on two spatial levels for
two mountainous areas with similar environmental conditions and potential vegetation, but
different landuse history and divergent trends: the Serra de Monchique in the Algarve
(Portugal) and the Sierra del Aljibe in Andalusia (Spain). For one typical valley in each area,
vegetation maps were analysed as to landscape composition and configuration. Belt transects
and relevés in square plots were used to provide information about about age structure of cork
oak populations and stand homogeneity. Landuse patterns differ fundamentally between the
two areas: The Portuguese study area is characterized by a mosaic of small patches, whereas
in the Spanish Sierra del Aljibe landscape structure is dominated by large contiguous patches
of cork oak forests. In both areas, the sparse regeneration success of cork oaks may cause
future problems for forest conservation.
Distribution Characteristics of Naturalized Plants Influenced by

Land Use Patterns in Seoul Metropolitan Area
Song, I.-J., S.-K. * Hong, H.-O. Kim
Seoul Development Institute, Seoul 100-250 and * Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742
During land transformation process in the human history, naturalized plants were introduced
to several land use pattern by the different ways of plant itself. Including some naturalized
plants that had been contribute to land restoration, many naturalized plants have been invaded
to original habitat for native plants. Once the plants were colonized, they extend their area and
260
population size. Urban developed areas often give an important role of source habitat for
extending naturalized plants. In recent, this situation is one of environmental problems about
the urban landscape management controlling the naturalized plants that invaded in the
developed area and conserving the native vegetation. This paper is focusing on the
relationship between distribution characteristics of some naturalized plants and land-use
pattern in developed area in Seoul. Gangdong-Gu, one of administrative area in Seoul was
selected for this study. We examined the recent land use change using LANDSAT TM data
and spreading of the representative naturalized plants (Robinia pseudoacacia and Eupatorium
rugosum) by field survey. As a result, these two species were often occurred in the same
habitat and distributed in forest edge disturbed by man. Their distribution patterns were
related to landscape indices (patch size and shape) in the forest edge.
Analysis of ozone episodes and their inherent structure in several

landscapes at the southern Baltic coast
Stüdemann, Otto; Sabine Eckert; Sandra Odya
Universität Rostock, AG Angewandte Meteorologie und Umweltanalyse, D-18051 Rostock
Supposition of a factual discussion about the definition of regional threshold values of the
near ground ozone is the knowledge about:
1. the meso- and microscale spatio-temporal-variability of the ozone concentration
2. the site-specific plant-physiologically caused ozone-effect-potential.
The functions of landscapes in forming ozone are determined by:
1. the spatial arrangement of human and natural of issuers ozone precursors and their
fluxes
2. the spatio-temporal -variability of meteorological elements along a climatic sequence
3. the hierarchical staggered transport processes of the atmosphere.
Definition:
An ozone episode is represented by a period of ≥ 1 day, within witch the phytotoxic threshold
values of 80 µg ozone /m³ air are exceeded, realizing the site-specific plant-physiological
caused ozone-effect-potential which is valid for Nicotiana tabacum L. Bel W3.
The 100-km-catena of ozone measuring stations from NE to SW represents the Baltic coast
and the Darss-Bodden-landscape with pine and beech forests (1), the suburban ground
moraine between Rostock and a large pine/ oak-forest (2), a traffic centre in Rostock (3) and
an agrarian region in the inner lowlands of Mecklenburg (4).
The spatial-time-variability of the episodes and the probability distributions of ozone
concentrations > 80 µg/m³ along a climatic sequence are different. Atypical ozone weather
conditions increasingly caused those ozone episodes defined above.
Landscape Preferences – who sees what in the Agricultural

Landscape
Mari Sundli Tveit
This study examined student and public visual landscape preferences for agricultural scenes in
Eastern Norway. The landscape preference study was conducted with randomly selected
261
public participants from 3 rural municipalities and students from the Agricultural University
of Norway. Preferences were assessed through ranking photographs and analysis of free text.
Study areas were 1km2 sample squares from the Norwegian monitoring programme for
agricultural landscapes. Results from the preference study were compared with data on
biodiversity and cultural heritage. Results suggest links between landscape preferences and
the other landscape interests collected by the monitoring project. Significant differences were
found between the student and the public groups even within a comparatively narrow visual
range of arable farming landscapes. Differences were evident both in preference scores and in
free text data. Student preferences were influenced largely by landscape structure, while the
presence of buildings was most important in shaping public preferences. It is suggested that
the revealed divergence in preferences between the two groups is a result of differences in
familiarity and especially in formal knowledge and expertise. Openness (or grain size) was
found important in shaping landscape preferences, as were complexity, topography and the
presence of man-made structures. The results are discussed in relation to evolutionary and
cultural theories of landscape aesthetics.
Fundamentals of Landscape Typology

(Phase 1: Physical Geographical Map of Europe)
J. Vervloet, Alterra & D.M. Wascher, ECNC
Despite a number of encouraging research activities in the field of landscape ecology and
geography, there is still a lack of widely recognised landscape typology and mapping that will
find applications in the policy field. While a number of useful landscape typologies and maps
have been developed at a national level, European approaches towards landscape mapping
have been facing severe problems in terms of scale, accuracy and policy relevance. Policy
relevance is very much dependent on the level of detail as well as on harmonisation between
regional concepts and priorities. In the late 1980’s and 1990’s several attempts have been
made to produce a European landscape map. After a first draft that was made at a conference
of landscape architects in 1988 (Meeus et al., 1988; Meeus, 1990) a more extensive map was
made in 1995 as a part of the report Europe’s Environment – The Dob⊆Ρ Assessment (
Stanners & Bourdeau, 1995 ; Meeus 1995 ). This Pan-European landscape map distiguished
thirty cultural landscapes, subdivided in eight main entities distinguished by aspects like
geological sediments, climate, geomorphology, soils, landuse, hydrology, topography,
settlement patterns and landscape image. As part of the implementation of the Pan-European
Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), the European Centre for Nature
Conservation is coordinating project under the Strategy’s Action Theme 4 on European
Landscapes. One of these projects is the furtehr development of a Pan-European Landscape
Map. The future map is supposed to depict the spatial dispersion and landuse aspects of the
main European landscape types. The original objective of the project was to arrange
landscapes in an hierarchical order, incorporating both natural and cultural aspects in a
systematic fashion. The desired hierarchical system should start with natural characteristics at
the first tier and break these down according to the degree of cultural transformation, for
which a rational set of indicators should be developed. The poster depicts the first
methodological step of this map making process, namely the identification of key geo-
morphological units as the basis for the future landscape typology.
262
Planning of locale specific conservation strategy for plant diversity –

A case study from Mulshi region in Western Ghats, India
Watve Aparna, Gandhe R.V. and Gandhe K.R.
Post-Graduate Research Centre, Department of Botany, Modern College, Pune 411005. India.
The distribution of plant diversity at species and community level in different landscape
elements was studied in Mulshi region, Western Ghats, India. Qualitative and quantitative
ecological data showed that out of 578 plant species 86 species(approx, 15%) are endemic to
Western Ghats. Herbaceous communities were dominant in species (53% of total) and
accounted for 57% of endemism. Scrub and degraded forest habitats were most rich in species
and had a high percentage of endemism (80%). Rare and threatened species such as Ceropegia
huberi and Cyathocline lutea were seen only in the scrub areas. Plant communities were
unique in forest habitats, high altitude plateaus, slopes, screes and had a restricted distribution
in the landscape. Species assemblages such as Peucedanum grande, Begonia concanensis,
Ceropegia huberi and Pouzolzia indica were only on rocky outcrops at high altitudes and thus
had a highly restricted distribution in the landscape. These findings indicated the inadequacy
of the conservation strategy of the government which focused on conserving forest habitat and
protection of tree species. Local conservation priority is the protection of the rich herbaceous
communities and unique habitats. While planning future conservation strategy changes in
land-use and lack of awareness about local preservation priorities need to be considered.
Active involvement of local people, landscape planners and policy makers is also essential.
Assessment of restoration potential for semi-natural biotops in

agrarian landscapes
Wurbs, A., Glemnitz, M., Jacobsen, M.
The proportions and biotic quality of landscape elements play a key role in the diversity of
species in agrarian landscapes and hence determine the habitat function of the landscape. With
the aim to assess the potential for the restoration of semi-natural biotopes an, experimental
programme was carried out in a study area of 2.500 km2 near Berlin. We analysed the
occurrence of semi-natural biotopes characterised by different plant species inventories.
Discriminant analysis based on these observed data and soil parameters obtained from soil
maps helped to identify representative and main differences of soil characteristics of semi-
natural biotopes. The correlation’s between the site parameters and the biotope occurrence
determine by the discriminant analysis were applied to assess the potential of arable land or
grassland for the restoration of specific semi-natural biotopes. Based on the site
characteristics, this method allows for a spatial explicit assessment of a landscape in terms of
the types of semi-natural biotopes which can be established. This method may be used for
further analyse and scenarios for effects of biotope restoration.
263
Relations between biodiversity and landscape diversity

(a case study of Belovezhskaya Pushcha)
Valentin Yatsukhno
pr. Skoryna, 4 Belarusion State University, Department of Geography. 220050 Minsk, Belarus
Phone/017/2265773, fax: /017/2066129, E-mail: landlab@geo.unibel.by
The national park “Belovezhskaya Pushcha” is one of the largest preserves in Europe
distinguished for their natural diversity of forest ecosystems. Its size is greatly determined by
spatial heterogeneity and genetic peculiarities of the landscapes. The following formula was
used to estimate quantitatively the weighted average of land plant species (A) within a
particular landscape:
A=ax + by + cz+ …nm,

100
where a,b,c is species number for associations; x,y,z – associations area within the landscape.
Estimating the landscape diversity, one should take into consideration not only the areas
occupied by various plat associations, but also the diversity level, number and forms of their
areas. This enables one to estimate the land plant species number within the landscape and
conditions for their occurrence and spatial spreading. The method proposed permits estimating
of the ecosystem actual and potential biodiversity based on the correlation between plant
associations and landscape. Besides, it enables one to perform a more substantiated study of
the effect exerted by abiotic factors on the floristic wealth and phytochorogogical structure of
plant communities.
264
The conference is sponsored by:

Public Landscape Goods An Economic Frame

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Landscape Goods An Economic Frame

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jesper Brandt, Bärbel Tress, Gunther Tress

Conference material for the international conference on “Multifunctional Landscapes:

Published by the Centre for Landscape Research

Brandt, J., B. Tress, and G. Tress:

© Centre for Landscape Research, Roskilde, Denmark, 2000

II. Plenary lectures 17

III. Lectures in the six workshops 25

Naveh, Zev: Introduction to the theoretical foundations of 27

Howard, David C., Sandrine Petit, and Robert G. H. Bunce: 51

Sepp, Kalev et al.: The methodology and applications of agricultural 71

Jongman, Rob: The difficult relationship between biodiversity and 72

Romstad, Eirik: Public landscape goods – an economic framework. 86

5. Workshop no. 5: 111

Haines-Young, Roy H. and Marion B. Potschin: Multifunctionality 111

6. Workshop no. 6: 122

Russell, Emily W. B.: Historical aspects of multifunctionality in 122

Spears, Ian: Integrated evaluation of historic landscapes in England, 147

IV. Draft on ”Recommendations on Interdisciplinary 149

V. Papers presented in parallel sessions 175

Frederiksen, Peter: Landscape theory – a way out of the conceptual 177

2. Session B: Functions of agricultural/rural landscapes 183

Berggren-Bärring, Ann-Magreth: Function and pattern in relation to 183

3. Session C: Functions of urban and recreational landscapes 188

Abdal, Mahdi and Majda Sulieman: Improvement of Agricultural 188

4. Session D: Landscapes as places for experience, perception 194

Behm, Holger: Quo vadis savannah - hypothesis? - How a change in 194

5. Session E: Landscapes between continuity and change 199

6. Session F: Observing landscapes 206

7. Session G: Diversity and heterogeneity of landscapes 214

Beierkuhnlein, Carl: Comparing biodiversity and landscape 214

Degórski, Marek: Is a geodiversity a part of landscape diversity. 215

8. Session H: Evaluating landscapes 220

Atauri, J. A., José V. de Lucio: Landscape evaluation of natural 220

9. Session I: Policy and planning of multifunctional landscapes 227

Bills, Nelson and David Gross: Impacts of changing agri- 227

10. Session J: Managing multifunctional landscapes 233

VI. Poster presentations 239

Nagengast, Barbara and Mariusz Pelechaty: Changes in water and 253

Introduction to the conference theme

Accordingly, the conference will give participants an opportunity to explore various

Jesper Brandt, Bärbel Tress and Gunther Tress

II. Plenary lectures

In order of their appearance during the conference.

Multifunctionality and Urbanisation

Agri-environmental Indicators for Multifunctionality in the

To facilitate policy monitoring and evaluation, it is useful to consider agricultural landscapes

Key Words: landscape; agri-environmental indicators; policy; multifunctionality;

Aesthetic Evaluation of Multifunctional Landscapes

Interdisciplinary landscape research and the management of

Growing ecological, economic and social conflicts in former monofunctionally used

Scenarios for the management of multifunctional landscapes

Multifunctional biosphere landscapes and the future of our Total

A. Sustainable multifunctional and multidimensional biosphere landscapes and regenerative

B. Unsustainable throughput systems of the fossil energy based, industrial society:

Criteria and Parameters for Sustainable Land-use

Demands for future landscape research

III. Lectures in the six workshops

Workshop guide and presentation of recommendations:

Main speaker: Zev Naveh, Israel

Introduction to the Theoretical Foundations of Multifunctional

Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes.

Second Premise: Each landscape is a three-dimensional, concrete ecological system that

Third Premise: In the universal macrohierarchical organization of natural, multileveled