DOCSLIB.ORG

How Can Landscape Ecology Contribute to Sustainability Science?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Can Landscape Ecology Contribute to Sustainability Science? Landscape Ecol (2018) 33:1–7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0610-7 EDITORIAL How can landscape ecology contribute to sustainability science? Paul Opdam . Sandra Luque . Joan Nassauer . Peter H. Verburg . Jianguo Wu Received: 7 January 2018 / Accepted: 9 January 2018 / Published online: 15 January 2018 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018 While landscape ecology is distinct from sustainability science, landscape ecologists have expressed their ambitions to help society advance sustainability of landscapes. In this context Wu (2013) coined the concept of landscape sustainability science. In August of 2017 we joined the 5th forum of landscape sustainability science in P. Opdam (&) P. H. Verburg Land Use Planning Group & Alterra, Wageningen Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands Research (WSL), Birmensdorf, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] J. Wu S. Luque School of Life Sciences, School of Sustainability, Julie A. IRSTEA – UMR TETIS Territoires, Environnement, Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State Te´le´de´tection ET Information Spatiale, Montpellier, University, Tempe, USA France J. Wu J. Nassauer Center for Human–Environment System Sustainability School for Environment and Sustainability, University of (CHESS), Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA P. H. Verburg Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 123 2 Landscape Ecol (2018) 33:1–7 Beijing (see http://leml.asu.edu/chess/FLSS/05/index.html). To inspire landscape ecologists in developing research for a more sustainable future, we highlight some of the key points raised there. We emphasize challenges that have been identified in sustainability science that we consider particularly relevant for landscape sustainability. Then we describe how landscape ecology could enrich sustainability science. Finally, we propose five topics for landscape ecology research to advance landscape sustainability science. Key challenges in sustainability science sustainability (Ekins et al. 2003;Wu2013) may be used to deepen understanding of what a sustainable Reflective papers on the progress in sustainability landscape may be. research have produced important insights in key features and enabling factors that determine how Changes to make local landscapes more science may contribute to transitions towards sustain- sustainable have implications for landscapes ability (Lang et al. 2012; Miller 2013; Miller et al. elsewhere 2014; Fischer et al. 2015; Balvanera et al. 2017 and Scha¨pke et al. 2017). For landscape ecologists, we Although we argue that landscape sustainability is think the following four insights are of particular framed in the context of local or regional landscapes, relevance. any decision to adapt the use of a local landscape may have consequences for the sustainability of landscapes Research alone cannot determine elsewhere in the world (Meyfroidt et al. 2013). For whether a particular landscape is in a sustainable example, lowering the intensity of food production in state one area may trigger an increase of land use intensity elsewhere. Another example is that the whole global A sustainable landscape is a normative concept. It population benefits from climate mitigation capacities recognizes that landscape functions are the foundation of forested landscapes in a region. Therefore, science for solutions to problems of human well-being (Wu should give insight about how local, regional, and 2013). However, this may mean different things to global drivers and effects are connected (Verburg et al. different stakeholders. The identification of problems 2015) so that local decision makers are aware of the and solutions is inevitably connected to beliefs, values implications of their own choices for the sustainability and preferences of people who live in the landscape, as of the ‘system earth’. well as others who depend on its resources and functions. Therefore, science can identify a sustain- Solutions-oriented research receives inadequate able landscape only in dialogue with these stakehold- attention in science ers. This dialogue is a fundamental connection between scientific knowledge and human experiences By definition, sustainability hinges on the dynamic in local landscapes (Miller 2013), and should allow for relationship between society and nature. This rela- choices about the future landscape to be expressed by tionship can be taken as a basis for analytical and mixed groups of stakeholders (including policy mak- integrative research for understanding complex ers). For example, in a modelling approach with socio- social-ecological systems (SES). As Miller et al. economic scenarios that facilitates building a vision (2014) and Fischer et al. (2015) have pointed out, about a future landscape, scientists should select SES has been the dominant focus of sustainability indicators for sustainability in dialogue with stake- science thus far. However, generating landscape holders and determine with them which are the solutions has been less widely pursued within required levels of those indicators to meet the sustainability science—despite it being defined as a sustainability aims of local society. Scientists could place-based, use-inspired science (Kates 2012). bring in the concept of natural capital and determine in Therefore, solutions-oriented research must now be dialogue what level of natural capital is critical for a priority (Miller et al. 2014; Fischer et al. 2015). maintaining the capacity of the landscape to provide Generating sustainable landscape solutions requires long-term landscape benefits to future generations. In societal engagement, collaboration between sectors this dialogue the concepts of weak and strong andcreativityinseekingnew landscape patterns to 123 Landscape Ecol (2018) 33:1–7 3 make sure that solutions are embedded in society spatially explicit analytical and design approaches. In (Nassauer and Opdam 2008; Musacchio 2011). the following we propose four fundamental landscape Hence, collaborative and participatory (transdisci- ecological contributions to sustainability science. plinary) research aimed at creating solutions is essential (Lang et al. 2012;Wangetal.2014). A spatially explicit approach Science can facilitate societal transformations Miller et al. (2014) identified the need for sustainabil- towards sustainability ity science to pay more attention to mapping sustain- ability values. Mapping spatial patterns is a core Moving landscapes toward sustainability often method of landscape ecology. Mapping approaches requires fundamental societal transformations (also are equally essential for sustainability research and called transitions, see Kates and Parris 2003; Lambin practice because, after all, the sustainability of a place 2005; Loorbach 2010), including changes in how is determined not only by what it is composed of, but landscapes are valued, newly established relations also how its components are spatially arranged and between societal actors, and new governance managed. Landscape ecology brings spatial extent, approaches. Landscape research in design/planning, spatial heterogeneity and spatial connectivity into the social, and environmental disciplines are needed to fore. The challenge is to link these spatial character- understand how to promote, trigger, and facilitate such istics to values that are meaningful to landscape transitions. Increasing evidence suggests that collab- decision makers, including residents, land owners and orative forms of governance, which are adaptive and practitioners. Spatial pattern has been associated with iterative (rather than rule-based and linear,) support the performance of natural processes to produce such transformations (Armitage et al. 2009). Such benefits to human society. For example, numerous governance requires knowledge exchange and com- studies have shown that the form and configuration of plex forms of learning in social networks (Pahl-Wostl landscapes affect the psychological and physical 2009). Where collaborative forms of governance wellbeing of humans, including all biodiversity-based emerge, an effective dialogue between science and landscape services. Dronova (2017) highlighted the practice requires that scientists go beyond providing potential of landscape heterogeneity to link multiple information. Rather, science must engage with society landscape benefits. Such a link between pattern and in a way that fosters both motivation and capacity for value is of great relevance in building multi-functional societal change (Lambin 2005; Scha¨pke et al. 2017). visions and in designing future landscapes (Termor- shuizen and Opdam 2009). What landscape ecology has to offer A multiple scale approach to sustainability science While many landscape decisions are made at a local Since landscape ecology envisions the landscape as level, the drivers behind these decisions are often the outcome of the complex relations between humans fuelled by economic processes resulting from deci- and nature, it provides a useful framework for sions and behaviours at spatial scale levels far above sustainability science. The call for interdisciplinary, the landscape level. In contrast, when decisions based multiple purpose and multiple scale approaches in on sustainability principles are made about local landscape ecology is consistent with the Sustainable landscapes, the results may not be sustainable from a Development
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fire Exclusion Forest Service in Rocky Mountain Ecosystems: Rocky Mountain Research Station
    United States Department of Agriculture Cascading Effects of Fire Exclusion Forest Service in Rocky Mountain Ecosystems: Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-91 A Literature Review May 2002 Robert E. Keane, Kevin C. Ryan Tom T. Veblen, Craig D. Allen Jesse Logan, Brad Hawkes Abstract Keane, Robert E.; Ryan, Kevin C.; Veblen, Tom T.; Allen, Craig D.; Logan, Jessie; Hawkes, Brad. 2002. Cascading effects of fire exclusion in the Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature review. General Technical Report. RMRS- GTR-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 24 p. The health of many Rocky Mountain ecosystems is in decline because of the policy of excluding fire in the management of these ecosystems. Fire exclusion has actually made it more difficult to fight fires, and this poses greater risks to the people who fight fires and for those who live in and around Rocky Mountain forests and rangelands. This paper discusses the extent of fire exclusion in the Rocky Mountains, then details the diverse and cascading effects of suppressing fires in the Rocky Mountain landscape by spatial scale, ecosystem characteristic, and vegetation type. Also discussed are the varied effects of fire exclusion on some important, keystone ecosystems and human concerns. Keywords: wildland fire, fire exclusion, fire effects, landscape ecology Research Summary Since the early 1930s, fire suppression programs in the United States and Canada successfully reduced wildland fires in many Rocky Mountain ecosystems. This lack of fires has created forest and range landscapes with atypical accumulations of fuels that pose a hazard to many ecosystem characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Sustainability: an Inevitable Goal of Landscape Research
    Landscape Ecol (2010) 25:1–4 DOI 10.1007/s10980-009-9444-7 EDITORIAL Urban sustainability: an inevitable goal of landscape research Jianguo Wu Received: 10 December 2009 / Accepted: 12 December 2009 / Published online: 25 December 2009 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 ‘‘Sustainability’’ has become the word of the day and The dualistic nature of urbanization the theme of our time. The word—which in essence means meeting the needs of the present generation Year 2007 was a historic moment in human civili- without compromising the ability of future genera- zation: we have transformed ourselves from an tions to meet their own (WCED 1987)—tends to agrarian species to a mostly urban species. Only 2% conjure bucolic images of landscapes with green hills of the world population lived in urban areas in 1800, and empty spaces, but that may be a mistake. Our but this number jumped to 14% in 1900 and 30% in world certainly is replete with environmental prob- 1950. In 2007, we crossed the 50% mark—with no lems: biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, land- signs of slowing down. Clearly, urban areas have scape fragmentation, climate change, just to name a become the primary habitat for humans—cities, few. Urbanization—the spatial expansion of the built increasingly, are where people live and thus where environment that is densely packed by people and we will have to make sustainability a reality. their socioeconomic activities—has often been held The increasing urban nature of humanity has responsible for all these problems. In the recent serge profound environmental, economic, and social impli- of interest in sustainability, some think that urbani- cations for the world’s future.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards an Integrative Understanding of Soil Biodiversity
    Towards an integrative understanding of soil biodiversity Madhav Thakur, Helen Phillips, Ulrich Brose, Franciska de Vries, Patrick Lavelle, Michel Loreau, Jérôme Mathieu, Christian Mulder, Wim van der Putten, Matthias Rillig, et al. To cite this version: Madhav Thakur, Helen Phillips, Ulrich Brose, Franciska de Vries, Patrick Lavelle, et al.. Towards an integrative understanding of soil biodiversity. Biological Reviews, Wiley, 2020, 95, pp.350 - 364. 10.1111/brv.12567. hal-02499460 HAL Id: hal-02499460 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02499460 Submitted on 5 Mar 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Biol. Rev. (2020), 95, pp. 350–364. 350 doi: 10.1111/brv.12567 Towards an integrative understanding of soil biodiversity Madhav P. Thakur1,2,3∗ , Helen R. P. Phillips2, Ulrich Brose2,4, Franciska T. De Vries5, Patrick Lavelle6, Michel Loreau7, Jerome Mathieu6, Christian Mulder8,WimH.Van der Putten1,9,MatthiasC.Rillig10,11, David A. Wardle12, Elizabeth M. Bach13, Marie L. C. Bartz14,15, Joanne M. Bennett2,16, Maria J. I. Briones17, George Brown18, Thibaud Decaens¨ 19, Nico Eisenhauer2,3, Olga Ferlian2,3, Carlos Antonio´ Guerra2,20, Birgitta Konig-Ries¨ 2,21, Alberto Orgiazzi22, Kelly S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 English
    SUCCESS PROGRESS REPORT (Dec. 2007‐ Sept. 2009) I. RESEARCH 1. Research Grants Obtained z Research on the strategy of ecological environment construction and sustainable development in Ordos (June 2008 ‐ May 2010) PI: Jie Yang Funds: 3 millions RMB from Ordos People’s Government in Inner Mongolia z Research on the management model innovation of mineral resources in Inner Mongolia (Sept. 2008 ‐ Dec. 2010) PI: Xiaochuan Guo Funds: 200 thousands RMB from Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology z Research on sustainable development mode of energy industries in Ordos (June 2008 ‐ July 2009) PI: Xiaochuan Guo Funds: one million RMB from Ordos People’s Government in Inner Mongolia z Policy release and path choice for Wulanchabu’s economic rise (June 2008 ‐ July 2009) PI: Xiaochuan Guo Funds: 500 thousands RMB from Wulanchabu People’s Government in Inner Mongolia z Research on the tendency of population aging and policy model of providing for the aged in Inner Mongolia (June 2009 – Sept. 2009) PI: Xiaochuan Guo Funds: 40 thousands RMB from Inner Mongolia Population and Family Planning Commission 2. New Grants Recently Obtained z Study on the impact of rapid urbanization on the ecosystem processes – A case study of Hohhot and Baotou city of Inner Mongolia (Jan. 2010 – Dec. 2012) PI: Alexander Buyantuyev Funds: 320 thousands RMB from NSFC z Profit distribution of dairy industry in China based on value chain management (Jan. 2010 – Dec. 2012) PI: Guixia Qian Funds: 210 thousands RMB from National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) 1 z DEA method and pedigree analysis on economic effectiveness of Inner Mongolia.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern and Process Second Edition Monica G. Turner Robert H. Gardner
    Monica G. Turner Robert H. Gardner Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice Pattern and Process Second Edition L ANDSCAPE E COLOGY IN T HEORY AND P RACTICE M ONICA G . T URNER R OBERT H . G ARDNER LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Pattern and Process Second Edition Monica G. Turner University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Zoology Madison , WI , USA Robert H. Gardner University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Frostburg, MD , USA ISBN 978-1-4939-2793-7 ISBN 978-1-4939-2794-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2794-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2015945952 Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London © Springer-Verlag New York 2015 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation
    Kevin J. Gutzwiller Editor Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation With a Foreword by Richard T.T. Foman With 62 Figures, 2 in Full Color Springer Human Conversion of Terrestrial Habitats PETERAUGUST, LOUIS IVERSON, AND JARUNEENUGRANAD 12.1 Introduction In this chapter, we describe how human activities change the abundance and qual- ity of terrestrial habitats and discuss the ecological implications of these changes for biota. We begin by identifying fundamental principles associated with human conversion of terrestrial habitats and how fauna and flora respond to habitat con- version. We present a number of examples of how landscape ecologists and con- servation biologists use these basic principles of land-cover change to develop management strategies to minimize ecological impacts from habitat loss. Next, we discuss principles for applying landscape ecology. We identify major voids in ecological theory and existing data that need to be filled for land managers to be better prepared to apply the principles of landscape ecology to biological conser- vation. Finally, we suggest research approaches that may be used to fill knowl- edge gaps. Although social and economic considerations are fundamental to land- cover change dynamics (Riebsame et al. 1994). detailed discussion of these factors is beyond the scope of this book; therefore, we focus our remarks on the ecological aspects of human conversion of terrestrial habitats. 12.2 Concepts, Principles, and Emerging Ideas Human disturbance is the most significant contemporary agent of change in ter- restrial ecosystems (Forman 1995). The rates with which natural habitats are lost, disturbed landscapes are created, species go extinct, and ecosystem processes are altered are higher now than they have been since the last cataclysmic event that impacted the planet 50 million years ago (Fastovsky and Weishampel 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Wu-2012-LE-Encyclopedia TE.Pdf
    L in real landscapes, and because it facilitates theoretical and methodological developments by recognizing the LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY importance of micro-, meso-, macro-, and cross-scale approaches. JIANGUO WU The term landscape ecology was coined in 1939 by Arizona State University the German geographer Carl Troll, who was inspired by the spatial patterning of landscapes revealed in aer- ial photographs and the ecosystem concept developed Spatial heterogeneity is ubiquitous in all ecological sys- in 1935 by the British ecologist Arthur Tansley. Troll tems, underlining the signifi cance of the pattern–process originally defi ned landscape ecology as the study of the relationship and the scale of observation and analysis. relationship between biological communities and their Landscape ecology focuses on the relationship between environment in a landscape mosaic. Today, landscape spatial pattern and ecological processes on multiple scales. ecology is widely recognized as the science of studying On the one hand, it represents a spatially explicit per- and improving the relationship between spatial pattern spective on ecological phenomena. On the other hand, and ecological processes on a multitude of scales and or- it is a highly interdisciplinary fi eld that integrates bio- ganizational levels. Heterogeneity, scale, pattern–process physical and socioeconomic perspectives to understand relationships, disturbance, hierarchy, and sustainability and improve the ecology and sustainability of landscapes. are among the key concepts in contemporary landscape Landscape ecology is still rapidly evolving, with a diver- ecology. Landscape ecological studies typically involve sity of emerging ideas and a plurality of methods and the use of geospatial data from various sources (e.g., applications. fi eld survey, aerial photography, and remote sensing) and spatial analysis of different kinds (e.g., pattern indi- DEFINING LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY ces and spatial statistics).
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Framework Underpinning Management of Soil Health
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by SRUC - Scotland's Rural College Scotland's Rural College Conceptual framework underpinning management of soil health - supporting site- specific delivery of sustainable agro-ecosystems Stockdale, EA; Griffiths, BS; Hargreaves, PR; Bhogal, A; Crotty, FV; Watson, CA Published in: Food and Energy Security DOI: 10.1002/fes3.158 Print publication: 01/05/2019 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication Citation for pulished version (APA): Stockdale, EA., Griffiths, BS., Hargreaves, PR., Bhogal, A., Crotty, FV., & Watson, CA. (2019). Conceptual framework underpinning management of soil health - supporting site-specific delivery of sustainable agro- ecosystems. Food and Energy Security, 8(2), [e00158]. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.158 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 19.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Perspectives on Biodiversity Conservation
    生物多样性 2008, 16 (3): 205–213 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2008.08037 Biodiversity Science http: //www.biodiversity-science.net Changing perspectives on biodiversity conservation: from species protec- tion to regional sustainability Jianguo Wu1,2* 1 Sino-US Center for Conservation, Energy, and Sustainability Science, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, China 2 School of Life Sciences and Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874501, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA Abstract: Biodiversity is the basis for ecosystem goods and services that provide for human survival and prosperity. With a rapidly increasing human population and its demands for natural resources, landscapes are being fragmented, habitats are being destroyed, and biodiversity is declining. How can biodiversity be effec- tively conserved in the face of increasing human pressures? In this paper, I review changing perspectives on biodiversity conservation, and discuss their relevance to the practice of biodiversity conservation. The major points include: The notion of balance of nature is a myth rather than a scientific concept; the theory of island biogeography is useful heuristically but flawed practically; the SLOSS debate is intriguing in theory but ir- relevant in reality; the concept of minimum viable population and population viability analysis are useful, but technically inefficient and conceptually inadequate; metapopulation theory is mathematically elegant but ecologically oversimplistic; and integrative perspectives and approaches for biodiversity conservation are needed that incorporate insights from landscape ecology and sustainability science. I further discuss some key principles for regional conservation planning, and argue that the long-term success of biodiversity conservation in any region will ultimately depend on the economic and social sustainability of that region.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Landscape Ecology Into Natural Resource Management
    edited by jianguo liu michigan state university william w. taylor michigan state university Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building,Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207,Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House,The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Cambridge University Press 2002 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2002 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeface Lexicon (The Enschedé Font Foundry) 10/14 pt System QuarkXPress™ [se] Acatalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management / edited by Jianguo Lui and William W.Taylor. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN 0 521 78015 2 – ISBN 0 521 78433 6 (pb.) 1. Landscape ecology. 2. Natural resources. I. Liu, Jianguo, 1963– II. Taylor,William W. QH541.15.L35 I56 2002 333.7 – dc21 2001052879 ISBN 0 521 78015 2 hardback ISBN 0 521 78433 6 paperback Contents List of contributors x Foreword xiv eugene p.odum Preface xvi Acknowledgments xviii part i Introduction and concepts 1 1 Coupling landscape ecology with natural resource management: Paradigm shifts and new approaches 3 jianguo liu and william w.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity
    30 Sep 2003 15:53 AR AR200-ES34-18.tex AR200-ES34-18.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003. 34:487–515 doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 Copyright c 2003 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved First published online as a Review in Advance on August 14, 2003 EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ON BIODIVERSITY Lenore Fahrig Ottawa-Carleton Institute of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6; email: Lenore [email protected] Key Words habitat loss, landscape scale, habitat configuration, patch size, patch isolation, extinction threshold, landscape complementation ■ Abstract The literature on effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity is huge. It is also very diverse, with different authors measuring fragmentation in dif- ferent ways and, as a consequence, drawing different conclusions regarding both the magnitude and direction of its effects. Habitat fragmentation is usually defined as a landscape-scale process involving both habitat loss and the breaking apart of habi- tat. Results of empirical studies of habitat fragmentation are often difficult to inter- pret because (a) many researchers measure fragmentation at the patch scale, not the landscape scale and (b) most researchers measure fragmentation in ways that do not distinguish between habitat loss and habitat fragmentation per se, i.e., the breaking apart of habitat after controlling for habitat loss. Empirical studies to date suggest that habitat loss has large, consistently negative effects on biodiversity. Habitat frag- mentation per se has much weaker effects on biodiversity that are at least as likely to be positive as negative.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shared Landscape: What Does Aesthetics Have to Do with Ecology?
    Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 DOI 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x PERSPECTIVE The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Paul H. Gobster Æ Joan I. Nassauer Æ Terry C. Daniel Æ Gary Fry Received: 18 January 2007 / Accepted: 18 April 2007 / Published online: 24 May 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract This collaborative essay grows out of a 1. While human and environmental phenomena debate about the relationship between aesthetics occur at widely varying scales, humans engage with and ecology and the possibility of an ‘‘ecological environmental phenomena at a particular scale: that aesthetic’’ that affects landscape planning, design, of human experience of our landscape surroundings. and management. We describe our common under- That is the human ‘‘perceptible realm.’’ standings and unresolved questions about this 2. Interactions within this realm give rise to relationship, including the importance of aesthetics aesthetic experiences, which can lead to changes in understanding and affecting landscape change and affecting humans and the landscape, and thus the ways in which aesthetics and ecology may have ecosystems. either complementary or contradictory implications 3. Context affects aesthetic experience of land- for a landscape. To help understand these issues, we scapes. Context includes both effects of different first outline a conceptual model of the aesthetics– landscape types (wild, agricultural, cultural, and ecology relationship. We posit that: metropolitan landscapes) and effects of different personal–social situational activities or concerns. We argue that some contexts elicit aesthetic experiences P. H. Gobster (&) that have traditionally been called ‘‘scenic beauty,’’ U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, while other contexts elicit different aesthetic experi- 1033 University Pl., Suite 360, Evanston, ences, such as perceived care, attachment, and identity.
    [Show full text]