Landscape Ecology 16: 757–766, 2001.

© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

757

Perspective paper

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)

Received 6 December 1999; Revised 22 September 2000; Accepted 2 April 2001

Key words: complementarity, geographical and biological roots, holistic perspective, landscape evaluation,
landscape visions, transdisciplinarity

Abstract
Contemporary landscape ecology is not unified at all. There are historical, geographical and biological reasons
for the lack of unification, 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 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 and describe the landscape. As a crucial step, the transformation of natural science categories to
categories of the human society is brought out. This is realized by land(scape) evaluation and by the elaboration of
goals (visions) of landscape development.

Introduction tains, for example, the search for the unification of

Landscape ecology today appears to be a wide spec-
trum of views, theories and methodologies. This
heterogeneity results from different landscape con-
ceptions (look at the still living question ‘What is
a landscape?’), scientific backgrounds, and special-
izations. One example is the existence of a more
(bio)ecologically focused approach which deals espe-
cially with habitat patterns, fragmentation and patch
heterogeneity, connectivity and other aspects of popu-
lation biology in contrast to another fundamental ap-
proach which has its roots in geography, and therefore
includes abiotic parameters and whole geocomplexes
in a comprehensive manner.
Landscape ecology is still passing through a
process of self-discovery. Hobbs (1994 in Wiens
1999) characterized landscape ecology as “a science
in search of itself”, which was demonstrated at the
5th IALE-World Congress (International Association
for Landscape Ecology) in Snowmass, Colorado, USA
(29 July–3 August 1999). This self-discovery con-
landscape ecology as a discipline (Wiens 1999b), the
question “What is the most favourable – or even the
right – view of landscape ecology?”, the relation
between basic research and application (the science
and the action) and between holistic and sectoral ap-
proaches and methodologies; and the improvement
of scientific exchange to avoid ignoring results from
non-anglophone countries.
The situation was summed up by Moss (1999):
“... landscape ecologists will have a clearer idea of
the goals and the context for their work. Of equal
importance, the non-landscape ecologist will have a
much clearer idea of what landscape ecologists do and
can do. In other words, the field needs a focus and a
profile.” It is worth investigating if the demand for a
unified discipline is realistic, and, if yes, how we can
implement it, and which premises should be taken into
consideration.
758
Different definitions
Landscape
Regarding the position, development and future of
landscape ecology, we should remember the numerous
existing definitions of the term ‘landscape ecology’
and its two roots: landscape and ecology. First, the sci-
entific term ‘landscape’ was shaped by geographers,
essentially by the German geographer and scholar
Alexander von Humboldt 200 years ago (the landscape
as the total character of a region). In 1850, Rosenkranz
defined landscapes as hierarchically organized local
systems of all the kingdoms of nature. Neef (1967)
characterized landscape as a part of the earth’s sur-
face with a uniform structure and functional pattern.
Both appearance and components (geofactors: relief,
soil, climate, water balance, flora, fauna, humans and
their creations in the landscape), including their spatial
position, are concerned. Landscape is not however,
only the sum of single geofactors, but an integration
forming the geographical complex (or geosystem).
Thus, landscape is from different spheres: inorganic
spheres, biosphere and sociosphere. According to
Naveh (1987): “landscapes dealt with in their totality
as physical, ecological and geographical entities, in-
tegrating all natural and human (caused) patterns and
processes ...” or Forman and Godron (1986) defined
“landscape as a heterogeneous land area composed of
a cluster of interacting ecosystems that is repeated in
similar form throughout”. Leser (1997) regards the
landscape ecosystem as a spatial pattern of abiotic,
biotic and anthropogenic components which form a
functional entity and serve as human’s environment.
Early definitions (19th and beginning 20th century)
from Central and Eastern Europe, where the geograph-
ical and the biological roots of landscape ecology
occur, reflect a holistic landscape conception. Later,
influenced by the rising analytical natural sciences,
the “core of an all-embracing thought pattern was not
appreciated” (Lehmann 1986).
Still today, we also can observe repeated tenden-
cies of reduction and specification: landscapes consist
of “structural components, or landscape elements,
(which) are patches of several origins, corridors of
four types, and a matrix” (Forman 1981) or “The
(ideal) landscape is a primarily aesthetic phenomenon,
closer to the eyes than to the mind, more related to
the heart, the soul, the moods than to the intellect”
(Hard 1970). We also find the rejection of the land-
scape paradigm, as King (1999) asks: “Is there in fact
a landscape level”, or if Widacki (1994) wants to turn
away from geocomplexes because we could fall back
now on “satellite images as well as the resulting possi-
bilities of integration and transformation of data read
into computer with the aid of GIS”.
Generally we can realize, in view of the environ-
mental problems coming to the fore that landscape
is regarded more and more as a complex, highly-
integrated system.
Landscape ecology
The second part of the term landscape ecology –
the science ecology – deals with the investigation
of relations between life and its abiotic environment
(E. Haeckel). The term landscape ecology was coined
by the German biogeographer Carl Troll at the end of
the 1930s. Interpreting an East-African savannah land-
scape with the help of aerial photographs, Troll was
fascinated by the important scientific findings due to
the functional, vertical approach of ecologists with the
spatial, horizontal approach of geographers. But al-
ready earlier, A. Penck (1924) asked about the earth’s
carrying capacity, and S. Passarge (1912) used the
term landscape physiology (Finke 1994). Later, e.g.,
Schmithüsen, Neef, Haase, Richter, Barsch, Schreiber,
Leser and others did important work in landscape ecol-
ogy in Germany, and abroad. A similar development
took place in Russia (e.g., Sukachev and Dylis 1964;
Sočawa 1974) and other Eastern European countries.
Since then there are at least two fundamental, dif-
ferent views on landscape ecology (corresponding to
its ‘mother sciences’):
– A more biological one, esp. in Northern America
and some schools in Europe (e.g., Forman and Godron
(1986).
– A more geographical approach, esp. in Central
and Eastern Europe (e.g., Neef 1967, Haase 1990,
Richling 1994), but also in Latin America (Baume
et al. 1994; Cervantes et al. 1999). This conception
is often equated with geoecology, which is not com-
pletely correct. The term geoecology was introduced
by Troll (1968) as a synonym to improve translatabil-
ity, but it did not gain much acceptance. Especially
in Germany (e.g., Neef and his pupils), geoecology
embodies a division of landscape ecology dealing only
with the abiotic issues (such as soils, water balance).
Leser (1997) distinguishes geoecology, bioecology
and the all-embracing landscape ecology (which also
considers anthropogenic factors).

The differences concerning these terms represent
only one part of the existing lack of clarity. Some
definitions are both concise and comprehensive, e.g.,
Forman (1981): “... landscape ecology, thus, stud-
ies the structure, function and development of land-
scapes”; or Leser (1997): “Landscape ecology deals
with the interrelations of all functional and visible
factors representing the landscape ecosystem.” Ac-
cording to Forman and Godron (1986) there are “three
fundamental characteristics of landscape ecology, ...
the space relations – landscape structure, their func-
tional relationships - interaction, flow of material and
energy and the time relations – the change of the struc-
ture, characteristics and functions”. Other definitions
reflect a narrow view, e.g.: “Landscape ecology is
the study of spatial variation in landscapes at a vari-
ety of scales. It includes the biophysical and societal
causes and consequences of landscape heterogene-
ity” (IALE Executive Committee, in Moss 1999).
I’ll deepen this concern within the following section.
Other authors emphasize both the chorological and
the ecosystem aspects of landscape ecology, deriv-
ing from geographical and biological roots (Otahel
1999). Naveh and Lieberman (1984) base landscape
ecology “on a general systems theory, biocybernet-
ics, and ecosystemology” and emphasize the “active
human role in landscape”. This last-mentioned defin-
ition corresponds to the absolutely welcome tendency
to include human to landscape issues in an increasing
manner.
The relation between basic and applied research
is a further contentious point. Some authors, e.g.,
Leser (1997), emphasize the importance of basic re-
search (without ignoring practical application). Jong-
man (1999) wrote: “Landscape ecology is a field of
science with perspectives for application. From the
1970s there has been a mutual relationship between
landscape ecology and land-use planning and land-
scape management.” For other authors, a strong focus
on application is characteristic: “Landscape ecology
is applied may landscape planning oriented ecological
research direction” (Haber 1979). It is “determined by
its goal – environmental protection. It means that it is
an environmental research field, i.e., the applied field
of theoretically recognized disciplines” (Drdoš 1996).
At the same time, there are somewhat dangerous
tendencies to define landscape ecology too widely,
i.e., to subsume under the term ‘landscape ecology’
all appearances being related to landscape in a certain
manner: Landscape ecology includes “perspectives as
varied as theoretical ecology, human geography, land-
759
use planning, animal behaviour, sociology, resource
management, photogrammetry and remote sensing,
agricultural policy, restoration ecology, or environ-
mental ethics” (Wiens and Moss 1999). For Miklós
(1996) landscape ecology is “the science of the envi-
ronment in the wide sense of the word.” But not all
issues which are related to landscape are landscape
ecology! Landscape ecology is a science. Landscape
planning is a procedure. Landscape aesthetics, per-
ception, decision making are not ecology! Landscape
ecology itself cannot act! Remote sensing, GIS, spa-
tial statistics, and models, are tools. Landscapes have
properties that go beyond science. “Landscape ecol-
ogy cannot explain all the processes, but can undoubt-
edly help us to understand the complexity ...” (Farina
1998).
There is a real danger that the term landscape ecol-
ogy may become wishy-washy like terms as ecological
equilibrium, ecological stability, ecological disaster,
or sustainability. I agree with Moss (1999) that land-
scape ecology is not the only field which deals with
the landscape and it certainly is not the all-embracing
environmental science. It is, however, a field with
the potential to make a unique contribution to solving
a particular subset of natural-resource based issues.
Pointing to this fact, however, I do not reject the neces-
sity of a holistic approach in landscape ecology (see
The holistic perspective section).
Partial aspects of landscape ecology
As mentioned above, there are no identical concep-
tions of landscape ecology. Under the broad field of
landscape ecology, various activities of basic research
and application are realized. So it is no wonder that
some authors or scientific schools emphasize partic-
ular issues, and that single aspects are brought out
or examined out of context. On the one hand, the
investigation of such single aspects can contribute to
the knowledge of the whole landscape system; on the
other hand, such specialized views can become inde-
pendent, and the sight of the total system can be lost.
Examples shall be discussed on the view of:
– spatial relationships, and
– single landscape components.
Spatial relationships
It is true that the spatial character of research in land-
scape ecology is very important. If landscape ecology
760
is defined as “the study of the structure and dynam-
ics of spatial mosaics and their ecological causes and
consequences” (Wiens 1999b), or “Landscape ecology
deals with the spatially-explicit relationships among
patch types in complex mosaics”, and “that nature is
heterogeneous and scale matters, are in fact the raisons
d’être of landscape ecology” (Wiens 1999a), or “The
spatial dimension has been recognized as extremely
important from a topological approach to one in which
the real world is studied” (Farina 1998), it is obvious
that spatial relations are very important indeed, but
they are only one of the relevant foci.
The question should be allowed, is only investi-
gation of spatial patterns (e.g., of populations) land-
scape ecology? If yes, we could add to landscape
ecology also other phenomena, if the existence of
spatial aspects is sufficient for such a classification.
“Much contemporary work on pattern has focused
on the analysis or description of spatial geometry
and has failed to provide any understanding of the
significance or meaning of those patterns” remarked
Haines-Young (1999). Li (1999) criticized that studies
in landscape ecology “have been dominated by tak-
ing things apart and characterizing various attributes
of spatial patterns. These studies generally do not ad-
dress the intrinsic causality and underlying dynamics
of the pattern”. To the contrary, “the object of land-
scape ecology is not only to describe landscapes, but to
explain and understand the processes that occur within
them. Thus the description of landscape pattern as an
end in itself is limited. It is certainly misguided, given
the need to find more sustainable forms of landscape
management” (Haines-Young 1999).
The limited meaning of simple patterns (such as
woodlots and other habitat fragments) cannot be ex-
tended to the holistically defined geocomplexes (of
the geographical approach) which are, in the end,
patterns, too. “To justify the existence of landscape
ecology merely as a spatial science is severely restric-
tive. Do not most environmental and other disciplines
have a spatial dimension also?” (Moss 1999). Accord-
ing to Solon (1999), space may be understood in two
ways: as an arena characterized solely by geometrical
features, upon which abiotic and biotic processes (in-
cluding the life histories of organisms) are played out,
or in its entirety, together with its attributes, features
and dynamics. “The goal (and the challenge) of land-
scape ecology, however, is to go beyond these simple
statements to explore the richness of basic and applied
problems” (Wiens 1999a).
The dominating biological view
Absolutely, interesting and important landscape eco-
logical approaches are based on population dynamics,
e.g., patch-corridor-matrix models, greenways, con-
nectivity, ecological infrastructure, habitat networks,
ecological barriers, biocentres and biocorridors form-
ing a skeleton of ecological quality and stability. In
spite of all scientific and practical significance, we are
dealing with partial aspects of a landscape, especially
“with (bio)ecology in the landscape” (Moss 1999),
though we should think about landscape systems as
a whole. While distinguishing a human, a geobotani-
cal and an animal perspective, Farina (1998) accents
a dominating biological view. The occupation with
“habitat patches in a landscape” or with “patch qual-
ity to the organisms occupying a landscape” (Wiens
1999a) indicates a strong biological conception, too.
The numerous works about landscape fragmentation
speak about the landscape admittedly, but they mean
habitats (e.g., fragmentation of woods). According
to Pietrzak (1998), a ‘hypertrophy’ of the biologi-
cal approach is evident, i.e., the biological view is
overstressed.
The patch-corridor-matrix model (Forman 1981,
Forman and Godron 1986) also belongs here, even
if it was elaborated for matter and energy fluxes.
This fact is not altered by the acceptance that this
model has found, even in Europe: The model ...“is
at present a widely accepted, efficient method of de-
scribing landscape structure and – as it seems – an
optimum proposal of landscape research for planning
and designing activities in landscape” (Pietrzak 1998).
Regarding the widespread tendency of reducing land-
scape’s complexity to single aspects or components,
Leser (oral comm.) marks it as “playing with names”.
Moss (1994) draws attention to the “drift away from
this broad integrative concept to a dominance of the
field by community and ecosystem scientists whose
perception of landscape ecology is that of spatial com-
munity ecology.” The risk that – in consequence of
landscape ecology’s explosive growth – the “subdis-
ciplines will seek their own identity and will look
inward rather than outward, splintering rather than
consolidating landscape ecology” is mentioned also by
Wiens (1999b). Antrop (1999) identifies quite differ-
ent approaches in landscape ecology: sectoral (e.g.,
forestry, nature conservation), integrated (e.g., spa-
tial planning), compartments (e.g., biological), and
themes (e.g., fragmentation).

Summarizing the cited intellectual positions, we
can state that restricted views and foci are still usual in
landscape ecology, despite the tendencies of spreading
the holistic approach.
The holistic perspective
Outstanding features of landscape ecology are – in my
opinion – the focus on
– structures, processes and changes,
– spatial and hierarchical aspects,
– the complexity of different factors in a landscape.
The holistic approach in the context of human-
nature-relations is the real challenge of modern land-
scape ecology regarding the background of increasing
environmental problems and the discussion about sus-
tainability. In the last years, the consideration of both
natural and social components has been given more
and more attention: “The time is ripe for change; a
holistic ... approach is needed. ... the ecological sys-
tem cannot be understood by reducing it to its parts”
(Li 1999). Especially, great value is attached to the
human factors, since “it would be naive to conduct ba-
sic scientific investigations of those landscapes with-
out considering the anthropogenic forces that have
shaped them” (Wiens 1999b) and the “accelerated
landscape change is an anthropogenic phenomenon”...
which “demands a permanent and consequent con-
sideration of the context: nature-technique-society”
(Leser 1997). In other words: “A co-evolutionary rela-
tionship exists between socio-cultural, economic and
environmental systems within the context of a de-
finable landscape, and they cannot be addressed in
a reductionist and deterministic manner” (Fairbanks
et al. 1999).
Integrative approaches in landscape research (and
planning) can contribute to overcome the overspecial-
ization and fragmentation of environmental sciences,
policies and education which lead to fragmentary at-
tempts in the solution of environmental problems,
and they may help to close the sometimes wide gaps
between theory and practice.
That all is not new; it was already drafted by
the fathers of landscape ecology, by Troll (1939),
Schmithüsen (1942), Neef (1967) and others. Neef
(1983) wrote in repetition of earlier ideas, that “land-
scape research as an applied science has to give special
attention to the metabolism between human beings
and earth, ... between nature and society.” According
to Naveh and Lieberman (1984), landscape ecology
761
was born as a human-related science. Also the de-
mands for landscape ecology to consider ethical / cul-
tural aspects (e.g., Swouden-Svobodová 1991, Naveh
1995, Nassauer 1999) have predecessors: Troll (1950)
emphasized that an integrative landscape perspective
has to include not only nature but also culture and the
traditions of the people.
The holistic principle which was postulated al-
ready by Smuts (1926), culminates in the “Total Hu-
man Ecosystem as the highest level of co-evolutionary
complexity, integrating humans and their total envi-
ronment in our biosphere and technosphere landscapes
with emerging properties not existing at the lower lev-
els” (Naveh 1999); i.e., the whole is more than the sum
of the composing parts.
Landscape as a holistic system represents a part of
the ‘Total Human Ecosystem’. Increasingly, thinking
and acting humans are regarded as an inherent part
of the landscape which is defined as a “spatial and
mental unity of the interrelated subsystems geosphere,
biosphere and noosphere” (Tress and Tress 2000).
Such a broad landscape conception unifies the vari-
ety of ecological, aesthetic, social and psychological
aspects, and it philosophically supersedes the con-
tradiction between natural sciences and humanities. I
doubt, however, that the term landscape ecology is the
most favourable one for such a broad ‘meta-science’.
Besides, we should accept that – despite the absolutely
necessary emphasis on the holistic principle – the ex-
amination of the totality of facts and dependences
in the highly-complicated phenomenon landscape re-
presents a cognitive overtaxing (it demands too much
of humans intellectually). Landscape ecologists and
planners cannot consider ‘all things’. Demands lead-
ing to this could not be realized and would be remote
of everyday life.
Holism, however, doesn’t mean the inflationary
(i.e., the far too frequent) use of the term land-
scape ecology for all appearances which are related
with landscape in the broadest sense (see Different
definitions section).
The role of geography
The holistic principle is embodied in both mother
sciences of landscape ecology: in ecology with its
ecosystem approach and in geography which attaches
great value both to spatial aspects and to compre-
hensiveness (e.g., geocomplexes). The space-related
processing and structuring of aggregated, integra-
762
tive parameters belong to the most essential tasks of
geography.
There are several geographical principles which
are often forgotten now in the course of detailed analy-
ses, but which may provide a good basis for wider
generalization of both a methodological and theoret-
ical nature. Such principles are, e.g., the hierarchical
ordering of geocomponents (landscape factors), partial
geocomplexes, discontinuity of natural environment
(applicability from the point to the area), regional-
ization, landscape synthesis (Pietrzak 1998, Solon
1999).
As a consequence of the astronomical development
of landscape ecology, geography has only a minor
part (Finke 1994). Another reason was emphasized by
Neef (1984):
For a long period it had been assumed that nature
and society differed so much in their constituent
causal relationships that a connection between the
two could not be admitted. ... this tended to be the
argument for declaring physical and economic ge-
ography to be two distinct sciences which were to
be strictly separated. However, one decisive mis-
take was made in this. Geography does not concern
itself with natural systems and social systems, but
with landscape regions and their utilization.
Besides, many geographers turned to special is-
sues, which probably can be covered by representa-
tives of other disciplines as well or even better. They
left the holistic view which actually distinguished
geography from other disciplines.
A recollection of the landscape as a complex part
of the earth’s surface, and the consistent application
and further development of geographical principles
mentioned above, would be a fundamental supposition
to strengthen geography’s identity.
Transdisciplinarity/complementarity
It is necessary to take the holistic character of land-
scape ecology into account, including methodolog-
ically. This means less differentiation of branch-
specific procedures and looking for bridges which
allow connection of specific views (Leser 1997), since
the “landscape perspective is full of promise for the re-
alization of the integration of different sciences” (Fa-
rina 1998). For Richling (1994) and Moss (1999) land-
scape ecology is ‘the marriage of biology and geogra-
phy’. The goal for landscape ecology is to come out of
monodisciplinary restrictions (Neef 1985) and develop
to a fairly comprehensive multidisciplinary field. “A
simple understanding of landscape ecology as the in-
tegration of several disciplines (geography, ecology,
...)”, however, “is not acceptable either for landscape
ecologists or for specialists in classical disciplines. A
mere combination of disciplines does not solve the
specific landscape ecological problems. What actually
is specific to landscape ecology? The key factor is
the specific landscape-ecological problem...” (Miklós
1996). Landscape ecology is regarded as a holistic
transdisciplinary science (Naveh and Lieberman 1984,
Naveh 1995; 1999, Miklós 1996), working not only
between but above the ‘mother sciences’. Transdisci-
plinarity means knowledge and research of complex
problems beyond special disciplines. The scientific
questions are defined and solved independently of
particular disciplines (Jaeger and Scheringer 1998).
Striving for a unification of landscape ecology (e.g.,
Wiens 1999b: “Landscape ecology ... must become
conceptually and operationally unified.”) leads to the
question: In what way can we master the diversity
of the landscape sphere? Is it possible with a unified
approach, anyway?
It is hardly possible for practical research to realize
the comprehensive perspective of landscape ecology
(which is based on the model of the complex spa-
tially related landscape ecosystem) through only one
discipline. Inevitably, several disciplines are involved
in the investigation of the landscape ecosystem. It is
necessary to be aware of the fact that each of these
different views has a selective character and grasps
only a part of the complex reality (Leser 1997). Land-
scape ecology “is an interesting mixture of subjects
and motivations for interactive work, as it brings to-
gether different viewpoints” (Golley and Bellot 1991
in Drdoš 1996). In my opinion, landscape ecology
cannot reflect all facts and relations. But it can and
should put special issues into the overall context of
nature-environment-society.
Rightly we can say that the principle of comple-
mentarity is valid in landscape ecology, too. This term
was created more than 60 years ago by Niels Bohr
for nuclear physics: On the one hand, light, electrons
and other elementary objects react as waves, on the
other hand as particles. The appearances of waves and
particles both describe one part of the reality. One de-
scription alone doesn’t give an adequate explanation
of all observations. For the equal use of two ‘pictures’
(statements) which are mutually exclusive, Bohr cre-
ated the term ‘complementarity’. A simple laying of

one picture on top of the other is not possible. The
pre-condition for an actual synthesis of both pictures
is a new dimension; an enlargement of comprehension
in nature description.
Bohr himself supposed that complementarity is a
general dialectical principle in scientific research. This
principle was introduced to geography in the 1980s
(Buchheim 1983, Neef 1985). Because landscape is a
‘compositum’ (i.e., an assembled construct), a system
based on different emerging processes and causalities,
it cannot be analyzed by only one scientific approach.
Different aspects are possible (Neef 1967). This is
the meaning of complementarity in geography (Neef
1985), and respectively landscape ecology: the par-
allelism of independent research disciplines is not a
scientific shortcoming, but a necessity in the inves-
tigation of geographical (i.e., landscape) complexes.
Landscape as a very complicated phenomenon is an-
alyzed and described from various points of view by
different scientific approaches and disciplines. To gain
a comprehensive picture of the landscape, all the mani-
fold ecological, social, cultural, psychological aspects
must be taken into consideration.
The key position of land(scape) evaluation
Landscape diagnosis
An urgent goal in landscape ecology is to achieve
“a strong theoretical and methodological base” (Moss
1999). Especially, it is necessary to promote the
holistic approach. The question, how – going be-
yond general statements – can be realized; how to
implement the specialists’ knowledge into holistic ap-
proaches and how to introduce this in practical land
management/landscape planning?
We are not at zero, a lot of preliminary work has
been done. Among various approaches only some can
be mentioned here. It is true that “landscape ecology
as a science is to provide a firm foundation for applica-
tions, it needs more than an array of disparate findings
about, for example, the effects of fragmentation in
this or that system, on this or that kind of organism”.
It requires more than general statements of the form
‘scale matters’ or “all ecosystems in a landscape are
interrelated. It requires a core of concepts, principles,
methodologies, and predictive theories that generate
specifics from generalities” (Wiens 1999b).
But I don’t agree that landscape ecology has no
“unifying conceptual structure or body of theory”
763
(Wiens 1999b). For example, in Central Europe, es-
pecially in Germany,
over the last few years, landscape research resulted
in the development of an essentially coherent,
highly consistent concept of landscape diagnosis
and those areas of land management that were
based thereupon. Landscape diagnosis is based
upon the results of landscape analysis which, as
a field of scientific research and inventory, serves
the determination of the landscape structure (com-
ponents, space, and time structure) with respect to
its natural, utilization-related, and dynamic char-
acteristics. Landscape diagnosis has as its primary
objective to systematically and methodically deter-
mine the capability of landscapes to meet various
social requirements and define limiting or standard
values, respectively, for securing the stability of
natural conditions and for, if possible, increasing
of performance capacities
(Haase 1990). The term landscape diagnosis was in-
troduced in Germany in the 1950s (Lingner and Carl
1955) following medical diagnosis. In Poland, but also
in other countries,
specificity of landscape ecology manifests itself
in an integrative approach to the object of re-
search, i.e., landscape treated together with man
and the effects of his activity, approaching in a
structural, functional and visual aspect. Landscape
ecology encompasses the analysis of landscape
components and their interrelations, identification
of spatial natural units, the hierarchical classifi-
cation and evaluation of the systems of natural
environment for various forms of human activity,
as well as diagnosis of the way of organization of
natural space
(Richling 1994).
There is no question that only a description of the
landscape is not sufficient for planning purposes. A
purposeful processing of the analytical data is neces-
sary, i.e.,
the combination of results of scientific exploration
and measurements with technical and economic
parameters and, finally, the transformation of
geosynergetic and ecological parameters into eco-
nomic and social indices ... (transferring natural-
science categories to social-science categories in
the field of landscape research
Neef 1969, Haase 1990, Bastian 1998a). The “trans-
formation problem” includes – as a crucial step of
764
landscape diagnosis or “the core of the application
value of landscape ecology” (Zonneveld 1995) –
the evaluation of landscape characteristics with re-
spect to social requirements and functions. Thus,
the gap between natural scientific facts (e.g., struc-
tures, processes and all analytical parameters which
we are dealing with, such as habitat networks, patches
and matrices, patterns and heterogeneity) and socio-
economic aspects can be bridged.
Landscape functions
A fundamental help to realizing the transformation
problem, i.e., the step from categories of nature to
those of society (and vice-versa), is the assessment
of landscape functions. It is not a matter of land-
scape functions in the sense of “fluxes of energy,
mineral nutrients and species between landscape ele-
ments” or “patch-matrix interactions” (Forman 1981),
but in their direct relation to human society. The
approach evaluating landscapes with regard to nat-
ural potentials/landscape functions has been applied in
landscape ecology and planning for many years (e.g.,
Neef 1966, Haase 1978, Mannsfeld 1979, Ružička
and Miklós 1982, Bastian and Röder 1998, Bastian
and Schreiber 1999), such as ecological functioning,
usability, and carrying capacity. Examples of such
landscape functions are: (potential) biotic productiv-
ity, resistance to soil erosion, water retention capacity,
groundwater recharge, groundwater protection, habitat
function, and landscape potential for recreation.
Landscape visions
The problem of ecological goals/landscape visions (in
German, ‘Leitbild’) is a further expression of con-
necting natural science and society. Presently, there is
much discussion about this in landscape planning and
nature conservation. Such goals or visions are seen as
providing a solution where we shall choose different
alternatives in conservation and utilization of nature
and environment (Bastian 1998b). Necessarily, there
are both natural scientific and social points of view.
It is a real challenge for a transdisciplinary landscape
ecology to contribute to the elaboration of scientifi-
cally based ecological goals/landscape visions which
are accepted by human society.
Conclusion
Favouring the holistic concept of landscape ecology,
we should also pay attention to special aspects which
are to integrate into a comprehensive theory. The more
complex a system is, the more complicated is the so-
lution of questions and problems. There are enough
difficulties when combining abiotic and biotic aspects.
To bridge the gap to social aspects (the transformation
problem) is much more complicated. This is still a
wide field for research. There are also still essential
deficits in the practical application of scientific results
and knowledge.
Communication gaps between ecology and the de-
sign/planning disciplines seem to have their roots,
first, in the different approaches of the landscape
ecologists’ scientific descriptions versus the prac-
titioners’ artistic or social value-driven work. Sec-
ond, a lack of cooperation both in research and
practical projects enlarges these gaps
(Ahern 1999). Often enough, landscape planners and
land users (e.g., farmers) also talk at cross purposes.
We also should diminish our euphoria concerning
the general possibilities of planning landscape devel-
opment, anyway. There are thousands or millions of
actors in a landscape with diverse ambitions. How do
we include these ambitions into planning? Which fac-
tors and processes influence landscape development.
In what way can we regulate it? What consequences
for different landscape types result from globaliza-
tion? How can we protect our most valuable old
cultural landscapes? What about the diverging tenden-
cies of land use intensification and urbanisation on the
one side and the progressing marginalization on the
other side? If we solve one problem, two new ques-
tions are opened up. There is a huge amount of work.
Let’s get down to it!
References
Ahern, J.F. 1999. Barriers, opportunities, strategies, and models for
the application of landscape ecology in landscape planning and
design. Abstract, 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO,
USA.
Antrop, M. 1999. Landscape ecology: from concepts and methodol-
ogy towards applications in environmental and spatial planning.
Plenary adress, 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO,
USA.
Bastian, O. 1998a. The assessment of landscape functions – one
precondition to define management goals. Ekológia (Bratislava)
17 (Supplement): 19–33.

Bastian, O. 1998b. Landscape-ecological goals as guiding principles
to maintain biodiversity at different planning scapes. Ekológia
(Bratislava) 17: 49–61.
Bastian, O. and Röder, M. 1998. Assessment of landscape change
by land evaluation of past and present situation. Landsc. Urban
Planning 41: 171–182.
Bastian, O. and Schreiber, K.-F. 1999. Analyse und ökologische
Bewertung der Landschaft. Spektrum, Heidelberg, Germany.
Baume, O., Bastian, O. and Röder, M. 1994. Entwicklung und Stand
der geographischen Landschaftsforschung in Kuba. Petermanns
Geograph. Mitt. 138: 235–244.
Buchheim, W. 1983. Beiträge zur Komplementarität. Abhandl. d.
Sächs. Akad. d. Wiss., Math.-nat. Klasse 55.
Cervantes, J.F., Salinas-Chavez, E. and Rodriguez, M. 1999. Land-
scape ecology – geographical orientation or an interdiscipli-
nary research programme in Cuba and Mexico. Abstract, 5th
IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.
Drdoš, J. 1996. A reflection on landscape ecology. Ekológia
(Bratislava) 15: 369–375.
Fairbanks, D.H.K. and van Jaarsveld, A.S., Norgaard, R.B. 1999.
Development of a coevolutionary landscape ecology framework
for analysing the sustainability of biodiversity conservation.
Abstract, 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.
Farina, A. 1998. Principles and methods in landscape ecology.
Chapman & Hall, London, UK.
Finke, L. 1994. Landschaftsökologie. Westermann. Braunschweig,
Germany.
Forman, R.T.T. 1981. Interaction among landscape elements: a
core of landscape ecology. Proc. Int. Congr. Neth. Soc. Land-
scape Ecol., Veldhoven. Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
pp. 35–48.
Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Haase, G. 1978. Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von Natur-
raumpotentialen. Petermanns. Geograph. Mitt. 112: 113–125.
Haase, G. 1990. Approaches to, and methods of landscape diagno-
sis as a basis of landscape planning and landscape management.
Ekológia (Bratislava) 9: 11–29.
Haber, W. 1979. Theoretische Anmerkungen zur ‘ökologischen
Planung’. Verh. Ges. Ökol. 7: 19–30.
Haines-Young, R. 1999. Landscape pattern: context and process. In
Issues in Landscape Ecology. pp. 33–37. Edited by J.A. Wiens,
and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO,
USA.
Hard, G. 1970. Die ‘Landschaft’ der Sprache und die ‘Landschaft’
der Geographen. Colloquium geograph. 11, Bonn, Germany.
Jaeger, J. and Scheringer, M. 1998. Transdisziplinarität: Proble-
morientierung ohne Methodenzwang. Gaia 7: 10–25.
Jongman, R.H.G. 1999. Landscape ecology in land use planning.
In Issues in Landscape Ecology. pp. 112–118. Edited by J.A.
Wiens, and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass,
CO, USA.
King, A.W. 1999. Hierarchy theory and the landscape...level? Or:
Words do matter. In Issues in landscape ecology. pp. 6–9. Edited
by J.A. Wiens, and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress,
Snowmass, CO, USA.
Lehmann, E. 1986. Wesen und Werk Alexander von Humboldts aus
geowissenschaftlicher Sicht. Abhandl. Akad. Wiss. DDR, Abt.
Math.-Naturwiss.-Technik 2 N. Berlin, Germany. pp. 15-30.
Leser, H. 1997. Landschaftsökologie. Ulmer. Stuttgart, Germany.
Li, B.-L. 1999. Towards a synergetic view of landscape ecology.
Abstract, 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.
765
Lingner, E. and Carl, F.E. 1955. Über die Forschungsarbeit
‘Landschaftsdiagnose der DDR’. Städtebau und Siedlungswe-
sen. pp. 211–220.
Mannsfeld, K. 1979. Die Beurteilung von Naturraumpotentialen als
Aufgabe der geographischen Landschaftsforschung. Petermanns
Geograph. Mitt. 123: 2–6.
Miklós, L. 1996. Landscape-ecological theory and methodology: a
goal oriented application of the traditional scientific theory and
methodology to a branch of a new quality. Ekológia (Bratislava)
15: 377–385.
Moss, M. 1999. Fostering academic and institutional activities in
landscape ecology. In Issues in Landscape Ecology. pp. 138–
144. Edited by J.A. Wiens, and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World
Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.
Naveh, Z. 1987. Biocybernetics and thermodynamic perspectives
of landscape functions and land use patterns. Landsc. Ecol. 1:
75–83.
Naveh, Z. 1995. Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landsc.
Urban Planning 32: 43–54.
Naveh, Z. 1999. What is holistic landscape ecology? Abstract, 5th
IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.
Naveh, Z. and Lieberman, A.S. 1984. Landscape Ecology – Theory
and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.
Nassauer, J.I. 1999. Culture as a means for experimentation and ac-
tion. In Issues in landscape ecology. pp. 129–133. Edited by J.A.
Wiens and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass,
CO, USA.
Neef, E. 1966. Zur Frage des gebietswirtschaftlichen Potentials.
Forsch. Fortschr. 40: 65–79.
Neef, E. 1967. Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschaftslehre.
H. Haack, Gotha, Leipzig, Germany.
Neef, E. 1969. Der Stoffwechsel zwischen Natur und Gesellschaft
als geographisches Problem. Geogr. Rundschau 21: 453–459.
Neef, E. 1983. Landscapes as the integration field of human regional
work. Geol. Mijnbouw 62: 531–534.
Neef, E. 1984. Applied landscape research. Appl. Geogr. Develop.
24: 38–58.
Neef, E. 1985. Über den Begriff ‘Komplementarität’ in der Geogra-
phie. Petermanns Geogr. Mitt. 129: 141–142.
Otahel, J. 1999. The political-economic dimension of landscape
ecology. In Issues in Landscape Ecology. pp. 134–137. Edited
by J.A. Wiens, and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE- World Congress,
Snowmass, CO, USA.
Pietrzak, M. 1998. Syntezy krajobrazowe. Bogucki Wydaw. Nauk.,
Poznan, Poland.
Richling, A. 1994. Landscape ecology as a discipline combining
investigations on natural environment. In Landscape Research
and Its Applications in Environmental Management. pp. 15–19.
Edited by A. Richling, E. Malinowska, and J. Lechnio. Warsaw,
Poland.
Ružička, M. and Miklós, L. 1982. Landcape-ecological planning
(LANDEP) in the process of territorial planning. Ekológia ČSSR
1: 297-312.
Schmithüsen, J. 1942. Vegetationsforschung und ökologische Stan-
dortslehre in ihrer Bedeutung für die Geographie der Kulturland-
schaft. Z. Ges. Erdkunde, pp. 113–157.
Solon, J. 1999. Integrating ecological and geographical (biophys-
ical) principles in studies of landscape systems. In Issues in
Landscape Ecology. pp. 22–27. Edited by J.A. Wiens, and M.R.
Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.
Sočwa, W.B. 1974. Das Systemparadigma in der Geographie.
Petermanns. Geograph. Mitt. 118: 161–166.
766
Swouden-Svobodová, H. 1991. The future of cultural aspects of
European landscapes. Proc. Europ. Seminar Practical Landscape
Ecol. 4: 1–7.
Sukachev, V. and Dylis, N. 1964. Fundamentals of Forest Biogeo-
coenology. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, UK.
Smuts, J. 1926. Holism and Evolution. Macmillan, London, UK.
Tress, B. and Tress, G. 2000. Eine Theorie der Landschaft. Ple-
nary lecture IALE-Deutschland, Nürtingen, 20.–22.7., Abstract
Volume, pp. 14–15.
Troll, C. 1939. Luftbildplan und Ökologische Bodenforschung. Z.
Ges. Erdkunde, pp. 241–298.
Troll, C. 1950. Die geographische Landschaft und ihre Erforschung.
Studium Generale 3. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
Troll, C. 1968. Pflanzensoziologie und Landschaftsökologie. In Ber.
Int. Symp. Ver. Vegetationskunde, Stolzenau/Weser 1963, pp. 1–
21. Edited by R. Tüxen. Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Widacki, W. 1994. The end of the geocomplex paradigm in physical
geography? In Landscape Research and its Applications in Envi-
ronmental Management. pp. 109–113. Edited by A. Richling, E.
Malinowska, and J. Lechnio. Warsaw, Poland.
Wiens, J.A. 1999a. Landscape ecology – scaling from mechanisms
to management. In Perspectives in Ecology. pp. 13–24. Edited by
A. Farina. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Wiens, J.A. 1999b. Toward a unified landscape ecology. In Issues
in Landscape Ecology. pp. 148–151. Edited by J.A. Wiens, and
M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.
Wiens, J.A. and Moss, M.R. 1999. Preface. In Issues in Landscape
Ecology. Edited by J.A. Wiens, and M.R. Moss. 5th IALE-World
Congress, Snowmass, CO, USA.
Zonneveld, I.S. 1995. Land Ecology. SPB Academic Publishing,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.