Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Steiner
Consulting Editor
George F. Thompson
Series Founder and Director
A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.
F O R E WO R D, by Frederick R. Steiner ix
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S xiii
INTRODUCTION
21
Acceptance 22
Era of Diversity 28
Eciency and Accuracy of Information Management
Functioning of Landscapes 29
Culture in Ecological Planning 31
29
vi
Contents
44
54
55
62
126
135
135
143
102
Contents
Ecosystem-Evaluation Methods
Holistic-Ecosystem-Management Methods
147
160
THE APPLIED-LANDSCAPE-ECOLOGY
A P P R O A C H 166
A Historical Summary 168
Landscape Ecology and Ecological Planning: Major Connections 171
Basic Concepts 173
Ecosystem Functions at the Landscape Scale 173
Ordering of Landscape-Ecology Knowledge 175
Bridging Concepts 177
Ecotope Assemblages 177
The Patch-Corridor-Matrix Spatial Framework 179
Hydrological Landscape Structure 181
Habitat Networks 182
Landscape-Ecology-Based Spatial Guidelines 183
Landscape-Ecological Planning: Procedural Directives and Applications
Selected Uses of Ecotope Assemblages 186
Uses of the Patch-Corridor-Matrix Spatial Frameworks 189
Uses of Habitat Networks 192
Landscape-Ecology-and-Optimization Method (LANDEP) 193
vii
146
185
199
204
221
viii
Contents
EPILOGUE
237
N O T E S 241
REFERENCES
I N D E X 281
263
230
foreword
Foreword
ronmental Policy Act of mandated the use of the environmental design arts
in federal decision making. As a result, the term environmental design became institutionalized within the federal bureaucracy. Third, the concepts of environmental design and environmental planning evolved from architecture and planning. The design disciplines have a long history in both intervention in and
manipulation of our surroundings, as well as the creation of places. Architects
give form to built urban environments. Planners suggest policy options for human
settlements. Environments have a strong visual connotation. Architects are comfortable with visual aesthetics.
Ecology, the understanding of interactions, is more unsettling, even subversive.
Ecological thinking is challenging. It forces us to rethink our view of economics
and business. It suggests dierent ways to plan and design. It also confronts our
values and religious beliefs, although all faiths address human connections to the
natural world and stewardship responsibilities for future generations.
In contrast to environmental design and planning, ecological design and planning developed in the United States within academic programs of landscape architecture. The discipline of landscape architecture originated in the mid-nineteenth
century in agricultural and horticulture colleges. These colleges were established
as a result of land-grant legislation signed by President Abraham Lincoln in .
This law, the Morrill-Wade Act, provided land grants to the states to establish public agricultural and technical colleges. A strong supporter of this system was the
pioneer landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, who was involved in the planning of the campuses for several land-grant colleges. Subsequently, Olmsteds
sons, Frederick Jr. and John, subsequently carried on this tradition of campus planning, especially at growing land-grant schools.
A second development in landscape-architecture education was the establishment of a landscape-architecture program with close ties to architecture at Harvard University in . In contrast to the program in the land-grant colleges,
which emphasized agriculture and horticulture, Harvards program emphasized
design. Under the leadership of Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. and John Nolen, Harvard initiated a city-planning program in the early twentieth century. Many American universities followed Harvards example of closely aligning landscape architecture with architecture and planning. As a result, two traditions in landscape
architecture were established, one emphasizing rural concerns and natural resources, the other focusing on design and urban planning.
Ecological design and planning represents a fusion of those traditions. Ian
McHarg began a graduate program in landscape architecture and planning after
the Harvard model at the University of Pennsylvania in . Largely inuenced
by his intellectual mentor, Lewis Mumford, McHarg began advocating the use of
ecology as a basis for design in the early s. To accomplish his goal of merging
design with ecology, McHarg infused a faculty of designers with natural and
social scientists. To complement the design program, McHarg established a
regional-planning program with a strong Mumford-ecological orientation. Many
Forword
xi
programs in landscape architecture and planning both in the United States and
abroad were inuenced by McHargs approach.
McHargs synthesis was inspired, but ecological planning remains an unnished, evolving eld. Much work is needed to advance theory and develop
methods. The quest to plan with nature is important. Sustainable development requires ecological planning. We need to do more than manipulate our surroundings; we must change how we interact with our environments, other living creatures, and one another. We cannot lay the foundation for a sustainable future
without an understanding of how we interact with our physical, biological, and
built environments. Such an understanding is also necessary if we are to go beyond sustainability and create regenerative communities.
Because ecological planning is both an unnished and an important discipline,
it is an exciting discipline for young people. With so much to do, a young person
entering the eld can make valuable contributions. Forster Ndubisi describes
where we have come from and our current status.
Forster Ndubisi is an ideal author for a book on the status of ecological planning. Like many engaged in advancing ecological planning, Professor Ndubisi is
both a theorist and a practitioner. More accurately, he is an academic practitioner
who selects real-life planning projects that will advance the eld. He has undertaken a series of research-oriented planning exercises, rst in Canada, then in
Georgia, and now in Washington State. Forster Ndubisi is a reective practitioner
who brings to each endeavor a knowledge of the past to advance the art and science of ecological planning. This book collects that knowledge and will help others to build on his careful and thoughtful understanding of the past and hope for
the future.
frederick r. steiner
Austin, Texas
acknowledgments
I am very grateful to the many people who made signicant contributions to the
development of this manuscript. I would like to thank my former and current research assistants at both the University of Georgia and Washington State University: Kris Larson, Rajesh George, Nicole Alexander, Michelle Hanna, Courtney
Dunlap, and especially Devin Fitzpatrick. Matt Rapelje deserves special mention
for redrawing most of the illustrations.
Frederick R. Steiner, former professor and director of planning and landscape
architecture at Arizona State University and now dean, College of Architecture at
the University of Texas, Austin, persuaded me to work on the manuscript and reviewed earlier versions of the entire manuscript. I also beneted greatly from the
insightful reviews and criticisms of Bob Scarfo, professor of landscape architecture at Washington State University, and Frank Golley, emeritus research professor of ecology at the University of Georgia. I thank former colleagues at the
School of Environmental Design, The University of Georgia, for their valuable
comments: Darrel Morrison, Ian Firth, Catherine Howett, William Mann, and
Bruce Ferguson.
I owe particular thanks to Melody Matthews for her invaluable contribution in
getting this manuscript into shape. Others who deserve special credit are Ruby
Latham, Kristie Wardrop, and Cathy Greif. Many of my friends and current colleaguesfar more that I can name hereprovided help and advice in preparing
this manuscript: Sheila Vanvoorhis, Kerry Brooks, and Sonya Ala. I also thank
George F. Thompson, president of the Center for American Places, for his support
and encouragement and for reviewing very rough drafts of this manuscript.
xiii
xiv
Acknowledgments
introduction
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to do otherwise. a l d o l e o p o l d, 1 94 9
H U M A N A C T I O N S A N D N AT U R A L P R O C E S S E S
In the nineteenth century, visionary thinkers like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry
David Thoreau, John Muir, Frederick Law Olmsted, and George Perkins Marsh
alerted us to the eects of human abuses of the landscape. In the same tradition,
Aldo Leopold, the University of Wisconsin wildlife biologist, laid the ethical foundation governing the relationships between humans and nature in his seminal
work, A Sand County Almanac, rst published in . Yet, as we look around us today, we are disturbed that landscapes that serve as life-support systems for humans
and other organisms continue to be progressively degraded to accommodate our
daily needs for food, work, shelter, and recreation. This landscape degradation is
a global phenomenon (Fig. I.).
In the Club of Rome issued The Limits of Growth, a widely read book that
alerted us to the devastating impacts of the Wests exploitative economic and political systems on the landscape.1 This theme was explored in greater depth in
in Our Common Future, a report by the World Commission on Environment and
Development.2 This report concluded that the current mode of economic development is unsustainable and urged nations to seek ways to ensure global sustainability. In the Rio Declaration warned of the growing urgency of deal
Ecological Planning
Fig. I.. Critical erosion of unseeded fallow land in the Palouse area, Washington State. Photograph by V. Kaiser,
.
Introduction
Ecological Planning
cal events shaped the development of the approaches. This information provides a basis for
grouping the individual approaches based on common themes. Many of the approaches discussed in
this book were proposed just prior to and just after . Two signicant events made pivotal:
the publication of Ian McHargs important book
Design with Nature () and the passage of the
National Environmental Policy Act. In his book,
which has been translated into Italian, Japanese,
French, and German, McHarg, of the Department
of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning
at the University of Pennsylvania, outlined a theoretical and technical basis for ecologically based
planning and design. NEPA made it national policy to use ecological information in planning.
Many other nations have since adopted similar
policies. A majority of the approaches to ecological planning were developed during or after this
period. Lastly, it should be noted that developments in the research domain do not necessarily
coincide with those in professional practice. Many
methodological innovations in professional practice are not documented. Thus, while I focus on
the development of these approaches in the literature, I draw on examples from practice to illustrate the type, scale, and context of application.
BASIC CONCEPTS
The landscape is the geographical template for undertaking ecological planning. It implies the totality of natural and cultural features on, over, and in
the land.6 The natural and cultural features that
make up a landscape include visible features such
as elds, hills, forests, and water bodies. These visible features reect the culture of the lands inhabitants. Landscapes change over time as humans mold natural processes, sometimes in tune
with the rhythms of natural processes, at other
times altering them. I use the term landscape to denote the interface between human and natural
processes (Fig. I.).
Introduction
Fig. I.. Nijo Castle, Kyoto, Japan. The harmony between human and natural processes is reinforced in this Kyoto
landscape. Photograph by Matthew Rapelje, .
Ecological Planning
In practice, these activities may not occur in the sequence presented here because of feedback from
some of the activities. Because each major ecological planning approach represents a body of
consistent ideas, data requirements, and techniques for putting the ideas into practice, they
dier in how they provide guidance to landscape
architects and planners as they move from activities through . For example, the McHarg, or University of Pennsylvania, suitability approach is
quite dierent from the approach suggested by
R. Forman and M. Godron in Landscape Ecology
(). Both are major ecological approaches, but
their methods dier. The soil-capability system of
the National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), as well as the Angus Hillss physiographicunit classication, are two methods within the
landscape-suitability approach.
No single profession can understand fully all the
intricacies involved in making decisions about the
wise and sustained use of the land. Ecological
planning is a multidisciplinary eort, eectively
undertaken by a team made up of anthropologists, ecologists, foresters, botanists, geographers,
T H E N AT U R E
OF THE DISCOURSE
The story I tell here is divided into four thematic
sections. Chapter , Ecological Planning in a Historical Perspective, is a short, systematic account
of the development of ecological planning from
the mid-eighteenth century to the present. This
account provides a background for understanding
the evolution of ecological-planning approaches. I
focus on the major eras in the development of the
discipline of ecological planning within the profession of landscape architecture while also illuminating parallel developments within the eld of
urban and regional planning. I emphasize the key
events and people associated with the translation
of ecological ideas into planning and the development of related techniques for putting the ideas
into practice. Since the appeal to peoples appreciation of the natural and cultural features of landscapes is an important area of study in landscape
Introduction
Ecological Planning
how they are related and to explore their similarities and dierences. The examination is undertaken at the level of basic concepts and principles.
Even at that, the approaches and their variations
are so diverse as to make any meaningful comparison dicult. Thus, representative applications are
used to illustrate the theoretical intent, procedural
principles, and outputs of each approach. I then
speculate when and why one approach may be
preferred over others.
ecological planning
in a historical perspective
E VO LU T I O N O F A PA R A D I G M
Ecological planning in the United States evolved as a part of landscape architecture in the mid-nineteenth century. In order to fully understand the various approaches to ecological planning, one must rst understand the history of the eld.
Every profession has a life cycle, and ecological planning is no dierent. The major phases of the development of ecological planning reect those identied in
Thomas Kuhns classic work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, rst published
in . Kuhn used the idea of a paradigm to assess the evolution of the scientic
community. A paradigm is a philosophical and theoretical framework within
which a professional community can formulate solutions to problems previously
deemed unsolvable. The acquisition of a paradigm is a sign of the communitys
maturity.
Kuhn asserted that major changes in scientic thought occur periodically when
existing paradigms do not adequately explain anomalies. The changes initially
take the form of a new paradigm that provides another way of interpreting existing knowledge. Planners and landscape architects have used Kuhns idea of paradigm development to examine the evolution of their professions.1 In a similar
manner, I use it in exploring how ecological planning evolved. Like Kuhn, I refer
to the developmental phases of ecological planning as follows: awakening, formation, consolidation, acceptance, and diversity.2 These phases do not correspond
exactly with the phases that Kuhn suggested.3 However, his ideas are instructive
in explaining the progression from one phase to the next.
Ecological Planning
AWA K E N I N G
The period from the mid-nineteenth century to
the early twentieth century witnessed the initial
articulation of basic values and beliefs of ecological planning. According to Kuhn, this awakening
phase is usually marked by a continued competition between a number of distinct views of nature
. . . all roughly compatible.4 Prior to the midnineteenth century, visionary thinkers espousing
various ideas about humans and nature established the rudimentary foundations for ecological
planning.5 The most prominent among these
thinkers were George Catlin, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau.
In the s George Catlin ( ), a lawyer,
artist, and, later, historian of Native American cultures, was deeply concerned about the inuence
of civilization on the lifestyles of Native Americans. Visiting the Far West to study the history and
customs of Native Americans there, Catlin was astonished by the beauty and elegance of the natural
landscape. He concluded that nature was the true
source of knowledge and advocated the creation
of nature preserves containing man and beast, in
the wild and freshness of their natures beauty!6
At about the same time that Catlin was traveling in the Far West, Ralph Waldo Emerson (
) began developing ideas for his book Nature,
published in . A pastor by profession, Emerson
had a passion for nature. He believed that the natural world revealed spiritual truth. He espoused an
anthropocentric view of nature, in which nature
existed for the sole use of humans. However,
Emersons philosophy was also opposed to destroying nature. Indeed, he regarded nature as a
source of spiritual healing for humankind.
Henry David Thoreau (), a writer and
neighbor of Emersons in Concord, Massachusetts, was deeply inuenced by Emersons ideas
and by his overwhelming passion for nature. A
Transcendentalist, Thoreau departed from Emersons anthropocentric view of nature. For him, na-
A Historical Perspective
Fig. .. Widely regarded as the founder of the profession of landscape architecture, Frederick Law Olmsted
Sr. espoused a philosophy that successfully blended
ecological, aesthetic, and social perspectives of ecological planning. Photograph courtesy of W. Mann.
of Minneapolis and St. Paul in . The plan reected Clevelands earlier call for an examination
of the intrinsic character of landscapes to accommodate human growth. In the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries the landscape architects
Ossian Cole Simonds ( ) and Jens Jensen
() continued the Olmstedian argument
for planning that emphasized harmony with the
laws of nature. Harmony would be best achieved,
they argued, by understanding, revealing, and preserving landscape forms and scenery reecting the
local and regional character.
Olmsteds ideas about landscapes were also
heavily inuenced by the naturalistic theme in the
English tradition of garden design, advocated in
the writings of William Gilpin (), Uvedale Price (), and Humphry Repton
Ecological Planning
day as the overlay technique, provides a way to systematically document and evaluate information to
be used in planning and design. In the Olmsted
oces Boston Metropolitan Park plan, Eliot used
a variety of consultants to survey, compile maps,
and evaluate the metropolitan regions geology,
topography, and vegetation. The maps became the
basis for the overlay process, which Eliot described
as follows:
By making use of sun-prints of recorded boundary
plans, by measuring compass lines along the numerous woodpaths, and by sketching the outlines
of swamps, clearings, ponds, hills, and valleys, extremely serviceable maps were soon produced.
The draughting of the several sheets was done in
our oce. Upon one sheet of tracing-cloth were
drawn the boundaries, the roads and paths, and the
lettering . . . ; on another sheet were drawn the
streams, ponds, swamps; and on a third the hill
shading was roughly indicated by pen and pencil.
Gray sun-prints obtained from the three sheets superimposed in the printing frame, when mounted
on cloth, served very well for all purposes of study.
Photo-lithographed in three colors, namely, black,
blue, and brown, the same sheets will serve as
guide maps for the use of the public and the illustration of reports. Equipped with these maps, we
have made good progress, as before remarked, in
familiarizing ourselves with the lay of the land.16
A Historical Perspective
greatest number for the longest time.18 Thus, implicit in the notion of conservation is the multiple
and sustained uses of natural resources. Initially,
the conservation movement oundered because
of a vagueness of purpose, but it was reenergized
when it began to focus on soil conservation during
the era of the New Deal, beginning in the s.
By landscape architecture was well established as a profession whose practitioners dealt
projects ranging from small, site-specic ones to
plans for large tracts of land.19 In terms of largescale planning, a belief system for guiding the
management of the landscape was beginning to
emerge. The belief system was a loose aggregation of competing ideas proposed by many visionary thinkers. The key ideas in the belief system centered around an understanding of the
intrinsic character of the land from both ecological and aesthetic perspectives as a basis for assessing and guiding the wise use of the landscape for
human use and enjoyment.
I call it a belief system because it was based primarily on faith; its tenets were not yet founded on
rigorous proof. Moreover, there was very little
guidance on how to translate the ideas into practice. Techniques for implementing the ideas relied
primarily on trial and error and personal reconnaissance of the landscape in light of the issues being considered.20 Nevertheless, this belief system
was empirically validated in large-scale projects
that landscape architects and planners were involved in during the park movement of the early
to mid-twentieth century.
T H E F O R M AT I V E E R A
The formative stage of the eld of ecological planning was marked by a series of innovative and
rather successful attempts to plan open-space systems, state parks, and national parks, based on a
belief system. Beginning with the Yosemite State
Park in , the idea of state parks slowly developed until the s, when states such as Califor-
Ecological Planning
based on a systematic understanding of the relationship between the regional landscape, peoples
economic activities, and their cultures. Interestingly, the importance of folk-work-place attributes in understanding a region would become an
underlying principle in the theory of human ecological planning proposed by Ian McHarg fty
years later.
The concept of regionalism was promoted as a
form of cultural philosophy in the s and s
by the Regional Planning Association of America
(RPAA). Members of this small group included
Catherine Bauer, Benton MacKaye, Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein, and Henry Wright. The
members of the RPAA saw the region as the primary building block of human culture and social
life.26 They viewed the region as a territorial
community distinguished by a common history,
common social institutions, and a shared view of
the relationship between humans and the environment. In addition, the RPAA promoted the
idea of wilderness areas advanced earlier by
George Perkins Marsh and John Muir as an important element of the regional mosaic. Despite
the interest in regionalism, what actually constitutes a region is a thorny issue that landscape architects, planners, geographers, and others continue to debate. Their debates revolve around such
issues as whether a region implies a drainage
basin, a watershed, a physiographic province, a
cultural entity, or a political unit.
Members of the RPAA argued forcefully for restricting the spread of the metropolis and the
growth of dinosaur cities, to the extent that
President Franklin Roosevelt made regional planning a major focus of his New Deal in the s.27
Others inuenced by this group include Howard
W. Odum and the New Deal economist Rexford
Tugwell, who guided the development of the
greenbelt communities during the Depression.28
Advances in ecology, or an understanding of the
interrelationships between organisms and their
living and nonliving environment, were already
A Historical Perspective
Ecological Planning
Henry Wright and Clarence Steins plan for Radburn, New Jersey (). In addition, ecological
principles were constantly being rened, especially in the area of energy transformations in populations and in the development and evolution of
landscapes. The regional scale was promoted and
used as a basis for conducting landscape surveys.
The overlay technique for analyzing natural and
cultural data was tested in a variety of projects;
however, integrating ecological ideas into planning was still rudimentary.
Another feature of the latter phase of the formative era in ecological planning was a shift in emphasis from the need to understand the intrinsic character of the landscape to how the understanding
might be better applied with rigor and consistency
in guiding human use of the landscape. When consistency is lacking, dierent outcomes may be
reached using the same information. Kuhn pointed
out that an early, pre-paradigm phase can be distinguished readily by insuciency of methodological
directives to dictate unique substantive conclusions to the many questions confronting a professional community.36 Explicit methodological rules
governing ecological-planning eorts had yet to be
formulated.
C O N S O L I D AT I O N
The developments that eventually led to a recognizable paradigm for ecological planning were: ()
the continued evolution of ecological ideas; () the
translation of ecological ideas into planning and
the articulation of ethical principles governing humans relation to the land; and () the renement
of techniques for applying ecological ideas to
planning eorts. These developments were in part
shaped by social events that occurred in the United
States between the s and s.
The beginning of the consolidation era was
marked by economic, social, and environmental
upheaval associated with the Great Depression.
President Franklin Roosevelt initiated the New
A Historical Perspective
Ecological Planning
ter understanding of how animal and plant communities interact with their physical environment.
In Arthur Tansley (), an English botanist, coined the term ecosystem to describe the
biological and physical, or biophysical, features
of the environment considered as a whole. The
ecosystem, in turn, was part of the hierarchy of
physical systems ranging from the universe to the
atom. The key idea in the ecosystem concept was
the progression of natural systems toward equilibrium, which, as Tansley acknowledged, was
never completely attained.37
Following Tansleys lead, scientists investigated
the various interactions between the biological
and physical environment, such as the energy
transactions between organisms and their environment. The prominent ecologist Eugene Odum,
of the University of Georgias School of Ecology,
contributed immensely to the eld of systems
ecology from the late s to the s. In
Thieneman described trophic levels, or feeding
relationships, between producers (self-nourishing
organisms, such as green plants) and consumers
(other-nourishing organisms, such as animals, including humans). But the rst person to quantitatively examine Tansleys ecosystem concept was
Raymond Lindeman, in , through his studies
on Cedar Bog Lake in Minnesota.38 He attempted
to describe and understand the behavior of ecosystems. Lindemans work was the catalyst for subsequent work in ecological studies.
The ow of nutrients between the biological
and physical environments was another important
feature of ecosystems. In his well-known book
Biosphere, rst published in , the Russian scientist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky showed that
chemical elements such as nitrogen and phosphorus ow back and forth between organisms and
their physical environment. His subsequent work
focused on the geochemistry of the biosphere.
Based on Vernadskys work on aquatic ecosystems
in the s and s, G. E. Hutchinson (whom
Raymond Lindeman worked for before his sudden
A Historical Perspective
Ecological Planning
A Historical Perspective
For him, living within a landscapes carrying capacity represented ecological health. Carrying capacity would became an important concept used
by landscape architects and planners in resolving
people-nature conicts. In addition, Vogt reinforced Aldo Leopolds reverence for life, a reverence that was also implicit in the writings of
Thoreau and Emerson.
That an understanding of culture is necessary
for an understanding of ecological relationships
was the primary theme in Paul Searss work, a
theme he articulated in The Ecology of Man.51 Sears
was a distinguished botanist who started the rst
U.S. graduate program in the conservation of natural resources at Yale University in . For Sears,
culture was a function of resources and population. He showed how peoples use of the biosphere is related to their values and attitudes.
In various ways, McKenzie, Mumford, Dewey,
Graham, Vogt, and Sears explored how knowledge of the interactions between humans and the
environment could be used to guide social action.
At the same time, they realized that humans have
characteristics that distinguish them from the
other organisms that constitute the biotic community. Eugene Odum provided a succinct summary of the nature of these characteristics in his
important book Fundamentals of Ecology in :
The study of general ecology can contribute to the
social sciences through the connecting link of human ecology. . . . However, we must go beyond the
principles of general ecology because human society has several important characteristics which
make the human population unit quantitatively, if
not qualitatively, dierent from all other populations. In the rst place, mans exible behavior and
his ability to control his surroundings are greater
than those of other organisms. In the second place,
man develops culture which, except to a very rudimentary extent, is not a factor in any other
species.52
Ecological Planning
were published under the title Mans Role in Changing the Face of the Earth in .56 One important
outcome of the conference was a renewed commitment to increasing public awareness about the
consequences of landscape abuse and to developing techniques and management strategies for
eectively dealing with land, water, and air degradation.
A C C E P TA N C E
The acceptance era might be considered the period
of paradigm consensus, to use Thomas Kuhns
term, in the life cycle of ecological planning, the period when all the ingredients of an acceptable paradigmthe ethical foundation, working theories
and concepts, techniques, and ideas for putting theory into practicewere woven together in a coherent fashion. The beginning of this era coincided
with many social and political upheavals that took
place in the United States during the s.57 For
the rst time, Americans publicly questioned the
values that had propelled the United States to
become an industrial and technological society.
Protests against a growing technological culture
bolstered the emerging environmental crusade in
a way that brought ecology and environmental
ethics to the forefront of public attention.
In Rachel Carson () published her
enormously inuential and popular book Silent
Spring, which has since been published in many
languages. Carson alerted readers to the widespread injury caused by the unwise use of pesticides and urged that alternative means of pest control be found. Many people regard the publication
of Silent Spring as the beginning of the environmental crusade. Prominent scholars outside of
landscape architecture and the planning professions also wrote about abuses of the environmental, including the misuse of technology,58 overpopulation,59 the degradation of landscapes,60 the
failure to wisely manage the worlds nite resources,61 and visual degradation.62
A Historical Perspective
As public consciousness of environmental degradation rose, there were signicant eorts to nding way to mitigate human abuses of the landscape. Beginning in , the U.S. Congress passed
many pieces of environmental legislation aimed at
stopping the physical and visual degradation of
landscapes and enhancing their environmental
quality. The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act
of mandated the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to
manage national forests for multiple uses. The
uses included outdoor recreation, wildlife and sh
conservation, as well as protection and conservation of rangeland, timber, and watersheds. The act
emphasized the protection of biological diversity,
encouraged the sustained yield of forest ecosystems, and mandated comprehensive long-range
planning. Moreover, it prompted many landmanagement experts in the USFS to experiment
with the various interpretations of the notion of
multiple use.
Two primary interpretations of the notion of
multiple use emerged. Applied to a particular
tract of land, multiple use refers to the management of various resources on that piece of land.
Applied to resources, it refers to utilization and
management of a particular resource for varied
uses.63 The rst interpretation suggests developing a framework for assessing the physical, economic, and social resources in order to make informed land-management decisions. The second
interpretation suggests discovering interrelationships among various resources to determine resource capabilities. Although the desirability of
multiple use was widely accepted, agreement was
lacking on how it should be accomplished. Nevertheless, the approaches developed by the USFS for
managing the multiple use of the landscape inuenced the evolution of methods prescribed later
by landscape architects and planners for mitigating human abuses of the landscape.
The Land and Water Conservation Act of
provided additional support for the protection of
recreational landscapes. Among other things, it
provided federal funds for states to develop statewide comprehensive outdoor plans. Other acts
passed by Congress to protect recreational landscapes include the Wild and Scenic River Act and
the Recreational and Scenic Trails Act of .
Expanding the federal governments role in resource planning, on and May , President
Lyndon B. Johnson convened a White House Conference on Natural Beauty. While the conference
addressed numerous issues, such as scenic roads
and parkways, townscape, and land reclamation,
the overriding emphasis was on aesthetics in
human-made landscapes rather than on natural
landscapes. The proceedings of the conference illuminated the serious threats to natural beauty resulting from increased pressures for space to live,
work, and play. One conclusion was that although
beauty was dicult to measure, the opportunity for
people to be in contact with beauty was essential
to the preservation of human welfare and dignity.
The conservation of the quality of landscapes
need not be concerned solely with protection and
development of natural landscapes; it should also
be concerned with the restoration and innovation
of human-made landscapes.64 An example of such
an eort to restore human-dominated landscapes
is the Highway Beautication Act of . The act
may be viewed as a way to restore the visual quality of ordinary landscapes. The acts results were
mixed, however, as some states failed to take the
necessary actions to ensure successful implementation.
The rst major federal legislation for protecting
environmental quality was the Water Control Act
of , which created signicant grants to enable
states to build or improve water-treatment facilities and established a Federal Water Control Advisory Board.65 After these initial attempts to address concerns about visual and water quality,
however, it was twenty-one years before the next
landmark environmental legislation was passed by
Congress in November and signed by President Richard M. Nixon on January .
Ecological Planning
In the Midwest, Philip Lewis, a landscape architect and professor who was initially at the University of Illinois and later at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, made signicant advances in
developing methods for protecting unique recreational resources, which were rapidly disappearing. Unlike Hills, whose work was based primarily
on examining biological and physical systems such
as landforms and soils, Lewis was more concerned
with perceptual features, such as vegetation and
scenery. In his Quality Corridor Study for Wisconsin
Lewis used overlays to assess natural and perceptual resources for the entire state of Wisconsin
(Fig. .). He found that the unique perceptual resources in the Midwest were surface water, wet-
Fig. .. Wisconsins environmental corridors and landscape personalities. Philip Lewis used USGS maps to
delineate water, wetlands, and signicant topography
patterns that make up environmental corridors. Ninety
percent of the natural and cultural values that people
cherished fell within the environmental-corridor and
landscape-personalities categories, which were used to
prioritize the lands purchased for protection. Landscape
personalities are areas of distinct visual qualities based
on the physical characteristics of the landscape. Reproduced by permission of Philip Lewis.
A Historical Perspective
information. McHarg viewed the method as a direct divergence from methods used in planning, in
which the bulk of information employed was
based on criteria that were often ambiguous and
covert. In short, his was a defensible approach,
which may explain why it continues to appeal to
practitioners and scholars today.
Other signicant contributions were being
made that would further solidify the importance
of ecological planning and rene its methods and
procedures. In Carl Steinitz and his colleagues
at Harvard University applied computer technology to ecological planning. The application was
consolidated in such projects as the study of an
interstate highway in Rhode Island. Also in the
late s, Burt Litton, at the University of California at Berkeley, began to develop approaches
for protecting unique scenic and cultural qualities
in the landscape. Others followed, including Jay
Appleton, Rachael Kaplan, Stephen Kaplan, Sally
Schauman, and Ervin Zube. The Israeli planner
and architect Artur Glikson, for example, further
claried the role of regions in ecological planning.72
The period was signicant in the evolution of ecological-planning theory and methods.
The intensity of developments compares to that
during the awakening era in ecological planning.
The environmental movement and the passage of
NEPA in opened the way for landscape architects and related professionals to assess natural,
cultural, and visual resources of large areas. Numerous successful applications made McHargs
suitability method the modus operandi for the
bulk of ecological-planning work undertaken by
practitioners at the time. Indeed, the suitability approach satised most of the conditions stipulated
by Thomas Kuhn for achieving paradigm consensus. McHargs approach could be used to examine, set the parameters for, and solve with better precision the problems dealing with human
use and abuse of the landscape. However, a lingering question remained: Did the suitability ap-
Ecological Planning
A Historical Perspective
Likens conducted at their Hubbard Brook laboratory in New Hampshire in have had direct and
profound implications for ecological planning.78
They empirically demonstrated that the watershed was an ecological unit whose properties and
behavior could be studied. They also showed how
watersheds behaved under various circumstances,
so that given a set of conditions, one could manipulate and even predict their behavior. Building
upon previous ecological studies, Bormann and
Likens made it possible to study ecological systems at various scales and to relate changes in their
nutrient budgets to ecosystem recovery. The watershed concept was developed further in the s in
an attempt to demonstrate empirically that watersheds displayed characteristics that made them distinct ecological entities. The signicant ecosystem
studies were the study of the Coweeta River basin,
in the southern Appalachian Mountains, and the
Experimental Lakes Project in Canada.79
Eugene Odums work in shed light on the
manner in which ecosystems change in response
to human actions.80 He developed a working
model that made more evident the functional relationships between the types of landscapes required by people and the ecological functions
required to support them. Odums model divided
the landscape according to its basic ecological
roles: production (e.g., agriculture, forestry), protection (wetlands, mature forests), compromise or
multiple-use (suburbs under a forest canopy), and
nonvital uses (urban, industry). Using these categories, Odums model provided a theoretical basis
for understanding the functioning of landscapes.
Julius Fabos and his coworkers at the University of
Massachusetts in Amherst used Odums model
as the basis for developing a comprehensive approach to regional land-use planning. There were
numerous similar eorts to rene and translate
ecological ideas into planning.
It is useful at this point to explain the ways the
ecosystem concept has been used in ecological
studies. The concept has been viewed as an object
Ecological Planning
or as a framework for organizing ecological research. When the ecosystem is viewed as an object, emphasis is placed on studying the ecotype,
which is the smallest spatial area in the landscape
that has homogenous properties, for example a
tilled farm eld. Bormann and Likens, for instance, chose the watershed as the object to be
studied. When the ecosystem concept is viewed as
a framework, it serves as a useful way of thinking
and understanding the world in terms of how the
components are linked and interact. Frank Golley
elaborated: If we adopt the latter point of view
[ecosystem as framework] we will manage our relations with others and with the environment in a
dierent way than if we view humans and nature
as separate systems. Thus, the ecosystem perspective can lead toward an ecological philosophy, and
from philosophy it can lead to an environmental
value system, environmental law, and a political
agenda.81
If we accept this statement, it follows that ecological planners and designers adopt the ecosystem concept as a bridge between object and
framework. They draw upon information from
ecological studies that use the ecosystem as an object for content knowledge but rely primarily on
the ecosystem as framework for guidance in a
philosophical and conceptual way in mediating
the dialogue between human and natural processes. Certainly, using the ecosystem concept as a
bridge between object and framework is consistent with the planner John Friedmanns denition
of planning as an activity centrally concerned with
linking knowledge to action.82 The usage also reinforces the fact that ecological planners integrate
and interpret information provided by various disciplines in providing options for decisions regarding the wise and sustained use of a landscape.
Developments in remote-sensing technology
in the s and s made it possible to study
forested ecosystems that were much larger than
those traditionally examined in ecology. This
meant that more accurate information became
ERA OF DIVERSITY
I argued earlier that the suitability approach
emerged as an accepted paradigm for problem
solving in ecological planning. Consistent with
Thomas Kuhns framework for the development
of scientic communities, the acceptance of the
suitability approach enabled focused debate about
alternative ways to reconcile human use and abuse
of the landscape, especially in light of the new,
stringent conditions discussed above. Since the
A Historical Perspective
Functioning of Landscapes
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the inner workings of the landscape we must look at it
in terms of structure, processes, and location. By
structure I mean the composition of biological and
nonliving elements in natural and human environments. The structure has to do with the functional relationship between elements such as climate, landforms, soils, ora, and fauna. Process
implies the movement of energy, materials, and
organisms in the landscape, and location refers to
the spatial distribution of elements and processes
in the landscape.
McHargs approach recognizes the signicance
of landscape processes but does not provide
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. The layer-cake model illuminates the relationships among abiotic, biotic, and cultural elements across the
landscape (Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd, ). Redrawn by M. Rapelje, .
A Historical Perspective
cesses occurs. It also regards the landscape as a mosaic of interacting ecosystems, connected by ows
of energy and materials.
Over time ecosystems develop an identiable
visual as well as cultural identity. Since ecosystems
of any size can be studied, and since the ows of
energy and materials between ecosystems of
dierent sizes can be identied, it follows that
landscape ecology provides the conceptual and
geographical basis for studying land at a practical
scale. By extension, it allows us to understand a
landscape in relation to its social and natural contexts.
Landscape ecology strengthens the theoretical
base of ecology by enabling both planners and
ecologists to understand the land in terms of the
relationship between three inseparable perspectives: visual, chronological, and ecosystem.90 If
planners and ecologists can begin to understand
the landscape from the same perspective, then
ecological information can be better interpreted
to provide both ecologically sound landscapes and
landscapes that embody meaning, identity, and a
sense of place. The application of landscape ecology in managing landscapes in North America,
however, is still relatively new. Some pioneering
examples have resulted from the eorts of landscape architects, planners, and ecologists such as
Jack Ahern, Robert Brown, Edward Cook, Donna
(Hall) Erickson, Richard Forman, Frank Golley,
Joan Hirschman, Joan Nassauer, Zev Naveh, James
Thorne, and Monica Turner.
Ecological Planning
stand the dialectic with human processes. The result is a constant struggle to understand the human side of the dialogue. Human processes are
usually considered in the context of the social,
economic, and demographic proles of a community or region. Yet people have a culture, or a
characteristic way of life. Their value systems
inuence their actions, including the way they use
and adapt to the landscape.
Often missing in ecological planning is a deep
understanding of the accumulated experiences of
people in a particular landscape, the meanings
they attach to it, and how both change over time.
Social scientists, landscape architects, and planners
often nd it dicult to reveal this deep understanding, which comes from not only a scientic
overview of a region, but also from the voices of
the residents themselves . . . [the insiders view],
for which most planners do not yet have a framework into which they incorporate such information, and insiders views often conict.91
Eorts to understand the underlying dialectic
between people and the landscape fall into many
categories, yet however, two categories stand out:
landscape perception and human ecological planning. Ecologists, economists, foresters, geographers, landscape architects, and psychologists have
considerably advanced our knowledge of landscape perception, which is considered to be a function of the interactions of humans and the landscape. They emphasize the visual quality of the
landscape as an important resource that should be
included in ecological planning. Since the s,
public policy has also served as a major impetus for
advancements in both theory and methods for assessing landscape values. One concern is the lack
of agreement on a unifying theory of landscape
perception, a reection of the variety of paradigms of landscape assessment that exist today.92
The University of Pennsylvania has been at the
forefront of developments in the applied-humanecology approach, which seeks to integrate hu-
A Historical Perspective
their environment, and advancements in ecosystem sciences, computer technology, and remote
sensing.
The major themes in the evolution of ecological
planning are () concern that human actions have
progressively degraded the landscape and that we
should plan with nature; () consolidation of the
idea of planning with nature in numerous largescale planning eorts and the adoption of ecological ideas from biology; () explicit linkage between
In chapter I outlined six major approaches to ecological planning: landscape suitability (pre-), landscape suitability (post-), applied human ecology, applied ecosystem, applied landscape ecology, and landscape values and perception.
These approaches have oered alternative ways to best manage human actions
sustainably in the landscape. They dier in their philosophical outlooks and disciplinary origins, concepts for understanding and analyzing landscapes, data requirements, and techniques for putting the concepts into practice.
These ecological approaches have not evolved in isolation. In fact they have
borrowed concepts and techniques from one another. Although at the level of
practice the dierences between these approaches are fuzzy, the dierences at the
level of theory are signicant. In this chapter and the next I provide an overview
of landscape-suitability approach (LSA ) and landscape-suitability approach
(LSA ). Landscape-suitability approaches (LSAs) have been explored by several
people although not in the manner that I do here. My intent is to illuminate key
principles and theoretical intent rather than to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive review.
I devote these two chapters to landscape-suitability approaches for three reasons. First, the LSA is the most widely used approach in professional practice and
tends to be covered extensively in the curricula of landscape architecture and
planning schools, as well as in environment-related courses oered in allied disciplines. Second, a comprehensive, systematic, and updated examination of the
approaches is urgently needed to provide a common base of understanding.
Third, the approaches to ecological planning discussed in later chapters borrow concepts and techniques from LSAs.
T H E L A N D S C A P E - S U I TA B I L I T Y
A P P R OAC H E S
The LSA focuses on the tness of a given tract of
land for a particular use. It is chiey concerned
with nding the optimal location for dierent uses
of the landscape. The earliest variations of the
LSA were developed by soil scientists, though
landscape architects began using hand-drawn,
sieve-mapping overlays in the late nineteenth century. These scientists and landscape architects
sought ways to understand and classify rural landscapes according to their natural features.1 The
classication became the basis for assessing the
ability of the land to support alternative land uses,
such as agriculture, forestry, and outdoor recreation. The approach was subsequently rened and
developed by others, especially landscape architects, who extended its application to include evaluation of the landscape for preservation, conservation, and development in both urbanizing and
rural areas.
Initially, the LSA used the natural features of the
landscape as the basis for determining land suitability. A growing public awareness of the negative
environmental impacts of human actions in the
past three decades, as well as increasing environmental legislation worldwide, made it necessary
to develop methods that were both accurate and
legally defensible. In turn, there were signicant
theoretical advancements in the LSA. Variations of
LSAs are still perhaps the most widely used methods for ecological planning worldwide.
I have divided the LSA into two approaches
to emphasize the theoretical-methodological advancements that have occurred as the LSA has
evolved. Landscape-suitability approach (LSA )
comprises methods developed prior to , and
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. A composite suitability map for conservation, recreation, and urbanization. Note that the gray tones
reect degrees of suitability. Reproduced, by permission, from McHarg, Design with Nature.
uses within a given level of geological and hydrological costs; and the potential of an area of land
to allow the use of resources under a certain level
of management intensity.5 Suitability, on the other
hand, suggests being appropriate, tting, or becoming.6 Unlike capability, suitability suggests optimizing a tract of land for the best use, all things
considered.
Implicit in these denitions are the ideas of inherent capacity, or the ability of the landscape to
support a given use, and sustained use, the ability to
support the use on a permanent basis without suffering degradation of its natural and cultural features. I therefore dene tness to imply the inherent capacity and sustained use of a tract of land for
particular use(s). Sustained use also suggests optimization, implying that in addition to natural factors, social, economic, and political issues must be
considered in suitability analysis.
L A N D S C A P E - S U I TA B I L I T Y
A P P R OAC H 1
LSA emphasizes the natural characteristics of the
landscape in determining the tness of a given
tract of land for a dened use. The LSA methods
developed in an ad hoc manner, linked to specic
problems, programs, and individuals. I discuss their
ad hoc development in order to illuminate their
historical evolution. The LSA methods that merit
a closer examination in this evolutionary overview
are the seminal ones, mentioned in most discussions of approaches to ecological planning. They
are: () the gestalt method, () the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) capability system,
() the Angus Hills, or physiographic-unit, method,
() the Philip Lewis, or resource-pattern, method,
and () the Ian McHarg, or University of Pennsylvania, suitability method. I discuss the latter as described in Design with Nature extensively because
McHargs discussion of landscape-suitability analysis was supported by a well-articulated philosophy
and has been applied in a variety of urban, rural,
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Professor Robert Scarfo and his students at Washington State University observe the Palouse landscape
in eastern Washington. Photograph by N. Alexander, .
Ecological Planning
ensure that landscape resources are used in a renewable way. How can the time and money
needed to collect ecological inventories be minimized? What is the most eective way of dierentiating landscapes on a permanent basis for a
variety of planning purposes? What is the ability
of the landscape to support the highest intensity
of human use? What is the relative advantage of
maintaining that inherent ability given existing or
projected social and economic conditions? What
management practices may be required to put the
proposed uses of the landscape into eect?
Hills contended that human use of the landscape must be based on the principles that relate
organisms to their physical and biological environment. Classifying landscapes based on their biological productivity will help to ensure that landscape resources will be renewable. Any area of
land combined with the organism it supports constitutes a biological productivity system, wrote
Hills.20 The system depends on the potential of
the land to support energy and matter as well as
on the ability of the crop systems to utilize it.
To ensure that resources will be renewable, land
should be organized hierarchically based on a gradient of the most signicant features governing
biological productivity. Then the resultant units
should be assessed based on their ability to support
crop systems under an assumed set of circumstances. However, this ability is dynamic since humans change their minds about what is suitable
whenever there is a change in their social or economic circumstances.
Hills proposed a ve-step method for assessing
landscape suitability. The rst step is an ecological
inventory that focuses on the physical and biological characteristics of the study area and on existing or projected social and economic conditions.
To minimize the time and cost of data collection,
representative areas that exhibit severe physiographic conditions are identied and used as reference points for collecting more detailed data.
Next, the site area is divided hierarchically into
Fig. .. A section of physiographic classes. Redrawn from Belknap and Furtado, Three Approaches to Environmental
Resource Analysis, by M. Rapelje, .
Ecological Planning
have their share of beauty, but it is the stream valleys, mellow wetlands and sandy soils combined in
elongated patterns that provide outstanding diversity, tying the landscape together in regional and
statewide corridors. . . . Once inventoried and
mapped, they suggest a framework for total environmental design. If protected and enhanced, the
system provides a source of strength, spiritual and
physical health and wisdom for the individual, in
addition to open space for recreation and enjoyment.25
Lewiss work on environmental corridors, especially his recognition of their visual, recreation,
and ecological values, was an important contribution to the greenway movement. He further hypothesized a vital connection between the psychological health of humans and the visual quality
of the prairie landscape.26 Lewis suggested that
since the visual features of the landscape are most
striking in environmental corridors, those corridors could be identied using visual indicators
such as visual contrast and diversity.
Even though the procedures Lewis used in his
numerous studies varied, they share some features
in common. In the Outdoor Recreation Plan for the
state of Wisconsin, which focused on identifying
statewide recreational resource patterns, Lewis selected a pilot study area in order to identify the geographical relationships between the major and
minor resources. The size of the area was approximately square miles (. sq. km). He then
identied the key recreational uses and established
land-use criteria. For example, recreational uses
might include hiking, canoeing, shing, and camping. The primary land-use criteria were visual contrast between landscape types and landscape diversity.
Lewis identied the major resources, such as
water bodies and topographic features, that met
the use criteria and then recorded each resource
on a separate map to facilitate data collection. Using map overlays, he combined the individual resources into a composite pattern. He used the
same procedure for identifying and mapping such
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Ian McHarg, founder, former chair, and professor emeritus of the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of
Pennsylvania. In President George Bush awarded
him the National Medal of Art for his contributions to
ecological planning and design. Photograph courtesy
of Ian McHarg.
dialogue between humans and nature was turbulent, as evidenced by the ecological crises that
were prevalent in Western industrialized societies
by the s. People sought to conquer rather than
to seek unity with nature.
McHarg summarized his ideas about the relationship between humans and nature in a compelling fashion in his article Man and Environment, published in Leonard Duhl and John
Powells book Urban Condition. He noted that a duality existed between man and nature. This duality, which was the basis of our ecological crisis,
was rmly rooted in the religious tradition, Christianity, and was reinforced by economic determinism and the misuse of technology.28 The attitudes
maintaining ecological processes, such as aquiferrecharge areas and ood plains; and the potential
hazards that result from improper use of nature,
such as ooding, erosion, and the degradation of
water quality.31 The McHarg method seeks to understand natures processes, interactions, and values as the basis for allocating human uses in the
landscape. In essence, he wrote, the method
consists of identifying the area of concern as consisting of certain processes, in land, water, and
airwhich represent values. These can be ranked
the most valuable land and the least, the most
valuable water resources and the least, the most
and least productive agricultural land, the richest
wildlife habitats and those of no value, the areas of
great or little scenic value, historic buildings and
their absence, and so on.32
Applications of the McHarg method usually include the following steps (Fig. .):
. The goals, objectives, and land use needs are
dened, and study boundaries are established.
. An ecological inventory of the relevant physical
and biological processes is conducted. The processes are documented and mapped in chronological order and are related to the land-use
needs. The chronological sequence of data collection and interpretation provides a causative
explanation of landscape processes, culminating
in a descriptive biophysical model of the landscape. For example, once the climate and historical geology of the landscape are understood, the
ground-water hydrology and physiography can
be explained.
. The resultant inventory is mapped. Each factor,
that is, each of the physical and biological characteristics of the landscape, such as slope or soil,
is mapped and displayed in terms of homogenous areas. For example, if residential development is one of the land uses under consideration,
soil drainage may be an important process to examine and map. In doing so, we might divide soil
drainage into three subhomogenous areas: perfectly drained, moderately well drained, and
poorly drained soils.
. Each factor map is examined to determine which
areas are suitable for each proposed land use. For
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. An example of
a suitability-analysis procedure. Redrawn from
Steiner, Living Landscape,
by M. Rapelje, .
Other Methods
In the late s C. S. Christian, an Australian who
worked for the Commonwealth Scientic and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), developed a land-classication system for assessing the
landscapes potential to support various uses.34
Similar to Angus Hillss classication system,
Christians broke the landscape into progressively
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Unforested plateau, forested plateau, and forested valley wall. Reproduced, by permission, from
McHarg, Design with Nature.
natural-resource characteristics in order to understand and analyze landscapes. Parallel eorts took
place in Britain in the mid- to late s largely
through the eorts of K. D. Fines and his colleagues in East Sussex. In the Nantucket Island Study, in Massachusetts, Zube, C. A. Carlozzi,
and others identied signicant landscape types
on the island based on visual indicators.35 The landscape types were horizontal landscape; highestquality landscape; linear pond, marshes, and meadows; and shoreline landscape. Experts and lay
people ranked the landscape types according to
their perceived value for public use, preservation,
and conservation. This information was com-
Fig. .. Landscape synthesis, Nantucket Island. Redrawn from Zube and Carlozzi, Inventory and Interpretation
Selected Resources of the Island of Nantucket, by M. Rapelje, .
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Carl Steinitz, at Harvard, has been at the forefront in advancing and rening methods for ecological
planning, including the integration of computer technology in land-suitability assessments. Photograph
courtesy of C. Steinitz, .
spatial consequences of alternative land-use options. The work of Steinitz and his colleagues
marked the beginning of the use of interactive
land-use-suitability models in the United States.
LSA methods oer ways to evaluate the optimal
uses of the landscape but predominately emphasize the natural characteristics. Even though these
methods evolved in an ad hoc manner, linked to
specic individuals and projects, they display an increasing level of sophistication based on substantive and procedural principles and on the techniques they oer for inventorying the relevant
natural and cultural features of the landscape and
assessing their suitability for varied uses. In order
of increasing sophistication, the methods are:
gestalt; landscape-unit and landscape-classication
methods; landscape-resource survey and assessment; and allocation evaluation.
The gestalt method is used in making elemen-
alyzing small tracts of land. As the size of the parcel of land increases, it becomes more dicult to
fully comprehend the parcel in its entirety. Another notable exception is Hillss physiographicunit method, which was designed to address
multi-scaled issues. Since the method involves a hierarchical classication based on variations in
landform and climate, it can be applied at a variety
of scales by combining the appropriate physiographic units appropriate to the scale of the study
area, for example, by combining physiographic
site classes to create landscape components.
LSA methods vary remarkably in the extent to
which expert or nonexpert judgments are used to
determine landscape suitability. For instance, the
McHarg method relies predominantly on expert
judgment or scientic knowledge to assess suitability, even though the logic of the process of establishing and ranking the interactions between
homogenous areas and potential land uses suggests both objective and subjective judgments.41 In
the NRCS and Christian classication schemes expert judgment was used to assign soils to various
classes and to prescribe varied land uses.
Hills used expert judgment to assess the landscapes existing and true potential; however, the
projected potential of the landscape to support
varied uses was based on expert judgment and on
the value-based opinions of policymakers. Similarly, Zube and Carlozzi used both expert and nonexpert judgments to assess the visual units in their
method. Lewis involved public ocials and local
inhabitants not only to collect and assess the pertinent data but also to increase their awareness of
regional design values crucial to the successful
protection of the environmental corridors. Although the LSA methods make use of both expert and nonexpert judgment, they ultimately rely
heavily on expert judgment to synthesize the outcome of suitability assessment.
With few exceptions, LSA methods rarely take
an active management orientation; that is, the outputs of suitability assessment rarely result in crite-
Ecological Planning
As discussed in chapter , in the nal three decades of the twentieth century there
was increased pressure on professionals in landscape architecture, planning, and
allied disciplines to develop approaches for evaluating landscapes that were
legally defensible, accurate, technically and ecologically sound, open to scrutiny
by the public, and implementable. The result was a proliferation of approaches
to ecological planning. The second landscape-suitability approach (LSA ) represents theoretical-methodological innovations in the evolution of the landscapesuitability approach.
Profound advances were made in the conceptual base, as well as in the procedural principles and the techniques for estimating landscape suitability. Researchers and practitioners reinterpreted and broadened the concept of suitability to emphasize how the optimal uses of the landscape could best be determined
and sustained. By optimal use is meant the best use, but with all things considered,
including ecological, social, and economic factors.
Seeking the optimal uses of the landscape represents a shift away from considering only ecological factors in determining suitability; it means also considering
changing economic circumstances: the supply and demand of land, varying human needs and values, political realities, and new technologies. Together, these
forces drive the evolution of the landscape.1 The planner Andrew Gold argued
that it is intrinsic suitability in conjunction with the values people place on the
use of intrinsically suitable lands that should determine the correct allocation.2
Of course, these values are social, economic, and political in nature. A recognition of these values in holistic ecological planning is what largely separates LSA
Ecological Planning
S U B S TA N T I V E A N D
PROCEDURAL THEMES
Ecological Concepts
In addition to reecting expanded concerns in estimating landscape suitability, LSA methods attempt to better describe landscape dynamics by
reinterpreting concepts dealing with the functioning of landscapes and integrating them into suitability analysis. Whenever possible, researchers and
practitioners interpret the boundaries of a tract of
land in terms of naturally occurring systems or
ecosystems. Once the tract of land is described in
terms of ecosystems, it may be possible to integrate
into suitability analyses ecosystem concepts that are
useful in understanding how landscapes function
and evolve. The primary ecological concept is succession, or ecosystem development, and the related
ecological concepts are ecosystem stability, resilience, diversity, sustainability, and productivity.
Stability
Stability is a fundamental characteristic of mature
ecosystems. The ecologist Eugene Odum pointed
out that all ecosystems go through a process of
maturation, or succession, from the pioneer state
to the climax stage, which is a stabilized ecosystem. He continued: The capacity to live in a
crowded world of limited resources has a greater
value of survival in the climax.3 In the climax
stage the ecosystem has low entropy, and energy
is used more for maintenance than for growth.
The ability of the ecosystem to survive perturbations increases. Organisms also become more ecient in processing energy and materials since they
have larger storage capacity, engage in more cooperative associations, and possess more niche
specialization and more complex life cycles. The
climax stage is not static, however; it is subject to
lags, feedbacks, and perturbations.
There are two types of stability: resilience stability, the ability to recover rapidly after being disturbed, and resistance stability, the ability to remain
stable when disturbed. Rapid recovery is enhanced
by the presence of many species in the landscape.
However, contemporary ecologists disagree on
whether species diversity increases resilience stability. Sustainability, which is related to stability, is
a process that moves the landscape toward permanence, or continued stability.
Productivity
Production is the conversion of energy by organisms in a particular area and over a given period of
time into high-quality organic matter. High rates
of production are contingent upon physical factors such as water, climate, and nutrients and upon
the availability of energy subsidies needed to reduce the day-to-day maintenance of organisms.
Productivity increases in the pioneering stages of
succession and declines in the climax stage.
The logic governing the use of the concepts of
ecological stability and productivity in estimating
suitability is easy to grasp. We depend on the landscape for food and ber, which are produced in
vast amounts in the pioneer stages of succession.
Yet, we need mature landscapes to serve as a hedge
against adverse conditions because of the accumulated organic matter they contain. Thus, we are
faced with balancing the use of the landscape for
production and protection while at the same time
ensuring sustained stability. Ecosystem development and its associated concepts of stability, resilience, diversity, and productivity provide us with
the basis for estimating the optimal uses of the
landscape.
How can we determine the critical points (in
space and time) in the maturation of a landscape
so that its continued use for production will not
eventually degrade it? To answer this question, I
introduce the concepts of carrying capacity, opportunity and constraints, environmental impact, and
landscape regeneration, all substantive concepts in
LSA .
Ecological Planning
Procedural Issues
In using suitability analyses to estimate the optimal uses of the landscape we assume an interdependency among physical, biological, and social
processes. Natural and cultural landscapes are the
outcome of an integrated and dynamic series of
geological, hydrological, climatological, pedological, locational, and cultural-technological processes.8 The idea of interdependency is consistent
with an implicit assumption in general systems
theory that all systemic [interdependent] relationships are fundamentally in harmony so long as
the system itself remains in a state of equilibrium
with its environment.9 Most LSA methods also
stressed systems thinking but focused on one
scale, in contrast to LSA methods, which focused
on multiple scales.
Landscapes, however, are interacting mosaics of
ecosystems connected through the ow of energy
and materials. A richer understanding of how
landscapes function suggests adopting a hierarchical perspective a common feature in thinking, understanding, and organization.10 This may explain
why ecologists examine landscapes at dierent
scales, such as population, community, and ecosystem, since each scale has special properties.
Ecological Planning
The common scale expresses each characteristic as a proportion of maximum observed values,
say, from to . It accounts for the relative importance of categories of landscape characteristics
in determining landscape suitability for a particular use, for example, whether soil depth is more
important that soil drainage in determining residential suitability? Similarly, the multiplier accounts for the relative inuence importance of
dierent characteristics, such as whether topography is more important than soils or vegetation in
establishing residential suitability?
A variation of the linear-combination technique is the weighed-overlay technique proposed
by Steinitz and his Harvard colleagues. Another
variation was used by the late John Lyle and Mark
von Wodtke in developing an information system
for planning, which they implemented in planning
for the coastal plain of San Diego County in the
mid-s. While the technique overcomes one of
the problems of the ordinal method, it still assumes independence of landscape characteristics
used to establish suitability. For instance, it may
not account for the fact that the soil erodibility
may depend on soil type, slope, and ground cover.
Nonlinear Combination
In some instances the interdependence among
landscape characteristics is such that the composite suitability map cannot be deduced merely
by overlaying individual suitability maps. In order words, the equation used in moving from
step to in Figure . would contain a nonlinear
relationship. In such situations, the nonlinearcombination technique is useful since it uses a
mathematical function to capture the relationship.
In practice, however, the relationship between pertinent landscape characteristics is rarely suciently understood to be dened precisely by
mathematical equations. Even when it is, the number of landscape characteristics usually considered
are few, requiring additional analysis to estimate
landscape suitability. Obvious examples are the
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Mapped areas represented by grid cells. Reproduced, by permission, from Laird et al., Quantitative LandCapability Analysis.
Ecological Planning
TYPES OF LANDSCAPES U I TA B I L I T Y M E T H O D S
The combined eects of these advances in substantive and procedural themes, in techniques, and
in technology have vastly increased the diversity
and sophistication of landscape-suitability methods. Four major types of LSA methods may be
discerned based on the cumulative functions
they perform and on the steps in the ecologicalplanning process they emphasize.20 The four types
of methods are () landscape-unit and landscapeclassication methods; () landscape-resource survey and assessment methods; () allocation and
evaluation methods; and () allocation, evaluation
and implementation methods, or strategic landscape-suitability methods.
Within each of these four types some methods
are tailored to handle single-resource issues, such
as locating a highway, while others deal with allocating multiple resources on a given tract of land.
One would expect variations even within the same
type of methods. Although I do not include the
Ecological Planning
proved resource planning. Land-capability information was established for six classes of land
uses, including agriculture, forestry, recreation,
and wildlife. Similar to the NRCS classication,
the CLI system devised a set of numerical classes
() to indicate limitations within each capability
classication.23
Focus on Multiple Landscape Characteristics
Other landscape-unit and landscape-classication
methods delineate homogenous areas by exploring the interrelationships between the natural and
cultural characteristics of the landscape. The relationships can be used to determine the quality, stability, resilience, or productivity of the landscape.
Again, the resultant information is presented either in a raw or an interpretive form. For example,
McHarg and his colleagues at the University of
Pennsylvania developed the layer-cake model as a
way to better conceptualize and understand the
evolution and interrelationships among physical,
Fig. .. Classication hierarchy of wetlands and deepwater habitats. Redrawn from Cowardin et al., Classication
of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States, by M. Rapelje, .
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Life-zone system of ecological classication. Redrawn from Holdridge, Life Zone Ecology, by M. Rapelje,
.
it relies on a panel of experts to establish local criteria for land evaluation and site assessment.
The LESA system extended the utility and accuracy of soil surveys in estimating landscape suitability for agriculture and urban uses. The NRCS
method, discussed in chapter , relied on the limitations of the soil for agricultural production. Although its application has been extended to determine suitability for urban uses, it does not provide
information on ecological, economic, social, or
aesthetic issues that aect the relative suitability of
the landscape for urban uses. As I noted in chapter
, the NRCS methods accuracy in estimating the
suitability for various types of urban uses is questionable. For example, soil variability is not important in determining agricultural production;
however, it is a prime consideration in estimating
suitability for urban uses.
The LESA system has two components, agricultural land evaluation (LE) and agricultural
site assessment (SA). Agricultural land evaluation
rates soils of a given area by grouping them according to their quality. The best soils are assigned
a rating of , and the worst, a rating of (Table
.). The quality of the soil is determined by combining information from capability ratings, important farmland classication, and soil potential
ratings.
The NRCSs important-farmland classication
uses national criteria to dene prime farmland in
order to provide a consistent basis for comparing
soils in a given locality to similar soils nationwide.
The soil-potential ratings indicate the relative
value of a soil for an indicator crop compared with
other soils in the locality. The value is based on the
costs of overcoming the current and future limitations of the soil for the indicator crop. Soil productivity may be substituted for soil potential in
determining the value of soil for agricultural use.
It provides indications of the relative net income
expected from each category of soils for a specied
indicator crop. The soil potential ratings are calcu-
Ecological Planning
lated for each soil mapping unit based on the equation SPI P CM CL, where SPI is the soilpotential index, P is soil performance measured in
dollars, CM is the relative cost of eliminating or reducing soil limitations, and CL is the relative cost
of overcoming continuing limitations.
A relative value for the quality of the soil is estimated for each agricultural group based on the
three rating systems. This value is adjusted for the
relative acreage of the soil in a particular locality
and expressed as a percentage of the highest
acreage yield, which is indicative of the quality of
the soil.
The SA focuses on other important considerations in determining the optimal uses of the landscape for urban activities. Examples include the
location and distance from markets, proximity to
infrastructure and public services, existing landuse regulations, land-ownership patterns, and impacts of the proposed uses. Points are assigned to
each of these factors. The NRCS recommends
that a maximum of points be assigned to each
factor. The relative importance of these factors in
determining suitability is identied, and comparable weights are assigned. The nal LE score is
determined by multiplying the number of points
Ecological Planning
Landscape-Resource Survey
and Assessment Methods
Landscape-resource survey and assessment methods emphasize the inventory, analysis, and synthesis of biophysical, social, economic, and technological factors to determine the optimal locations
for potential land uses. Homogenous land units
are dened, and then rules of combination and/
or rating functions are used to assign land uses to
the homogenous units. Social, economic, and biophysical factors are considered implicitly or explicitly in the rules and rating functions for dening and aggregating the homogenous land units.
The output is a set of maps or a single composite
map, sometimes accompanied by text, illustrating
the degree of suitability of each parcel of land for
single or multiple uses. More often, negative envi-
ronmental impacts are minimized as an intermediate step in the process of determining suitability.
Neither a detailed evaluation of alternative suitability options nor the way the optimal option is
put into eect is an important consideration.
The primary concern of resource survey-andassessment methods is to allocate prospective uses
on a tract of land in a manner that best sustains
ecological stability and productivity, given changing social, economic, and technological circumstances. Three questions of a technical nature
emerge. First, what is the logic behind the selection of the pertinent social, economic, and biophysical factors? Second, what rules and rating
functions are appropriate for assigning land uses to
various locations in the landscape? Third, at what
point in the process of determining suitability are
the social, economic, and biophysical factors compared to examine their interactions?
It is useful to think about the suitability concepts in LSA landscape-resource survey and assessment methods as means of achieving a dialectic balance between the demand and supply forces
on a parcel of land. The demand forces are the social, economic, political, and technological factors
that dictate the availability and preference of land
for the intended uses. The supply forces deal with
the ability of the natural characteristics of the
landscape to support the prospective uses.
The specic factors examined (social, economic, biophysical) and the extent to which they
are emphasized depend largely on the nature of
the planning project. For example, developing a
growth management program requires an estimation of future population, economic and development needs, community values, and landscape
opportunities and constraints. For developing a
multiuse plan, landscape architects and planners
may include in their assessment the extant landuse regulations, proximity to public services and
facilities, and user needs. Because of the variety of
possible planning projects, my discussion of how
the transactions between the supply and demand
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Site-planning process. Redrawn from Jacobs, Landscape Development in the Urban Fringe, by
M. Rapelje, .
Ecological Planning
judgments about social, economic, and other concerns that aect the optimal uses of the landscape.
Examples are the availability of infrastructure,
proximity to schools, and areas of visual interests.
Such social, economic, or political considerations
are implied in the criteria used in identifying unsuitable lands. For instance, the extant zoning may
be used as a basis for including or excluding potential sites for development or protection.
Many applications of sieve analysis are well documented. Among them are numerous projects undertaken by Steinitz and his Harvard colleagues,
including the Honey Hill project. In the landscape architect Susan Crow, at the University of
Georgia, used sieve analysis, aided by GIS, to lay
out interpretive trails in the Alcovy watershed, just
east of Atlanta.36 But as Lyle correctly remarked,
The use of sieves . . . does not depend on the dialectic balance. They can simply be applied to any
land area as a whole.37 By dialectic balance Lyle
meant osetting land-supply and land-demand
characteristics.
In contrast, landscape-resource survey and assessment methods emphasize the dialectic balance
between supply and demand factors. WMRT, the
Philadelphia landscape architecture and planning
rm, and the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of
Pennsylvania were among the rst to apply this
strategy, in the s and s. Their works include such notable examples as the development
of a master plan for Amelia Island, Florida (,
with William Roberts, Jack McCormick, and
Jonathan Sutton as the prime practitioners); the
planning of The Woodlands, a new community
in Texas (, with McHarg as the principal-incharge); the development of performance standards for Medford, New Jersey (, with McHarg
as the principal investigator and Narendra Juneja
as the project leader); the assessment of environmental resources for the Toronto Central Waterfront (, with Juneja and Anne Spirn as the ma-
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Matrix showing bivariate relationships. Reproduced, by permission, from Johnson, Berger, and
McHarg, Case Study in Ecological Planning: The
Woodlands, Texas.
Indeed, many subtle yet important contributions to suitability concepts were made by The
Woodlands study. It empirically rearmed how
social, economic, and legal factors could be translated into criteria for determining land-supply considerations. It also demonstrated how information
about user needs and values could be used to resolve conicts between the competing supply and
demand characteristics of a parcel of land. Much
like Peter Jacobs and Ingmire and Patri, McHarg
and his colleagues showed that combining the
problems and attractive features of a site involved
making implicit judgments about the environmental eects and sustained use of the site for prospective land uses.
, . The planning of the new federal capital of Nigeria in the mid-s illustrates
ecological planning and design in a cross-cultural
environment. An international consortium, International Planning Associates, planned and designed the new city. WMRT was responsible for
site selection and master planning under the leadership of Thomas Todd, an architect and city planner.40 McHarg was responsible for the ecological
inventory and the suitability analysis.
The client, the Republic of Nigeria Capital Development Authority, developed criteria for site selection, which it weighted in terms of importance:
centrality (%); health and climate (%); land
availability and use (%); water supply (%); access (%); security (%); building materials (%);
population density (%); power resources (%);
drainage (%); soils (%); physical planning (%);
and ethnicity (%).
The process Todd, McHarg, and their colleagues used is shown in Figure .. The major categories of information compiled included () site
and natural environment, () economic, social, demographic, and other population characteristics,
and () constitution and governmental organization. Visual considerations and cultural issues
were included as well. In addition to the economic
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. The suitability-analysis process for selecting Abuja, Nigeria. Redrawn from International Planning Associates, New Federal Capital for Nigeria, by M. Rapelje, .
between ecological processes, the values of individuals, and the values of society. Individuals hold
dierent values depending on their interests.
These values may be similar or may be in conict
with those held by other individuals or with those
associated with maintaining the health, safety, and
welfare of society. In Junejas words,
The values assigned vary depending upon an individuals interest. For example, a farmer is concerned about sustained productivity from his land;
a home owner seeks a healthy delightful setting;
and a developer searches for sites where he can
build and get the most return for his money. The
operative value system employed by individuals is
as likely to be discrete and mutually exclusive as it
is to be competitive and conicting. To deal with
the latter exigency and to ensure sustained health,
welfare, and prosperity for all, it is important to
identify those values which are common to all present and future residents of the township. This can
be accomplished by interpreting the available un-
derstanding of the extant phenomena and processes in terms which are clearly denable and
about which agreement can be reached by all those
aected.43
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Matrix of physiographic values to society and individuals in Medford Township, New Jersey. Redrawn
from Juneja, Medford, by M. Rapelje, .
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Clearance percentage for vegetation types for The Woodlands, Texas. Redrawn from Johnson, Berger,
and McHarg, Case Study in Ecological Planning: The Woodlands, Texas, by M. Rapelje, .
teristics) and demand (social and economic considerations) features of a tract of land to establish
suitability. The supply and demand considerations
are implied either implicitly or explicitly in the
rules or rating schemes used to estimate suitability.
The resource survey-and-assessment methods
operate in two major ways. One way is to conduct
independent assessments of the pertinent social,
economic, and biophysical factors in light of the
project goals; analyze compatibilities among them;
and aggregate them using logical rules of combination and/or rating functions. Another way is to
examine the interactions among the factors in relation to a surrogate, which becomes the basis for
establishing the optimal uses of the landscape.
Almost always, the assessment of environmental
eects is built into the process of determining
landscape suitability.
All variations of landscape-resource survey and
assessment methods considered here can be applied with either computer-aided or manual overlay techniques. The logical rules of combination
are the same for both; however, there is a general
tendency away from manual overlay techniques
even though they are occasionally useful. Additionally, most of the variations reviewed can be
used for both conservation and development of
resources. Ultimately, the determination of landscape suitability relies heavily on the judgments of
experts. Despite eorts to make landscape suitability more inclusive, landscape-resource and survey methods generally are not useful in estimating
the potential cumulative environmental, social, or
economic eects of a land use on the site under
consideration and adjacent areas.
Allocation-Evaluation Methods
Allocation-evaluation methods are concerned
with assigning land uses to various locations in the
landscape and evaluating alternative allocation options in light of the project goals, objectives, and
other values. These values include the social, eco-
Ecological Planning
nomic, scal, and environmental eects. The theoretical intent and procedural principles of allocation-evaluation methods are similar to those of
landscape-resource survey and assessment methods. The major dierence is that the former can
perform an additional function: evaluation of
competing landscape-allocation options.
Allocation-evaluation methods are described in
ecological-planning literature in numerous ways.
Steinitz referred to them as process models in regional landscape design, while Fabos described
them as parametric approaches in landscape planning. For Lyle they are impact-predicting suitability
models.
The central questions that allocation-evaluation
methods address are technical in nature. Which
set of rules identies which information should be
combined to determine landscape suitability?
How will the choices be made among potentially
competing suitability options? Which evaluation
and impact-predicting techniques are appropriate,
and why? What is the optimal allocation of land
uses in light of a projects goals, objectives, and relevant values?
Projects in which these methods are used tend
to be complex and are usually conducted for large
corporations or public entities. Most often, they
require huge nancial outlays. The projects also
tend to be long-term rather than short-term. In addition, they often require large amounts of data,
making the use of computer technology a necessity. This technology is more attractive if the generation of numerous alternatives is desired.
The passage of NEPA was a catalyst for signicant renements in the development of allocationevaluation methods. NEPA specically addressed
the environmental costs of land-use decisions
made by federal agencies. The substantive purpose of NEPA is to achieve a harmonious and sustainable balance between human activities and the
natural and cultural processes that they aect. Federal agencies are required to prepare environmental-
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. The Leopold Matrix in condensed form. Note that the instructions for assessing impacts are provided.
Also, the cells with numbers illustrate hypothetical ratings of probable impacts of land transformation on water
quality. A positive sign placed in front of the number indicates that the impact is benecial, while a negative sign
shows otherwise. Redrawn from Leopold et al., Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact, by M. Rapelje, .
Fig. .. A simplied cause-and-eect linkage diagram. Adapted from Rowe and Gevirtz, Natural Environmental Information and Impact Assessment System, redrawn from Chapin and Kaiser, Urban Land Use Planning, by
M. Rapelje, .
Ecological Planning
tential environmental eects. The relevant information was combined using a linear-combination
technique to account for the relative inuence of
the characteristics in determining suitability.
Second, a preliminary EIA of alternative suitability options was undertaken using a procedure
similar to network-impact assessment. Third, a
best-action procedure was applied to determine optimal locations for development. This was achieved
by listing acceptable development actions for each
given location that would produce the least environmental damage (Fig. .). One notable feature
of their Information System is that it can be applied
to land-use decision making and design at a variety of scales: regional, local, site-specic.
In Lyle and von Wodtkes Information System,
the interactions among development actions, impacts, and locational factors dened the rules for
identifying and combining relevant data to determine the optimal uses of the landscape. EIAs were
used to reduce the number of suitability options,
and then the remaining options were evaluated in
order to select the ones that produced the least environmental impact on a given location. However,
the Information System excluded social, economic, and technological considerations in establishing suitability and in choosing the preferred allocation option.
Lyle expanded upon the Information System in
Design for Human Ecosystems, published in . He
reinterpreted the conceptual base of his Information System in terms of principles for achieving
ecosystem order: structure, function, and location. The book describes a wide range of principles
and techniques for estimating the optimal uses of
the landscape in ways that promote congruence in
the functioning of human and natural ecosystems.
According to Lyle, the role of suitability models in
fostering the congruence is to provide a bridge
between the consideration of processes and their
location on the land.58
Numerous projects documented in the book
clearly illustrate the use of allocation-evaluation
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Best-action model. Reproduced, by permission, from Lyle and von Wodtke, Information System for Environmental Planning.
and, most recently, for the Upper San Pedro Watershed in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico.62 In the
Arizona and Sonora study Steinitz and his team investigated the implications of urban growth and
change for the hydrology and biodiversity of a portion of the Upper San Pedro Watershed in Arizona
and Sonora, Mexico, over the next twenty years.
The portion extends from the headwaters of the
San Pedro River, near Cananea, Sonora, to Redington, Arizona. The team used a set of process
models to describe how the current landscape
functions and to determine the probable impact of
a set of alternative futures and their variations
based on conditions in .
Steinitz and his team used development models
to evaluate the attractiveness of the available land
in the watershed for dierent types of development, such as commercial and suburban. The outcome was used to simulate urban growth in the region over the next twenty years under dierent
scenarios for change. Because the study examined
the impacts of growth on the regions hydrology
and biodiversity, the team used a hydrological
model to evaluate the eect of loss of groundwater storage, ows into the San Pedro River, the
steam-capture volume, and headwater conguration. Next they employed a vegetation model to
predict changes in vegetation patterns based on
changes in the management of the hydrological
regime, re, and grazing. These predictions formed
the basis for assessing the biodiversity of the watershed. Then a visual model establishing scenic preferences was employed to evaluate the potential
impacts on the regions landscape based on the
simulated urban-growth patterns.
Based on the outcomes of these evaluations,
Steinitz and his team developed several alternative
future scenarios for the Upper San Pedro Watershed emphasizing development, water use, and
land management. They used dierent models to
evaluate the scenarios for water availability, land
management, and biodiversity. These evaluations
Ecological Planning
provided those with a stake in the region information that helped them decide how they wanted
their watershed to change.
Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model
(METLAND)
The METLAND model was developed in the early
s by Fabos and his colleagues at the University of
Massachusetts (Fig. .). Three of Faboss colleaguesBruce MacDougall, Meir Gross, and Jack
Ahernalso worked with McHarg at Pennsylvania.
The model describes the landscape as parameters
and uses quantitative techniques and computer
technology to facilitate ecologically informed and
intelligent land-use decisions. COMLUP, the computer mapping program used in the METLAND
model, was developed by Neil Allen, of the USFS.
Fig. .. Julius Fabos, Emeritus Professor of Landscape Architecture and Planning at the University of
Massachusetts, was instrumental in developing the
METLAND model. Photograph courtesy of Julius
Fabos.
Fig. .. Conceptual base for the METLAND model. Reproduced, by permission, from Fabos and Caswell,
Composite Landscape Assessment.
Ecological Planning
Ecological Planning
Ecological Planning
Ecological Planning
methods, which are similar to that used in conventional planning, which is well known to planners and landscape architects as the framework for
organizing activities. Both methods recognize that
turbulence is inherent in industrialized societies.
They therefore build feedback mechanisms into
the planning process. Of the two, Steiners method
utilizes a repertoire of techniques that can be applied in a variety of situations. Qualitative rather
that quantitative assessments are emphasized in
both examples.
Since the s, LSA methods have been developed that are more legally defensible, accurate,
and technically sound when compared to LSA
methods. They reveal the optimal uses of a given
tract of land in light of changing social, economic,
political, and technological circumstances. Unlike
LSA methods, they implicitly or explicitly incorporate both biophysical and socioeconomic factors. Additionally, some LSA methods provide
explicit procedures for making choices among
competing land uses and for implementing the optimal choice. The range of ecological-planning issues they address has broadened to include such
development-related matters as conservation, preservation, restoration, and management.
LSA methods have developed systematically
rather than in the ad hoc manner that characterized LSA methods. I distinguished four major
groups of LSA methods according to the cumulative functions they perform and the phases in the
ecological-planning process they emphasize. These
are () landscape-unit and landscape-classication
methods, () landscape-resource survey and assessment methods, () allocation-evaluation methods, and () strategic suitability methods. Each
group of methods serves a specic purpose. For
example, when the cost of data collection is a limiting factor, one may decide to use the landscapeunit and landscape-classication method as a rst
step in determining suitability. When the evalua-
landscape plans and designs are coming under intense scrutiny by a growing segment of society. It
is not surprising, therefore, that another trend in
the continuing evolution of landscape-suitability
approaches involves the public or user groups in
land-use decisions; but the degree of involvement
varies signicantly among LSA methods. One reaction is a general inclination to adapt the methods to computers and other technologies.
The techniques for analyzing the relationships
between natural and cultural data have been improved in an eort to provide enhanced technical
validity and accuracy. As a result, the ordinalcombination technique is not advocated as a valid
technique in suitability analysis. Others are recommended to be employed independently or in
combination, depending on the project goals and
objectives. Lastly, some LSA methods use the
output of suitability assessment as a basis for management decisions about landscape use. Except for
strategic suitability methods, such as Steiners ecological method or the SIRO-PLAN method, most
LSA methods rarely recommend administrative
strategies or allocate resources (funds, manpower,
time) to implement the preferred suitability option. In sum, suitability analysis is a promising way
to balance conicting uses of land, water, and air.
the applied-human-ecology
approach
A LT E R N AT I V E A P P R O A C H E S
TO ECOLOGICAL PLANNING
The development of alternative approaches for managing human actions in the
landscape has been inuenced by the convergence of many forces over the past
three decades. Those forces include a growing public awareness of environmental degradation, increased activity worldwide in the areas of environmental protection and resource management, scientic and technological advances, and a
recognition among ecological-planning and design professionals about needed
improvements in the landscape-suitability approaches.
Besides obvious concerns about improving the technical validity and information-management capabilities of LSA methods, they were criticized also for
paying insucient attention to how people perceive, value, use, and adapt to
changing landscapes; to how human and natural ecosystems function; to how
landscapes change in response to interacting biophysical and sociocultural processes; and to how aesthetic considerations may be integrated with environmental ones in assessing landscapes.
These concerns put increased pressure on professionals in landscape architecture, planning, and allied disciplines to develop approaches that were legally defensible, technically valid, ecologically sound, open to scrutiny by the public, and
implementable. Consequently, landscape architects, planners, anthropologists,
geographers, ecosystem scientists, environmental psychologists, historians, and
environmental-design artists worked together to develop concepts and strategies.
One outcome was distinct alternative ecologicalplanning approaches. Like the LSAs, each of these
approaches reects a particular way of dening,
analyzing, and solving problems arising from the
human-nature dialectic.
The alternative approaches examined in chapters are the applied-human-ecology, appliedecosystem, applied-landscape-ecology, and landscapeperception approaches. The applied-ecosystem and
landscape-perception approaches are well documented and have the most variations. In contrast,
the applied-human-ecology and applied-landscapeecology approaches rarely have denitive methods that have been tested rigorously.
A P P L I E D H U M A N E C O L O G Y:
MAJOR CONCERNS
Ecology deals with the reciprocal relationship between species and their biological and physical environments. When humans are included among
the species, then ecology is referred to as human
ecology. The applied-human-ecology approach
uses information about the reciprocal interactions
between people and their biophysical environment to guide decisions concerning the optimal
uses of the built and natural landscapes. More
specically, this approach focuses on how people
aect and are aected by their environment and
on how decisions concerning the environment
aect people.1
Human-ecological planning was clearly advocated in the writings of such thinkers as Patrick
Geddes, Rodney McKenzie, Benton MacKaye,
Lewis Mumford, and Aldo Leopold in the early to
mid-twentieth century.2 They argued that planning and design decisions should be guided by an
understanding of the reciprocal, often complex interactions between people and their biophysical
environment. Geddes, for instance, made a passionate plea for planning and design to be viewed
as Sympathy, Synthesis, and Synergy.3 We rst
sympathize with people aected by social ills, then
synthesize all considerations pertinent to a planning situation, and nally work cooperatively with
everyone aected to achieve the best result. Implied in his plea is the need for an intimate understanding of a locale that includes its history,
folklore, and community sense, as well as the
continued involvement of the land users in realizing their shared vision.
Recent calls for human-ecological planning
emerged again in the s and s, especially in
response to the environmental movement. NEPA
and similar legislation passed in other countries
rekindled interest in examining the interactions
between humans and other components of the
natural environment. Yet, many ecologicalplanning approaches emphasize either the biophysical or the human-cultural system, as if they
were mutually exclusive.
The inclusion of humans in ecological studies
has always been problematic. Although humans
have needs that are similar to those of other
species, they display exibility in behavior and
have the ability to control their environment (Fig.
.). They have the ability to conceptualize beyond
the physical exchange processes that characterize
animal behavior.4 Humans also possess culture,
belief systems, and accumulated knowledge, which
together enable them to adapt to their external environment and to one another. Consequently, humans are not subjected to the sorts of controls that
govern biological and physical processes.5 Their
interactions with other species and with the biophysical environment are not easily understood
and thus are dicult to explain.
Ian McHarg noted that if humans are accepted
as an integral part of ecology, and ecology is accepted as part of planning, then one term, planning, would suce for the three.6 I suspect that
many proponents of ecological-planning methods
subscribe to the idea that human use and organization of the landscape must be understood and
evaluated. Often information about the human
processes they examine is relegated to the social,
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. People transform landscapes to suit their needs. Photograph
by William Mann, .
economic, and demographic proles of a community or region. When linkages with the landscape are sought, independent surveys of the historical landscape use, historic sites, visual surveys,
and the like are conducted. Citizen participation is
now mandated in most public projects in North
America and Western Europe, ensuring that the
concerns, desires, and values of the relevant publics will be included in the planning process.
Despite these well-intentioned eorts to include human-cultural processes in planning and
design, that people have a distinct culture, or characteristic way of life, often goes unnoticed. Humans value systems inuence the selection of
alternative ways of doing things, including alternative ways of using and adapting to the landscape. The challenge is to look for systematic spatial concurrences or linking processes between the
landscape and social phenomena.7 If the continued satisfaction of human needs and the quality of
human life depend on the landscape and its resources, then humans have a responsibility to ensure that they are used in a sustainable way.
We can restate the challenge in the form of
questions: How do people value, use, and adapt to
the landscape? What aspects of the landscape are
valued by whom, in what ways, and why? What
range of values and interests do land users have for
specic locations within a local or regional landscape mosaic? How do people relate to the landscape, and what does the landscape mean to them?
How do humans adapt to change and stress in the
landscape? What are the social mechanisms for
eective adaptation? Who benets, and who loses,
from which landscape decisions; that is, who is
threatened by change? These are the primary questions addressed in human-ecological planning.
Planners and landscape architects have proposed human-ecological planning and design frameworks in response to these questions. The devel-
A C O N C E P T UA L F O U N D AT I O N
Human ecology embraces an extensive body of
knowledge that links human social organization
directly to the biological and physical environment. Indeed, there is a rich interdisciplinary literature on human ecology, but it is scattered in many
disciplines. When Darwin wrote his groundbreaking book The Origin of Species (), he explicitly
included humans in his explanation of how the
physical and biological environment inuences
the processes of natural evolution and selection.
Subsequent biologists only studied environments
little aected by humans or examined humans as
agents of disturbance in natural communities.
However, the outlines of human ecology as a distinct area of study were provided by an important
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Agricultural landscape on Kauai Island, Hawaii. Subtle but diagnostic features of this landscape reveal
a lot about the islands social and cultural history. Photograph by M. Rapelje, .
Ecological Planning
PERSPECTIVES ON
HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT
INTERACTIONS
The ways we conceptualize the intersections between culture and the biophysical environment
have profound consequences for human-ecological
planning. They direct attention to what cultural
and biophysical factors planners and designers
should examine, why, and what to expect as the
factors interact and change over time.
Cultural Adaptation
Cultural anthropologists assert that culture is the
mediating factor in all human transactions with
the biophysical environment. The primary linkage
mechanism is cultural adaptation, the patterns
and rules of social adjustment and change in behavior by individuals and groups in the course of
realizing goals or simply maintaining the status
quo.16 It can be viewed as a process of tting the
landscape to social behavior, material needs, and
artifacts to enhance the quality of human life. Ian
McHarg dened the tness of an environment
(landscape) for an individual or group as that requiring a minimum of adaptation.17 Sustained
adaptation, thenseeking and maintaining the
optimal tness of the landscape for human and
other usescan be regarded as a goal of ecological planning and design. The task of planning, including human-ecological planning, therefore, is
to identify and reinforce mechanisms for sustaining human adaptation in the landscape.
Culture, which is central to the study of cultural
anthropology, has many overlapping and contradictory meanings. Most denitions agree that culture has three main dimensions: a normative dimension, which consists of patterns of thought
that guide behavior; a behavioral dimension,
made up of patterns of social interactions; and a
non-normative dimension, consisting of material
products that culture creates, such as arts, skills,
and technology. The interaction among the di-
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Major theories of human ecology. Reproduced, by permission, from Bennett, Ecological Transition.
tural-core concept proposed by Steward and elaborated by Geertz but acknowledges the crucial
role of humans in shaping their relations with the
environment. Numerous documented studies in
human-ecological planning use either the mutual-
Fig. .. The adaptive systemic model. Reproduced, by permission, from J. Bennett, Ecological Transition.
Ecological Planning
poses, the physical world of the group he is studying. . . . The cognized model is the model of the
environment conceived by people who act in it. . . .
The important question concerning the cognized
model, since it serves as guide to action, is not the
extent to which it conforms to reality (is identical to
the operational model) but the extent to which it
elicits behavior that is appropriate to the material
situation of the actors, and it is against this function and adaptive criterion that we may assess it.29
Place Constructs
The terms space and place are used interchangeably
in everyday usage. Space is an abstract concept
that is dened as place only when it conveys a distinct meaning to the users. Places result from the
interaction between environmental forces and human actions. According to Kimberly Dovey, place
is a knot of meaning in the fabric of human ecology. Places develop over time through human interactions. They grow, are infused with life, may
be healthy or unhealthy, and may die.31 The
philosopher Martin Heidegger viewed place as the
locale of the truth of being.32 The environmental psychologist David Canter contended that the
concept of place is useful in bridging the gap be-
Fig. .. Place as the intersection of natural processes, activity systems, and experience. The idea of t is captured concisely in David Canters and Edward Relphs
construct of place. Reproduced, by permission, from Ndubisi, Phenomenological
Approach to Design for Amer-Indian Cultures.
peoples accumulated knowledge, cultural background, and values, as well as formal and informal controls.
The Canadian geographer Edward Relph proposed a similar notion of place but replaced
Canters conceptions with meaning. I prefer to use
experience rather than meaning or conception, a
necessary substitution if we are to include the
imaginal and experiential segments of space in
the denition of place. Conceptions and meanings
neglect anything beyond conceptual thought
patterns, thereby leaving out the instinctual and
mythical aspects of human nature that cannot be
dealt with entirely in the semantic and conceptual
reality (Fig. .).35 Also implied in these place constructs is the idea that places are not static but
linked through time (natural and cultural history)
and space (connection to larger places). Certainly,
our aesthetic experience of a place results from its
natural and cultural history.
Most planners and designers would agree that
until they understand a place, they cannot develop
eective plans or designs. The main reason for em-
Ecological Planning
PROCEDURAL DIRECTIVES
A N D A P P L I C AT I O N S
Eorts to integrate human processes in planning
and design are quite diverse, though not systematic. Landscape architects such as Grant Jones,
Burt Litton, Sally Schauman, Richard Smardon,
and Ervin Zube have considerably advanced our
knowledge of landscape perception, which is considered to be a function of the interactions between people and the landscape. Place constructs
have vastly enriched our understanding of landscape perception.37 Others employ models of cultural adaptation as the conceptual base for ecological planning and design. This perspective was
popularized by landscape architects, planners, and
anthropologists who were at the University of
Pennsylvania or inuenced by developments there
in the s and s. Notable among them are
Jonathan Berger, Yehudi Cohen, Ian McHarg,
Joanne Jackson, Dan Rose, and Frederick Steiner.
The notion of place is also used as a unifying
theme in integrating human-ecology concepts
from many disciplines, including cultural ecology,
cultural geography, and environmental psychology. My plans for Ojibway Indian communities in
Canada in the s, for instance, drew upon concepts from cultural ecology and place theories. I
used the theories to help me understand the nature of the dialectic between human and natural
processes in cases where the culture of the planner
or designer diers from that of the client group.
The Canadian landscape architect Michael Hough,
another McHarg protg, describes a similar view
in Out of Place: Restoring Identity to the Regional
Landscape (). Hough demonstrates how insights derived from natural and cultural processes
can be used to reestablish the identity and uniqueness of places in contemporary landscapes. In
addition, methods found in other ecologicalplanning approaches clearly have a human-ecology
bias, such as the method suggested by Steiner in
The Living Landscape ().
suitability and () adaptation strategies and processes that support exploitative behavior. They
dened adaptation as the organization and use of
space and the way people organize themselves to
use and manage their spaces.39 Their intent was
to match peoples culturally determined needs
and desires expressed in terms of land-use patterns
to ecologically suitable locations.
Berger, Rose, and their colleagues divided the
study into ve interrelated components: () a biophysical-resource assessment; () land-economy
analyses; () a community-health-prole assessment; () a regional ethnographic survey; and ()
human-ecological planning. The planners conducted a land-suitability analysis. Data on the natural phenomena and processes (e.g., bedrock geology, hydrology, soils, ora, and fauna) of the
region were collected and analyzed in terms of opportunities and constraints at a scale of to ,.
The result was a land-suitability map indicating
the best sites for various land uses, such as housing, forestry, and recreation.
They then assessed the economics of their proposed planning scenarios. They focused on factors
such as land-ownership patterns, land value, and
proposed infrastructural development. The outcome was spatial predictions for land uses for
the next ve years. The community-health-prole
assessment involved linking morbidity rates of
dierent groups to their environment. The intent
was to obtain indications of stress induced by
work and by environmental pollution.
The regional ethnographic survey was devised
to identify naturally occurring groups in the region and to elicit their values, preferences, and visions for future land-use patterns. The techniques
used included key-informant interviewing, participant observation, household interviews, and visual reconnaissance. The planners contended that
ethnographic surveys provided rich data on patterns of land use, from small-scale homes to largescale traditional hunting grounds. It enabled them
to obtain a picture of the internal change in the
Ecological Planning
Kennett-Region Human-Ecological-Planning
Study
In the spring of a team of planners, landscape
architects, and anthropologists at Pennsylvania,
including some who had been involved in the
Hazleton study, conducted an applied-humanecological-planning study for the Kennett region,
in southeast Pennsylvania.41 Just an hour away
from Philadelphia, in the Brandywine River valley,
the region is made up of six townships and three
boroughs. In their continuing search for eective
ways to integrate human and natural processes
the team investigated how people aect and are
aected by their environment and how the resultant information can guide land-use planning and
design decisions. They lived with residents from
various segments of society to understand the
landscape from a local perspective.
The team constructed a rudimentary model of
the region to better understand the precise interactive relations between people and their environment.42 They leaned heavily on Stewards
cultural-core concept, Rappaports scientic and
cognized models, Hunters community studies
on peer identication of local inuentials, and Von
Bertalanys general systems theorys emphasis
on regulatory controls of local economy.43
To document the biophysical processes and
such information as social, economic, and demographic proles and trends of the region, the study
team conducted an ethnographic survey similar to
that undertaken in the Hazleton study. The survey
was intended to elicit accounts of how people
lived and interacted with other citizens and to illuminate how institutions involved in resource
exploitation aected peoples use of the land. By
synthesizing soft data gathered from the survey
with hard data obtained from published documents, they gained a better grasp of how the region functioned. Dan Rose and his colleagues illustrated the process of synthesis as follows: The
growth or non-growth of specic townships based
on census data and the transfer of real estate documented in the county records could be analyzed
in relation to what a local banker, realtor or home
builder said was happening in relationship to land
supply and housing demand which, in turn, was
investigated in relationship to the biophysical
process.44
The team found that the core institutions directly concerned with resource exploitation were
the local political economyagribusiness, banking, real estate, and government. The sources of
control of the local economy were both external
(e.g., the dairy milk market for farmers) and internal (e.g., zoning and bank lending practices), with
the latter predominating. Local elites controlled
the local political economy. Their decisions concerning land use and resource allocation aected
the supply of economic resources, which in turn
aected the use of natural resources.
The team implemented a ve-step procedure.
First, they conducted a historical survey to determine how the current settlement pattern had
emerged. Second, they delineated the extent of
settlement patterns from eld work and aerial
photographs. Third, they related the settlement
types to the major groups in Hazleton (about )
based on ethnic origin, class, and religion in order
to identify how the heterogenous population controlled and managed the regions resources and
how the community power structure operated.
Fourth, they explored the interrelationships among
the institutions that managed the land, capital, and
factors of production in order to understand the
regions productive core (Table .).
In the fth step, which I examine in more detail,
they explored the planning implications of steps
through as they illuminated how people actually
organized themselves and controlled their lives in
relation to their physical and social environment.
The purpose of this step was to identify who
gained and who lost in the allocation of land resources. More specically, they intended to develop a process based on an ecological account of
peoples values, accepting that in many cases those
values result in some groups suering, while others benet. The aim was that the suering could
be minimized by developing a plan that reected
reality and which could be utilized by all segments
of the population, including the powerless.45
It is obvious that the team was also interested in
enhancing social equality in the allocation of resources. To achieve this objective, they () identied key land-use issues in the community, such as
housing, surface-water management, and agricultural preservation; () reinterpreted the issues
based on how they were conceived by the people
involved; () examined biophysical factors that
impacted upon the issues and the sociocultural
systemthe local political economy, the values
of the working class, auent homeowners, etc.
(Table .); () investigated which groups suered
and which ones beneted from resource allocation; and nally () developed plans and imple-
mentation strategies for each issue based on values derived from the cultural core. The plans represent a synthesis of ecologically suitable lands derived from suitability analysis and culturally
desirable locations derived from the analysis of the
sociocultural system.
The human-ecology study for the Kennett region is quite similar to the Hazleton study, especially in its emphasis on a historical survey and
interpretation of landscape evolution and in its
use of ethnographic surveys as a prime datagathering technique. Rose and his team modied
the Stewardian cultural-core concept to account
for the complex feedback associated with humanenvironment interactions. Additionally, the team
viewed the citizens and local political and economic institutions as part of a social system adapting to a natural environment. They made more explicit how the views of planners, the aected
parties, and local elites might be elicited and integrated into land-use decision making. Lastly, they
acknowledged that land-resource allocation might
result in inequities that should be addressed explicitly and systematically in land-use decision
making.
Table .. Distribution of People in the Core Institutions of the Kennett Region, Pennsylvania
Table .. Impact of Housing Issue on the Sociocultural System of the Kennett Region, Pennsylvania
Ecological Planning
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Land use in the late nineteenth century. Reproduced, by permission, from Berger and Sinton, Water,
Earth, and Fire.
Under proposition , for instance, Berger and Sinton observed that the traditions that helped stabilize community life along the Pine Barren coast included woodcraft, clean water, agriculture, and a
slow rate of growth and change. Figure . depicts
the traditions of land and water use for woodcraft
within the Manahawkin-Tuckerson subregion,
along the coast. Woodcraft depends on the continued availability and accessibility of woodlands.
It is therefore related to such issues as forest succession, beach access for driftwood, re history,
and the road network. An understanding of such
traditional patterns of land use can help in selecting sites for new development.
Berger and Sinton described the essence of their
approach, which they contended should be viewed
as an aid to existing planning frameworks rather
than a new one, as follows: Our proposed synthesis . . . provide[s] an understanding of the long
traditions of use and belief and their relationship
to the environment and to the quality of lifethe
social and mental health of local communities.
Each land use or complementary cluster of land
uses would then be understood in terms of exploitative technology, development activities, and
the social organization or political economy of a
place as well as the impacts of those landuse patterns on the social and natural environment, the
full range of participants, and the symbolic and
aesthetic meanings of those uses.50
ecological planning should be informed by a synthesis of data on cultural, economic, and ecological phenomena and processes that govern or are
governed by the use and abuse of resources.51 The
knowledge base for the synthesis should include
environmental history, relations between land use
and the landscape, and the humanistic view. Each
domain explains landscape evolution, but in each
there is a distinctive gap that is lled by the others.
Berger acknowledged that although the Stewardian mutualistic model and Bennetts systemic
adaptive model provide insightful explanations of
cultural adaptation, they neglect the spatial aspects of the landscape. Those who examine the relationship between land use and the landscape
seek to discover the t between landscape features
linked by natural processes that support or limit
human use of the landscape. However, they generalize about social and cultural processes. The
humanistic view of vernacular landscapes ex-
Ecological Planning
. Establish boundaries.
. Identify the natural, sociocultural, and political
zones that make up the region.
. Identify user groups.
. Collect existing data.
. Evaluate the data.
. Generate necessary new data.
. Identify interactions and relationships.
. Produce models and materials.
. Evaluate and revise the process.
Steps , , and provide the human-ecology dimension. Jackson and Steiner argued that a generalized model of human ecology is sucient to understand interactions between humans and their
environment. The model they proposed depicts
the exchanges of energy, matter, and waste between humans and ecosystems (Fig. .). People
use labor, technology, and capital to transform energy and materials from the environment into
food sources. They ultimately consume the food
and create by-products such as heat and wastes,
which may harm the remaining resources.
By generalizing the model, Jackson and Steiner
argued, we can adjust it for various levels of analysis. The model can also be operationalized with respect to specic localities. As with the proposals
made by Berger and others, an understanding of
the insiders view is crucial in operationalizing the
model, especially in determining land uses and
deciding how a plan should be implemented.53
Jackson and Steiner also elaborated on how to
establish natural, sociocultural, and political zones
to make a human-ecology study more manageable. Sociocultural zones, they noted, are the most
dicult to establish since people with widely varying characteristics can occupy a locality. An investigation of the relationships between the land and
the users provides valuable insights for establishing cultural zones since it reveals how people use
and adapt to the land. The needed information is
varied but includes an examination of the landscape-evolution process for the region, the present
pattern of land uses, and the strategies people use
in adapting to the landscape. Published data would
be augmented with a focused ethnographic survey
to make the gathering and analysis of data more
manageable.
Jackson and Steiner further prescribed four
specic themes to be revealed in synthesizing the
vast amount of data gathered: () interrelationships between the components of the natural system; () interrelationships between user groups;
() the demands made on the ecosystem by each
user group; and () the eectiveness of existing
Ecological Planning
Matrices are used to identify interactions between biophysical factors, between user groups,
and between user demands. The results of the various analysespopulation and economic characteristics, visual and landscape patterns, interrelationshipsare combined to establish community
needs. Community needs relate issues to goals being pursued in a planning program, which in turn
may reveal a need to amend or articulate new
goals or even new issues.
If we scrutinize methods used in other approaches, we nd that a number of them emphasize human ecology to varying degrees. Certainly
the work of Juneja and McHarg in Medford Township, New Jersey in the early s continues to
exemplify innovative eorts to integrate social
values into ecological planning. Zev Naveh and
Arthur Liebermans Total Human Ecosystem
model, presented in Landscape Ecology, has a human-ecology bias since it is based on the idea that
man-and-his-total-environment form one single
whole in nature that can be, should be and will be
studied in its totality.54
S E L E C T E D A P P L I C AT I O N S
OF PLACE CONSTRUCTS
Place making is a dominant theme in many ecological planning and design endeavors. Here I discuss some of my own works, related works by my
former students, and those of Michael Hough,
Jones & Jones, and Darrel Morrison to illustrate
various ways the concept of place has been operationalized and applied in planning and design.
Fig. .. The Burwash community site. The foreground and midground are covered by pasture and open elds.
The background, with its knobs, ridges, marshes, hardwoods, and evergreen trees, is typical of northern Ontarios boreal forests. For the Burwash group the site evokes strong feelings about the Ojibway historical settlements, characterized by diverse ecosystems that support housing, shing, hunting, and trapping. Photograph by
author, .
and design process, as well as the products, reected Ojibway values. Board members were concerned that traditional citizen-participation techniques used in the planning of similar native
communities had not adequately captured native
values. The board contended that the native way
of life was distinct and should be integrated in the
design of their new community.
The primary challenge, therefore, was to develop and implement a framework for integrating
native viewpoints in resource assessment, site selection, and conceptual design development. Thus,
a cross-cultural dimension was added to the dimensions of the human-ecological-planning eorts
reviewed so far. Cross-cultural situations occur
when a planner or designer belongs to a social
group whose culture diers from that of the client
group. Among other ramications, cross-cultural
Ecological Planning
settings suggest the potential for miscommunication and distortion of information among actors
in the planning process.
We synthesized ideas from numerous sources
to develop a conceptual base for the study, especially the sense of place construct, cultural adaptation, and suitability analyses.57 I took the lead in
reinterpreting the challengeseeking the sustained t between the experiential and physical
environments of the future inhabitants of the
Burwash community. Kevin Lynchs comment is
instructive: A good settlement is one that can be
perceived . . . and meaningful to its inhabitants . . .
with its elements linked to other events and places
in a coherent mental representation of time and
space . . . and a representation that can be connected with non-spatial concepts and values. This
is the join between the form of the environment
and the human processes of perception and cognition.58
The t between the experiential and physical
environments diers, however, among various social groups since the basis of the t is largely culturespecic. The idea of t is captured concisely in
David Canter and Edward Relphs construct of
place as depicted in Figure ., in which I substituted experience for meanings and conceptions. Consequently, my proposition for a framework that integrates native inputs eectively in planning and
design involved an examination of () the opportunities and constraints aorded by the biophysical environment (site) based on natives and planners viewpoints; () the activities and institutions
the Ojibway use in satisfying their needs and desires in the landscape, paying attention to formal
determinants and noting their constancy and
change over time; () prior images the future inhabitants hold of nature as identied in the spatial
organization of their past settlements and their future expectations for the site. Furthermore, since
the degree to which an outsider (planner or designer) can understand a peoples way of life is limited, continuous involvement of the client group
Fig. .. Master plan for the Burwash community, Ontario, Canada. Reproduced, by permission, from Ndubisi,
Phenomenological Approach to Design for Amer-Indian Cultures.
with the approach the Canadian federal government, which is responsible for the aairs of Native
Canadians, uses in evaluating native-community
plans.
The outcomes of the BNPP study are too numerous to list here. For example, we found that
historically almost all Ojibway settlements have
been located close to bodies of water, emphasizing the Ojibway symbolism of water as a giver of
life. This trend continues today. For the Ojibway,
recreation is a part of all living, not something that
takes place in a designated time or place. Consequently, their settlements do not have areas set
aside specically for recreational use but exist
within natural settings that can be viewed as parklike, with large tracts of land separating individual
homes. Moreover, linear and grid patterns have
never existed in their settlements, only curvilinear
and circular forms, expressing unity, continuity,
completeness, and circular aspects of natural process.59
The framework we implemented revealed the
Ecological Planning
Other Studies
Recently, two of my former students utilized the
place construct as the analytical base for their
work. Jeery Fahs operationalized the place construct to develop a design for the central business
district (CBD) in Del Rio, Texas.61 Del Rio sits on
the bank of the Rio Grande, which separates the
United States from Mexico. Seventy percent of Del
Rios population are Mexican Americans. Many of
them migrated from Ciudad Acuna, Mexico, a sister city to Del Rio, located just beyond the border.
Jeery Fahs operationalized the place construct
I used in the Burwash study in the form of a series
of questions. Peoples responses were intended to
By means of an ethnographic survey Fahs provided answers to these questions that, combined
with site analysis, enabled him to propose design
criteria sensitive to the users needs and values.
Philippe Doineau adapted a similar place construct as an analytical tool to develop a heritage
and demonstration trail in Sapelo Island, Georgia.63 One of the barrier islands along the coast of
Georgia, Sapelo Island is located approximately
forty-ve miles southeast of Savannah. It is one of
the few islands along the Eastern seaboard that is
still inhabited by Gullah African Americans, descendants of slaves. Doineaus place concept, initially proposed by Amos Rapoport, links culture to
activity systems.64 My elaboration on the framework reveals culture as an embodiment of values,
behavioral patterns, artifacts, activity systems, and
lifestyles.65 Value systems, which can be used to
dierentiate among subcultures, motivate people
to satisfy their needs in specic ways. Given the
same goals, and within a perceived and cognitively
dened eld, the ways of satisfying needs become
roughly similar. The satisfaction of peoples needs,
therefore, is reected in their activity systems and
lifestyles, both of which are culturally informed.
As dened by Amos Rapoport, lifestyles comprise
Ecological Planning
of nature, we can seek to understand peoples aesthetic experience of the landscape. But peoples
aesthetic experiences cannot be fully understood
through landscape-perception techniques currently
employed in most ecological planning. Most
landscape-perception techniques leave out the
unmeasurable, ephemeral things that in reality are
largely responsible for the aesthetic experience.69
Hough argues that aesthetic experience has little
to do with the creation of vernacular landscapes.
Instead, perceived beauty is a result of how well
our landscapes coincide with our ability to solve
the problems of living and habitation.
To create places, therefore, Hough recommended that we begin with an understanding of
the regional identity. But a peoples regional identity is not xed in space and time; it has to be sustained: The connections between regional identity and sustainability of the land are essential. A
valid design philosophy, therefore, is tied to ecological values and principles; to the notions of environmental and social health; to the essential
bond of people and nature; and to the biological
sustainability of life itself.70
A number of design principles emerge from this
statement:
Understand a place in terms of its natural and cultural processes, establishing identity through the
landscape and creating dierent places for dierent people.
Maintain a sense of history through the use and integration of old and new.
Promote environmental learning to encourage
people to maintain the integrity of the natural
and the cultural landscape.
Intervene only when necessary; from minimal
resources and energy comes maximum environmental and social benets.
Invest in the productivity and diversity of landscapes,
Focus on the things that can be accomplished.
Ecological Planning
the applied-ecosystem
approach
APPLIED-ECOSYSTEM PLANNING
The applied-ecosystem approach is chiey concerned with managing human societies within their ecological contexts. It embraces an array of methods that examine the structure and function of landscapes and how they respond to human
and natural inuences. Those who have proposed applied-ecosystem methods use
the concept of the ecosystem as the framework for understanding and analyzing
landscapes. They view the ecosystem as a combined human and natural system
in which the components are related and interact. For them, the ecosystem is selfregulating and has a limited capacity for recovery.
The ecosystem approach is not unique to the eld of ecological planning. It is
used in many disciplines, including human ecology, cultural anthropology, sociology, and psychology. In ecological planning, however, the applied-ecosystem approach emerged from the conuence of concepts derived from the following disciplines: ecosystem sciences, particularly ecosystem ecology, with its emphasis on
the structure, function, and behavior of ecosystems through both theoretical
work and eldwork;1 systems theory, leaning toward cause-and-eect relationships
and the related concepts of cybernetics and holism; economics, with a focus on environmental externalities in the allocation of resources; and landscape suitability,
particularly in methods and techniques that permit ecological processes to be
linked to their landscape location. This conuence was made possible by the
dominant inuence of systems thinking in the late s and early s and the
popularity of the ecosystem concept as an organizing theme for understanding
Ecological Planning
KEY CONCEPTS
The Ecosystem Concept
The ecosystem is made up of interacting physical
and chemical environmental and biotic factors
connected through the ow of energy and material. It is a part of a hierarchy of physical systems
that range from the atom to the universe. Equilibrium is the fundamental force that drives the organization and conservation of the ecosystem,
always moving it toward stability. However, complete stability is rarely attained; it can only be approximated whenever the factors at work are
constant and stable for a long period of time.2
Ecosystems are open systems in that energy,
materials, and species are constantly entering and
leaving. They also have a characteristic structure
and function (Fig. .). Structure is the spatial composition of the biotic and abiotic elements in the
natural and human environments, while function
deals with the ow of energy and materials within
or between the elements. Ecosystems range in size
from the biosphere to a pond. Recognized as an integral part of the ecosystem, humans are seen to
have the ability to alter the ecosystem drastically.
As the ecologist Frank Golley put it, An understanding of the ecosystem concept and the realization that mankind is a part of these complex
Fig. .. The visible features of the landscapelandform, riparian areas, and treesare sustained by the ow of
nutrients, energy, and species. Photograph by author, .
Ecological Planning
respond to stresses. Table . shows the key structural and functional characteristics of an ecosystem.
Understanding ecosystem dynamics and behavior has been hampered by the extreme complexity
of ecosystems. They lie in a nested hierarchy, and
yet for purposes of description and analysis they
must be abstracted from reality by placing them
within boundaries.10 The size of an ecosystem under examination depends on the interest of the analyst or on convenience. In a similar vein, distinct
ecosystem boundaries rarely exist. Often they
are adapted to embrace all functioning processes
within the study area, for example, nutrient cycles
and ows of energy.
Multidimensional interactions between a wide
range of organisms are involved in examining
ecosystem dynamics.11 The interactions themselves are dynamic, time-dependent, and constantly changing. In addition, some of the eects
of the interactions are carried back to their source
(feedbacks). Some feedbacks may be positive when
the eect is increased, and some may be negative
when it decreases. Moreover, living organisms are
variable in the sense that the actions of one impact
on the others, directly or indirectly, such as in competition or predation among organisms.
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Successional sequence after disturbance in the Piedmont landscape in Georgia. Photograph by author,
.
Ecological Planning
ecosystems, however, calls into play diverse procedures for examining ecosystem structure, function, dynamics, and behavior. The spectrum of
procedures speaks to the disagreement that exists
about reliable indicators of ecosystem stability.
ECOSYSTEM-LANDC L A S S I F I C AT I O N M E T H O D S
In order to understand the behavior of an ecological system, we must rst describe the characteristics and then examine the interconnections among
them (abiotic, biotic, and cultural components).
This is what ecosystem-classication methods do.
However, the description is undertaken irrespective of the prospective uses of the ecosystem. The
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Howard Odums energy language. Reproduced, by permission, from Odum, Environment, Power, and
Society.
forests), nonvital (e.g., industrial land), and compromise (e.g., suburban development under the
forest canopy).
For Odum, the transactions emphasized are nutrient cycles and energy ows among the dierent
land uses. These include community metabolism
(e.g., production-respiration ratio, food chains)
and biogeochemical cycles (e.g., storage capacity,
internal cycling). The energy language developed
by his brother, Howard Odum, can be used to represent the energy exchanges, though the latter
cautioned that additional research is needed to
measure them, especially in large landscapes (Fig.
.). Eugene Odum recognized that conicts between human uses and resource conservation are
inevitable, and he suggested that land-use allocation be based on the ecological functions that
dierent land uses serve. Moreover, the classication assumes a closed condition in which biological production is equal to biological respiration.
Certainly this is not the case, especially in humandominated landscapes, where massive inputs of
energy and nutrients occur.
Eugene Odums scheme has been applied in
many ecological-planning projects. However, the
landscape architect William Hendrix and others
observed, and I concur, that Odums scheme
serves only in a conceptual way to structure research questions in ecological-planning studies
since additional research is needed to model ecological interactions quantitatively.
Ecological Planning
E C O S Y S T E M - E VA LUAT I O N
METHODS
Once a landscape has been reinterpreted as an
ecosystem and the characteristics of that ecosystem have been described, it is necessary to conduct
detailed studies on how the characteristics inter-
is somewhat arbitrary, since many of the environmental indicators are derived from mathematical
models . . . the construction of a mathematical
model of an ecosystem may require more data and
theory than is currently available. Therefore, it appears more attractive to use an environmental index.39
In my view, the distinction really lies in whether
models are used to examine ecosystem dynamics
and behavior prior to the development of management options. At any point in the modeling
process pertinent indicators may be used to assess
the state of the ecosystem.
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. The abiotic-biotic-cultural strategy. Redrawn from Bastedo, ABC Resource Survey Method for Environmentally Signicant Areas, by M. Rapelje, .
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. The General ecological model. Reproduced, by permission, from Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Summary of General Ecological Model .
Ecological Planning
Ecological Planning
species and the physical and chemical environment is a simplistic way to account for the complexity of ecological systems.
Model-Based Methods
Models provide a logical and orderly way to understand the myriad interactions within ecological
systems. A model is a simplied construct that
simulates a real-world phenomenon in a way that
makes complex situations comprehensible and
even predictable. Models retain the complexity
and variability of ecosystem interactions in a form
that is amenable to analysis. Models range from
descriptive ones, such as simplied verbal or
graphic representations of relationships, to complex mathematical ones.
Mathematical models provide a symbolic logic
capable of expressing ideas and relationships simply. When ecosystem dynamics are well understood and amenable to quantication, we can
predict changes in stressed ecosystems. The predictions allow us to compare the model to the realworld systems they represent. The use of mathematical models in examining ecosystem behavior
and responses to change was popularized by the
IBP.
The ecologist J. N. Jeers noted that although
individual models are either descriptive or mathematical, they can change from one type to the
other in the course of a study. Irrespective of the
type, all models specify at least three groups of
variables: () input variables, the sources of stress
(e.g., toxic chemicals); () state variables, characteristics of the ecosystem (e.g., the amount of biomass, phosphorus, or nitrogen); and () output
variables, the eects of stress (e.g., reduced trout
populations). The variables are connected by feedbacks and the pathways for nutrient and energy
ow.
In ecological-planning studies, ecosystem dynamics and behavior can be examined using compartment-ow and stimulus-response models,
which can be descriptive, mathematical, or both.59
Compartment models depict ecosystems as a series of compartments between which energy, nutrients, and materials ow. Some of these models
manipulate quantitative data using mathematical
operations, such as the compartment-ow models
used in determining phosphorous loading in numerous studies conducted in the Great Lakes.60 In
such studies the problems are relatively simple and
the number of variables examined is few. Compartment-ow models are also used in situations
where quantitative analysis is inappropriate or impossible, for example, where simple cause-andeect analysis will not do. In such situations compartment-ow models serve in a conceptual way
to structure research questions. (A notable example is Odums compartment model, reviewed
above.)
Stimulus-response models focus on the transformations that enable ecosystems to survive present and future levels of stress. Stimulus is usually
an external eect, and response is usually an internal cause. Emphasis is placed on identifying indicators that best describe and measure the threshold at which energy ows and nutrient pathways
are damaged irreversibly by various types, intensities, and frequencies of human-induced stresses.61
Some researchers have moved one step closer to
translating these indicators into indices for ascertaining ecosystem health and stability.62
Like compartment models, stimulus-response
models can be descriptive or mathematical. For instance, John Lyle, an articulate advocate for using
descriptive models in ecological planning, documents numerous studies in Design for Human
Ecosystems () and Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development () that clearly illustrate
the use of descriptive models (Fig. .).
Mathematical models, as Paul Risser notes,
are often dicult to construct, operate, and even
validate. Studies often take a long time, and
the complexity of the models makes interpretation dicult.63 The current trend, especially in
ecological-planning and resource-management
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Eects of upstream grading. A simplied representation of cause-and-eect relationships in the lling of wetlands in San Elijo Lagoon, in southern California. Redrawn from
Lyle, Design for Human Ecosystems, by M. Rapelje, .
studies, is to use simple models with enough detail to address the ecosystem characteristics under study and to illuminate conicts with prospective uses. A concise review of an application
of Odums compartment model illustrates one
way compartment models have been used in
An Ecosystem-Evaluation Procedure
Utilizing Odums Compartment Model
In the mid-s researchers at the University
of Massachusetts adapted Odums compartment
model to a regional ecosystem-evaluation procedure. The procedure was applied in forestmanagement and land-use studies in the communities of Bernardston and Greeneld in western
Massachusetts.64 William Hendrix, Julius Fabos,
and Joan Price adopted Odums model because it
recognizes that ecological functions are carried
out by dierent land uses, for example, agriculture
(productive lands) and matured forests (protective
lands) (see Fig. .). Odums model also recognizes
that interactions between land uses are characterized by biogeochemical cycles and energy ows.
Hendrix, Fabos, and Price modied Odums
model to account for the fact that regional ecosystems are open systems characterized by the exchange of materials and nutrients across their
boundaries. In such situations biological production may not equal biological respiration as the
Odum model implies.
Hendrix and his colleagues rst developed a
two-part classication of the ecosystems. They used
the statistical techniques of discriminate analysis
to assign land uses to ve groups, with those uses
assigned to each group having similar ecological
characteristics. The production-respiration ratio,
biomass (standing crop), and yield were used as
the discriminating variables. The land units were
further dierentiated into substrate functions
based on their ability to support ecological processes. The ecological processes examined were
the biological potential and the loss of biochemical
materials (runo and erosion) necessary for ecosystem maintenance. Biological potential was viewed
as a function of soil productivity and exposure to
solar radiation. The resultant physical-substrate
classication was an aggregation of the biological
and denudation potential of the land broken down
into eight categories, such as protection, high agri-
Ecological Planning
modeling of ecosystems and through the renement of techniques for analyzing and predicting
stresses to ecosystems.66
Most CEA applications employ a descriptive
modeling process similar to that used by Lyle and
also employed in the LSA network technique
in conducting EIAs. CEA traces human actions
through a series of iterations that focus on the
type, intensity, and duration of stresses (e.g., point
and nonpoint pollutants, construction activities),
the resultant transformations in ecosystem dynamics (e.g., the disruption of energy pathways
and nutrient cycling by the pollutants), and the
eects of the stresses (e.g., reduction in trout
population). Unlike the network technique, which
traces the eects of a single action or perturbation,
the CEA emphasizes multiple actions, direct and
indirect processes or pathways, and cumulative
and synergistic eects (e.g., synergistic chemical
reactions between fertilizers).
CEA has evolved in two directions, scientic
and applied. The scientic orientation emphasizes
information gathering that identies and denes
ecosystem dynamics and behavior aected by cumulative processes. The applied orientation uses
such information as decision rules to initiate management actions. In practice, however, the results
produced by applications of CEAs using the scientic orientation are not signicantly dierent
from those produced by the network impactassessment technique.
The scope of CEA tends to be narrow because
most projects have a short time frame. With few
exceptions, the study area is typically conned to
the immediate locale. Additional constraints are
resource limitations and a partial knowledge of
the synergistic eects of multiple change sources
and pathways. Ultimately, few actions, as well as
few ecosystem characteristics and interactions, are
examined using simple cause-and-eect relationships. The geographers Harry Spaling and Barry
Smit added that this limited scope overlooks environmental change involving multiple perturba-
Ecological Planning
HOLISTIC-ECOSYSTEMMANAGEMENT METHODS
Holistic-ecosytem-management (HEM) methods
are the most comprehensive of the applied-ecosystem methods. They are designed to describe the
characteristics and dynamics of ecosystems and to
evaluate their behavior in light of the prospective
uses of an ecosystem. In addition, and unlike other
applied-ecosystem methods, the HEM methods
have the ability to implement the outputs of ecological evaluation.
The HEM methods address both technical and
policy questions that emphasize all phases of the
conventional planning process. The major questions are: What social, economic, technological,
and ecological factors interact collectively to
dene the well-being of an ecosystem? How are
the boundaries of the problem reinterpreted
based on the understanding of the interactions?
How are ecosystem structure, function, and dynamics described and examined? How are the
eects of stresses on the ecosystem assessed? Can
the ecosystem accommodate prospective uses
while sustaining its stability? How does the understanding of the eects of stresses on ecosystems
inform a systematic generation of management
options?
Policy questions are raised as well. What roles
do the public, policymakers, and relevant others
play in problem denition, ecosystem assessment,
formulation of management options, and implementation? Which agencies or bodies will implement the prescribed management options and
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Ecosystem-management process. Redrawn from Dorney, Professional Practice of Environmental Management, by M. Rapelje, .
tention to how information is generated by various analytical techniques that are rened by the
key actorssta, decision makers, citizens. Workshops are critical to the successful integration of
the outcomes of individual analyses that use these
varied techniques. Holling and his colleagues elaborated further on this issue: At the beginning of the
study, all elementsvariables, management acts,
objectives, indicators, time horizons, and spatial
Ecological Planning
is then compared with this historical state to establish levels of degradation.78 Possible management options range from further degradation to
restoration.
Facilitating public involvement is a central feature of the HEM methods. In large-scale ecosystem projects, especially those involving multiple
uses, ownerships, and agencies, implementation
cannot succeed without widespread public understanding of the management issues and options.
The methods used in such studies pay special attention to the mechanisms for sharing and communicating information among aected local
groups, elected ocials, and citizens.79
HEM methods almost always embrace institutional strategies for implementing management
options. As the then executive director of the
Great Lakes Commission, Michael Donahue, put
it, If policy is to be viewed as an output of organizations, the institutional arrangements that
shape, interpret, and administer policy become a
critical determinant of the policys impact upon
society.80 Regional governance has been advocated as a key mechanism for implementing management options, especially when ecosystems traverse jurisdictional boundaries. But designing
eective regional governance structures is not an
easy task. The major topics of debate include the
lack of shared understanding of the concept of
ecosystem management; the likelihood that the
participating entities espouse dierent management philosophies; the extent of agreement
among the participating bodies about their roles
and responsibilities; the extent of commitment
among them toward cooperative management of
a shared resource; the authority vested in, and resources committed to, the coordination of eorts
among the relevant entities given that regional
governance traditionally has been hampered by
limited authority and resources; the political will
to implement the options; and the design of objective techniques for measuring performance. According to Donahue, while regional governance is
dressing activities typically undertaken in conventional planning but organized from a systems perspective. Despite the contributions made by the
applied-ecosystem approach to understanding the
dynamics and behavior of ecosystems, in general
the approach has not been eective in revealing
how the spatial arrangements of ecosystem characteristics aect ecological processes, and vice
versa;82 how ecosystems evolve to develop an
identiable visual and cultural identity; how ecological systems are linked both vertically and horizontally through the ow of nutrients, energy,
Fig. .. Relatively regular pattern of volcanic loess, used for agricultural production in western Washington.
The patches have dierent shapes but with homogenous propertiesplanted elds, hedgerows, and woodlands.
Materials, energy, and species move across the patches. Photograph by Robert Scarfo, .
Ecological Planning
sis of its contributions to ecological planning. Numerous book-length reviews and articles on the
theory and selected applications of landscape ecology to ecological planning already exist for anyone
interested in specic details.4 For context and also
to be consistent with the historical emphasis in this
book, I provide a brief history of the development
of landscape ecology as a way to highlight its distinctive features and to illuminate the major contributions in its evolution.5
A H I S TO R I C A L S U M M A RY
Landscape is a recurring theme throughout the
history of science and art; however, the origin of
landscape ecology is very recent. Three major,
overlapping periods in its evolution can be distinguished.6 The rst, an awakening phase, began
in the late nineteenth century and prevailed until
the s, when scientic advances were made in
understanding physical and biological processes
occurring over large areas. The second was a formative phase, extending from the s to ,
when landscape ecology developed as a distinct
interdisciplinary area of scholarly inquiry and an
applied discipline. The period after was a consolidation period, when its conceptual foundations were solidied. It was during this phase that
landscape ecology was introduced to North America.
Ecologists like A. von Humboldt, J. Braun-Blanquet, Frederick Clements, and Herbert Gleason
provided invaluable insights into the origins of
broad-scale ecology. However, the term landscape
ecology was rst coined by the German ecologist
and geographer Carl Troll in the late s. Troll
was fascinated by the ecosystem concept as
dened by Tansley in and by the holistic view
of the landscape depicted in aerial photographs.
However, not until the late s and early s
did the preliminary conceptual foundations of
landscape ecology emerge. At the international
meeting of the Association of Vegetation Science
Fig. .. Isaak Zonnevelds widely referenced illustration depicts the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the
landscape examined in landscape-ecological studies, in addition to the specic landscape characteristics under
study. Redrawn from Zonneveld, Land Unit, by M. Rapelje, .
ical investigations of hedgerows in Britain conducted by E. Polland and his colleagues provided
additional insights into the linkages between
landscape structure, function, and human-induced
change.13 German ecologist H. Leser explored the
relations between the methods and concepts in geography and ecology.14 In an important lecture in
dedicated to Troll the German landscape ecologist K. F. Schreiber sketched the conceptual and
methodological development of landscape ecology, emphasizing the importance of ecosystem research in furthering advancements in landscape
classication and ordination.15 The Dutch ecologist C. Van Leeuwen linked temporal variation to
spatial heterogeneity in landscapes.16
As interest in landscape-ecology studies ourished, scholars from allied disciplines expanded
the boundaries of landscape ecology. Urbaniza-
Ecological Planning
humans and the landscape, as well as the importance of a system approach in understanding the
relationships.22 Richard Rommes study of re history in Yellowstone National Park laid down new
techniques for quantifying changes in the landscape.23
Two meetings held in the early s provided
a forum for formulating principles governing the
interactions between patterns and processes in the
landscape.24 The rst, held in the Netherlands in
, brought a group of American scientists together in Europe to discuss common threads in
their research.25 In a follow-up meeting in Allerton
Park, Illinois, in , a group of American landscape ecologists explored landscape-ecology concepts. Since then, numerous meetings have been
held. These meetings, along with numerous papers on landscape ecology presented at the conferences of allied disciplines, the emergence of
seminal texts in landscape ecology, and the development of the journal Landscape Ecology, provided
a synergism that nurtured an exciting period of development in North American landscape-ecology
studies.26
Today, landscape ecology is recognized as a distinct subdiscipline within North American ecological studies. In the s these studies emphasized the
biological aspects of landscape ecology, the fundamental issues about landscape structure, function,
and change, especially in more or less natural landscapes, such as national forests. A comparable emphasis on the applied aspects is beginning to emerge.
Increasingly, scholars and professionals from allied
disciplines are seeking to apply landscape-ecology
principles to solve ecological-planning-and-design
problems such as habitat fragmentation, design of
nature preserves, resource management, and sustainable development. Noteworthy are the contributions of geographers, foresters, landscape architects, soil scientists, and wildlife biologists.27 Today,
most North American landscape ecologists agree
with the statement by F. Van Langevelde that it is
neither a pure science, with only the goal to in-
crease knowledge, nor is it a purely applied science, with the sole purpose of solving problems.28
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Connections between landscape ecology and ecological planning. Redrawn from authors original by
M. Rapelje, .
Bridging concepts are spatial ideas and frameworks that specify landscape patterns and processes used to create sustainable spatial congurations of land uses in the landscape; examples are
the patch-corridor-matrix framework, habitat networks, and hydrological landscape structure, examined in greater detail below. Bridging concepts
nurture the maximum fusion of ideas among landscape ecologists and allied disciplines concerned
with spatial and temporal change in the landscape.
Professionals in these disciplines, particularly ecological planners and designers, translate bridging
concepts into specic ecological-planning principles and procedures (BC), using appropriate tech-
BASIC CONCEPTS
Drawing from a diverse philosophical and theoretical base, landscape ecology is based on many
scientic theories and concepts, some of which are
dicult to separate. Two sets of concepts are especially useful in understanding the basic principles
of landscape ecology in a manner that reveals its
potential linkages to ecological planning and design. These concepts deal with ecosystem functions at the landscape scale and others that reveal
how landscape-ecology knowledge is ordered,
such as general systems theory (GST), holism, and
hierarchy. I highlight their specic contributions to
landscape ecology below.
Ecological Planning
landscape as an area that is spatially heterogeneous in at least one factor of interest.34 They
agree with Forman and Godron that at the human
scale it is possible to observe a cluster of interacting ecosystems or elements that is repeated in
similar form throughout its kilometer-wide extent, but they emphasize that landscape ecology
may deal with landscapes that extend over tens of
meters rather than kilometers, and a landscape
may even be dened in an aquatic system.35 I
agree with Turner, Gardner, and ONeill and
adopt their denition of the landscape.
Scale, the organizational means for ordering ecological knowledge or the extent of spatial resolution, is especially important in landscape-ecology
studies. Ecologists use hierarchical levels to structure ecological knowledge. Beginning with the
smallest, Eugene Odum dened these levels as
organisms, population, community, ecosystem,
landscape, biome, biogeographic region, and biosphere.36 While all these levels can be studied
from an ecosystem perspective, the most important ones for understanding ecosystem functions
at the landscape level are population, community,
ecosystem, and landscape.37
The other interpretation of scale I use throughout this chapter views it as a spatial dimension of
an object or process. As commonly used in ecological studies, ne scale refers to minute resolution
or a small study area, while broad scale refers to
coarse resolution or a large study area. Scale is especially important in landscape-ecology studies
because the relative importance of factors controlling ecological processes varies with spatial
scale. Since landscapes are made up of spatially
heterogenous elements, their structure, function,
and modication are dependent on scale.38 For example, a given landscape may be stable at one spatial scale but not at another.
Spatial scale also has a temporal dimension. Usually, many short-term events occur over a small
area, while long-term changes take place over a
larger area. For instance, the ecologists W. H.
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Richard B. Russel Lake, in Georgia. The irregular shape of its shoreline cannot be described precisely by
Euclidean geometry. Photograph by author, .
BRIDGING CONCEPTS
Bridging concepts focus on spatial relations in the
landscape. They reveal knowledge about landscape patterns and processes that are especially
valuable for creating sustainable landscapes.
Bridging concepts help us to illuminate the key
challenges encountered in ecological-planningand-design situations; to decide which landscape
features should be surveyed and analyzed; to formulate principles for synthesizing the relevant information; and to select sustainable spatial structures in the landscape.
Bridging concepts that deserve further comment
are () ecotope assemblages, () the patch-corridormatrix framework, () hydrological landscape structures, () habitat relations, and () landscapeecology-based spatial principles. These ve illustrate
Ecotope Assemblages
Landscapes are typically described in terms of
their featuresphysiography, climatic regimes,
Ecological Planning
agricultural practices, and so forth. Many convenient schemes have been proposed, but truly
phytogenic description based on structural, functional, and historical characteristics does not yet
exist. Describing the landscape based on ecotopes
is a tradition with strong roots in Europe.55 An
ecotope, as previously mentioned, is the smallest
spatial unit of land that has homogenous properties, for example, relief, soil, and vegetation structure. It is regarded as the spatial representation of
an ecosystem comprising a unique assemblage of
living and nonliving things.
Similar ecotopes have recurring properties that
permit their aggregation into increasingly larger
clusters of ecotopes (landscape types). When the
clusters correspond to specic locations in the
landscape, they are regarded as classication units.
In applied landscape ecology such assemblages are
mapped as landscape types and assigned a map legend. Clusters at each scale typically display similar
properties and serve specic ecological functions.
type within a daily commuting eld of cities. Dorney noted that the strengths of his scheme were its
simplicity and its adaptability to varying spatial
scales of problem solving. However, he cautioned
that it was intended as a rst step in dening the
scope of a study, to be followed by a more detailed
landscape-ecology investigation. These observations are equally applicable to all the ecotope
topologies examined here.
Fig. .. Models of mosaic sequences. Each conguration exerts a distinct regulatory function on the ow of
minerals, energy, and species across the landscape. Reproduced, by permission, from Forman, Land Mosaics.
Ecological Planning
Habitat Networks
One important objective in both landscape ecology and ecological planning is the sustained movement of nutrients, energy, and species across the
landscape mosaic. However, the continued intensication of urban and rural areas has led to decreasing heterogeneity and increasing fragmentation of
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. The allocation of land uses based on the aggregate-with-outliers principle. N = natural vegetation;
A = agriculture; B = built area. Note that outliers of natural vegetation, agriculture, and built area are depicted
by small dots in (a), circles in (b), and triangles in (c). Reproduced, by permission, from Forman, Land Mosaics.
amples of how they can be used in planning-anddesign projects. In fact, some of the principles
are detailed elaborations of Formans aggregatewith-outliers principle. The fty-ve principles are
grouped into patches, edges and boundaries, corridors and connectivity, and mosaics. In addition,
the book provides references to the fourteen case
studies described.
C. Duerksen and his colleagues proposed biological principles and management guidelines at
the landscape and site scales for mitigating the
eects of residential development on wildlife and
developed an interactive decision-support system
for the Front Range of Colorado.74 The biological
principles were based on principles from conservation biology and landscape ecology. They also identied operational principles to enhance collaboration among ecologists, planners, and citizens. The
distinction between principles and guidelines proposed at the landscape and site scales is clearly consistent with the emphasis landscape ecologists place
on examining the landscape across spatial scales.
At the broad landscape scale, Duerksen and his
colleagues argued that development aects the
distribution, survival, and perseverance of wildlife
populations and communities. In contrast, at the
site scale, development inuences the behavior,
survival, and reproduction of individual animals.
Consequently, they proposed biological principles
and management guidelines appropriate for each
scale. One guideline recommended at the landscape scale for habitat protection was to maintain
large, intact patches of native vegetation by preventing fragmentation of these patches by development, a guideline very similar to, if not derived
from, Formans aggregate-with-outliers principle.75
A comparable guideline at the site scale was to
maintain buers between areas dominated by human activities and core areas of wildlife habitat.76
Duerksen and his colleagues pointed out that the
site-scale principles and guidelines are especially
eective in urban landscapes that are already fragmented, whereas the landscape-scale principles
LANDSCAPE-ECOLOGICAL
PLANNING: PROCEDURAL
DIRECTIVES AND
A P P L I C AT I O N S
Findings and concepts from landscape ecology are
relevant in ecological planning, especially when
they are systematically synthesized into planning
ideology, principles, and procedures. Even though
landscape ecology and ecological planning focus
on the ecology of the landscape, the emphasis that
the former places on spatial change involving interacting abiotic, biotic, and sociocultural processes is relatively new to ecological planning. A
systematic integration of both disciplines ideas,
methods, and techniques is essential.
Substantial evidence indicates that such integration is taking place, but not in a systematic fashion. Indeed, there are hardly denitive methods
for applying landscape ecology to planning. It is
not surprising, therefore, to nd some of the
methods and techniques I examined in other approaches, such as LSAs and the applied-ecosystem
methods, included in my discussion of landscapeecological planning. The development of spatially
based principles is one area in which much systemic integration has occurred.
Selected uses and applications of landscapeecology concepts in planning are reviewed below.
Landscape ecologists such as Forman, Frans Klign,
Ecological Planning
The resultant information is organized on the basis of RNUs and their subunits, computerized and
stored in digital data banks using GIS, and subsequently made available to local governments to
assist them in land-use decision making. Besides
the examination of cause-and-eect relationships,
the analysis of spatial patterns and processes reinforces a basic principle in landscape ecology,
namely, that landscape systems such as RNUs are
open systems that can be well understood only if
the inuence of social, economic, and environmental factors on the systems is known.
In Ecosystem Classication for Environmental Management (), Klign demonstrated how the hierarchical ecotope classication he proposed can
inform the spatial scale at which specic environmental problems can be addressed. He argued that
environmental hazards such as ground-water pollution, fragmentation, and acidication may be
viewed as chains of ecological processes that aect
the structural characteristics of ecosystems at
many spatial and temporal scales. The structural
characteristics may be the soil texture, the organic
content of the soil, or the direction and rate of
ground-water ow. Each hazard has an immediate
impact on specic biophysical characteristics of
the landscape and cascades down to the others.
Pollution, for instance, begins in the atmosphere
and moves down to surface water, ground water,
geology, and so forth.
Klign proposed a ve-step procedure for evaluating the susceptibility of ecotopes to specic environmental hazards:
. Establish the spatial and temporal scale or point
of attack for addressing the hazard.
. Examine processes that determine the suscepti-
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. The hydrological landscape structure of the catchment of the Regge River, in the eastern Netherlands.
Redrawn from Van Buuren Kerkstra, Framework Concept and the Hydrological Landscape Structure, by
M. Rapelje, .
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Procedure used to plan a network of open spaces. Redrawn from Forman, Land Mosaics, by M. Rapelje,
.
Baschak and Brown rst identied the landscapes patches, corridors, and networks and then
mapped them at several levels. Next, they evaluated the quality, quantity, and location of the landscape elements, while considering their linkages
with the surrounding urban context. Table . depicts the results of their evaluation using such ecological criteria as diversity of plant species, degree
of naturalness, and sensitivity to disturbance, criteria similar to those used by Bastedo and Therberge in their ABC strategy, discussed in the previous chapter.
The resource demand for implementing this
framework is high since each component must
be considered in detail. But Baschak and Brown
noted that systematic inventory and analysis of
spatial structure and processes is still feasible with
a limited inventory and analysis of the site. Their
application is instructive because it touched upon
certain technical and pragmatic issues encountered when the patch-corridor-matrix model is
used to examine landscapes. For instance, identifying and mapping patches and matrices in a
highly fragmented landscape at ner scales can be
very tedious. Baschak and Brown demonstrated
eectively that representative mapping can be used
without sacricing the technical validity of the
outcome. In representative mapping, examples of
all types of land uses are mapped, and the outcome is transferred to all areas of the site having a
similar use structure. The other components of
the EDF have yet to be tested, however.
In Paul Selman proposed procedural principles for countryside planning to minimize fragmentation and develop sustainable agricultural
landscapes.87 The procedure, which he referred to
as emergent principles, is based on the spatial relations of patches, edges, and corridors, on hierarchy theory, and on GIS.
The sequential application of the principles involves: () dening the study area; () surveying the
social, economic, and ecological characteristics of
Fig. .. Proposed open-space plan for Concord, Massachusetts. Note that the plan reects Formans aggregatewith-outliers principle. Large, intact patches of natural vegetation were preserved and connected with corridors
for wildlife and water protection. Reproduced, by permission, from Forman, Land Mosaics.
tegrating landscape-ecology principles into ecological planning. Indeed, Selman suggested that
the principles should be viewed as a basis for debate and criticism rather than a denitive method.
The method for ecological greenway design
proposed by Daniel Smith and Paul Carwood
Hellmund in Ecology of Greenways () uses the
patch-corridor-matrix framework as a point of departure for describing landscapes. It also integrates
spatially explicit guidelines for managing specic
functions of greenways and suggests how they can
be put to work in creating dierent types of greenways. Guidelines are prescribed for maintaining
Ecological Planning
designed to evaluate the sustainability of ecological and spatial networks in rural areas.
LARCH has been used to predict the long-term
chances of survival of specic animal and plant
species in a particular landscape. It is based on the
concept of metapopulation. Metapopulations are
made up of interacting local populations of animals and plant species connected by dispersal corridors that allow the individuals to mingle. Due to
their large size and spatial distribution, metapopulations are more viable than individual local populations. LARCH uses the following procedure to
establish the sustainability of animal species:
. The potential habitat of each species is identied
using a vegetation map. The carrying capacities
of the habitats are established based on habitat
size and quality. Some vegetation types are ideal
habitats, while others are marginal. The data on
the carrying capacities are obtained from experts
and stored in a database.
. The spatial arrangements (size, shape) of the
habitat patches, dispersal corridors, and barriers
are identied to establish locations of local populations and metapopulations of a species. Patches
that are close together, allowing for daily exchange of species, are regarded as belonging to
the same local habitat networks. Patches that are
far away or separated from one another by barriers such as highways are not considered to belong to the same local populations. Individual organisms occasionally disperse in search of a new
habitat at a particular stage in their life cycle.
When local populations are located within dispersal distance of one another, they are regarded
as belonging to the same metapopulation. If the
interactions between local populations are not
feasible, then the local populations are regarded
as belonging to dierent metapopulations.
. Once data obtained from steps and are
recorded in a database, LARCH computes the
ecological structure of the study area in terms of
the spatial conguration and carrying capacities
of the various patches and for the whole network. It also computes the locations of dispersal
corridors, as well as of local and metapopulations.
. LARCH evaluates the sustainability of the habi-
The resultant information is used to develop proposals for sustainable networks of habitats that
can house viable plant and animal species. Although initially developed for use in rural areas,
LARCH is currently being adapted for application
in many urban areas in the Netherlands. Numerous examples of the use of habitat networks in
planning are documented in Cook and van Liers
Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks.
Landscape-Ecology-and-Optimization Method
(LANDEP)
The outcomes of ecotope evaluations can be integrated into comprehensive procedures for landscape assessment and synthesis and land-use allocation to establish the optimal uses of a landscape.
Decision making regarding the optimal allocation
of land uses considers other forces that drive the
evolution of the landscapethe supply and demand of land, varying human needs, political realities, and new technologies.
M. Ruzicka and L. Mikloss Landscape-Ecology-and-Optimization Method (LANDEP) represents an important step in this direction.90 Indeed,
in Naveh and Lieberman described LANDEP
as one of the most signicant and practically applied integrated landscape ecological planning
methods to date.91 LANDEP is intended to seek
ecologically optimal ways to utilize the landscape
and to specify ecological problems caused by poor
spatial arrangements. It is a land-use-optimization
system that includes a comprehensive landscapeecology analysis, a synthesis component, a landscape evaluation of an area, and a proposal for an
optimal spatial conguration of the landscape.
LANDEP addresses three questions:
. How is a given set of ecological properties of the
landscape adapted to the functional demands of
Ecological Planning
land uses; that is, to what extent can some activity be developed in a given area?
. What eects have locating a particular activity
had on the ecological characteristics of a given
area in the past?
. What is the present state of natural processes
and properties of the landscape (e.g., stability,
balance, and resistance) and of those modied by
humans?92
Even though LANDEP can be adapted to computer technology, more work is needed to take
advantage of recent developments in remotesensing and computer technology. The questions
LANDEP addresses and the procedures it uses
are somewhat similar to those of some LSA
Ecological Planning
assessment of landscape
va lu e s a n d la n d s c a p e
perception
Ecological planning mediates the dialogue between natural processes and human
actions in the landscape. The dialogue embraces experiences that individuals and
groups have in their transactions with the landscape. Some experiences are aestheticintrinsically gratifying,1 enhancing the quality of human life,2 and
important to the development of thinking, caring humans.3 Studies of landscape values and landscape perception seek to understand human values and aesthetic experiences in order to take them into account in creating and maintaining
landscapes that are socially responsible and ecologically sound.4
The ancient Greek philosophers described human pursuits as belonging to four
categories: truth (the scientic), virtue (the ethical and moral), plenty (the political and economic), and beauty (the aesthetic).5 In the fourteenth century the Italian painter Ambrogio Lorenzetti () of the Sienese school portrayed the
visual aesthetic eects of public policy on urban and rural landscapes in Sienna.
The signicant point he made was that landscapes have an inherent beauty to be
appreciated. This was contrary to earlier medieval beliefs about hidden fears associated with unknown nature. What is dierent today, especially since the early
s, is that the aesthetic appreciation of landscapes is institutionalized in design,
planning, and management, along with ecological, economic, and technical considerations.6
Unlike other ecological-planning approaches, studies of landscape values and
perception address the perceptual outcomes of, as well as the experiences people
have in, interactions with landscapes. Perception is the act of apprehending an object through the senses. Studies of landscape values and perception view the land
Ecological Planning
as appreciative of the beautiful.7 Aesthetic experiences deal with the subjective thoughts, feelings, and emotions expressed by an individual
during the course of an experience. They are intangible, holistic, and gratifying in that the recipient derives satisfying pleasure from merely beholding the object, in this case the landscape.8 In
managing human actions in the landscape ecological planners, designers, and managers seek to
identify, retain, enhance, and restore aesthetic experiences. Given the subjective nature of aesthetic
experiences, it is dicult to capture them in their
entirety, if that is possible, which I doubt.
There is consensus on at least three broad questions about landscape perception and assessment:
How do people discriminate among landscapes?9
Why are some landscapes valued more than others, and what is the signicance of the valuation?10
Which experiences in peoples interactions with
the landscape are aesthetic, and how can the experiences be identied and incorporated in designing landscapes in ways that are benecial and
appreciated by people?
The questions have attracted professionals and
scholars from diverse disciplines, particularly planning and design, resource management, environmental studies, psychology, and geography. Each
professional brings his or her disciplinary orientation to the study of landscape perception, resulting in a plurality of landscape-perception and
landscape-assessment paradigms, methods, and
techniques. The applications are equally diverse,
covering the spectrum from human-dominated to
natural landscapes. Similarly, an extensive body of
documented studies exist, even though the systematic investigation of aesthetic quality and preferences for use in design, planning, and management only began in the mid-s. Numerous
reviews have been written about the state of landscape values and perception over the years, including in-depth comparative assessments of
methods and techniques.11
In this chapter I summarize the key theoretical
positions, or paradigms, of landscape perception
and review illustrative methods and techniques
using applications. Consistent with my historical
emphasis in this book, I rst briey summarize the
evolution of the eld. I conclude by illuminating
the similarities and dierences among the paradigms.
A B R I E F H I S TO RY
Sources of Contemporary Landscape Values
People appreciate landscapes in various ways: as a
wilderness to be conquered, a source of food and
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. Design for the Villa Medici, in Careggi, Italy, by Michelozzo. Note the formal symmetry in the organization of spaces and objects in the landscape. Similar
design expressions are found in the palaces and gardens designed and built in
France during the Renaissance period, some of which inuenced urban designs
in the United States, such as the plan of Washington, D.C., designed by Charles
LEnfant with Thomas Jeerson and George Washington. Reproduced, by permission, from Smardon, Palmer, and Felleman, Foundations for Visual Project Analysis.
thetic values and the natural character of landscapes. From the s to the early s the
wildlife biologist and forester Aldo Leopold
pleaded passionately for the inclusion of aesthetics in the land ethics he promoted. At the same
time, he reminded us that aesthetic appreciation is
learned.
Fig. .. Ervin Zube, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, Tucson, pushed the boundaries and
made signicant contributions in the assessment of
landscape values and perception. Photograph courtesy
of Ervin Zube.
Ecological Planning
Ecological Planning
PA R A D I G M S O F L A N D S C A P E
VA LU E S A N D P E R C E P T I O N
The eld of landscape perception is characterized
by numerous theoretical and conceptual themes
(paradigms) about human-landscape interactions.
The paradigms have been dened in many ways.
I prefer to use Zubes scheme, which categorizes the paradigms as professional, behavioral, and
humanistic based on their disciplinary orientation.34 The major strength of Zubes scheme is its
conceptual simplicity, which is particularly crucial
in a eld that has diverse theoretical and methodological foundations. In addition, the scheme
groups similar methods, techniques, and study
outputs.
Within the behavioral paradigm, I further distinguish the psychophysical and the cognitive models using a scheme proposed by Zube, Sell,
and Taylor. The models emphasize dierent modes
of perception, although the methods are similar.
Table . compares Zubes scheme with other classications. The schemes proposed by Daniel and
Vining; Penning-Rowsell; Zube, Sell, and Taylor;
and Chenoweth and Gobster emphasize rural and
natural landscapes. Punters classication focuses
on urban landscapes. Those proposed by Arthur,
and behavioral sciences, such as stimulus response, arousal, adaptation, and information processing. Unlike the professional paradigm, in
which the conceptual base is primarily normative,
the behavioral paradigm seeks to understand
which landscape elements and compositional
qualities contribute to public preferences and
judgments about the aesthetic quality of landscapes. The psychophysical and cognitive models
are dominant in the behavioral paradigm.
The behavioral paradigm evaluates public preferences for aesthetic qualities in the physical elements and spatial compositions of landscapes or
for the meanings people attach to the landscape. It
assumes that landscapes have physical and perceptual qualities that provide stimuli to which people
respond or that they process as information. The
paradigm draws upon concepts from the social
Ecological Planning
Zube and others stated that the value of the landscape is part of its stimulus property, external to
the individual and invariant. This value can be perceived directly without cognitive processing.40
The psychophysical model shares with the professional paradigm an orientation toward problem
solving but uses public judgments rather than professional expertise to ascertain landscape preferences and beauty. Public judgments, as J. Vining
and Joseph Stevens argue, enable more informed
planning decisions, provides important communication and educational messages for the public,
and may help to circumvent costly legal battles,
especially when public lands are involved.41 Public judgments also involve the public in making
decisions that aect them. The psychophysical
model links the publics aective responses to
specic landscape features that can be manipulated through design and management and uses
quantitative analytical techniques to establish numerical expressions of scenic beauty or preferences.42
The Cognitive Model
The cognitive model seeks to identify meanings
and values associated with landscapes based on
past experiences, future expectations, and sociocultural conditioning. It assumes that while the
landscape provides stimuli to which people respond, the stimuli need to be interpreted if they
are to be meaningful. The conceptual base of the
cognitive model relates the spatial organization of
landscapes to the human processes of cognition in
order to explain the basis for peoples judgments
and preferences.
Early studies based on arousal theory hypothesized the aect of landscape complexity on aesthetic
judgments. The arousal theory links aesthetic stimulus elements to their biological heritage.43 However, the important contributions include Appletons prospect-refuge theory and the Kaplans
informational-processing model.
The cognitive model uses quantitative tech-
Ecological Planning
SELECTED METHODS
A N D A P P L I C AT I O N S
Except for the humanistic paradigm, the sequence
of activities for evaluating aesthetic quality and
preferences is analogous to the sequence followed
in other approaches to ecological planning:
. Specifying the study problems and opportunities,
for example, dening the project goals and objectives and establishing study boundaries. The
goals may be estimating landscape preferences,
landscape quality, or the landscapes capacity for
visual absorption.
. Dening aesthetic resources, for example, establishing the aesthetic-evaluation framework, identifying perceptual factors in the landscape or
landscape elements to be surveyed.
. Conducting an inventory of aesthetic resources,
for example, describing and classifying the landscape into visual or other perceptual units, documenting aesthetic resources verbally or graphically.
Ecological Planning
Fig. .. The higher the observers location in a hilly landscape, the better his or her viewing position. Reproduced, by permission, from Linton, Forest Landscape Description and Inventories.
position. Variations in the intensity of the light resulting from diurnal and seasonal changes inuence color, texture, distance, and direction. The
way space and objects, observers distance and position, and light hang together (sequence) enhances
the appreciation of landscapes. Using these visual
landscape-perception factors as an informational
base, Linton prescribed a typology of visual landscape types. Lintons visual-classication system
was subsequently developed for use by the USFS
and the BLM.
Linton and R. Tetlows scenic analysis of the
northern Great Plains in was another remarkable eort to develop a visual classication
system for use at a variety of geographical scales.54
Zube proposed a similar system in his resourcemanagement study for the British Virgin Islands in
the late s.55
All systems mentioned thus far are descriptive;
that is, no attempt is made to assign weights in order to aggregate the resources. The expert makes
a summary statement of landscape visual quality.
Other studies based on the professional paradigm appraise visual resources quantitatively after
they have been described and inventoried. The
assessment usually involves ranking, comparing,
and aggregating resources to permit a direct comparison of alternative visual preferences or quality
for a specic landscape. The quantied elements
may be physical, such as landform and vegetative
cover, or artistic or compositional, such as vividness, unity, coherence, color, and texture. Quantication occurs especially in large-scale resource-
built structures is viewed in light of these four elements. Visual quality is judged in terms of the diversity and variety of these elements in the landscape, resulting in three classes of scenic variety:
distinctive, common, and minimal (see Table .).
Ecological Planning
ipants performed the same tasks based on site visits rather than on viewing photographs. Pearson
correlation tests and two-way analysis of variance
indicated statistically signicant agreement among
the participants in their preferences for specic
uses but little consensus between the uses and
their valuative judgments.
The ecological-planning-and-design studies conducted by the Seattle-based rm of Jones & Jones
are exemplary eorts to develop methods for
estimating peoples landscape preferences. One
method Jones & Jones developed was applied in
their study of a scenic and recreational highway
study in Washington State in .59 After testing
and synthesizing selected techniques from literature, including the works of Burt Linton and E.
Zube, Jones & Jones hypothesized that three components of a landscape scene account for its visual
quality: memorability, wholeness, and the harmony of its parts, which they referred to as vividness, intactness, and unity. By clearly dening
these components, they postulated that it was possible to objectively evaluate the visual quality of
any type of landscape using a simple formula:
VQ (V I U), where VQ visual quality, V
vividness, I intactness, and U unity.
Jones & Jones ranked each component on a sevenpoint scale. They normalized the resulting index
of visual quality to a universal scale of , with
the extreme values representing the highest and
lowest possible visual quality.
Jones and Jones have successfully applied and
rened the method in numerous studies, including
the visual-impact assessment in the Foothills environmental assessment for the Denver Board of
Water Commissioners (in conjunction with the
engineering rm of CHM Hill); the social, aesthetic, and economic implications of routing a
transmission line for the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission (in conjunction with Battelle Pacic
Northwest Laboratories); and the inventory and
evaluation of the environmental, aesthetic, and
Ecological Planning
Ecological Planning
behavior in satisfying their daily needs for habitation and to changes in their behavior. He also
reviewed the ecological consequences of these
changes in landscape values.
Of all the types of studies of landscape values
and perception, humanistic studies are the least
documented, although many promising examples
exist. In the late s Zube examined the historical evolution of landscape values in the arid and
semiarid southwestern United States based on
content analysis of historical documents such as
diaries, journals, travel logs, and popular literature.80 Edward Relph analyzed historical documents on the evolution of cities and interpreted
them in light of the social, cultural, and economic
forces that have shaped modern urban landscapes.81 In the mid-s I used an ethnographic
survey to explore how the New Credit Ojibway Indians, in southern Ontario, related to one another
and to the landscape, as well as to what extent they
valued certain landscapes, and why.82 A. Shkilynk
conducted a similar study with the Grassy Narrows Ojibway Indians, in northern Ontario,
through interviews with key informants, participant observation, and content analysis of historical documents.83 She focused on the way of life of
the northern Ojibway, including their perceptions
of time and space.
David Lowenthal examined valued landscapes
using tourists descriptions of favored localities
and painted scenes of preferred landscapes.84 John
Stilgoe systematically reviewed historical documents to reveal changing American landscape aesthetics.85 Dan Rose used artistic and literary materials to explore the inuence of Andrew Wyeths
paintings on the evolution of the landscape in
southeastern Pennsylvania.86 Some of these studies, such as Jacksons and mine, focus on group values. Others, such as P. T. Newbys evaluation of
aesthetic values associated with specic types of
landscapes, examine individual expressions.87 A
recurrent theme in humanistic studies is the recognition that peoples interactions with landscapes
Ecological Planning
a synthesis of approaches
to ecological planning
We have come a long way from the nineteenth century, when the likes of Thoreau,
Olmsted, and Muir reminded us about the inevitable ramications of human
abuse of landscapes. The evolution of ecological planning as a philosophy and
framework for managing change to bring human actions into tune with natural
processes has been slow, incremental, and sometimes disjointed. New ideas have
been proposed and debated, and some have been rened for subsequent use. From
the late s to the present the evolutionary progression has intensied, almost
surpassing that during the era of awakening, the formative era, and consolidation.
Unlike in the earlier eras, when evolutionary progression elaborated and claried
the theme of planning with nature, the progression over the past four decades has
been in more divergent but related directions. The eld of ecological planning and
design has expanded, not only in the type, scale, and scope of issues addressed but
also in the diversity of approaches used.
With the expanded scope of ecological planning comes an increased need to
make explicit the theoretical and methodological assumptions that lead us to
choose one approach over another. Each approach reects a particular way of understanding the problems arising from human-landscape interactions and provides guidance for their resolution. In this chapter I propose a tentative classication of the ve approaches to ecological planninglandscape suitability (LSA and
LSA ), applied human ecology, applied ecosystem ecology, applied landscape ecology, and
assessment of landscape values and perceptionas a way to systematically examine
the linkages among them and to explore their similarities and dierences. I review
their similarities and dierences by exploring three questions: What are their ma
jor concerns? How do they propose that the concerns be addressed? What are the anticipated outcomes? Based on a review of their relative
strengths and weaknesses, I argue that none by itself can adequately address the whole spectrum of
ecological-planning issues. I then speculate on
when landscape architects and planners may lean
toward one approach rather than another for guidance.
Undertaking a comparative synthesis of these
approaches is perhaps a risky venture given the diverse methods and techniques of each approach;
therefore, I risk the criticism of overgeneralization. I therefore explore the central tendency or
bias, as statisticians would call it, of each approachs responses to the questions. In a strict
sense, studies of landscape values and perception
should not be included as an ecological-planning
approach, but they are relevant to ecological planning because knowledge about the values held by
people is essential to the development of socially
responsive and supportive landscapes.1 Moreover, repetition is inevitable in a comparative
overview such as this, especially since each approach has been covered extensively in the previous chapters.
S U B S TA N T I V E A N D
P R O C E D U R A L T H E O RY
IN ECOLOGICAL PLANNING
In the discussion that follows, I argue that there are
two types of theories in ecological planning: substantive and procedural.2 Substantive theories of
ecological planning permit an in-depth understanding of the landscape as the interface between
human and natural processes. These theories,
which are descriptive and predictive, originate
from the social and natural sciences, as well as the
humanities, including such elds as anthropology,
biology, ecology, ne arts, geography, geology, and
history. When we seek to understand the landscape as a reection of culture, we turn to the
works of J. B. Jackson, John Stilgoe, David Schuyler, Denis Wood, Neil Evernden, Cotton Mather,
and the like.3 When we want to understand soils,
we turn to a pedologist. The intellectual traditions
depicted in Figure . indicate the disciplinary origins of the substantive theories that inform each
approach.
Procedural theories focus on the ideology, purposes, and principles of ecological planning. They
explicate the functional relationships that permit
the application of the knowledge of human and
natural processes in resolving human conicts in
the landscape. The ve approaches examined in
this book are procedural theories of ecological
planning. Each oers a working theory and procedural recommendations for putting the theory
into practice. Thus, in ecological planning we
draw upon substantive theories for content knowledge but use procedural theories as a framework
for organizing the pertinent knowledge to address
ecological-planning problems.
A T E N TAT I V E C L A S S I F I C AT I O N
I propose Figure . as a tentative classication of
the major approaches to ecological planning. The
classication is intended to provide a common
base of understanding. If such a base can be established, then future programs can be built on
past experience, rather than starting over from
scratch, remarked Frederick Steiner.4 Not surprisingly, some methods do not t neatly into the
classication. It is evident that substantial overlap
exists, suggesting that in practice methods draw
relevant principles from one another. All the approaches share a common concern: how knowledge of the interdependent relationship between
people and the landscape should properly inform
the process of managing change while maintaining regard for its wise and sustained use. In using
the phrase between people and the landscape I do not
mean to imply a separation. Rather, it acknowledges that humans have the capacity to modify
Ecological Planning
homogenous areas in order to judge their suitability for prospective land uses. Some methods, for
example, those used in Richard Toths Tock Island
study and McHargs least-social-cost corridor
study for the Richmond Parkway, permit the evaluation of environmental impacts.7 Computerassisted methods proposed by Steinitz and his
Harvard colleagues can assess landscape suitability and evaluate the impacts of alternative landuse options. In fact, they used biophysical and
socioeconomic considerations to determine suitability, which was atypical of LSA .8
Since LSA reects the next phase in the evolution of LSA , its subgroupingslandscapeunit and landscape-classication, landscape-resource
survey and assessment, allocation-and-evaluation,
and strategic landscape-suitability methodsare
distinct and systematic. A similar division exists
in the subgroupings of the applied-ecosystem approach: ecosystem-classication, ecosystem-evaluation,
and holistic- ecosystem methods. The evaluation
methods are further distinguished based on
whether they rely on indices to evaluate ecosystem dynamics and behavior (index-based), for
example, Dorneys abiotic-biotic-cultural (ABC)
strategy, or on a modeling process to simulate the
eects of perturbations on the ow of energy,
materials, and nutrients (model-based), such as the
S-RESS method used as one of the numerous
strategies for managing the Laurentian Great Lakes
Basin ecosystems. Unlike in LSA , the cumulative
tasks that distinguish the applied-ecosystem approach are based on a system perspective that emphasizes cause-and-eect and feedback relationships.
The assessment of Landscape values and perception has denitive theoretical and methodological subgroupings based on disciplinary orientation and on whether the intended use is
problem solving or advancing knowledge: professional, behavioral (psychophysical and cognitive),
and humanistic. The applied-human-ecology and
applied-landscape-ecology approaches, in con-
MAJOR CONCERNS
The landscape-suitability approaches seek to determine the tness of a given tract of land for a particular use. Their conceptual base is drawn from
the arts, design, and natural sciences, including
community ecology and ecosystem ecology, as
well as plant and soil sciences. LSA leans heavily
on the natural features of the landscape to ascertain tness.
LSA denes tness as optimization, that is, revealing the optimal uses of a given tract of land in
a manner that sustains its ecological stability and
productivity in the face of changing natural, social, economic, political, and technological forces.
Consequently, the conceptual base expanded as
professionals with expertise in resource management, recreation, and the social sciences (e.g., economics, geography, and policy sciences) became
increasingly involved in ecological planning in the
late s and early s. Some LSA methods address additional issues. The allocation-evaluation
methods are concerned with selecting and evaluating competing suitability options. Strategic suitability methods address these concerns but also examine the programs, strategies, and institutional
arrangements for implementing the optimal plan.
The applied-human-ecology approach views
tness as resulting from the congruence between
ecologically suitable and culturally desirable locations maximized for the adaptive strengths of the
various users of an area. More specically, it is con-
Ecological Planning
elements, reecting an interest in vegetation sciences and in applications. The North American
branch focuses on patterns and processes. But this
distinction has become blurred because of an increased fusion of ideas between European and
American landscape ecologists since the early
s.
Studies of landscape values and perception
attempt to understand aesthetic experiences
preferences, values, meanings, and experiences
encountered in human-landscape interactions.
The three major paradigms emphasize dierent
aspects of aesthetic experiences. The professional
paradigm, rooted in the arts, design, and ecology,
focuses primarily on visual experiences. The behavioral paradigm, rooted in the social and behavioral sciences, especially psychology, emphasizes
both visual and other aective responses. And the
humanistic paradigm, with roots in human geography, cultural anthropology, and phenomenological studies, stresses experiences encountered in
human-landscape interactions.
ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES
Each approach uses ecological principles and related concepts to make the relations between
people and the landscape more understandable
and to dene problems arising from the relations
in ways that make them amenable to intervention.
The ecosystem is a fundamental concept used by
all the approaches to conceptualize the landscape
as a system of interacting physical, biological, and
cultural factors connected through the ow of
material, energy, and species. Equilibrium is the
fundamental force that drives the organization
and maintains the stability of ecosystems. Under
certain conditions, minimal disturbances enhance
the stability and productivity of ecosystems. Stable
ecosystems recover from disturbances and establish new equilibriums. Hence, ecosystems have developed varying abilities to recover from disturbances. Ecological-planning approaches seek to
Ecological Planning
H U M A N A N D C U LT U R A L
PROCESSES
The extent to which human and cultural processes
are emphasized in LSA varies. The variations de-
pend largely on how individual methods dene tness. The NRCS method interprets tness as the
limitations of the soil to support dierent uses.
Hence, physical landscape features are stressed.
Similarly, the methods described in McHargs Design with Nature use chronology to understand natural and social phenomena. They rely more on the
physical and natural characteristics of the landscape as processes to establish tness.
Hillss physiographic-unit method recognizes
the dynamics of landscape change in ascertaining
tness. It denes tness in terms of the landscapes
existing potential, its true potential, and its projected potential based on present and forecasted
social and economic conditions. The evaluation
of the projected potential is based on both expert
and public judgments. Lewiss resource-pattern
method and that used by Zube in his resource assessment of the U.S. Virgin Islands in reinforce the connections between the psychological
health of humans and the visual, cultural, and natural features of the landscape. Using the professional paradigm in studies of landscape values and
perception, they assessed the visual quality of the
landscape based on artistic descriptors such as variety and contrast. Fitness was ultimately determined based on visual and natural-resource considerations.
Lewis also involved local inhabitants and decisionmakers in resource inventory and analysis to
increase their awareness of regional design, a crucial factor in the successful implementation of
environmental corridors. Aesthetic considerations
are likely to be addressed in landscape-suitability
studies if those involved have disciplinary backgrounds in the arts and design.
Applied human ecology focuses exclusively on
people and their interactions with the landscape.
It seeks to understand the systemic t between social processes and the landscape using cultural
adaptation as the key indicator of human-landscape
interactions. Its concerns are remarkably similar
to those of studies of landscape values and per-
Ecological Planning
PROCEDURAL DIRECTIVES
All the approaches to ecological planning use an
organizational framework that parallels the sequence of activities used in conventional planning,
but with an ecological perspective. The landscapesuitability approaches dene the landscape in
terms of its structural biophysical and sociocultural attributes. Fitness is established through
some surrogate that assumes a dialectic balance
between ecosystem stability, self-sustenance, and
productivity. Such surrogates are opportunities
and constraints, carrying capacity, and indices of
attractiveness, vulnerability, and capability.
The judgment of tness proceeds in a number
of ways: by eliminating lands deemed unsuitable
for the potential land uses;17 by identifying both
the attractive and vulnerable features of the site;18
or by analyzing compatibilities among biophysical
and sociocultural factors and aggregating them
using logical combination rules or rating functions.19 Some LSA methods, for example, Lyle and
von Wodtkes information system, process models
used by Carl Steinitz in the Upper San Pedro Watershed study, and the environmental-managementdecision-assistance system (a network-impact
model for predicting suitability) simulate descriptively the eects of land disturbances on the ows
of energy and materials.20 What is not known, and
must be assumed, is how materials, energy, or organisms actually ow among the landscape elements under study.
The human-ecology approach scrutinizes the
underlying social structure of the landscapevalues, needs, desires, and adaptation mechanisms
and then matches the structure with the opportunities and constraints oered by the natural and biological environment using qualitative techniques
such as verbal descriptions, texts, and matrices.
According to Berger, the underlying structure is
Ecological Planning
derstand peoples values and behavior, using qualitative techniques such as open-ended interviews
and reviews of literary and creative works.
The classication of landscape resources is one
important characteristic of all approaches. Some
LSA methods categorize the landscape into homogenous spatial units independent of the prospective land uses by using either a single criterion,
such as the NRCS soil survey or Littons visual
classication,26 or multiple criteria, such as the criteria in Hillss physiographic-unit scheme.27 The
classication methods in the other approaches do
the same. Examples in LSA include Holdridges
bioclimatic life zones,28 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
classication of wetlands,29 and LESA.30 In the
ecosystem approach they include compartment
ow,31 energy ux,32 and physiographic-bioticcultural site types.33 Illustrative examples in applied landscape ecology are the Canadian ecological land classication,34 the land facetland
systemmain landscape conguration,35 and the
patch-corridor-matrix scheme.36 While the LSA
approaches focus on the structural ecosystem
characteristics, the ecosystem and landscapeecology methods emphasize their interactions.
The applied-human-ecology approach also classies the landscape, but in a very general way, such
as in the geographer Wilbur Zelinskys vernacular
regions, which reect an embodiment of the spatial perceptions of indigenous people, and the geographer Donald Meinigs cultural regions, dened
in terms of cores, domains, and spheres,37 the core
being an extension of the anthropologist Julian
Stewards cultural-core concept (see chapter ).
Q UA N T I TAT I V E V E R S U S
Q UA L I TAT I V E T E C H N I Q U E S
All the ecological-planning approaches employ
both qualitative and quantitative techniques. If
there is a leaning toward one or the other, the
applied-ecosystem approach and landscape-ecology
approaches are biased toward quantitative tech-
Ecological Planning
quality. Social and behavioral scientists have traditionally used quantitative analysis to evaluate similar values. G. Dearden and P. Miller asserted that
public perceptions can be related and, in fact, predicted from environmental attributes of a more
tangible nature.39
In contrast, humanists contend very strongly
that since judgments about peoples aesthetic values are inherently subjective in nature, the reasoning behind describing, weighing, comparing,
and aggregating them is inherently awed. We
know little about the interactions of the components of aesthetic values. Isolation of one component for further scrutiny is suspect, especially in
quantitative terms. Moreover, since landscape descriptors are dened subjectively, judgments about
aesthetic preferences and quality are likely to be
questionable when these subjectively dened categories are weighted and aggregated to build statistical models. Humanistic studies therefore favor
qualitative assessments and tend to be nonjudgmental.
The applied-human-ecology approach also relies mainly on qualitative assessments to examine
human-cultural processes. Numerous applications use a repertoire of techniques that include
key-informant interviews, participant observation, site reconnaissance, historical surveys, and
interpretations of literary and artistic works.
The information gained through these techniques
complements information obtained from social,
economic, and demographic proles and assessments typically gathered from census data. Because many human-ecological-planning studies
synthesize independent assessments of biophysical and human-cultural processes, the evaluation
of the biophysical component may involve quantitative and qualitative analysis.
OUTPUTS
The outputs of ecological-planning studies reect
the project goals, the type of approach, and the
Ecological Planning
mentation; and making the outputs more defensible in a public debate. Moreover, LSA methods
developed within the past twenty years have integrated innovations in information, remote-sensing,
and computer technologies, including visual simulation and geographic information systems, making them more powerful and ecient in storing,
processing, and displaying information. Sophisticated LSA methods address the six questions Carl
Steinitz proposed,49 as well as a seventh added by
me, that are essential in addressing problems of
any scale: How should the landscape be represented? How does the landscape function? Is the
landscape functioning well? How might the landscape be changed? What predictable dierences
might the changes cause? How should the landscape be changed? and How can the proposed
changes in the landscape become a reality.
LSA methods are arguably the most widely
used in ecological planning. They are capable of
addressing conservation and development issues
in urban, rural, and natural areas. Some methods
are tailored to deal with single-resource allocation
and management issues, such as the siting of a
highway corridor; others can address multipleresource issues. Moreover, they perform a wide
range of functions. The LSA gestalt method, for
instance, is useful in analyzing small tracts of land.
As the size of the parcel of land increases, it becomes more dicult to comprehend it fully in its
entirety. Gestalt analysis is integrated in most
ecological-planning methods. When the cost of
data collection is a limiting factor, planners and
designers may decide to use the landscape-unit
and landscape-classication method as a rst step
in establishing suitability.
When the evaluation of alternative landscape allocation options is a major consideration, allocationevaluation methods may serve the purpose. With
rapid advances in ecosystem sciences as well as in
information and computer technologies, the
models have become more sophisticated in terms
of the evaluative tasks they perform, as is evident
from the study of the upper San Pedro region conducted by Carl Steinitz and his colleagues. They
employed a series of process and analytical models to evaluate the eects of urban development
on the hydrological regime and biodiversity in the
region over the next twenty years. But LSA methods still examine ecological functions in a static
way except when the database has a strong dynamic component, as in the investigation of hydrological relations in the study for The Woodlands. Also, since the methods focus on tness for
human and other uses, landscape characteristics
that do not have direct use implications are often
neglected, unless the use is an objective of the
study, such as protecting biodiversity.
The human-ecology approach is especially useful when cultural matters are important. It provides an explicit way of understanding humancultural processes beyond the typical social and
economic analyses associated with most ecologicalplanning studies. One direction in its evolution
may be viewed as an extension of LSA to explicitly include human processes by way of adaptation
mechanisms and postures. The other emphasizes
the scrutiny of landscapes as places where human
values and experiences coincide with biophysical
processes. Unfortunately, this approach has not
evolved with the same theoretical rigor that characterizes the other approaches.
Recent ecological-planning literature rarely
uses the term human-ecological planning and design.
Instead, fashionable terms are employed even
though what is really meant is human-ecological
planning. Examples of substitute terms are humanecology bias, sustainable design, place making, focus
groups, historicism, and phenomenology. Human
ecology is still located in the margins of many disciplines. Additionally, while cultural adaptation
and similar concepts are useful in explaining humanenvironment interactions, their translation into
planning and design are somewhat cumbersome.
For example, ethnographic-survey and related
techniques are not mainstream techniques that
planners and designers often use for data gathering and analysis. Planners may be concerned
about justifying the outputs in a public debate. A
related but important issue is that despite the
power of cultural-adaptation models to explain
how people use and adapt to the landscape, they
generalize about the spatial distribution of humancultural processes. Many planners and designers
nd place constructs very appealing, but as we
have seen, putting the constructs into practice has
occurred on a project-by-project basis. Consequently, the reliability and validity of the place
constructs are questionable.
The applied-ecosystem and applied-landscapeecology approaches bring more scientic rigor to
the examination of landscapes. They use a system
perspective to dene ecological problems. Moreover, their interest in examining the landscape in
terms of input-transformation-output relations
makes explicit the tracking of the specic eects
of human and natural disturbances on ecological
processes. Their emphasis on ecosystem quality
and response is important for suggesting appropriate management actions more systematically.
The landscape-ecology approach has additional
strengths. It reveals explicitly how the structure of
ecological systems changes along with relevant
functional processes; how these changes enable
ecosystems to develop identiable visual and cultural identity; and how ecological systems are
linked both vertically and horizontally through
the ow of nutrients, energy, and materials. The
approach can also be used to study large landscapes, such as the Columbia Basin. We are only
beginning to understand how the spatial congurations of landscape elements aect function. Perhaps the most denitive contributions of landscape ecology to planning are bridging concepts,
spatial frameworks for describing the functional
components of any landscape and explicit principles for creating sustainable spatial arrangements of the landscape. The principles seek to
maintain the ecological integrity of landscapes
characterized by natural levels of plant productivity; minimum disruption of the ows of nutrients,
energy, and species; increased soil productivity;
and sustained healthy aquatic communities.50
The applied-ecosystem approach is used mostly
in dealing with development, conservation, restoration, and rehabilitation concerns in urbanizing
and naturalrural landscapes. Landscape-ecological planning has been applied in similar settings,
including urban environments. In Europe applications have focused on ecological problems arising
from rapid intensication of land uses, which creates extreme competition for space among agriculture, forestry, industry, and urban development
and redevelopment. This is not surprising since
landscapes in Europe have long been dominated
or inuenced by humans. In contrast, applications
in North America focus on habitat-network planning and wildlife conservation in rural and natural
areas, with special emphasis on the conservation
of biological diversity and on sustainable land
use.51 Very few applications in urban areas are
documented, though the potential exists.
The Central ArizonaPhoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER), for instance, is a
promising research project that is likely to yield
data and information that planners and designers
can use in addressing ecological-planning issues in
urban areas. Led by Charles Redman and Nancy
Grimm, CAP LTER is a multifaceted study directed at understanding how the development patterns of the central Arizona and Phoenix area alter the areas ecological conditions, and vice versa.
it is one of the two long-term ecological sites
currently supported by the U.S. National Science
Foundation to study the city as a mosaic of interacting ecosystems; the other study is located in
Baltimore.
Assessments of landscape values and perception are useful when human values, meanings, and
experiences are the major considerations. The paradigms dier on what aesthetic values should be
addressed, who should be involved in aesthetic
Ecological Planning
which in turn are strongly aligned with the orientations of participating disciplines, it has been extremely dicult to articulate a unied theory of
landscape perception. This issue was raised twenty
years ago by Jay Appleton, and it is still very much
alive, despite concerted eorts to develop such a
theory. Zube and others remarked that when such
a theoretical foundation is lacking, questions of
why some landscapes are valued more than the
others and the signicance of those values remain
largely unanswered.52
The aesthetician Allen Carson adds that what
is needed is a theory that addresses very fundamental issues about human-landscape interactions.
Such a theory would simultaneously explain and
justify.53 Explanatory theory allows us to identify
things and state of things . . . and allows us to explain, predict, and control. Justication theory
provides us with a normative framework to clarify our ideas . . . formulate our positions, argue for
them, and justify them. If it does not dene our
position on things and their states, explanatory
theory will have nothing to explain.54 One thing
is certain: such a theory has not been formulated.
epilogue
Thanks to increased legislation in the areas of environmental protection and resource management, globalization, as well as accelerated advances in scientic
knowledge and technology, we now have an impressive array of approaches,
methods, and techniques for ecological planning. In addition, over the past four
decades there has been increased public awareness about the undesirable eects
of human actions. Yet ecological problems continue to intensify at all spatial
scalesglobal, national, regional, local, and site. In numerous summits, conferences, and books we are constantly reminded of global warming, acidication,
overpopulation, degradation of unique plant and animal habitats, fragmentation
of landscapes, and the consequent erosion of biological diversity. John Lyle asserted that overall, environmental quality in the United States has not improved
dramatically improved since .1 In fact, life-support systems throughout the
world continue to degrade.
The roots of these problems have been widely debated, and solutions have been
oered. Issues debated range from humans ethical and moral positions toward
nature to fundamental social relationships and processes, such as the Western industrialized modes of economic production, to overpopulation, to technological
optimism. Discussions on ethical positions and social relationships are directly relevant to ecological-planning approaches.
The ecological-planning approaches are based on distinctive world views about
nature, which inform their denitions and solutions to ecological problems. The
suitability methods Ian McHarg presented in Design with Nature, for instance, suggest a view of the world that places humans within nature but at the same time
Ecological Planning
recognizes the pervasive inuence of the biological and physical environment on human behavior,
economic activity, and social organization. One
can argue that environmental-impact assessment
presumes technological optimism by relying on
technology to mitigate human actions in landscapes that are unavoidable. The optimism is
founded on the model of the rational-economic
person, who relies on the ability and eciency of
management to solve ecological problems.
Would the type, magnitude, and timing of allowable human actions be dierent if we did not have
faith in technological innovations, technical expertise, and adequate resources to provide adequate corrective actions? Probably.
In a strict sense, studies that rely on phenomenological investigations, such as in human ecology
and landscape perception, recognize the signicance of human intentions (will) toward the natural environment. In this world view of nature
each individual is unique with respect to his or her
relations toward the landscape and the values he
or she places on dierent attributes of the natural
and physical environment. David Pepper refers to
this ethical position as phenomenology, which he explained as follows: The emphasis is on the interdependence and variability of human intentions
. . . if we wish to study [the natural environment],
we can do so only by studying mans intention toward it and his consciousness of it, rather than trying to study it as some kind of external set of mechanical objects. . . . Nature, then, has no value or
rights of its own, without reference to man.2
Phenomenology is also implied in antipositivistic critiques of ecological-planning approaches.
Positivism, advanced by the philosopher Auguste
Comte, is the belief that the only knowledge held
by humans is made up of facts and their relations.3
Critics reject the notion that the landscape can be
objectively described and scientically evaluated
to develop landscapes that are meaningful.4 Positivism neglects the representative-expressiveaesthetic dimension essential in understanding the
inner structure and meanings of landscapes, especially at the micro scale, where people actually use
and experience the landscape.
Ecological-planning approaches also operate
within the framework of specic social, economic,
and political relationships. In England, for example, ecological planning is done by statute, enabling English planners to have more authority in
the decision-making processes.5 In the United
States, planning is a fragmented activity, and planners have limited statutory powers compared with
their European counterparts. This has largely inuenced ecological planning undertaken in the
United States. Statutory authority for planning has
immense ramications for how ecological planning is conducted worldwide.
Ecological planning is certainly one way to
solve the vexing conicts arising from the dialogue
between humans and nature. It may not solve all
of them, but it will go a long way. As Richard Forman put it, Indeed, spatial solutions exist. These
are spatial arrangement of ecosystems and land
uses that make ecological sense in any landscape
or region. Putting spatial solutions in place permits us to predict with some condence that biodiversity, soil, and water will be sustainably conserved for future generations. Every species, every
soil particle, and every spot of water will not be
protected or sustained. But the spatial patterns
will conserve the bulk of attributes, as well as the
important ones.6
In my view, if we are to meet eectively this
challenge posed by Forman, we must adopt or
rearm an explicit ethical framework that embraces environmental and aesthetic values, ask the
appropriate questions for addressing the object of
interest, and then draw upon and adapt the strong
features of each approach as needed, abandoning
the less desirable ones.
Aldo Leopolds land ethic is relevant here. In his
ethic humans are placed within nature, not superior or inferior to it but plain member[s] and citizen[s] of the biotic community.7 According to
Epilogue
process. Such plans are likely to express the intricacies of interrelationship between people and the
landscape. Participation thus becomes a central
feature of ecological thinking. As Stephen Kaplan
pointed out, Participatory design [and planning]
fosters a better understanding of community and
is in itself a reection of ecological processes
evolving towards higher forms.10
Understanding the beauty of the biotic community is an integral part of ecological knowing.
It touches on the broader realm of human values,
perceptions, and experiences, which many have argued are crucial in creating socially responsible
and sustainable, ecologically sound landscape congurations. To be eective in regenerating and
sustaining the biotic community, we rst have to
appreciate its inherent beauty. As George Thompson and Frederick Steiner remarked in Ecological
Design and Planning, The best designs are those
that harmonize aesthetic form and ecological
function.11 But Leopold reminded us that the appreciation of beauty is a learned behavior. Most
people see only the surface of things, so that
the incredible intricacies of plant and animal
communitiesthe intrinsic beauty of the organism called America may still be invisible and incomprehensible to many.12 Teaching the public
to appreciate the intrinsic beauty of the landscape,
therefore, is another important dimension of ecological knowing.
I propose that these ideas that emerge from
Leopolds land ethic and, by extension, the notion
of ecological knowing are principles that should
inform any ecological-planning endeavor. To put
these ideas into practice, ecological-planning-anddesign professionals should rst ask the appropriate questions in addressing the object of interest,
questions similar to those Carl Steinitz proposed
for dealing with any type of problem, and then
adopt the strong, workable features of all the approaches as needed13. It is crucial to make sure
that the features selected work together in the
kind of harmony that emerges from a jazz com-
Ecological Planning
position. Its plurality of ideas, methods, and techniques is an inherent and admirable characteristic
of ecological planning. Indeed, ecological planning
blends workable ideas from all the approaches.
Fundamentally, ecological planning is more
notes
INTRODUCTION
. The Club of Rome is a group of eminent educators, economists, scientists, industrialists, and public ocials who came together under the leadership of the Italian industrialist
Arillio Peccei to discuss the future of humankind. Eugene Odum, the prominent ecologist
at the University of Georgia, in Athens, noted that Meadows, Meadows, and Behrens,
Limits of Growth, used a modern systems approach to pursue arguments similar to those
made in classics by such works as Marsh, Man and Nature; and Vogt, Road to Survival.
. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future.
. Toth, Contribution of Landscape Planning to Environmental Protection, .
. Steinitz et al., Comparative Study of Resource Analysis Methods, .
. This is, of course, a topic that has been explored by others, although not in the manner I approach it. Comparing a wide range of ecological-assessment approaches is dicult in part because their formats dier. Most evaluations usually focus on subcategories
within a major approach, for example, the suitability analysis, or they emphasize techniques for analyses. Those that focus on a few individual approaches include Belknap and
Furtado, Three Approaches to Environmental Resource Analysis; idem, Hills, Lewis, McHarg
Methods Compared, ; Steiner, Resource Suitability; and Diamond, Comparative Approaches in Lake Management Planning.
A majority of the comparisons have been largely directed at rening the suitability
methods, including that proposed by Ian McHarg in Design with Nature. Representative
works include: Jacobs, Landscape Development in the Urban Fringe; Giliomee, Ecological Planning; Rose, Steiner, and Jackson, Applied Human Ecological Approach to
Regional Planning; Roberts, Randolph, and Chiesa, Land Suitability Model for the
Evaluation of Land-Use Change; Laird et al., Quantitative Land-Capability Analysis;
McHarg, Human Ecological Planning at Pennsylvania; and, Sandhu and Foster, Landscape Sensitive Planning.
Notes to Pages
The most comprehensive assessment of a wide variety of methods is Steinitz et al., Comparative Study of
Resource Analysis Methods. However, the assessment focused only on resource-suitability methods. Another
comprehensive assessment of techniques for generating land-suitability maps is Hopkins, Methods for
Generating Land Suitability Maps. Other comparative
evaluations of many methods include: Slocombe, Environmental Planning, Ecosystem Science, and Ecosystem Approaches for Integrating Environment and Development; Briassoulis, Theoretical Orientations in
Environmental Planning; McAllister, Evaluation in Environmental Planning; Nichols and Hyman, Evaluation
of Environmental Assessment Methods; Lee, Ecological Comparison of the McHarg Method with
Other Planning Initiatives in the Great Lakes Basin;
and Wathern et al., Ecological Evaluation Techniques.
In the eld of landscape perception and assessment
the notable comparative works include: Arthur,
Daniel, and Boster, Scenic Assessment; Porteous,
Approaches to Environmental Aesthetics; Zube, Sell,
and Taylor, Landscape Perception; Zube, Themes
in Landscape Assessment Theory; and, Schauman,
Countryside Scenic Assessment.
. Leopold, Sand County Almanac, .
. Alexander Pope, quoted in Steiner, Landscape
Planning; Plato, quoted in MacKaye, Regional Planning and Ecology, .
. Steiner, Living Landscape, .
. In his classic book The Primitive World and Its
Transformation the anthropologist Robert Redeld
dened world-view as the way people characteristically look upon their world. In the context of
ecological planning the notion of world-view can
be extended to include the way people view the
relations between humans and natural processes,
which provides the basis for appropriate social conduct.
. Carl Steinitz, at Harvard, suggests a series of
questions to conceptualize these activities: How
should the landscape be represented? How does the
landscape function? Is the landscape functioning well?
How might the landscape be changed? What predictable dierences might the changes cause? How
should the landscape be changed? (Steinitz, Landscape Change). I add a seventh question because implementation is an important activity in ecological
planning: How can the proposed change in the landscape become a reality?
Notes to Pages
. Since Olmsted advocated understanding the landscape from ecological and aesthetic perspectives, it is
useful to comment on his ideas about aesthetics and
landscapes. Olmsteds aesthetic philosophy was rooted
in the English landscape-gardening tradition, a clear
departure from the highly formal European tradition.
Notable proponents of the English landscape gardening tradition include William Gilpin, Uvedale Price,
and Humphrey Repton. In his Remarks on Forest Scenery
and Other Woodland Views () Gilpin pointed out that
natural scenery was the primary factor that distinguished one region or locality from the other. He argued for its preservation and enhancement. In addition, Gilpin made a clear distinction between two
competing design styles: the pastoral (nished and
beautiful) and the picturesque (irregular and wild).
Gilpins ideas on scenery enhancement were a departure from those proposed by the English landscape
designer and painter Lancelot Capability Brown,
who advocated the enhancement of scenery through
modications to the landscape to reveal the topography and create simple and owing forms. Uvedale
Price expanded upon Gilpins ideas on the distinctions
between the pastoral and the picturesque in his Essay
on the Picturesque (). He located the essence of the
picturesque in the physical characteristics of the landscape. While the writings of Gilpin and Price inuenced much of the aesthetic theory of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, their ideas did not
produce a picturesque tradition of landscape design.
In a series of articles and books, including Sketches
and Hints on Landscape Gardening (), Humphrey
Repton expanded upon the ideas advocated by Capability Brown. However, he oered a more exible and
subtle approach to the enhancement of scenery, relying on both the natural and the architectural features
of a site to create subtle massings and to achieve
unity in the treatment of spaces. By the s the famous nurseryman from New York, Andrew Jackson
Downing, was promoting the adaptation of the English landscape-design tradition to the United States,
which he documented in A Treatise on the Theory and
Practice of Landscape Gardening, Adapted to North America (). Downing stressed the preservation and enhancement of scenery, though he provided very little
guidance on how to translate his ideas into practice.
Similar attempts to adapt the English landscapedesign tradition to the United States include J. C.
Loudons Suburban Gardener () and H. W. S. Clevelands Landscape Architecture as Applied to the Wants of
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
negative consequences that arise from using recreational areas (Steiner, Resource Suitability). In the
eld of urban planning, D. Schneider and his colleagues interpreted carrying capacity as the critical
threshold beyond which development will threaten
public health, safety, or welfare unless needed changes
are made in public investment, infrastructure, policy,
or human behavior (Schneider, Goldschalk, and Axler,
Carrying Capacity Concept as a Planning Tool).
. Catton, Worlds Most Populous Polymorphic
Species.
. McHargs colleagues and students include many
prominent individuals in landscape architecture and
planning: Jon Berger, Charles Brandis, Michael Clarke,
Thomas Dickert, Carol Franklin, Colin Franklin, Meir
Gross, David Hamme, Bob Hanna, Lewis Hopkins,
Michael Hough, Narendra Juneja, Bruce MacDougall,
Jack McCormick, Charles Meyer, Laurie Olin, Bill
Roberts, Carol Reifsnyder, Leslie Sauer, Anne Spirn,
Frederick Steiner, and Dick Toth.
. Lyle, Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development; Franklin, Fostering Living Landscapes; Sauer,
Once and Future Forest.
. Dorney, Professional Practice of Environmental Management, .
. Friedmann, Planning in the Public Domain, .
. Simon, Sciences of the Articial.
. Young et al., Determining the Regional Context
of Landscape Planning, .
. Steiner, Landscape Planning.
. Lewis Hopkins was a student at Pennsylvania
and later was a member of the landscape-architecture
faculty at the University of Illinois before becoming
chair of the planning department. MacDougall was on
McHargs faculty at Pennsylvania before becoming
chair of the University of Massachusetts Department
of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning.
. Hopkins, Methods for Generating Suitability
Maps. Steinitz and his Harvard colleagues examined
the history, technical validity, and eciency of information management in using hand-drawn overlays in
suitability analysis. He recommended a weighted technique for analyzing the relationships among landscape
characteristics. The data on each landscape characteristic (e.g., soil) and its subvariables (e.g., soil depth, soil
drainage) should be stored on a separate le to enable
selective recall as needed.
Regardless of whether the determination of suitability involves the use of computers or hand-drawn
techniques, this manner of storing information pro-
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
spectives on the Study of Social Organization; Duncan, From Social System to Ecosystem; Rappaport,
Pigs for the Ancestors; Bailey, Human Ecology; Bennett, Ecological Transition.
. Young, Origins of Human Ecology, . I lean heavily
on Youngs authoritative synthesis of the contribution
of human ecology for my review.
. Ibid., .
. Steward, cited in Young, Origins of Human Ecology, .
. Vayda and Rappaport, Ecology, Cultural and
Noncultural.
. E. P. Willems, quoted in Young, Origins of Human
Ecology, .
. Meinig, Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes, .
. J. B. Jackson, quoted in ibid., .
. Bennett, Ecological Transition, .
. McHarg, Human Ecological Planning at Pennsylvania, .
. Tylor, Primitive Culture; Freilich, Meaning of Culture.
. Greetz, Ideology as a Cultural System.
. Goodenough, Cooperation in Change, .
. Kluckhohn, Values and Value Orientation in the
Theory of Action, .
. Boas, The Limitations of the Comparative
Method on Anthropology.
. Bennett, Ecological Transition, .
. Steward, Theory of Culture Change, ; Bennett,
Ecological Transition, .
. Geertz, Social History of an Indonesian Town.
. Bennett, Ecological Transition, .
. Berger and Sinton, Water, Earth, and Fire, .
. Steward, Theory of Culture Change, .
. Rappaport, Pigs for the Ancestors, .
. Lockhart, Insider-Outsider Dialectic in Native
Socio-Economic Development; Kreiger, Advice as a
Socially Constructed Activity; Pelto and Pelto, Anthropological Research; Friedmann, Retracking America;
Wolfe, Comprehensive Community Planning Among
Indian Bands in Ontario.
. Kimberly Dovey, quoted in Seamon, Dwelling,
Seeing, and Designing, .
. Martin Heidegger, quoted in Fell, Heidegger and
Sartre, .
. Canter, Psychology of Place.
. F. Lukerman, quoted in Relph, Place and Placelessness, .
. Ndubisi, Phenomenological Approach to Design for Amer-Indian Cultures.
Notes to Pages
5 THE APPLIED-ECOSYSTEM
APPROACH
. Bormann and Likens, Nutrient Cycling; Bormann and Likens, Pattern and Processes in a Forested
Ecosystem; Odum, Strategy of Ecosystem Development.
. A. Tansley, The Use and Abuse of Vegetation
Concepts and Terms, Ecology (), quoted in
Odum, Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems,
.
. Golley, History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology,
.
. Ibid., .
. Ibid., .
. Naveh and Lieberman, Landscape Ecology (),
.
. Golley, History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology,
.
. Naveh and Lieberman, Landscape Ecology (),
.
. Hersperger, Landscape Ecology and Its Potential
Application to Planning, .
. Park, Ecology and Environmental Management.
. Jeers, Introduction to System Analysis.
. Reiger and Rapport, Ecological Paradigms
Once Again.
. See, e.g., Odum, Energy Flow in Ecosystem;
Odum, Strategy of Ecosystem Development; and
Patten, System Analysis and Simulation Ecology.
. Holling, Resilience and Stability of Ecological
Systems.
. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology.
. Odum, Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support
Systems.
. Barrett, Van Dyne, and Odum, Stress Ecology.
. Usher and Williamson, Ecological Stability.
. Hirata and Fukao, Model of Mass and Energy
Flow in Ecosystems.
. Margalef, Diversity, Stability, and Maturity in
Natural Ecosystems.
. Anderson, Conceptual Framework for Evaluating and Quantifying Naturalness.
. Likens et al., Recovery of a Deforested Ecosystem.
. Cooper and Zedler, Ecological Assessment for
Regional Development.
. Holling, Resilience and Stability of Ecological
Systems; Golley, History of the Ecosystem Concept in
Ecology.
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
. Orians, Diversity, Stability, and Maturity in Natural Ecosystems; Cairns and Dickson, Recovery of
Streams from Spills of Hazardous Materials.
. See Rapport, Reiger, and Hutchinson, Ecosystem Behavior under Stress; and Schaeer, Herricks,
and Kerster, Ecosystem Health.
. Risser, Toward a Holistic Management Perspective.
. Hendrix, Fabos, and Price, Ecological Approach
to Landscape Planning Using Geographical Information System Technology.
. Rapport and Friend, Toward a Comprehensive
Framework for Environmental Statistics; Statistics
Canada, Case Study of the Stress-Response Environmental Statistics System.
. Spaling et al., Methodological Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Impacts on Fish and Wildlife; Lane et al.,
Reference Guide to Cumulative Eects Assessment in
Canada.
. Spaling et al., Methodological Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Impacts on Fish and Wildlife, .
. Francis et al., Rehabilitating Great Lakes Ecosystems.
. International Joint Commission, Environmental
Management Strategy for the Great Lakes System.
. Royal Society of Canada and National Research
Council of the United States, Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
. Dorney, Professional Practice of Environmental Management, .
. K. H. Loftus, M. G. Johnson, and H. A. Reiger,
Federal-Provincial Strategic Planning for Ontario
Fisheries: Management Strategies for the s, Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada ():
, cited in Lee, Ecological Comparison of the
McHarg Method with Other Planning Initiatives in the
Great Lakes Basin, .
. See Myers and Shelton, Survey Methods for Ecosystem Management; and Dorney, Professional Practice of Environmental Management.
. Holling and Mee, Command and Control and
the Pathology of Resource Management; Walters and
Holling, Large-scale Management Experiments and
Learning by Doing.
. Holling, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and
Management, .
. Ibid., .
. Noss, OConnell, and Murphy, Science of Conservation Planning, .
. Lee, Ecological Comparison of the McHarg
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
. Romme and Knight, Fire Frequency and Subalpine Forests of Yellowstone National Park.
. Naveh and Lieberman, Landscape Ecology (),
.
. Koestler, Beyond Atomism and Holism.
. Zonneveld, Scope and Concepts of Landscape
Ecology.
. ONeill et al., Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems.
. Urban, ONeill, and Shugart, Landscape Ecology.
. Gleick, Chaos.
. Burrough, Fractal Dimension of Landscapes
and other Environmental Data; Burel, Eect of
Landscape Structure and Dynamics on Species Diversity in Hedgerow Networks; Milne, Measuring the
Fractal Geometry of Landscapes.
. Plotnick, Gardner, and ONeill, Lacunarity Indices as Measures of Landscape Texture.
. Milne, Measuring the Fractal Geometry of
Landscapes.
. Palmer, Coexistence of Species in Fractal Landscapes.
. Alvarez, Urbanism.
. Hersperger, Landscape Ecology and Its Potential Application to Planning, .
. Milne et al., Detection of Critical Densities Associated with Pinon-Juniper Woodland Ecotones.
. Stauer and Aharony, Introduction to Perculation
Theory.
. Turner, Gardner, and ONeill, Landscape Ecology
in Theory and Practice, .
. The tradition of describing the landscape based
on ecotopes was inuenced heavily by the ZurichMontpelier school of phytosociologys groundbreaking detailed oristic classication and ecological interpretation of the central European vegetation cover
(Haber, Using Landscape Ecology in Planning and
Management, ).
. Klign, Spatially Nested Ecosystems, .
. Ibid.
. Dorney, Biophysical and Cultural-Historic Land
Classication and Mapping, .
. Forman and Godron, Patches and Structural
Components for a Landscape Ecology.
. Spirn, Poetics of City and Nature.
. Toth, Theoretical Analysis of Groundwater in
Small Drainage Basins; Toth, Hydrological and Riparian Systems; Freese and Witherspoon, Theoretical Analysis of Regional Groundwater Flow; Van
Buuren and Kerkstra, Framework Concept and the
Hydrological Landscape Structure.
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
on understanding the adaptive value of landscape preferences using a psychological and evolutionary framework such as prospect/refuge, coherence, and legibility (e.g., Appleton, Experience of Landscape, and Kaplan
and Kaplan, Experience of Nature). When landscape perception is considered a function of view, attention is
paid to the composition of a landscape scene in terms
of attributes such as line color, form, texture, and contrast (e.g., Shafer, Perception of Natural Environment; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. National Forest Landscape Management; U.S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Division of Recreation and Cultural Resource, Visual
Resource Management). The content of the scene may
or may not be considered. When landscape perception
is viewed as a function of land, the relationship between variables used to manage the physical environment and how people react to it is the prime consideration (e.g., Zube, Pitt, and Anderson, Perception and
Measurement of Scenic Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley). The variables may be land use, landform, or some identiable feature of the landscape.
. See Lynch, Image of the City; Appleyard, Lynch,
and Meyer, View from the Road; and Linton, Forest Landscape Description and Inventories.
. See Smardon, Assessing Visual-Cultural Resources of Inland Wetlands in Massachusetts.
. Zube, Evaluation of the Visual and Cultural Environment. The NAR is an area of approximately
, square miles. Besides the quantitative rating
techniques employed, the study also attempted to test
the hypothesis that visual quality was determined by a
combination of landform and diversity of land-use patternvegetative cover, water, and land-use activities.
The visual quality of the landscape is a function of
topography. The visual quality increases as the relief
and slope of the land rises. Thus, at lands are likely to
have a lower visual quality than hilly lands. Subsequent
studies provided limited support to the hypothesis.
. Zube, Sell, and Taylor, Landscape Perception, .
. Ibid., .
. Vining and Stevens, Assessment of Landscape
Quality, .
. The substantial body of documented studies includes Shafer, Perception of Natural Environment;
Zube, Pitt, and Anderson, Perception and Measurement
of Scenic Resources; Daniel and Boster, Measuring Landscape Esthetics; and Steinitz, Toward a Sustainable
Landscape with High Visual Preference and High Ecological Integrity.
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
Notes to Pages
. Thompson and Steiner, Ecological Design and Planning, inside cover page.
. Leopold, Sand County Almanac with Essays on Conservation from Round River, , .
. Steinetz, On Teaching Ecological Principles to
Designers, .
references
Agee, J., and D. Johnson, eds. Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness. Seattle: University of Washington Press, .
Alexander, C., A. Gitai, and R. Howard. The Segev Het Master Plan, Israel. Berkeley: University of California, Center for Environmental Structure, .
Alexander, C., S. Ishiwaw, and M. Silverston. A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press, .
Allen, T. F., and T. B. Starr. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, .
Alvarez, I. Urbanism: Visions for the Next Hundred Years. In American Society of
Landscape Architects Annual Meeting Proceedings, comp. D. Scheu, . Washington,
D.C.: American Society of Landscape Architects, .
Anderson, J. A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating and Quantifying Naturalness.
Conservation Biology , no. (): .
Appleton, J. The Experience of Landscape. New York: John Wiley & Sons, .
. Prospects and Refuges Re-Visited. Landscape Journal , no. : (): .
Appleyard, D., K. Lynch, and J. Meyer. The View from the Road. Cambridge: MIT Press, .
APRR, ed. Town and County Planning Textbook. London: Architectural Press, .
Arthur, L., T. Daniel, and R. Boster. Scenic Assessment: An Overview. Landscape Planning (): .
Austin, M., and K. Cocks, eds. Land Use of the South Coast of New South Wales: A Study in
Methods of Acquiring and Using Information to Analyze Regional Land Use Options. vols.
Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO, .
Bailey, K. Human Ecology: A General System Approach. Ph.D. diss., University of
Texas, .
Bailey, R., R. Pster, and J. Henderson. Nature of Land and Resource Classication
A Review. Journal of Forestry (): .
References
Barrett, G., G. Van Dyne, and E. Odum. Stress Ecology. BioScience (): .
Baschak, L., and R. Brown. River Systems and Landscape Networks. In Cook and van Lier, Landscape
Planning and Ecological Networks, .
Bastedo, J. An ABC Resource Survey Method for Environmentally Signicant Areas with Special Reference to the
Biotic Surveys in Canadas North. Waterloo, Ont.: Department of Geography, .
Bastedo, J., D. Nelson, and J. Theberge. Ecological
Approach to Resource Survey and Planning for Environmentally Signicant Areas: The ABC Method.
Environmental Management (): .
Beatty, M., G. Petersen, and L. Swindale, eds. Planning
the Uses and Management of Land. Madison, Wis.:
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, .
Beer, A. Landscape Planning and Environmental Sustainability. Town Planning Review , no. (): v
xi.
Belknap, R., and J. Furtado. Hills, Lewis, McHarg
Methods Compared. Landscape Architecture , no.
(): .
. Three Approaches to Environmental Resource
Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation, .
Bell, D. The Coming of the Post Industrial Society. New
York: Basic Books, .
Bennett, J. The Ecological Transition. New York: Pergamon, .
Berdoulay, M., and M. Phipps, eds. Paysage et systeme
ecologique. Ottawa, Ont.: Presse de lUniversit dOttawa, .
Berger, J. Guidelines for Landscape Synthesis: Some
DirectionsOld and New. Landscape and Urban
Planning (): .
. The Hazleton Ecological Land Planning
Study. Landscape Planning (): .
. Landscape Patterns of Local Social Organization and Their Importance for Land Use Planning.
Landscape Planning (): .
Berger, J., and J. Sinton. Water, Earth, and Fire: Land Use
and Environmental Planning in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
.
Berlyne, D. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts, .
Bishop, I., and J. Fabos. Application of the CSIRO Land
Use Planning Method to the Geelong Region. Divisional
References
References
References
. Planning the Total Landscape: A Guide to Intelligent Land Use. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, .
Fabos, J., and S. Caswell. Composite Landscape Assessment: Assessment Procedures for Special Resources, Hazards and Development Suitability; Part of the Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model (METLAND).
Research Bulletin . Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Agricultural Experimental Station,
.
Fabos, J., C. Green, and S. Joyner Jr. The METLAND
Landscape Planning Process: Composite Landscape Assessment, Alternative Plan Formulation and Evaluation.
Part of the Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model.
Research Bulletin . Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Agricultural Experiment Station, .
Fahs, J. Paseo De Amistad: The Application of a
Crosscultural Design Method to Del Rio, Texas.
M.L.A. thesis, University of Georgia, .
Faludi, A. Planning Theory. New York: Pergamon, .
Farina, A. Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology.
London: Chapman & Hall, .
Federal Water Pollution Act of . U.S. Statutes at Large
().
Fell, J. Heidegger and Sartre: An Essay on Place and Being.
New York: Columbia University Press, .
Fines, K. Landscape Evaluations: A Research Project
in East Sussex. Regional Studies (): .
Forman, R. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and
Regions. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University
Press, .
Forman, R., and M. Godron. Landscape Ecology. New
York: John Wiley, .
. Patches and Structural Components for a
Landscape Ecology. Bioscience (): .
Francis, G., J. Magnuson, H. Reiger, and D. Talhelm,
eds. Rehabilitating Great Lakes Ecosystems. Technical
Report . Ann Arbor, Mich.: Great Lakes Fisheries
Commission, .
Franklin, C. Fostering Living Landscapes. In Thompson and Steiner, Ecological Design and Planning,
.
Freese, R., and P. Witherspoon. Theoretical Analysis
of Regional Groundwater Flow: . Analytical and
Numerical Solutions to the Mathematical Model.
Water Resource Research , no. (): .
Freilich, M. The Meaning of Culture. Toronto: Xerox
College Publishing, .
Friedmann, J. Planning in the Public Domain: From
Knowledge to Action. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, .
References
Green, H. Mind and ImageAn Essay on Arts and Architecture. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky,
.
Greetz, C. Ideology as a Cultural System. In Ideology
and Discontent, ed. D. Apter, . New York: Free
Press of Glencoe, .
Grese, R. Jens Jensen: Maker of Natural Parks and Gardens. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
.
Grith, C. Geographical Information Systems and
Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental
Management , no. (): .
Grime, J. Vegetation Classication by Reference to
Strategies. Nature (): .
Gross, B. Planning in the Era of Social Revolution.
Public Administration Review (): .
Haase, G., and H. Richter. Current Trends in Landscape Research. GeoJournal , no. (): .
Haber, W. Using Landscape Ecology in Planning and
Management. In Zonneveld and Forman, Changing
Landscapes, .
Hansen, K., and F. di Castri, eds. Landscape Boundaries:
Consequences for Biotic Diversity and Ecological Flows.
New York: Springer-Verlag, .
Hansson, L., L. Fahrig, and G. Merriam, eds. Mosaic
Landscapes and Ecological Processes. London: Chapman & Hall, .
Harvard University, Department of Landscape Architecture; Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nev.; Environmental Division, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Va. Gabinete de
Estudios Ambientales, A. Hermosillo, Mexico; Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson; and U.S. Army Construction and Engineering Research Laboratory,
Champaign, Ill. Alternative Futures of the Upper San
Pedro River Watershed, Arizona and Sonora: A Modeling
Approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Graduate
School of Design, .
Hawley, A. Human Ecology: A Theory of Community
Structure. New York: Ronald Press, .
. Urban Sociology: An Ecological Approach. New
York: Ronald Press, .
Heath, T. Environmental Aesthetics and State of the Art:
Theory, Practice, and Research. Sydney, Australia: Copper and Brass Information Center, .
Helliwell, D. The Eects of Size and Isolation on the
Conservation Value of Wooded Sites in Britain.
Journal of Biogeography (): .
. Perception and Preference in Landscape
References
References
References
Plains. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper PSW-. Berkeley, Calif.:
Pacic Southwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, .
Litton, J., and M. Kieieger. Book Review on Design
with Nature. Journal of the American Institute of Planners , no. (): .
Litton, R. Forest Landscape Description and Inventories
Basis for Land Planning and Design. U.S. Department
of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper NC-.
Berkeley, Calif.: Pacic Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, .
Lockhart, A. The Insider-Outsider Dialectic in Native
Socio-Economic Development: A Case Study in
Process Understanding. Canadian Journal of Native
Studies , no. (): .
Loudon, J. The Suburban Gardener and Villa Comparison.
. Reprint, New York: Garland, .
Lowenthal, D. Finding Valued Landscapes. Human
Geography (): .
Lyle, J. Design for Human Ecosystems: Landscape, Land
Use and Natural Resources. . Reprint, Washington,
D.C.: Island Press, .
. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, .
Lyle, J., and M. von Wodtke. An Information System
for Environmental Planning. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners , no. (): .
Lynch, K. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press,
.
. A Theory of Good City Form. Cambridge: MIT
Press, .
MacArthur, R., and E. Wilson. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, .
MacDougall, E. The Accuracy of Map Overlays.
Landscape Planning (): .
MacKaye, B. The New Exploration. New York: Harcourt
Brace, .
. Regional Planning and Ecology. Ecological
Monographs , no. (): .
Mann, W. Landscape Architecture: An Illustrated History
in Timelines, Site Plans, and Biography. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, .
Margalef, D. Diversity, Stability, and Maturity in
Natural Ecosystems. In van Dobben and LoweMcConnell, Unifying Concepts in Ecology, .
Marsh, G. Man and Nature; or Physical Geography as
Modied by Human Action. New York: Charles Scribner, .
References
port. Philadelphia: U.S. Department of Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, New Jersey Pinelands Commission, and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, .
Meadows, D. H., D. L. Meadows, and W. W. Behrens,
eds. The Limits of Growth: A Report for the Club of
Romes Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New
York: Universe Books, .
Meinig, D. The Mormon Culture Region: Strategies
and Patterns in Geography of the American West,
. Annals of the Association of American Geographers (): .
, ed. The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes:
Geographical Essays. New York: Oxford University
Press, .
Merriam, G. Connectivity: A Fundamental Characteristic of Landscape Patterns. In Brandt, J. and P. Agger, eds. Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research
and Planning, ed. J. Brandt and P. Agger, : .
Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde Universitetsforlag
GeoRuc, .
. Corridors and Connectivity: Animal Populations in Heterogeneous Environments. In Nature
Conservation : Reconstruction of Fragmented Ecosystems, ed. D. Sanders, J. Hobbs, and P. Ehrlich,
. Sydney, Australia: Surrey Beatty & Sons, .
Meyers, C., M. Kennedy, and R. Sampson. Information Systems for Land Use Planning. In Beatty, Patersen, and Swindale, Planning the Uses and Management of Land, .
Milne, B. Measuring the Fractal Geometry of Landscapes. Applied Mathematics and Computation
(): .
Milne, B., A. Johnson, T. Keitt, C. Hateld, J. David,
and P. Hraber. Detection of Critical Densities Associated with Pinon-Juniper Woodland Ecotones.
Ecology (): .
Morowitz, H. Energy Flow in Biology: Biological Organization as a Problem of Thermal Physics. New York: Academic Press,
Morrison, D. ASLA Award: Native Ingenuity. Landscape Architecture , no. (): .
Moss, M. Landscape Synthesis, Landscape Processes,
and Land Classication: Some Theoretical and
Methodological Issues. Geojournal , no. ():
.
Muir, J. The Yosemite. New York: Century, .
Mumford, L. The Culture of Cities. London: Secker &
Warburg, .
References
. Summary of the Netherlands Environmental Survey. Study Report ..A. The Hague: National Physical Planning Agency, .
Newby, P. Towards an Understanding of Landscape
Quality. Landscape Research , no. (): .
Nichols, R., and E. Hyman. Evaluation of Environmental Assessment Methods. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management , no. ():
.
Norberg-Schulz, C. Existence, Space, and Architecture.
New York: Praeger, .
Noss, R., and L. Harris. Nodes, Networks, and Mums:
Preserving Diversity at All Scales. Environmental
Management (): .
Noss, F., M. OConnell, and D. Murphy. The Science of
Conservation Planning: Habitat Conservation under the
Endangered Species Act. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press, .
Numata, M. Basic Concepts and Methods of Landscape Ecology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Landscape Planning and Environmental Conservation, . Tokyo: University of Tokyo, .
ONeill, R., D. DeAngelis, J. Waide, and T. Allen. A
Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, .
Odum, E. Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates, .
. Energy Flow in Ecosystem: A Historical Review. American Zoology (): .
. Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: Saunders, .
. The Strategy of Ecosystem Development.
Science (): .
. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, .
Odum, H. Environment, Power, and Society. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, .
Olshowy, G. Ecological Landscape Inventories and
Evaluation. Landscape Planning (): .
Opdam, P. Metapopulation Theory and Habitat Fragmentation: A Review of Holartic Breeding Bird
Studies. Landscape Ecology (): .
Opdam, P., R. van Apeldoorn, A. Schotman, and J.
Kalkhoven. Population Responses to Landscape
Fragmentation. In Vos and Opdam, Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environment, .
Openshaw, S., and P. Whitehead. Structure Planning
Using a Decision Optimizing Technique. Town
Planning Review (): .
References
References
References
References
References
References
index
Index
bioclimatic-life-zones classication, ,
. See also Holderidge, L.
Bioscience (Forman & Godron),
Blake, P.,
Boas, Franz,
Bormann, Herbert, , ,
Boster, Ron, , , , ; See also
scenic beauty estimation method
(SBE)
Brabec, Elizabeth,
Braun-Blanquet, Josias, ,
bridging concepts, , , ,
Brown, Lancelot Capability,
Brown, R.,
Brown, Terry,
Brush, O., . See also Landscape Perception: Values, Perceptions, and Resources
Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
, ,
Burgess, E. W.,
Burrel, F.,
Burrough, P. A.,
Burwash Native Peoples Project
(BNPP),
connectivity concept,
Cook, Edward, , , , ,
; Verde River Study, . See also
Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks
Cooper, C. F., ,
Cotton, Mather,
Council on Environmental Quality, .
See also Presidents Council on Environmental Quality
Countryside Commission, Warwickshire County Study,
County of London Plan, The (London
County Council),
Cowles, Henry,
Craik, Kenneth,
Crow, Susan,
cultural adaptation,
cultural-core concept, , , .
See also Steward, Julian
cumulative: eect assessment (CEA),
, ; impact assessment, ;
threshold approach,
cybernetics, , , ,
Canter, David, ,
carrying capacity, , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
Carson, Allen,
Carson, Rachel,
Catlin, George, ,
Central ArizonaPhoenix Long-Term
Ecological Research (CAP LTER),
central place theory,
chaos theory,
Chenoweth, Richard,
Christian, C. S., , , , ,
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC),
Clements, Frederick,
Cleveland, H. W. S., ,
cognitive model, , , , .
See landscape values and landscape
perception
Cohen, Yehudi, ,
Commonwealth Scientic Industrial
Research Organization (CSIRO),
compartment ow classication,
,
compartment ow model, , . See
also Odum, Eugene
Comte, Auguste,
Dovey, Kimberly,
Dramstad, W., . See also Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape
Architecture and Land-Use Planning
Duerksen, C.,
Dutch Method, . See also Vink,
A. P. A.; Zonneveld, Isaak
Dwight, Timothy,
ecochores,
ecological design framework (EDF),
ecological greenway design,
environmental-impact assessment
(EIA),
environmental-impact statement (EIS),
environmental-management-decision
assistance system,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), ,
Environmental Statistics, Environmental
Trends,
Euclidean geometry,
Evernden, Neil,
Experience of the Landscape, The (Appleton),
Experience with Nature (Kaplan & Kaplan),
Fabos, Julius, , , , , , ; allocation-evaluation methods, ;
ecosystem-evaluation procedure,
; landscape perception, ;
METLAND procedure, ; parametric approach, . See also University of Massachusetts
factor combination,
Fahs, Jeery,
Farina, A., . See Principles and Methods
in Landscape Ecology
Fines, K. D., ; East Sussex Study,
tness, , , , , , , , ,
, . See also landscape suitability
Index
Fitzgibbon, John,
oristic technique,
FLOWNET,
Forman, Richard, , ; aggregatewith-outliers principle, ;
patch-corridor-matrix spatial framework, , , . See also Bioscience; Land Mosaics; Landscape Ecology; Landscape Ecology Principles in
Landscape Architecture and Land-Use
Planning
Forster, Richard,
fractal geometry,
Freilich, M.,
GAP Analysis Program,
Gardner, Robert, , . See also
Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice; Quantitative Methods in Landscape
Ecology
Geddes, Patrick, , , , , ,
, . See also human ecology
Geertz, Cliord,
general ecological model (GEM),
,
general systems theory (GST), , ,
, , , , ; denitions
and conceptual base, , .
See also cybernetics; hierarchy theory; holism; stability
geographical information systems
(GIS), , , , , , ,
, ,
gestalt method, , , ; critique,
, ; overview, , ,
Gilpin, William, ,
Gimblett, Randy,
Glasoe, Stuart,
Gleason, Herbert,
Global Environmental Monitoring Center, London, ,
Gobster, P.,
Godron, Michel, , , , ;
patch-corridor-matrix spatial framework, , . See also Bioscience;
Landscape Ecology
Gold, Andrew,
Golley, Frank, , , ; ecosystem
concept, , , , ; holism
in ecosystem studies, ; landscape
ecology,
Graham, Edward,
Grassy Narrows Ojibway Indians,
Great Lakes Fisheries Commission
Study,
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
,
Grime, J. P.,
Grimm, Nancy,
Gross, Meir,
Kent, Richard,
Kent, William,
Kerkstra, Klass, ,
Kleyer, Michael,
Klign, Frans, , . See also Ecosystem Classification for Environmental
Management
Kluckhohn, Clyde,
Knight, D. H.,
Knight, Richard,
Koestler, A.,
Kuhn, Thomas, , , , ,
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
(LESA), , , , . See also
agricultural-land-evaluation
land facet- land system-main landscape
conguration,
Land Mosaics (Forman), ,
Index
Meinig, D. W., , , , ,
Merriam, G.,
metapopulation theory, ,
Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps: A Comparative Evaluation (Hopkins),
Metropolitan Landscape Planning
(METLAND), , , , . See also
Fabos, Julius
Meyer, J.,
Miklos, Lanislav, ,
Miller, P.,
Milne, B. T.,
model-based methods, . See also
applied-ecosystem approach
Morrison, Darrel,
Moss, M. R., ,
Muir, John, , , , ,
multidimensional-scaling procedure
(MSP),
multiple-use modules (MUMs),
Mumford, Lewis, , , , ,
Munich University of Technology, .
See also Haber, Wolfgang
Murphy, Dennis, ,
MacArthur, R., ,
MacDougall, Bruce, , ,
MacKaye, Benton, , , ,
Man and Environment (McHarg),
Manning, Warren, , ,
Marsh, George Perkins, , , ,
Marx, B.,
McGee, William John,
McHarg, Ian, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,
, ; Abuja, Nigeria, Study,
; Amelia Island Project, ;
human-ecological planning method,
, ; Laguna Creek Study, ;
layer-cake model, , ; McHarg
method, , , , , , , ;
Medford Township Study, , ;
Mount Desert Island Study, ; natural history classication, ; New
Jersey Shoreline Study, ; Plan for
the Valley Study, , , ; Potomac
River Basin Study, ; Richmond
Parkway Study, , , , , ;
Staten Island Study, , , , ;
Toronto Central Waterfront, ; The
Woodlands, , , . See also
Design with Nature; Man and Environment; University of Pennsylvania;
University of Pennsylvania suitability
method
McKenzie, R. D., , . See also
Pinelands National Reserve Study
Index
Polland, E.,
Pope, Alexander,
Porteous, D.,
possibilism,
Poussin, Nicholas,
Powell, John Wesley,
prairie style landscape design, . See
also Jensen, Jens
Presidents Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ),
Price, Joan, ,
Price, Uvedale,
Prigogine, Ilya,
Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology (Farina),
process models, , . See also Lyle,
John
product-moment-correlation analysis,
professional paradigm, , ,
, , , , , . See also
Ruzicka, Milan, , ,
scenic beauty estimation method (SBE),
. See also Boster, Ron; Daniel,
Terry
Schauman, Sally, ,
Schmithusen, Josef,
Schreiber, K. F.,
Schuyler, David,
Science of Conservation Planning, The
(OConnell & Murphy),
Sears, Paul,
Sells, S. B., ,
Selman, Paul, ,
Shafer, E., ,
Shafer, M. L., . See also Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation
Practice
Shkilynk, A.,
Index
Timmerman, Wim,
Tock Island Study,
Todd, Thomas, , ,
Tomorrow by Design (Lewis),
Total Human Ecosystem (Lieberman),
Toth, J.,
Toth, Richard, , , . See also Tock
Island Study
Troll, Carl, ,
Tuan, Y-Fu, ,
Tunnard, C.,
Turner, Monica, , , . See also
Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice; Quantitative Methods in Landscape
Ecology
Tuttle, Andrea,
Tylor, E. B.,
Tyrhitt, Jacqueline,
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), , ; Environmental Data Report,
University of Amsterdam,
University of British Columbia,
University of CaliforniaBerkley, , ,
,
University of Georgia, , ,
University of Guelph, ,
University of Massachusetts, , , ,
Zube, Ervin, , , , ; Connecticut River Valley Study, ; humanistic paradigm, ; landscape perception and assessment, , ;
Nantucket Island Study, , ,
; sources of contemporary landscape values, ; U.S. Virgin Islands
Study, , , , ; visual values
of North Atlantic Region, , .
See also Landscape Perception: Values,
Perceptions, and Resources
A B O U T T H E AU T H O R
Forster Ndubisi is a professor of landscape architecture and city planning and director of the Interdisciplinary Design Institute at Washington State University,
Spokane. He holds degrees in zoology, landscape architecture, and city and regional planning from the Universities of Ibadan in Nigeria and Guelph and Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, and he has served as a consultant in community design,
environmental land-use planning, and growth management. He has received numerous awards, including the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)
Merit Award in research (1988) and the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA) Presidents Award for Contributions to Education in Landscape
Architecture (1993), and he was a co-recipient of the Georgia ASLA Presidents
Award for Excellence in Professional Achievement (1994). His research on approaches to ecological planning won the only ASLAs Honor Award for Research
in 1999. Dr. Ndubisi is the author of numerous articles and book chapters, as well
as the books Public Policy and Land Use in Georgia: A Reference Book (1996) and Planning Implementation Tools and Techniques: A Resource Book (1992). A former president
of CELA, he recently served on the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF)
Board.