Ecological Planning : A Historical and Comparative Synthesis [1 ed.] 9780801877759, 9780801868016

Citation preview

 

                        Frederick R. Steiner Consulting Editor

George F. Thompson Series Founder and Director

Published in cooperation with                        , Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Harrisonburg, Virginia

  A Historical and Comparative Synthesis

     . 

                     

©  The Johns Hopkins University Press All rights reserved. Published  Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper  The Johns Hopkins University Press  North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland - www.press.jhu.edu Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ndubisi, Forster Ecological planning : a historical and comparative synthesis / Forster Ndubisi ; foreword by Frederick R. Steiner. p. cm. — (Center books on contemporary landscape design) Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN --- (hardcover) . Ecological landscape design. . Landscape assessment. . Landscape ecology. I. Title. II. Series. SB. .N  .—dc  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

1

Human Actions and Natural Processes Basic Concepts 4 The Nature of the Discourse 6

1

1

ECOLOGICAL PLANNING IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 9 Evolution of a Paradigm Awakening 10 The Formative Era 13 Consolidation 16

9

Development of Ecological Concepts 17 Techniques for Combining Spatial Information

21

Acceptance 22 Era of Diversity 28 Efficiency and Accuracy of Information Management Functioning of Landscapes 29 Culture in Ecological Planning 31

2

29

THE FIRST LANDSCAPE-SUITABILITY A P P R O A C H 34 The Landscape-Suitability Approaches 35 Landscape-Suitability Approach  37 v

vi

ⱍ

Contents

The Gestalt Method 37 The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Capability System 38 The Angus Hills, or Physiographic-Unit, Method 39 The Philip Lewis, or Resource-Pattern, Method 42 The McHarg, or University of Pennsylvania, Suitability Method Other Methods 47

3

44

THE SECOND LANDSCAPE-SUITABILITY A P P R O A C H 53 Substantive and Procedural Themes Ecological Concepts 54

54

Substantive Concepts in Landscape Suitability Procedural Issues 57

Types of Landscape-Suitability Methods

55

62

Landscape-Unit and Landscape-Classification Methods 63 Landscape-Resource Survey and Assessment Methods 71 Allocation-Evaluation Methods 83 Strategic Suitability Methods 95

4

THE APPLIED-HUMAN-ECOLOGY APPROACH Alternative Approaches to Ecological Planning 102 Applied Human Ecology: Major Concerns 103 A Conceptual Foundation 105 Perspectives on Human-Environment Interactions 108 Cultural Adaptation 108 Place Constructs 112 Procedural Directives and Applications 114 Hazleton Human-Ecological-Planning Study 114 Kennett-Region Human-Ecological-Planning Study 116 McHarg’s Human-Ecological-Planning Method 117 New Jersey Pinelands Study 121 “Human Ecology for Land-Use Planning” 124 The Living Landscape: A Human-Ecology Bias 126

Selected Applications of Place Constructs

126

A Culture-Sensitive Model: The Burwash Native Canadian Community-Design Study 126 Other Studies 130

5

THE APPLIED-ECOSYSTEM APPROACH Applied-Ecosystem Planning Key Concepts 137

135

135

The Ecosystem Concept 137 General Systems Theory 138 Ecosystem Dynamics and Behavior 139 Ecosystem Response to Stress 140

Subgroups of Applied-Ecosystem Methods 142 Ecosystem-Land-Classification Methods 142 Variations of the Natural-History Classification The Compartment-Flow Classification 144 The Energy-Flux Classification 145

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

7

vii

146

Index-Based Assessment Methods Model-Based Methods 155

6

ⱍ

185

ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE VALUES A N D L A N D S C A P E P E R C E P T I O N 197 A Brief History

199

Sources of Contemporary Landscape Values 199 Public Policy and Landscape Values 201 Studies of Landscape Perception and Assessment 202

Paradigms of Landscape Values and Perception The Professional Paradigm 204 The Behavioral Paradigm 205 The Humanistic Paradigm 208 Selected Methods and Applications 208

204

Studies Based on the Professional Paradigm 209 Studies Based on the Behavioral Paradigm 211 Studies Based on the Psychophysical Model of the Behavioral Paradigm 212 Studies Based on the Cognitive Model of the Behavioral Paradigm 214 Studies Based on the Humanistic Paradigm 216

8

A SYNTHESIS OF APPROACHES TO ECOLOGICAL P L A N N I N G 220 Substantive and Procedural Theory in Ecological Planning A Tentative Classification 221 Major Concerns 223 Organizing Principles 224

221

viii

ⱍ

Contents

Human and Cultural Processes 226 Procedural Directives 228 Quantitative versus Qualitative Techniques Outputs 232

EPILOGUE

237

N O T E S 241 REFERENCES I N D E X 281

263

230

foreword

Ecological planning, or at least its theoretical branch, has advanced rapidly in North America. The time is propitious for a book on its history. Forster Ndubisi provides a wonderful synthesis of that history, as well as a description of the current state of ecological planning, and sets the stage for future developments in the field. Landscape-ecological planning is a dynamic area that has emerged during the past fifty years in the ecotone between the disciplines of landscape architecture and planning, with particularly strong influences from ecology, especially landscape ecology, human ecology, and community ecology. Ecological design involves using knowledge about how we interact with our environments to form objects and spaces with skill and artistry. Ecological planning is the application of knowledge about places in decision making and particularly in sustainable action. These are better terms for describing the creation of sustainable communities than environmental design and environmental planning because whereas environment refers to our surroundings, ecology is concerned with relationships and interrelationships within a living landscape. In general, environmental planning has gained wider acceptance in the United States than ecological planning for at least three reasons. First, environmental design and environmental planning are terms that have enjoyed much popularity within the influential California academic circles since the s. For example, the University of California–Berkeley, the University of California–Davis, the California State Polytechnic University–Pomona, and the California Polytechnic State University– San Luis Obispo have colleges or schools of environmental design, and California– Berkeley offers a Ph.D. in environmental planning. Second, the National Enviix

x

ⱍ

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 different 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, Olmsted’s 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, Harvard’s 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 Harvard’s 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 influenced 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

ⱍ

xi

programs in landscape architecture and planning both in the United States and abroad were influenced by McHarg’s approach. McHarg’s synthesis was inspired, but ecological planning remains an unfinished, evolving field. 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 unfinished and an important discipline, it is an exciting discipline for young people. With so much to do, a young person entering the field 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 field. He has undertaken a series of research-oriented planning exercises, first in Canada, then in Georgia, and now in Washington State. Forster Ndubisi is a reflective 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 significant 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 benefited 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 colleagues—far more that I can name here—provided 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

ⱍ

Acknowledgments

Lastly, I am indebted to my family, especially my parents Dr. Bennett Ndubisi and Mary Ndubisi for their encouragement and support, my daughter Danielle for her patience, and my wife June for her review of earlier versions of this book.

 

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 effects 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, first 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 West’s 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



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. I.. Critical erosion of unseeded fallow land in the Palouse area, Washington State. Photograph by V. Kaiser, .

ing with environmental issues confronting human societies and reemphasized the need to sustain the planet’s life-supporting systems. Indeed, the planet’s diverse and rich landscapes will satisfy the needs and the present generation as well as those of future generations only if we manage them properly through ecological planning. Put simply, ecological planning is a way of directing or managing changes in the landscape so that human actions are in tune with natural processes. The concept of ecological planning is not new in the United States. In  the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed the Great Ponds Act, which required landowners to maintain public access to any body of water of ten acres or more for the purposes of “fishing” or “fowling.” Even at that time the idea of managing fragile natural and cultural resources for human use and enjoyment existed. Lewis and Clark’s expeditions between  and  up the Missouri River and beyond to Astoria

brought those vast and beautiful lands west of St. Louis and the Mississippi River to the attention of the federal government. Accordingly, questions about how to settle the land may well have been the first ecological-planning issues addressed by the U.S. government.3 Interest in ecological planning reemerged in the mid-nineteenth century, when Thoreau, Olmsted, Marsh, and others worried about the effects of human interactions with nature. However, not until the second half of the twentieth century did ecological planning and design gain considerable momentum. This momentum resulted from a better understanding of the myriad interactions between people and the landscape, increased activities worldwide in the areas of environmental protection and resource management, and especially a growing public awareness of the negative consequences of human actions on the natural and cultural landscapes.

Introduction

The passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in late  made it national policy to use ecological information in planning. Similar legislation has been passed in other countries. Moreover, rapid advances in computer technology now permit the storage, analysis, and display of large amounts of natural and cultural resource data. Similar developments in remote sensing have improved our ability to capture spatial information more accurately. Globalization has enhanced communication about environmental issues worldwide. Taken together, these developments have greatly increased the nature, scope, and complexity of issues associated with ecological planning. One consequence of this increased momentum has been the proliferation of approaches for understanding and evaluating landscapes to ensure a better “fit” between human actions and natural processes. Some of these are new approaches that focus on the future, while others are merely old approaches under different names or employing updated tools and techniques. Nevertheless, the approaches are employed at a variety of scales and in a spectrum of urban to rural settings to protect and restore both natural and man-made landscapes. To varying degrees, most of the approaches use ecological information when assessing the relative worth of locations within a landscape. The worth of a location may be measured in terms of the need to protect an endangered animal species, to develop an area for residential or commercial use, or to conserve an area for recreational use. Not all approaches may be applied in every situation. For instance, methodological issues relative to the development of a conservation plan for a disturbed landscape may be quite different from those needed to develop a land-use plan for an urbanizing landscape. Carl Steinitz and others from the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University articulated the issue more succinctly: “Effective land use planning will be the result of precise analytic and predictive methods, and to

ⱍ



this end, we must have a clear understanding of the current approaches to resource analysis.”4 This book provides a common base for understanding the major approaches to ecological planning by examining five main questions: () Which ecological-planning approaches represent major theoretical and methodological innovations, and why? () How do they interpret the nature of the dialogue between human and natural processes? () What do the approaches have in common, and how do they differ? () Can the approaches be grouped or classified based on common themes? () When and why should landscape architects and planners lean toward one or more of the approaches in balancing ecological concerns with human use?5 The vastness of this topic requires me to offer a brief account. In doing so, I sacrifice a wealth of details, but I attempt to capture the essence of the approaches. I focus most of my review on the development of the approaches within North America but acknowledge contributions from other parts of the world. A concise historical account is feasible if I concentrate only on ecological approaches that represent significant theoretical and methodological innovations. By this, I mean approaches that offer a perspective of the dialogue between human and natural processes (people’s changing values with regard to the land) and provide a body of consistent ideas, along with the data and techniques required for putting the ideas into practice. For each approach, I focus extensively on the works by authors who provide the most coherent synthesis, but I discuss distinct subcategories whenever they exist. These subcategories are most common in the landscape-suitability and the landscape-perception-and-assessment approaches. Using a historical perspective to discuss the approaches serves to illuminate how the primary strategies toward land and resource planning have evolved, who has been associated with this evolution, and what major social, economic, and politi-



ⱍ

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 significant events made  pivotal: the publication of Ian McHarg’s 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 fields, hills, forests, and water bodies. These visible features reflect the culture of the land’s 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.).

At the interface between people and their use, and abuse, of the landscape is planning. In Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning, John Friedmann succinctly defined planning as an activity centrally concerned with linking technical and scientific knowledge to action. Linking knowledge and action provides options for making decisions about alternative futures. Extending this into the context of the landscape, decisions about alternative futures are ways of mediating between human actions and natural processes. The more specific focus of ecological planning deals with the wise and sustained use of the landscape in accommodating human needs. By wise use I mean the best use, all things considered. Implicit in the idea of the best use of resources is permanence and stability; that is, the best use recognizes the need to accommodate human needs while protecting significant natural and cultural resources. Fundamental to ecological planning are the notions of permanence and stability as implied in the land ethic Aldo Leopold advocated when he referred to the “right to continued existence” of land resources. The sustained use of the landscape ensures that the ability of future generations to meet their needs will not be sacrificed in accommodating present needs. Alexander Pope tells us to “consult the genius of place,” and Plato cautions, “To command nature, we must first obey her.”7 In short, we must understand the character of the landscape in terms of both its natural processes and the reciprocal relationships between people and the landscape. The critical concept is that of relationships. Of all the natural and social sciences, ecology provides the best understanding of the landscape since it deals with the “reciprocal relationship of all living things to each other (including humans) and to their biological and physical environments.”8 The inclusion of people is critical. Until the past few decades, North American studies in ecology focused on environments that were unaffected or little affected by people. The results of such studies will remain inconclusive until they consider the

Introduction

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. I.. Nijo Castle, Kyoto, Japan. The harmony between human and natural processes is reinforced in this Kyoto landscape. Photograph by Matthew Rapelje, .

interactions between people and other living and nonliving things. Ecological planning is more than a tool or technique. It is a way of mediating the dialogue between human actions and natural processes based on the knowledge of the reciprocal relationship between people and the land. It is a view of the world, a process, and a domain of professional practice and research within the discipline of landscape architecture and, arguably, within the profession of planning. Ecological planning is also a recognized activity of federal, state, and local governments in many parts of the world. Although a form of intervention that traditionally has been applied at a scale that is larger than a specific site, ecological planning can be applied at a variety of spatial scales. In addition, it can be applied in a variety of landscapes, including urban, suburban, and rural. Many writers describe ecological planning as landscape planning. I use the

two terms interchangeably since both focus on the use of ecological knowledge in managing change to the landscape. Ecological planning, however, reinforces the notion of relationships. Landscape architects and planners engage in one or more of the following activities when they undertake ecological planning: Understanding the nature of the interactions between human actions and natural processes and defining the interactions in ways that make them amenable to intervention (e.g., restoring a degraded landscape). This understanding is informed by the way one views nature, accumulated experiences, and comprehension of the specific situation.9 Understanding and describing the landscape in terms of pattern, processes, and interactions at many spatial scales to illuminate more specific areas that are interdependent or homogenous in one or more ways. Often, this understanding is informed by ecological knowledge.



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Analyzing the identified homogenous areas in light of the purposes of intervention using a variety of techniques. Synthesizing the outcomes of the assessment in terms of potential options for mediating the identified conflicts in the interactions between human and natural processes. The options are typically organized and presented in a graphic or text format. Undertaking a detailed evaluation of the options in terms of their technical feasibility, their workability, their probable effect on different groups, sustained use of the landscape, or their impact on the landscape. Developing measures for implementing the preferred option. Depending on the objectives of the intervention, the preferred option may be used as input in a larger study or as the sole basis for intervention.10

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 differ 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 different from the approach suggested by R. Forman and M. Godron in Landscape Ecology (). Both are major ecological approaches, but their methods differ. The soil-capability system of the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), as well as the Angus Hills’s physiographicunit classification, 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 effort, effectively undertaken by a team made up of anthropologists, ecologists, foresters, botanists, geographers,

landscape architects, planners, wildlife biologists, and soil scientists, among others. This does not mean that the ecological planner plays a minor role, for it is he or she who integrates and interprets information provided by the various disciplines and puts it in a form that facilitates decision making. Management is another term that is used frequently in this book. I use it in a manner consistent with Frederick Steiner’s The Living Landscape, where it is defined as “the judicious use of means to accomplish a desired end.”11 Steiner points out that for practical purposes the management of resources may be a goal of ecological planning and that conversely, planning may be a way for undertaking management. Design is giving form and arranging natural and cultural phenomena spatially and temporally. Depending on the desired goal, design may be an implicit or explicit feature of ecological planning.

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 field 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 people’s appreciation of the natural and cultural features of landscapes is an important area of study in landscape

Introduction

architecture, it is included in the historical review. Chapter  ends with a review of contemporary forces that influence the ongoing development of approaches for ecological planning. The second thematic section, chapters  and , deals with two types of landscape-suitability approach used to determine the fitness of the landscape for a defined human use. Landscape-suitability approach (LSA)  includes methods developed prior to , especially between  and , a significant era in the evolution of ecological-planning theory and methodology. Most LSA methods relied on the natural features of the landscape to estimate landscape suitability. The suitability analysis, presented in Ian McHarg’s Design with Nature, is one of the most coherent syntheses of the LSA  methods. Landscape-suitability approach (LSA)  encompasses methods developed after . LSA  methods represent refinements of LSA  methods in terms of their substantive concepts, procedural principles, and techniques for analyses. In addition, they emphasize seeking the best use of the landscape in light of social, economic, political, and ecological considerations. Moreover, they address specific technical flaws inherent in the LSA methods or extend their application to a wider variety of ecological-planning problems, spatial scales, and landscape types (urban, rural, and suburban).12 An example is the work of Narenda Juneja, who, with Ian McHarg and others, utilized the natural environment as a model for maintaining social values in developing a plan for the town of Medford, New Jersey, in . After the early s a flurry of ecologicalplanning approaches emerged in an attempt to refine the ideas and techniques contained in the landscape-suitability approach or to offer contrasting positions. Other approaches were in the developmental phase before McHarg’s book was published. Convenient categories for organizing and discussing the approaches are applied human

ⱍ



ecology, applied ecosystem, applied landscape ecology, and landscape values and perception. These categories, which offers distinct ways of understanding and analyzing the landscape, are examined in the third thematic section of this book. The applied-human-ecology approach, examined in chapter , stresses cultural matters in ecological planning. It assumes that culture is the mediating factor in human-environment interactions. Its primary concern is to seek the best fit between ecologically suitable and culturally desirable locations for the various uses of the landscape. Two categories of approaches emphasize how the functioning of landscapes suggests options for managing change on and in the landscape. The applied-ecosystem approach, examined in chapter , explores how the landscape functions at the level of the ecosystem, which is one of the levels at which ecologists have studied the relationship between organisms and their environment. It seeks to understand the structure, function, and interactions of human and natural systems in order to mediate between people and nature. The applied-landscapeecology approach, discussed in chapter , examines how the landscape functions at the level of the landscape. Unlike the applied-ecosystem approach, it emphasizes the relationship between spatial and ecological processes and recognizes change as a fundamental landscape quality. In contrast, landscape assessment, or as I refer to it in this book, assessment of landscape values and perception, discussed in chapter , examines the aesthetic experiences individuals and groups encounter in their interactions with landscapes so that they may be included systematically in designing, planning, and managing landscapes. Some specific methods do not fit neatly into these four categories. Indeed, ecological planning incorporates features of one or more approaches to address specific needs and problems. The fourth thematic section of the book, chapter , offers a tentative classification of the approaches as a way to more systematically examine



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

how they are related and to explore their similarities and differences. 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 difficult. 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.

Finally, I argue in the epilogue that the diversity that characterizes current ecological planning is a reflection of the complexity of ecological problems, which often requiring diverse and multiscale modes of intervention. Developing sustainable solutions to ecological problems requires that these diverse modes of intervention be lodged within an explicit ethical framework that embraces both environmental and aesthetic values.



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 first understand the history of the field. Every profession has a life cycle, and ecological planning is no different. The major phases of the development of ecological planning reflect those identified in Thomas Kuhn’s classic work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, first published in . Kuhn used the idea of a paradigm to assess the evolution of the scientific 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 community’s maturity. Kuhn asserted that major changes in scientific 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 Kuhn’s 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. 



ⱍ

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 influence 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 nature’s 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, Emerson’s 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 Emerson’s in Concord, Massachusetts, was deeply influenced by Emerson’s ideas and by his overwhelming passion for nature. A Transcendentalist, Thoreau departed from Emerson’s anthropocentric view of nature. For him, na-

ture did not exist only for humans: “No human being, past the thoughtless age of boyhood, will wantonly murder any creature which holds its life by the same tenure that he does.”7 By the midnineteenth century Thoreau had joined Catlin in calling for the creation of nature preserves. The works of these men influenced the thinking of other social reformers during the awakening period, especially Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. (–) and George Perkins Marsh (–), who were dismayed by the dehumanizing aspects of city life and by the human abuses of the landscape. Emerson and Thoreau’s view of nature as a source of spiritual healing was a basic tenet in Olmsted’s philosophy regarding the restorative effects of open space and trees on the human mind and soul. Olmsted is credited with founding the profession of landscape architecture (Fig. .). In  Olmsted developed a plan for Yosemite Valley in California. For the previous seven years he had been involved along with his partner, Calvert Vaux (–), in the design and development of New York’s Central Park. The plan for Yosemite Valley is still an outstanding example of ecological planning. Olmsted proposed not only a plan for developing the landscape of the valley but also a national strategy for recognizing and managing similar areas of natural beauty. He recognized that the physical plan would not sustain itself without a management strategy. Another classic example of ecological planning in the late nineteenth century is the plan Olmsted developed for the Fens and the Riverway in Boston, which was completed in .8 This plan, continued by his protégé Charles Eliot (–), resulted in the first metropolitan park system planned around hydrological and ecological features. The significance of the plan is that it combined a concern for recreation, preservation of the natural landscape, and management of water quality. A planned park that responded to similar concerns for protecting natural systems was H. W. S. Cleveland’s (–) plan for the park systems

A Historical Perspective

Image not available.

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 reflected Cleveland’s 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 reflecting the local and regional character. Olmsted’s ideas about landscapes were also heavily influenced by the naturalistic theme in the English tradition of garden design, advocated in the writings of William Gilpin (–), Uvedale Price (–), and Humphry Repton

ⱍ



(–). This tradition was greatly bolstered in the United States by the New York nurseryman and landscape gardener Andrew Jackson Downing ( –).9 The writings of these men depicted nature as an embodiment of perfection that “could be observed from a vantage point somewhere outside of her influence.”10 Olmsted moved beyond this tradition, for he viewed the landscape as a living entity, a reflection of an ongoing, two-way dialogue between people and their physical region. Nature, he argued, should be appreciated on a site. Although Olmsted’s primary interest was in shaping the city for the benefit of society, he demonstrated that caring for human health and enjoyment was synonymous with caring for the landscape. In addition, he showed that landscapes should be understood and analyzed from both an ecological and an aesthetic perspective. The call for planning with, rather than against, nature was echoed by thinkers outside the emerging profession of landscape architecture who were also influenced by the writings of Catlin, Emerson, Thoreau, and others. In geography, George Perkin Marsh’s  classic, Man and Nature: or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action, put forth a convincing argument for using nature to “mitigate extremes” in human actions by understanding the impacts of people on nature rather than those of nature on people. The efforts by humans to transform the natural landscape, Marsh argued, should be accompanied by a sense of social responsibility.11 He also proposed a land ratio for restoring forests that would strive to achieve a balance between “ the two most broadly characterized distinctions of rural surface—woodland and plough.”12 Shortly thereafter, John Wesley Powell ( – ), the renowned one-armed explorer and director of the U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain region, drew extensively from Marsh’s ideas and formulated public policy for managing the arid lands of the western United States. He argued that the redemption



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

of these lands should be based on knowledge of “the character of the lands themselves.”13 Ebenezar Howard (–), an English proponent of the garden-city concept, argued vehemently for giving high priority to protecting agricultural land for its productive value and its ability to serve as a buffer from nearby cities.14 The period from the s through the early twentieth century was characterized by the increasing involvement of landscape architects in large-scale planning activities, as well as the development of innovative techniques for analyzing landscapes. Four important events are noteworthy. First, John Muir (–), a Scot by birth, publicized his ideas about the value of wilderness lands. He cherished wilderness landscapes as he grew up in central Wisconsin in the s. Swayed by Thoreau’s views about nature, Muir regarded wilderness landscapes as places “where Nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike.”15 He promoted the value of wilderness lands and became a powerful advocate for protecting it, especially through his association with the Sierra Club, which he founded in . Second, the passage of the  Act to Repeal Timber Culture Laws accelerated the establishment of parks nationwide and provided landscape architects the opportunity to demonstrate how an understanding of the intrinsic features of the landscape could be utilized in planning and designing large tracts of public land. A related act, the Forest Management Act of , provided for the management of forest reserves to ensure timber production and enhance water flow. Landscape architects participated in the design of parks such as the Yosemite National Park in , the Bronx River Park in , and the Canyon National Park in . Third, Charles Eliot and his associates in the office of Olmsted, Olmsted, and Eliot developed an innovative technique for understanding the “essence of landscapes” using sun prints produced in their office window. This technique, known to-

day as the overlay technique, provides a way to systematically document and evaluate information to be used in planning and design. In the Olmsted office’s Boston Metropolitan Park plan, Eliot used a variety of consultants to survey, compile maps, and evaluate the metropolitan region’s 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 office. 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

Although the overlay process described by Eliot was rudimentary, it would later become one of the most powerful techniques for systematically documenting and evaluating natural and cultural data. Fourth, in the early twentieth century Gifford Pinchot (–), the first American to choose forestry as a profession, in association with his partner, William John (W. J.) McGee (–), articulated the “conservation” movement. He postulated the human use of natural resources— forestry, wildlife, soils, streams—as an expression of a single issue, “the use of the earth for the good of man.”17 However, it was McGee who articulated the notion that conservation is “the use of the natural resources for the greatest good of the

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 floundered 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-specific 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 field 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-

ⱍ



nia, Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin began developing state park systems. Legislative support for developing national parks was strengthened by the passage of the Weeks Forest Purchase Act in  and the National Park Act in . The Weeks Act authorized both the purchase of lands for national forests east of the Mississippi River and the protection of watersheds. The National Park Act created the National Park Service and authorized it to manage all National Park lands.21 Kuhn stated that when there is a belief system, “all the facts that could possibly pertain to the development of any given [professional community] are likely to seem roughly relevant.”22 The formative era was a period of experimentation in ecological planning: consolidating and refining ideas in the belief system in numerous large-scale projects, sorting out which approaches were more useful than others, and developing and refining techniques for putting good ideas into practice. Warren Manning (–), a landscape architect who started his career working for Olmsted, refined the overlay technique developed by Charles Eliot. Manning applied the technique in his  plan for the town of Billerica, located twenty-two miles northwest of Boston. He prepared at least four different maps, each showing one natural-resource element, such as soil or vegetation. Manning then placed the maps one over the other to make analytic inferences, which he presented through a fifth map that displayed circulation and land-use patterns. All the maps and plans were drawn to the same scale. Although the overlay process was not mentioned explicitly, evidence for its use can be found in numerous studies and projects undertaken between  and .23 The most notable ones include the city plan for Dusseldorf, Germany; the regional plan for Doncaster, England, prepared by Patrick Abercrombie and Thomas Johnson; and the landmark regional survey of New York that began in  and was published in  as The Survey of New York and Its Environs.24



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Refinements of the overlay technique allowed landscape architects and planners to better explain the interrelation between natural and cultural phenomena and to show how they could be combined to make analytic inferences. Numerous questions remained unanswered, however, such as what the effective basic unit for analyzing natural and cultural information was, and why, and what natural and cultural information should be identified and analyzed, and on what basis. These questions were partially answered when, in , the Scottish botanist and planner Patrick Geddes (–) provided insights into what constituted the unit for organizing and analyzing information for large-scale planning activities. He proposed a regional survey method based on the idea that the complexities between human action and the environment might best be understood in terms of “folk-work-place” attributes: “The types of people, their kinds of styles of work, the whole environment become represented in the community, and these react upon the individual, their activities, and their place itself.”25 The inspiration for Patrick Geddes’s ideas came directly from the works of the French regional sociologist Auguste Comte (–) and the French engineer and sociologist Frederick Le Play (–). From Comte, Geddes drew his interest in the application of the scientific method to the study of societies, and from Le Play, the fundamentals of his regional-survey approach. Le Play argued that the well-being of the family was influenced by the work it was engaged in, which in turn was affected by the family’s place of residence. Le Play proposed a three-part framework for understanding a region: famille, travail, lieu, “folk, work, place.” Geddes’s regional-survey method is impressive for its emphasis on the relationship between place, work, and folk rather than on any one of these individually. Indeed, the notion of relationship is the central feature of ecological planning as we know it today. Within Geddes’s model, surveys were

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 fifty 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 influenced 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

taking place in the biological and social sciences in the early decades of the twentieth century. Up to this point, I have mentioned ecology in only general terms. The science of ecology, as we know it today, originated partly in Europe. It was not until  that Ernst Haeckel coined the term ecology, although observations on ecological relationships had been made much earlier. Ecologists have studied the relationships that bind organisms and their environment at many organizational levels: the organism, the population, the community, the ecosystem, the landscape, the biome, the biogeographic region, and the biosphere.29 As P. A. Quinby observed, “The knowledge of laws of a lower level is necessary for a full understanding of the higher level.”30 Major advances in ecology seem to have occurred once the laws of a lower organizational level were fully understood. In the early twentieth century most of the developments in ecology focused on the population and community levels. A population is made up of organisms interacting with their physical and biological environment and a community is made up of populations of organisms interacting in a common space. Changes in energy resulting from interactions between animal and plant populations were the focus of most studies conducted at the population level. For example, in  Alfred James Lotka (–), a physical chemist by training, demonstrated that the organic and inorganic worlds worked together as a single system, with the components linked in such a way that it was impossible to understand one part without understanding the whole. He subsequently related the energy changes within populations in a mathematical theory. Likewise, Vito Volterra (–) in  used mathematical equations to demonstrate how different populations interact.31 These mathematical equations led to advancements in the theory and methodology of population ecology. The development of multivariate statistical methods of vegetation ordination and classification permitted

ⱍ



samples of plant communities to be linked quantitatively to the characteristics of their physical and biological environment. At the community level, the Dutch botanist Eugenius Warming (–), a founder of the science of plant ecology, first described the concept of ecological succession in . Ecological succession is a dynamic process involving changes in both organisms and their physical environment. Influenced by Warming, Frederick Clements ( – ), Henry Chandler Cowles (–), and Herbert Gleason (–) studied plant communities in the early twentieth century and provided invaluable insights into how changes occurred in the landscape.32 Their work showed that the landscape is a dynamic entity with a life history of its own. Plant communities go through a process of growth and development that parallels that of an individual organism, striving to reach a “climax stage.” Much of the landscape architect Jens Jensen’s thinking about the use of native plants was influenced by his close association with the University of Chicago botanist Henry Cowles. Subsequently, Jenson’s association with the landscape architect Ossian Cole Simonds led to a development of the prairie style of landscape design. The prairie style embraced the aesthetic and functional values of native plant materials in designing forms that reflected the local and regional character of landscapes in the Midwest. The preservation of native plants and natural areas was promoted further by the landscape architect Stanley White, in the animal ecologist Victor Shelford’s Naturalist’s Guide to the Americas (), by the plant ecologist Edith Roberts, by the landscape architect Elsa Rehmann’s American Plants for American Gardens (), and in various books written by Frank Waugh, a professor of landscape architecture at the Massachusetts Agricultural College at Amherst (now the University of Massachusetts).33 Even though these landscape architects focused on landscape design, they rein-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

forced the need to understand the landscape in terms of ecological function and aesthetics. Not surprisingly, this is still one of the major means by which landscape architects and planners understand the landscape today. Gleaned from the writings of these landscape architects is their promotion of a form of empiricism, or pragmatism, in understanding the landscape. Pragmatism is “learning by doing.”34 The essence of pragmatism is the discovery of identity through inquiry. Olmsted and his followers, including Jensen, emphasized pragmatism as one way to understand the inherent identity of a site. Frank Waugh called for careful and detailed observations of a site that would go beyond an objective understanding to include an emotional attachment to the site. Geddes articulated the notion of pragmatism in his regional method when he suggested that in conducting a regional appraisal of an area, planners and the general public should walk every mile in a region in order to absorb the concrete realities of regional life.35 Subsequently, pragmatism as a way of knowing and understanding landscapes took many forms, one being the holistic, or gestalt, method of ecological planning. Gestalt analysis involves understanding the landscape as a whole through field observations rather than examining the individual components, such as topography, soils, and vegetation. Although the evolution of ecological planning at this time was still fragmented, the components of what would later become a paradigm for ecological planning were apparent. By the late s the notion of utilizing an understanding of the intrinsic character of the landscape, from both an ecological and an aesthetic perspective, had been put to the test in many large-scale planning endeavors, including the planning of parkways and state parks. For example, the ideas of Olmsted and Howard for utilizing natural principles were expounded upon and applied in the design of planned residential communities such as Earle Draper’s plan for Chicopee, Georgia (), and

Henry Wright and Clarence Stein’s plan for Radburn, New Jersey (). In addition, ecological principles were constantly being refined, 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, different outcomes may be reached using the same information. Kuhn pointed out that an early, pre-paradigm phase can be distinguished readily by “insufficiency of methodological directives to dictate unique substantive conclusions” to the many questions confronting a professional community.36 Explicit methodological rules governing ecological-planning efforts 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 refinement of techniques for applying ecological ideas to planning efforts. 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

Deal to address the problems associated with the Depression. Within two months of the beginning of his presidency the Congress passed two important acts in the history of American conservation, one creating the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the other establishing the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The CCC provided work for young men to revitalize local economies. Its activities were varied and included the construction of roads, communication lines, and recreational areas; one of its most visible activities was naturalresource conservation. The larger conservation movement had already gathered steam when the federal government, in the late nineteenth century, initiated efforts to achieve a sustainable balance between accommodating the needs of people and protecting significant natural and cultural resources. In fact, one can claim that ecological planning is synonymous with conservation, at least philosophically. During the New Deal, however, the focus of conservation efforts shifted with the emergence of public concern for soil conservation. Hugh Hammond Bennett, the son of a North Carolina farmer, was the first to recognize that it would be a national disaster to allow the agricultural value of older regions to be destroyed. In  he joined the Bureau of Soils, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and in  he was appointed soil survey inspector of the southern and eastern divisions. Bennett’s first crusade for soil conservation was not entirely successful. Largely through his efforts, however, the federal government initiated a program of erosion research in the late s. In the early s, soil erosion received national attention when dust storms darkened the skies across half of the United States. Bennett’s efforts were rewarded in , when the CCC made soil conservation one of its major activities. In  the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was established as a permanent agency under the Soil Conservation Act and Bennett was named its first director. One

ⱍ



important contribution of the SCS to ecological planning was the development of maps showing the intrinsic ability of the soil to support one type of agricultural use rather than another. The TVA was the most comprehensive of the river-basin development schemes initiated by the Roosevelt administration. Others included the Connecticut River Watershed, the Colorado River Basin Compact, and the Columbia Basin Study. Established in , the TVA mandated river-basin planning for an area that covered approximately , square miles in seven southeastern states. The mandate included flood control, rural electrification, and the development of navigation in some of the depressed areas in the South. Initially, the activities of the TVA floundered because the limits of its legislative authority were not well defined. Despite the initial inertia, however, the TVA soon proved to be a powerful instrument for maintaining the existing economic relations and dispersing urban-rural industrial development. It also signified a recognition by the federal government of the need for the continued multiple use of social, natural, cultural, and economic resources. In addition, the TVA demonstrated the effectiveness of using a river basin as a unit for landscape planning. Moreover, in the economic depression of the s, public agencies such as the TVA were the primary source of employment not only for landscape architects and planners but also for laborers. Such opportunities not only increased the profession’s visibility but also illuminated the landscape architect’s capabilities in large-scale planning-anddesign endeavors, such as parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. The New Deal era made clear the interdependency of ecological, social, and economic factors, as well as the role landscape architects and planners could play in large-scale land planning.

Development of Ecological Concepts The consolidation era witnessed the development of many ecological principles that permitted a bet-



ⱍ

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 Tansley’s 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 Georgia’s School of Ecology, contributed immensely to the field 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 first person to quantitatively examine Tansley’s 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. Lindeman’s work was the catalyst for subsequent work in ecological studies. The flow of nutrients between the biological and physical environments was another important feature of ecosystems. In his well-known book Biosphere, first published in , the Russian scientist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky showed that chemical elements such as nitrogen and phosphorus flow back and forth between organisms and their physical environment. His subsequent work focused on the geochemistry of the biosphere. Based on Vernadsky’s work on aquatic ecosystems in the s and s, G. E. Hutchinson (whom Raymond Lindeman worked for before his sudden

and untimely death in ) demonstrated that this flow of chemical elements was cyclical. But it was not until the s that similar studies on nutrient cycling in terrestrial (land) ecosystems were successfully carried out by researchers at the Hubbard Brook Experiment Forest in northern New Hampshire. One reason for the delay was that it was easier to use a lake-land interface as a boundary in studies of aquatic ecosystems.39 Additionally, World War II and then the postwar reconstruction interrupted ecological studies in the United States as well as in most of Europe and Japan. By the end of the s, however, ecosystem studies flourished in the United States, becoming institutionalized in the International Biological Program (IBP). The studies made use of information theory as well as computers and modeling. They also embraced the notion of holism, an idea introduced by John Christian Smuts ( –) in the  book Holism and Evolution. Holism is based on the idea that a self-organized and selfregulated order larger than human societies exists. Put simply, matter, mind, and life are synthesized in a creative manner to form a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. However, it was the South African ecologist John Phillips who introduced the notion of holism into ecosystem studies. The cultural consequences of such an integration were profound. As Frank Golley, of the University of Georgia’s School of Ecology, put it, “It provided the individual faced with the complications and difficulties of everyday life the notion that somewhere out there, there was ultimate order, balance, equilibrium, and a rational and logical system of relations.”40 Ecosystem studies held out the promise for managing the landscape in a philosophical and conceptual way. Their concern was with understanding the world in terms of the interrelationships between things. The studies were also focused on how landscapes were structured and how they functioned. By implication, the effects of human actions on the landscape could be predicted.

A Historical Perspective

In  Benton MacKaye, a champion of the primeval landscape, published The New Exploration, which articulated the objectives of regional planning and the specific tasks of a regional planner. MacKaye asserted that planners have a responsibility to understand a place or the landscape by revealing both its physical and its human aspects: “Here we have the function of every sort of planner: it is primarily to uncover, reveal, visualize—not only his own ideas but nature’s; not merely to formulate the desires of man, but to reveal the limits thereto imposed by a greater power. Thus in the end, planning is two things: ) an accurate formulation of our own desires, the specific knowledge of what we want; and ) an accurate revelation of the limits, and the opportunities, imposed and bequeathed to us by nature.”41 MacKaye advocated an approach to planning grounded in human ecology. He urged understanding the landscape in its totality, in terms not only of its physical and natural attributes and processes but also of the cultural values, processes, and meanings attached to the landscape. He later explicitly linked regional planning to ecology, in particular to human ecology: “The region is the unit of environment. Planning is the charting of activity therein affecting the good of the human organism; its object is the application or putting into practice the optimum relation between humans and the region. Regional planning, in short, is applied human ecology.”42 To accomplish the tasks of planning that MacKaye proposed, we would have to assume that a set of moral principles governed human relations to the land. This was not the case, however. Ethical thoughts and behavior were based on individual relations to other individuals. Even when visionary thinkers such as Olmsted and Marsh called for an understanding of nature as a basis for planning, people’s relations to the land were still governed chiefly by economic self-interest. They therefore entailed exchange and privileges, not moral obligations or responsibilities. There was an

ⱍ



urgent need for new forms of ethical thought and behavior that would extend human ethics to the natural environment. This “new” ethic was first articulated in a series of essays written from the s to the late s by Aldo Leopold, a wildlife biologist and forester who was also involved with the SCS in watershed planning. One underlying theme in his writings was that there were right and wrong ways of behaving toward the land. To ensure the “healthy functioning” of land, Leopold argued persuasively for an ethic that extended the boundaries of the biotic community, of which people were an integral part, “to include soils, water, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.” He regarded land as “all things on, over, or in the earth.”43 In this inclusive view of an interdependent relationship between people and land, people were the responsible and caring members of the biotic community whose survival depended on the other members of the community. Important, but often forgotten, are Leopold’s pleas for aesthetics in ethics. Following the tradition of Marsh, Geddes, Jensen, and MacKaye, emerging leaders in the area of ecological planning and ecology continued to explore how ecological principles could serve as the basis for guiding human actions in the landscape. The contributions were numerous, so I mention only a few. A famed member of the Chicago School of Urban Studies, Roderick McKenzie, did much of the empirical work that linked the biological and physical sciences to the social sciences. His work provided the empirical base for ideas in the then emerging field of human ecology. For example, in his popular book The Rise of Metropolitan Communities McKenzie examined America’s transition from a rural-agrarian society to an urban-industrial one and explored the planning implications of that transition.44 In many books Lewis Mumford ( –), a philosopher, social historian, and cultural critic, and mentor of Ian McHarg, explored how human processes were interwoven with natural



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

processes in the city and its environs. He offered a definition of planning, revisited the issue of what constituted a region, and prescribed an approach for understanding and analyzing regional landscapes. Mumford criticized much of the planning undertaken before his time for “evading the realities of life and avoiding the responsibilities for action.” Drawing upon Patrick Geddes’s threepart framework for understanding a region in terms of “folk-work-place,” Mumford proposed that planning involved the coordination of human activities in time and space based on known facts about place, work, and people. Consequently, genuine planning was an attempt “to clarify and to grasp firmly all the elements necessary to bring the geographical and economic facts in harmony with human purposes.”45 For Mumford, the unit for planning was the region, which had three special qualities: () the geographical character, a dynamic interplay of “soil, climate, vegetation, agriculture, and technical exploitation”; () a state of harmony among its components; and () fluid physical boundaries. Indeed, the state of harmony might be viewed as an expression of stability in ecological systems. “When any large alteration is made in one section of the environment,” stated Mumford, “corresponding or compensating changes must be made, as a rule, in every other part.” Moreover, once human communities were considered part of a region, the boundaries of the region could not be defined precisely. Instead, the region became more “a system of inter-relationships that overflow and become shadowy at the margins.”46 Mumford expanded Geddes’s regional-survey method and prescribed an approach to planning that involved four distinctive activities: () a survey to obtain a visual, multidimensional historical image of the region; () an outline of regional needs and activities expressed in terms of social ideas and purposes, as well as a critical formulation and revision of current values; () formulation of a new picture of regional life based on imaginative re-

construction and projection; and () an intelligent absorption of the plan by the community and its translation into actions through the appropriate political and economic agencies.47 Even though Mumford rarely used the term ecology, his works dealt extensively with ecological planning in the city and its environs. Mumford’s idea of understanding regions in terms of their history derives directly from Geddes’s notion of absorbing the concrete realities of regional life in a survey and indirectly from John Dewey’s philosophy of “learning by doing.” According to Dewey, who was regarded as the dean of American philosophers, “all valid knowledge comes from experience,” by which he meant the interaction between human subjects and their material environment. “Through experience, we come not only to understand the world but also to transform it.”48 One person who deserves more credit for his contributions to ecological planning is Edward Graham. Graham, who was trained as a botanist and had a distinguished career with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, proposed a method for integrating ecological principles in planning for various rural uses. In addition, he demonstrated that there was a clear relationship between ecological planning and the public interest.49 Furthering this relationship, the biologist William Vogt proposed a “biotic equation” for achieving ecological health, which he viewed as a function of biological potential and environmental resistance. Vogt was primarily concerned with the serious depletion of “resource capital.”50 The primary reason for this depletion, he wrote, was people’s failure to see themselves as part of their environment. Vogt argued that it was necessary to understand the interrelationships between the components of the biosphere (including humans) and the impact each component had on the others. He recommended developing an ecological bookkeeping of national carrying capacities and extrapolations of demographic trends.

A Historical Perspective

For him, living within a landscape’s carrying capacity represented ecological health. Carrying capacity would became an important concept used by landscape architects and planners in resolving people-nature conflicts. In addition, Vogt reinforced Aldo Leopold’s “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 Sears’s work, a theme he articulated in The Ecology of Man.51 Sears was a distinguished botanist who started the first 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 people’s 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, different from all other populations. In the first place, man’s flexible 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

Odum’s work introduced and popularized the concept of the ecosystem as the organizing theme for future ecological studies and for linking ecol-

ⱍ



ogy to advances in physics and chemistry. The popularization was facilitated by the translation of his Fundamentals of Ecology into many languages.

Techniques for Combining Spatial Information In the United States, the overlay technique for analyzing spatial data continued to be refined, largely through the land-capability studies undertaken by the SCS (now the NRCS), although the term overlay was not mentioned explicitly. In England, in The County of London Plan, published by the London County Council in  the overlay process was used to combine different factor maps, all drawn to the same scale, in hopes of identifying the deficient supply of open spaces. By the s, planners in the United States and in Europe were using transparent overlays for land analysis technique and for presenting planning information. Jacqueline Tyrwhitt, a town planner of international renown and an amateur botanist, provided the first explicit description of the overlay technique in the  APRR publication Town and Country Planning.53 She explained how a map showing one general feature served as a reference guide for preparing other factor maps drawn to the same scale. As an example, she demonstrated how a map showing land characteristics was created by using transparent paper to combine four factor maps showing relief, rock types, hydrology, and soil drainage. In the same book, Jack Whittle described the limitations of using maps to illustrate complex data and discussed two techniques for handling planning data.54 The overlay technique would be a standard feature of many ecologicalplanning methods proposed in the s. If a paradigm represents a body of consistent ideas, theories, data requirements, and techniques for putting ideas into practice, then a recognizable paradigm for ecological planning was beginning to emerge by the s. The foundation for extending human ethics into the natural environment had been articulated. Landscape architects and planners increasingly sought to employ eco-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

logical ideas in planning, although the language of ecology was not explicitly used. Ecological ideas continued to be developed and were applied in numerous large-scale public planning efforts. For example, drainage basins were used to establish boundaries for large areas. The notions of multiple use, sustained yield, and carrying capacity were employed as planning and management principles. Also, techniques that helped to integrate ecological ideas into planning, such as transparent overlays, continue to be refined, especially through the efforts of the NRCS in the United States. While most of the ingredients for establishing a paradigm were sufficiently developed, a coherence among the ingredients was still lacking. When the components of a paradigm do not cohere, the outcome usually is a proliferation of competing methods. This was evident during the consolidation era. The competition among the methods continues until one or more of the methods prove to be better than the others. In Kuhn’s words, “To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory [or method] must seem better than its competitors.”55 After World War II the United States became a major manufacturer of consumer goods, most of which depended largely on a steady supply of natural material and energy resources. The rapid increase in population and the accompanying increase in production placed unprecedented demands on the land. Air pollution and the contamination of water sources were two consequences of the rapid growth. A third consequence was a growing public recognition of landscape abuse. The seemingly uncontrolled abuse of the landscape raised serious concerns about the possibility of planning for the wise and sustained use of the landscape. What had happened to the call for a land ethic, for planning with nature? The search for answers coincided with an international conference in  sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research in New Jersey. The conference findings

were published under the title Man’s 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 effectively 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 Kuhn’s term, in the life cycle of ecological planning, the period when all the ingredients of an acceptable paradigm—the ethical foundation, working theories and concepts, techniques, and ideas for putting theory into practice—were 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 first 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 influential 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 world’s finite resources,61 and visual degradation.62

A Historical Perspective

As public consciousness of environmental degradation rose, there were significant efforts to finding 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 fish 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 first 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 influenced 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

ⱍ



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 government’s 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 difficult 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 effort to restore human-dominated landscapes is the Highway Beautification Act of . The act may be viewed as a way to restore the visual quality of ordinary landscapes. The act’s results were mixed, however, as some states failed to take the necessary actions to ensure successful implementation. The first major federal legislation for protecting environmental quality was the Water Control Act of , which created significant 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 .



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), was the first comprehensive legislation to specifically address the environmental costs of land-use decisions made by federal agencies.66 NEPA required all federal agencies to undertake environmentalimpact assessments for all federal actions that might significantly affect the environment. The act also required federal agencies to incorporate unquantified amenities and visual values into environmental land-use decision making. NEPA challenged the agencies to develop methods and procedures for meeting its requirements. A new agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was created to implement NEPA. In addition, NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality to advise the president on environmental matters. Similar laws mandating similar assessments were passed in other countries; however, the scope varied from country to country.67 While the passage of these laws indicated broad-based public support for addressing human abuses of landscapes, they also acted as catalysts for the development of better approaches to understanding and analyzing landscapes. Many influential people, especially in academic circles, sought to find better methods for balancing human use with the protection of landscapes. Three men—Angus Hills, Philip Lewis, and Ian McHarg—stand out from the rest. Angus Hills, a soil scientist and geographer, and his colleagues from Toronto, Canada, developed a method for using the biological and physical capability of the land to guide land-use decisions for agriculture, forestry, wildlife, and recreation.68 Hills devised a very useful way to break down large areas of lands into progressively smaller homogenous units that could then be related to potential land uses or social limitations imposed on them. Moreover, Hills’s studies demonstrated how empiricism, or the gestalt method for ecological planning, could be made more explicit. He proposed a numerical rating scheme for delineating the homogenous units that appear as gestalts in the field.69

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 significant 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-

Image not available.

Fig. .. Wisconsin’s environmental corridors and landscape personalities. Philip Lewis used USGS maps to delineate water, wetlands, and significant 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

lands, and significant topography. The resources were to be coalesced into patterns that he referred to as “environmental corridors” and “landscape personalities.” In effect, he was able to develop an approach that linked the little-studied perceptual, or visual, qualities of the landscape with the state’s natural environmental features.70 Beginning in the early s, Ian McHarg, another visionary thinker, landscape architect, city planner, and educator, argued strongly and persuasively for employing ecology as a basis for reconciling human use and abuse of the landscape. He vigorously promoted ecology as the foundation science for landscape architecture and regional planning. Strongly influenced by the works of Loren Eisley and especially Lewis Mumford’s reverence for life, McHarg may well have been the person who made the most significant advances in the field of ecological planning in the twentieth century. In a series of lectures and writings he outlined an ethos and a method, known as suitability analysis, that explicitly linked ecology to planning and design. The ethical principles, working theory, and successful applications of the approach were skillfully presented in his seminal book, Design with Nature, published in . The “McHarg Method,” or the “University of Pennsylvania Method,” as it came to be known, revealed nature as a process and value with the right to continued existence: “The basic proposition employed,” wrote McHarg, “is that any place is the sum of its historic, physical and biological processes, that these are dynamic, and they constitute social values, that each area has an intrinsic suitability for certain land uses and finally that certain areas lend themselves to multiple coexisting land uses.”71 McHarg’s techniques involved superimposing hand-drawn translucent overlay maps showing physiography, drainage, soils, and critical natural and cultural resource in order to reveal areas suitable for different types of human uses. Time was the organizing theme for overlaying the pertinent

ⱍ



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 significant contributions were being made that would further solidify the importance of ecological planning and refine 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 clarified the role of regions in ecological planning.72 The period – was significant 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 McHarg’s suitability method the modus operandi for the bulk of ecological-planning work undertaken by practitioners at the time. Indeed, the suitability approach satisfied most of the conditions stipulated by Thomas Kuhn for achieving “paradigm consensus.” McHarg’s 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-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

proach explain why human abuses still occurred and what ought to be done to stop the abuses, or was it better suited to improving the management of change in the landscape? While McHarg’s suitability approach provided landscape architects and planners with a dependable way to understand and assess the landscape, it also stimulated intense debate about alternative evaluation techniques. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, a paradigm, once accepted, still “is an object for further articulation and specification under new or stringent conditions.”73 At the global level, there is no shortage of reports alerting us to the negative consequences of human actions in the landscape, especially global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer and its devastating consequences of increased radiation on life-support systems, the desertification of landscapes, the erosion of biological diversity, the impacts of uncontrolled population growth on the world resource base, and the unsustainability of our economic and political systems. The  report of the World Commission on Environment and Development summarized the global challenge related to the degradation of landscape succinctly: “We have in the past been concerned about the impacts of economic growth upon the environment. We are now forced to concern ourselves with the impacts of ecological stress— degradation of soils, water regimes, atmosphere, and forests—upon our economic prospects. . . . Ecology and economy are becoming ever more interwoven—locally, regionally, nationally, and globally—into a seamless net of causes and effects. . . . Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable. . . . Yet in the end, sustainability is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change. “74 This theme was restated in many ways at numerous international and national conferences, including the Rio Summit in , when representatives from  countries, including more than  heads of state, met to debate the social, economic,

and environmental problems that confront the planet. In heightening awareness of the seriousness of environmental crises worldwide, the Rio Summit also established a clear linkage between the protection of the environment and poverty in the developing world. The conferences and summits, as well as many reports and books written by distinguished scholars, increased international awareness of the grim future awaiting us if our current modes of economic and political organization persisted. They reaffirmed the need for a holistic approach to dealing with the degradation of landscapes and for cooperation rather than competition among nations, given the planet’s limited resource base, and challenged humankind to develop strategies to ensure sustainable development and heal life-support systems. In the United States, the passage of NEPA was only a hint of things to come. Many federal environmental laws were enacted during the s: the Clean Air Act of , the Clean Water Act as amended in , the Coastal Zone Management Act of , the National Endangered Species Act of , the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act of , and the National Forest Management Act of .75 States and localities followed suit by adopting programs aimed at protecting the landscape. By the end of the s environmental protection was an important part of the American way of life. Environmental legislation continues to proliferate even in the face of property conservatism, a movement to expand private property rights. Inspired by concerns about environmental degradation, states like Vermont (), California (), Florida (), and Oregon () developed statewide growth-management programs calling for the consideration of environmental, economic, and social values in the development of plans for guiding growth. They adopted methods for determining the inventory and assessment of landscape resources similar to those proposed by Ian McHarg. This period has been referred to as

A Historical Perspective

the “quiet revolution” in land-use controls, when states began to take back some powers from local governments.76 In the s states developed programs that embraced a broader range of concerns, including the environment, infrastructure, economic development, and quality of life. Among them were Florida (, ), New Jersey (), Maine (), Vermont (), Rhode Island (), Georgia (), Washington (, ), and Maryland (). These state initiatives reflected the recognition that decisions made at the local level often have impacts that exceed the boundaries of localities. States like Florida, Georgia, and Vermont also adopted a regional approach to growth management in the spirit of those proposed earlier by Patrick Geddes, Benton MacKaye, and Lewis Mumford. The increased involvement of states and local governments in environmental protection further perpetuated the emotional debate on private versus public property rights. It became a necessity, therefore, to provide policymakers with defensible and precise information about the use and protection of the landscape in a timely manner. The development of ecological concepts and their translation into planning and design continued, propelled by an improved understanding of the ecosystem concept and how it could be used to better mediate the dialogue between human actions and natural processes. Ecosystem studies continued to flourish, employing the ecosystem concept as their organizing principle. The studies stressed the biological aspects of the environment, however and demonstrated very little understanding of the physical and chemical aspects.77 This emphasis coincided with a focus on ecological studies and ecological modeling that emphasized the use of mathematical models. The works of the ecologists Howard Odum, Raymond Margalef, and Frank Golley provided important insights into the dynamics of energy flow and nutrient cycling within ecosystems. The studies that Herbert Bormann and Gene

ⱍ



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 significant ecosystem studies were the study of the Coweeta River basin, in the southern Appalachian Mountains, and the Experimental Lakes Project in Canada.79 Eugene Odum’s 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. Odum’s 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, Odum’s model provided a theoretical basis for understanding the functioning of landscapes. Julius Fabos and his coworkers at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst used Odum’s model as the basis for developing a comprehensive approach to regional land-use planning. There were numerous similar efforts to refine 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



ⱍ

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 field. 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 different 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 Friedmann’s definition 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

available about the physical systems that made up these larger ecosystems. Remote sensing became an important source of information for agencies concerned with the management of large landscapes. Moreover, more scientific information became available on the short-term and long-term effects of human actions on the landscape; thus, for example, we are able to estimate more accurately the impacts of air and water pollutants. Landscape architects and planners increasingly began to work with scientists to obtain pertinent information about human impacts on the landscape. The availability of better information about human impacts on the landscape resulted in an informed public that increasingly demanded more involvement in decisions affecting the quality of its environment. Rapid advances in computer technology enabled ecological planners to better store, analyze, and display large amounts of natural and cultural resource data, thereby laying the foundation for providing intelligent and diverse options for decision making. Computer technology and geographical information systems (GIS), in particular, began to be components of most work in ecological planning. Moreover, rapid advances in technology and communication induced fragmentation of the landscapes where people lived, worked, and played. Taken together, these events vastly increased the nature, scope, and complexity of issues that ecological planning could address.

ERA OF DIVERSITY I argued earlier that the suitability approach emerged as an accepted paradigm for problem solving in ecological planning. Consistent with Thomas Kuhn’s framework for the development of scientific 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

s many ecological-planning approaches have emerged in response to the issues generated by these new conditions. Some of these approaches better clarified the ideas and techniques that were part of the suitability approach, while others offered new ideas and techniques. The net result was a diversity of approaches to ecological planning.

Efficiency and Accuracy of Information Management One major development in suitability methods was increased objectivity and accuracy in managing and combining ecological data. Since the basic procedure in suitability analyses is to identify and assess the relative suitability of areas of land that are similar in one or more ways, the way the areas are identified and evaluated affects the validity of the outcomes. Many landscape architects, planners, geographers, and soil scientists suggested ways for improving the validity and management of information in determining suitabilities. In the mid-s Bruce MacDougall, a professor of landscape architecture and regional planning at the University of Massachusetts, and Carl Steinitz and his colleagues at Harvard University examined the inefficiencies of hand-drawn overlays and made recommendations for improving their accuracy.83 In  Lewis Hopkins, a professor of planning and landscape architecture at the University of Illinois, Champaign–Urbana, examined the techniques for combining ecological data and made suggestions for improving their validity.84 Aided by advances in computer technology and in remote-sensing technology, planners have been able to overcome some of these deficiencies. Continued advances in ecology have increased our ability to utilize ecological principles in determining land suitabilities (Fig. .). A notable example is the design of a new community—The Woodlands, Texas—by McHarg and his colleagues from the firm of Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd (–). Among its successes was the man-

ⱍ



ner in which the designers skillfully utilized the concept of carrying capacity in land-use allocation. They used land-use suitability analyses and ecological information to develop a master plan and the performance criteria for implementing the plan. In fact, McHarg emphasized that “the natural balance of the hydrological regime was the key to successful environmental planning and an organizing concept for development.”85 A related concern about suitability methods (the McHarg method) is that they focus of the supply side of land-use allocation and often ignore the demand side. Thus, the methods do not take into account that many, often conflicting cultural values, as well as economic and political realities, help to determine ultimate land-use development patterns.86 There were subsequent quantitative and qualitative improvements in the efficiency of information management and the technical validity of assessment techniques; the integration of externalities such as economic and political realities in determining land suitabilities; the application of the suitability method to deal more effectively with development, conservation, and restoration issues in landscapes; and techniques for addressing ecological concerns in urban, suburban, and rural landscapes.

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, flora, 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. McHarg’s approach recognizes the significance of landscape processes but does not provide



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

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, .

enough guidance on how they can be integrated to manage change in the landscape. More precisely, it treats landscape elements such as soils and vegetation as if they were separate and independent features of the landscape. The identification of areas in the landscape that are intrinsically either suitable or unsuitable for different human activities requires that we identify relevant landscape elements and map them on translucent overlays or into computer data bases. We know that the mapped elements are intimately related to one another based on our knowledge of ecology. Only when we combine them by using the overlay technique do we actually display and “model” their functional relationship to one another and how they are distributed over the landscape.

Since the display does not show how energy, materials, or organisms flow among the landscape elements under study, we must make assumptions about the nature of the flows when we select the elements to be overlaid. We now know from the science of landscape ecology, the new subdiscipline of ecology in the United States, that the spatial form of the landscape—the way the biophysical and cultural features are arranged—is directly related to how the landscape functions. Monica Turner and her colleagues emphasized that “the explicit composition and spatial form of a landscape mosaic affect ecological systems in ways that would be different if the mosaic composition or arrangement were different.”87 The implication is that while the overlay technique may reveal how

A Historical Perspective

the biophysical and cultural features are displayed in the landscape, it does not tell us about the ecological significance of the distribution. A related problem is that in focusing on identifying areas that are sensitive as well as suitable for human activities we may neglect those areas in the landscape that do not have any consequences for human use. An example is the capacity for the long-term survival of a protected or endangered wildlife or plant species. Two approaches have emerged that emphasize the functioning of landscapes. The first, the appliedecosystem approach, examines the functioning of landscapes at the spatial scale of the ecosystem. The second, the applied-landscape-ecology approach, focuses on the functioning of landscapes at the scale comprising a cluster of interacting ecosystems connected by energy flows and nutrient cycles. Ecologists and ecological planners have integrated knowledge of the functioning of landscapes in many ways. Eugene Odum’s ecosystemcompartment model is an example of a theoretical framework for applied-ecosystem planning. Researchers from other disciplines, especially conservation biologists and environmental scientists, have made significant advances in utilizing concepts about ecosystem structure and processes in their work.88 Since Forman and Godron published their important book Landscape Ecology in 89 there has been an increasing fusion among ecologists, geographers, landscape architects, planners, and historians in the United States. Landscape ecology seeks to understand the landscape structure, function, and change at the organizational level of the landscape, and this fusion provides a conceptual framework within which planners and designers can explore how the structure of land and the relevant ecological processes evolve. If the landscape is the interface between human and natural processes, then landscape ecology focuses on the medium in which the dialogue between both pro-

ⱍ



cesses occurs. It also regards the landscape as a mosaic of interacting ecosystems, connected by flows of energy and materials. Over time ecosystems develop an identifiable visual as well as cultural identity. Since ecosystems of any size can be studied, and since the flows of energy and materials between ecosystems of different sizes can be identified, 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 efforts 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.

Culture in Ecological Planning As an interface between natural and human processes the landscape reflects the dialogue that has occurred between these processes over time. Ecological planning, therefore, requires an in-depth understanding of the nature and evolution of the dialogue. In attempting to reconcile human use and abuse of the landscape, environmentally oriented planners and designers have tended to overemphasize natural processes as a way to under-



ⱍ

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 profiles of a community or region. Yet people have a culture, or a “characteristic way of life.” Their value systems influence 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 find it difficult to reveal this deep understanding, which “comes from not only a scientific 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 conflict.”91 Efforts 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 reflection 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-

man processes into ecological planning. Notable among efforts to better understand how people affect and are affected by the natural environment was the Hazleton Human Ecological Study in the mid-s, undertaken by a University of Pennsylvania team of landscape architects, planners, and anthropologists. The study focused on how people in a mountainous region of rural Pennsylvania adapted to their natural environment. Other significant efforts include the works of Jonathan Berger, Yehudi Cohen, Joanne Jackson, Dan Rose, and Frederick Steiner, as well as Gerald Young at Washington State University. Initially these efforts suffered from the lack of a solid theoretical base. That base was in the early s, when Ian McHarg articulated a sound theory of human-ecological planning. Planning that strives for a fit between people and the landscape, therefore, is one of the most promising ways to reestablish the dialectic between human and natural processes. Since the early s a majority of works in ecological planning have explicitly considered human processes. The work of Jonathan Berger and John Sinton on the New Jersey Pine Barrens is an example of how to develop a plan that responds “not only to place, but to people as well.”93 My work with Ojibway Indian communities in Canada during the s also exemplifies an attempt to understand the nature of the dialectic between human and natural processes in cases where the culture of the planner or designer differs from that of the client group.94 Diversity exists not only in the approaches currently in use in ecological planning but in the scope of their substantive areas of research and practice. The boundaries of ecological planning in landscape architecture and planning broadened considerably in response to complex new problems regarding human actions in the landscape, a growing enlightened public who demand more involvement in decisions affecting the quality of

A Historical Perspective

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. A tentative grouping of the major approaches to ecological planning.

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 efforts and the adoption of ecological ideas from biology; () explicit linkage between

ecology and planning and continued refinement of methodological rules for integrating ecological ideas into planning; () consensus, especially among landscape architects and planners, that planning can and should be ecologically based and articulation of a consistent body of techniques and data requirements for integrating ecological principles into planning; and () a diversity in approaches for ecological planning as well as in the scope of the substantive areas of applications (Fig. .).95

the first landscapesuitability approach



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 offered alternative ways to best manage human actions sustainably in the landscape. They differ 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 differences between these approaches are fuzzy, the differences at the level of theory are significant. 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 offered in allied disciplines. Second, a comprehensive, systematic, and updated examination of the approaches is urgently needed to provide a common base of understanding.



The First Landscape-Suitability Approach

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 fitness of a given tract of land for a particular use. It is chiefly concerned with finding the optimal location for different 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 classification 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 refined 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 significant 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

ⱍ



landscape-suitability approach  (LSA ) includes methods proposed or developed after . Nineteen sixty-nine was the year when the National Environmental Policy Act was passed; among other things, this act challenged federal agencies to develop effective methods and procedures for environmental assessment. Also, Ian McHarg’s Design with Nature, which offered the most coherent synthesis yet of suitability analysis, was published that year. All LSA  and LSA  methods operate on the same general logic and analytical base. They assume that the ability of the landscape to support a particular land use varies according to the physical, biological, and cultural resources that are distributed over a geographical area.2 By implication, if we understand the location, distribution, and interactions among these resources, it is then possible not only to determine the optimal location of land uses on a given tract of land but also to minimize the environmental impacts and the energy required to implement and maintain these proposed land uses. Lewis Hopkins summarized suitability analysis as follows: “The output of a land suitability analysis is a set of maps, one for each land use, showing which level of suitability characterizes each parcel of land. This output requirement leads directly to two necessary components of any method: ) a procedure for identifying parcels of land that are homogenous and ) a procedure for rating these parcels with respect to suitability for each land use” (Fig. .).3 Methods of suitability analysis vary in terms of how they define the fitness of a particular tract of land for a given use; how they define and evaluate homogenous areas and how sophisticated they are; how and to what degree they consider social, cultural, economic, and political factors in assessing fitness; whether they use expert or nonexpert judgments to evaluate suitability; which factors they consider and the sophistication of the operations



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. A composite suitability map for conservation, recreation, and urbanization. Note that the gray tones reflect degrees of suitability. Reproduced, by permission, from McHarg, Design with Nature.

they use in selecting the preferred land-suitability option; and whether they specify strategies for implementation and administration. Other differences in LSAs include the type of the land-use issues they are used to address (e.g., development and conservation), as well as their ability to address effectively micro-scaled and/or macro-scaled issues and urban and/or rural issues. A variation in LSAs that deserves further comment is the way they define fitness, a primary cri-

terion for deciding on the best allocation of land uses. Fitness is often defined as capability or suitability, though they mean different things. Capability is defined in the American College Dictionary as “the ability or strength to be qualified or fitted for or to be susceptible or open to influence or effect of.”4 Other definitions of capability emphasize the ability of a land resource to support potential land uses and the management practices required to sustain the uses; the ability of land to support land

The First Landscape-Suitability Approach

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, fitting, or becoming.”6 Unlike capability, suitability suggests optimizing a tract of land for the best use, all things considered. Implicit in these definitions 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 define fitness 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 fitness of a given tract of land for a defined use. The LSA  methods developed in an ad hoc manner, linked to specific 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 McHarg’s discussion of landscape-suitability analysis was supported by a well-articulated philosophy and has been applied in a variety of urban, rural,

ⱍ



and natural settings. Also discussed briefly are the suitability methods proposed by C. S. Christian, Ervin Zube, Richard Toth, and Carl Steinitz, methods also mentioned often in ecological-planning literature.

The Gestalt Method The gestalt method was one of the first methods used to understand and analyze the ability of landscapes to support human uses. Lewis Hopkins used the term gestalt to explain a way of understanding and analyzing perceivable patterns in the landscape without considering compositional elements such as slope, soils, and vegetation.7 Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary defines gestalt as “a unified whole, a configuration, pattern, or organized field having scientific properties that cannot be derived from the summation of its parts.”8 William Passons referred to music appreciation to illustrate the essence of the gestalt method: “Listening to a piece of music is a process which involves more than hearing the specific notes, just as melody is more than a constellation of notes.”9 Experiential knowledge rather than technical knowledge is the point of departure in making gestalt judgments about landscape suitability. The philosopher John Dewey contended that “experience recognizes no division between act and material, subject and object, but contains both of them in an unanalyzed totality.”10 In using the gestalt method, the planner or designer makes observations about the landscape under study from aerial photographs and remotesensing data or from personal observation of the landscape at different times of day. The planner then records patterns or areas of the landscape that are homogenous in one or more ways, such as a cornfield or lowland hardwood forest on wet soil (Fig. .), as well as unique qualities of the landscape, such as outstanding views. Having recorded these features, the planner describes the impacts of proposed land uses on the landscape patterns and draws inferences about the ability of the land de-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Professor Robert Scarfo and his students at Washington State University observe the Palouse landscape in eastern Washington. Photograph by N. Alexander, .

picted by the patterns to support potential uses. For instance, if the planner observes that a tract of land in the study area is wet upon each visits, he or she may conclude that the tract of land might not be able to support houses because of unstable soil conditions. Some of the patterns observed may be of equal suitability since they are based on perceived natural and cultural types rather than on the suitability for any one use. In that case the planner develops a set of maps for each land use to show the ability of each pattern to support a given use. Gestalt judgment is arguably a feature of most suitability methods, at least at an elemental level. For example, a woodland identified on an aerial photograph may be regarded as a gestalt since it is a composite of a vegetation association made up of understory plants and ground covers. In this instance, the gestalt method is used to identify a particular landscape resource, vegetation, which will be combined with other resources to generate

suitability maps. Hopkins adds that “once a factor [resource] such as cover type is identified . . . one can no longer use the gestalt method at some higher level because by definition it does not combine factors.”11

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Capability System The soil-capability system is one of the most established methods for determining the ability of the soil to support different land uses. The system was developed by the NRCS (formerly the Soil Conservation Service), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to assist farmers with agricultural-management practices.12 As information about the linkages between soil behavior and the structural properties of soils became more readily available after World War II, the use of the capability system was extended to planning and resource management.13

The First Landscape-Suitability Approach

Soil represents a transitional zone that relates the physical and biological characteristics of the landscape. It has depth, shape, and boundaries. These boundaries are altered when one or more soil-forming factors change. These factors are climatic forces, the living matter that acts on the soil, and the parent material for the soil, modified by relief over time.14 The identified properties of soils— texture, depth to bedrock, profile or gradient of soil layers from the surface to the bedrock, slope, stoniness—derive from the interaction of these factors. The soil-capability system is a widely used system for classifying soils to determine the ability of the landscape to support various land uses. (Other classification systems developed by the NRCS are discussed later.) The underlying logic of the soil-capability system is that combinations of soil properties pose restrictions when they are manipulated and used for certain types of agricultural production. In other words, the classification system emphasizes the limitations rather than the attractiveness of soils for supporting various land uses. The system focuses on the use of soil for field crops, the risk the soil poses for damage to crops, and the response of the soil to management practices when used for the production of particular crops. It does not take into account properties such as soil depth and slope or specific types of agricultural crops that require special types of management practices, such as horticultural crops.15 The NRCS classifies soils according to three capability levels: class, subclass, and unit. It then ranks the levels based on the limitations the soil poses to land uses and uses the rankings to make evaluations for agricultural production, planning, and resource management. The capability class is the broadest homogenous level. Soil classes are designated by the Roman numerals I through VIII, indicating progressively greater limitations for agricultural production in terms of the choice of plants, soil erodibility, and intensity of management practices. Class I soils

ⱍ



have few limitations, while Class VIII soils have many restrictions, making them unsuitable for commercial production, wildlife, and water supply.16 The second level is the subclass, which consists of soil groups within a soil class. Subclasses are indicated by the letter e (erosion), w (water), s (stoniness or shallowness), or c (climatic variations) following the Roman numeral to indicate limitations, for example, IIIs or IVe. Since the subclasses are based on limitations, it follows that Class I would have the least subclasses and Class VIII would have the most. The third level, the subunit, consists of soils within a subclass that support similar crops, have similar agricultural productivity, and require similar management practices. Subunits are indicated by an Arabic numeral following the subclass symbol, for example, IIIs- or IVw-. In sum, the NRCS capability system helps individuals and organizations evaluate landscape suitability by using soil inventories.17 The information is readily available to the public at a mapping scale of :,, or  inches ⫽  mile. The evaluation of the soil for land suitabilities is descriptive, as inferences about land capabilities for different uses can be drawn from the classification.

The Angus Hills, or Physiographic-Unit, Method The physiographic-unit approach to landscape analysis was proposed in  by the Canadian forester G. Angus Hills, the chief research scientist with the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests.18 The approach contributed to the development of the Canadian Land Inventory system.19 Initially, Hills focused on using soil associations to determine land capabilities, but over time his interest shifted to using landforms and vegetation associations. The essence of Hills’s method was to divide the landscape into physiographic homogenous units and then reaggregate them for planning purposes. The method addresses a number of questions to



ⱍ

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 effective way of differentiating 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 effect? 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 significant 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 five-step method for assessing landscape suitability. The first 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 identified and used as reference points for collecting more detailed data. Next, the site area is divided hierarchically into

homogenous physiographic units—site regions, landscape types, site classes, site types, and site units—based on a gradient of its biological productivity (climate and landforms features) (Fig. .). As the largest unit, the site region comprises land areas that display consistent patterns of vegetation and microclimatic conditions. The region is defined by the recorded succession of forest types on major landform classes. An example of this is a birchpoplar association on a glacial-outwash landform. Each site region is divided into distinct landscape types based on landforms, geological composition, and water regimes. The average size of a landscape type is approximately  square mile, or . square hectare. An example is a tract of land that has shallow sandy loam or sandy soil over granite bedrock. Each landscape type is differentiated further into physiographic site classes that may be rated for their biological productivity. A site class is distinguished by variations in soil moisture, depth of bedrock, and local climate. The average size of a site class is approximately  acres. Poorly drained soil on a glacial-outwash bedrock and moderately drained soil on a glacial till represent different site classes. Various combinations of soil moisture, depth to bedrock, and local climate define different physiographic site types, such as moderately deep soil in a dry local climate. The smallest physiographic category is the site unit, a subdivision of the physiographic site type. The significant features of the site unit include soil profile, stoniness, slope, and aspect, which are useful in evaluating land uses. The third step is to identify the characteristics and land requirements of the proposed land uses, such as forestry and agriculture. Hills suggested that a panel of experts evaluate the ability of the physiographic units to support the proposed land uses. The experts would conduct suitability, capability, and feasibility assessments at the broad ecological-planning level and also at the regionalplanning level.

The First Landscape-Suitability Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. A section of physiographic classes. Redrawn from Belknap and Furtado, Three Approaches to Environmental Resource Analysis, by M. Rapelje, .

Suitability refers to the capacity of the site in its present condition to meet specific management practices. Suitability assessment involves determining the “actual use of an area of land for any specified period of time.” Capability assessment entails ascertaining “the probable results, in terms of both crop production and land conservation, if a given body of land is put to a particular use.”21 Feasibility assessment involves determining the relative advantage of managing a tract of land for

specific land uses under existing or forecasted social and economic conditions. While suitability and capability assessment focus on the inherent features of a site, feasibility assessment emphasizes the social and economic conditions needed to ensure the continued use of a site for the proposed land uses. For each type of assessment the land is rated on a seven-point scale, ranging from excellent to extremely poor, based on the intensity and quality of the landscape resource rather than on its



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

type. Emphasis is placed on the absence of potential site limitations. To ensure that the outcome of the evaluation is used for a variety of planning purposes, Hills proposed ways to combine the smaller physiographic units into larger units. For example, if the study is to be conducted at the local level, then it is useful to combine physiographic site classes to create landscape components. Landscape components, approximately a quarter of an acre (. ha.) in size, are convenient for rating land-use capability because they signify the biological productivity of the individual site and the effects of the distribution of crops on the site as well as of management practices. For studies conducted at the level of the community or the region Hills suggested combining the landscape components into landscape units, measuring approximately  square miles ( sq. ha.). An example would be a shallow bedrock with shallow to moderately deep till. The fourth step is to combine the suitability, capability, and feasibility assessments into a composite map depicting landscape units that may support multiple uses. The appropriate panel of experts then makes recommendations for the proposed land uses. Final recommendations are made by local decision makers to ensure that the social and economic needs of the community or region are met. In the fifth step, management guidelines prescribe how to put the proposed uses into effect.

The Philip Lewis, or Resource-Pattern, Method Philip Lewis Jr. proposed a method for identifying patterns of unique perceptual qualities in the landscape and for integrating them into regional landscape plans and designs. Lewis developed and refined his method through numerous projects he directed between  and , including the Illinois Recreation and Open State Plan (), the Outdoor Recreation Plan for the state of Wisconsin (), and the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study ().22 Lewis was primarily concerned with the hap-

hazard patterns of urban growth in the Midwest, which occurred with little regard for the “intrinsic qualities inherent in nature’s design.”23 The growth patterns resulted in declining recreational spaces, which Lewis sought to discover, protect, and conserve. Lewis’s work addressed such concerns as which recreational resources required protection and conservation; which ones were significant and why; what the geographical linkages were among these resources; how these linkages could be identified, analyzed, and integrated into regional planning and design; and how the value of these resources and the outcome of their assessment could be communicated to the public in order to gain support for implementation. Lewis hypothesized the environmental corridor as the basic recreational-resource unit.24 They comprise significant, or major, natural and cultural resources that are connected in their distribution of such things as surface water, wetlands, and significant topographic features. The resources’ significance rests in their ability to enhance and stabilize property values, provide recreational opportunities, and maintain the ecological and cultural integrity of the landscape. The major resources are enhanced by additional, minor resources that may not be distributed in a continuous manner but provide concentrations of ecological and cultural values. Lewis referred to the concentrations, such as rock outcrops, fish habitats, and picnic areas, as resource nodes. Resource nodes offered the greatest flexibility in ensuring that the environmental desires and needs of midwesterners were met. By focusing attention on environmental corridors and resource nodes, Lewis shifted attention from the protection of single resources to the protection of multiple ones. He explained the nature and significance of environmental corridors as follows: Looking beneath the Great Lake Canopy, it is apparent that the elements and glacial action through the ages have etched a treelike design pattern on the face of the landscape. The flat prairie farmlands, driftless hills and expansive northern forests

The First Landscape-Suitability Approach

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

Lewis’s 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 identified 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 identified the key recreational uses and established land-use criteria. For example, recreational uses might include hiking, canoeing, fishing, and camping. The primary land-use criteria were visual contrast between landscape types and landscape diversity. Lewis identified 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

ⱍ



minor resources as waterfalls, rock outcrops, and picnic areas. Symbols were used to denote the minor resources. The data were collected at a scale of  inch ⫽ , feet (:,) by many people, including federal, state, and local officials, who worked closely with local people. Local inhabitants’ awareness of the ecological and cultural values inherent in the major and minor resources was crucial for their successful identification, protection, and preservation. Using overlay maps, Lewis correlated and compared the composite maps that displayed the major and minor resource patterns to establish the degree of congruence between them. Based on the outcome of the correlations, he confirmed that wetlands, water bodies, and significant topographic features constituted about  percent of the resources that were held in high esteem by the local people and located within the environmental corridors. Lewis then proceeded to identify the major and minor resource patterns throughout the state of Wisconsin and to ascertain their location, distribution, and significance. To establish priorities for the preservation and conservation of these resource patterns, he developed a rating system and assigned points to the individual resources that made up the major and minor resource patterns. The locations that contained resources degraded irreversibly by human use, such as wetlands, received the highest scores. The resources that received the highest scores were designated as priority areas for protection (see Fig. .). This rating system was complemented by information on the demand for the recreational resources. Lewis examined the type and intensity of the demand, the degree of access to the recreational areas, and the patterns of land ownership. Once the priority areas were established, he conducted detailed soil surveys and visual studies to identify unique local features and to illuminate the limitations on development. The outcomes were used to provide preliminary estimates of the car-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

rying capacity of the area since human use of recreational areas might have negative impacts, such as soil compaction. Lewis has conducted numerous studies since his outdoor recreation plan for Wisconsin, described here, which he documented in his  book, Tomorrow by Design.

The McHarg, or University of Pennsylvania, Suitability Method The McHarg method was described extensively in Ian McHarg’s Design with Nature, a book that immensely influenced the environmental movement in the s (Fig. .). The McHarg method and its variations are arguably among the most widely used methods in professional landscape architecture and planning today. The method was refined through numerous projects McHarg conducted with his colleagues and students at the University of Pennsylvania as well as with his partners at Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd (WMRT). Examples of application in the s include the New Jersey Shoreline Study (), the Plan for the Valley study (), the Richmond Parkway Study (), the Potomac River Basin Study (–), and the Staten Island Study ().27 The method has undergone several revisions and has advanced beyond the theoretical conceptualizations presented in this chapter. The key methodological advancements are examined in chapter . McHarg was deeply disturbed by patterns of population growth that resulted in degradation of the landscape. He promoted designs that integrated the city and countryside while preserving the features of nature that were crucial for the survival and well-being of humans. His interest was in understanding life processes and using them as limitations or opportunities for allocating human uses in the landscape. McHarg believed firmly that the dialogue between humans and nature should be one of mutual interdependence. Humans are dependent on nature for air, water, food, and fiber, and nature also provides order, meaning, and dignity. Yet, the

Image not available.

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 Powell’s book Urban Condition. He noted that a duality existed between man and nature. This duality, which was the basis of our ecological crisis, was firmly rooted in the religious tradition, Christianity, and was reinforced by economic determinism and the misuse of technology.28 The attitudes

The First Landscape-Suitability Approach

and technology that emerged from Christianity and Western philosophy promoted dominion and subjugation of nature by humans. McHarg contended that by using a system that used money as a yardstick of success, the Western mode of economic organization failed to take into account the physical and biological processes that are crucial for human evolution and survival. His ideas about the basis of ecological degradation were reinforced by Lynn White in his  article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” To address effectively the ecological crisis that confronted our society, McHarg forcefully proposed replacing our economic view of the world with an ecological one. An ecological view of the world measures success in terms of energy and evolutionary order rather than money. The ecological view also accepts human cooperation and biological partnership as points of departure in solving problems of human adaptation to the environment.29 The natural sciences in general and the field of ecology in particular offer the most useful insights into applying the ecological view to mediate the dialogue between humans and nature. The fundamental question the McHarg method sought to address was how to achieve the fittest environment for the survival and evolutionary success of the organism, the species, the community, and the biosphere.30 For McHarg, suitability implies searching for this environment to ensure survival and evolutionary success. The next question was how to determine the fittest environment for human uses. McHarg proposed that the answer lay in understanding nature as an interactive process, one that responds to physical and natural laws and represents values. Together, nature’s processes and values offer opportunities and limitations for human use. Nature’s values include the inherent characteristics of nature that endow it with the right to existence, such as natural beauty; the productive function that nature serves; nature’s role in

ⱍ



maintaining ecological processes, such as aquiferrecharge areas and flood plains; and the potential hazards that result from improper use of nature, such as flooding, erosion, and the degradation of water quality.31 The McHarg method seeks to understand nature’s 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 air—which 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 defined, 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



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. An example of a suitability-analysis procedure. Redrawn from Steiner, Living Landscape, by M. Rapelje, .

The First Landscape-Suitability Approach

example, the homogenous areas that represent perfectly drained soils, moderately well drained soils, and poorly drained soils are rated for their suitability for residential development. The output is a color-coded map, with the darkest color representing constraints, or poorly drained soils, and the lightest denoting opportunities, or perfectly drained soils. . All factor maps pertinent to determining the landscape suitability for a particular land use are overlaid using transparencies. Maps showing such characteristics as depth to bedrock, soil drainage, slope, and vegetation are combined to determine residential suitability. The outcome is a suitability map for each prospective land use under consideration. . The suitability maps for the individual land uses are combined into a composite map using transparent overlays. The composite map reflects a pattern of light and dark colors indicating the estimated suitability for all prospective land uses. The interpretation and documentation of the composite map may be used in allocating land uses or may serve as an input into a larger ecological or land-use study.

A closer examination of McHarg’s application of the suitability method in numerous projects reveals that there are two basic versions, quantitative and qualitative. The six steps described above are illustrative of the quantitative variation. The homogenous areas mentioned in step  are rated to obtain a grand index of suitability. The Richmond Parkway Study and the Staten Island Study, described in Design with Nature, exemplify the application of the quantitative version of McHarg’s method. Even though overlays were used, the process of overlying maps to determine suitability was a mathematical operation equivalent to assigning weights to the subhomogenous areas and totaling the weights to obtain an index of suitability.33 In contrast, the qualitative version follows a different path after step . The subhomogenous areas are not rated; in fact, they may be described in terms of ecological zones and key characteristics pertinent to land-use decisions. Experts then de-

ⱍ



velop and apply land-use and ecological principles to relate suitability to the homogenous areas. McHarg used the quantitative version in his  Plan for the Valley study. McHarg and his colleagues assessed the suitability for urban development of  square miles ( sq. km), or approximately , acres (, ha.) within the greater Baltimore region. This area contained widespread valleys, plateaus, wooded ridges, and an intricate array of many land uses. Based on the social, economic, and physical characteristics of the region, McHarg and his colleagues made a number of propositions that guided the ecological study of the region. For example, they postulated that the region could accommodate all prospective growth without degrading the landscape. They then used two factors, topography and vegetation, to distinguish five ecological zones or homogenous areas: valley floors, unforested valley walls, forested valley walls, forested plateau, and unforested plateau (Fig. .). Development guidelines were prescribed for each of these homogenous areas. In the valleyfloor zone, for instance, McHarg and his partners proposed restrictions on development except for land uses that were compatible with the extant pastoral scenery, such as agriculture, very-lowdensity residential, and parks and recreation. In contrast, they designated the unforested plateau as the area to receive the most intensive development. To ensure that these guidelines were workable, McHarg and his colleagues projected future land-use demands in the region and correlated them with the proposed land suitability.

Other Methods In the late s C. S. Christian, an Australian who worked for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), developed a land-classification system for assessing the landscape’s potential to support various uses.34 Similar to Angus Hills’s classification system, Christian’s broke the landscape into progressively



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Unforested plateau, forested plateau, and forested valley wall. Reproduced, by permission, from McHarg, Design with Nature.

smaller homogenous tracts of land using criteria such as variations in geological features and landforms. Christian’s system, also known as the Australian system of classification, is useful in conducting preliminary appraisals for extremely large regions. Much of his work has been adapted by international organizations, including the International Union of Conservation for Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Ervin Zube, formerly chair of the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts and now professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, considered both visual and cultural factors and

natural-resource characteristics in order to understand and analyze landscapes. Parallel efforts took place in Britain in the mid- to late s largely through the efforts of K. D. Fines and his colleagues in East Sussex. In the  Nantucket Island Study, in Massachusetts, Zube, C. A. Carlozzi, and others identified significant 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-

The First Landscape-Suitability Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Landscape synthesis, Nantucket Island. Redrawn from Zube and Carlozzi, Inventory and Interpretation— Selected Resources of the Island of Nantucket, by M. Rapelje, .

bined with natural-resource data to arrive at a composite landscape-synthesis map (Fig. .). In addition, Zube, in his  resource-assessment study of the U.S. Virgin Islands, classified the landscape hierarchically into visual units based on criteria such as visual differences in landforms, visual contrast and variety, and significant visual elements, such as bodies of water.36 The visual units were assessed by experts and lay people for protection, conservation, or development. Another area in which important contributions were made in the s was that of assessing the impact of development. Richard Toth, formerly at the University of Pennsylvania and now at Utah State University, developed a method for analyzing the natural characteristics of the landscape in order to estimate the impact of development. He used this method in the study he conducted for the Tock Island Regional Advisory Council in Pennsylvania in .37 Toth used matrices to identify and display the frequency and the ecological

consequences of interactions among key natural characteristics, such as topography and soils, and land-use needs. He summarized the predicted consequences of the interactions as a guide for future allocation of land uses. Utilizing hand-drawn overlays to combine resource factor maps in suitability analysis may be cumbersome, expensive, and sometimes inefficient, especially when many options for land-use allocation are desired. Moreover, a limited number of variables can be included in formulating alternative land-use options. To address some of these problems, Carl Steinitz and his colleagues at Harvard University applied computer technology in numerous projects they conducted beginning in the mid-s in order to improve the efficiency and economy of managing information (Fig. .).38 Their use of computer technology also enabled the integration of social and economic considerations in suitability assessments and permitted the evaluation and prediction of the



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Carl Steinitz, at Harvard, has been at the forefront in advancing and refining 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 offer 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 specific individuals and projects, they display an increasing level of sophistication based on substantive and procedural principles and on the techniques they offer 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-classification methods; landscape-resource survey and assessment; and allocation evaluation. The gestalt method is used in making elemen-

tal judgments of suitability. Landscape-unit and landscape-classification methods divide the landscape into homogenous areas independent of the prospective land uses based on a single criterion (NRCS, Zube, Litton) or on multiple criteria (Hills, Christian). Resource-survey and resourceanalysis methods define homogenous areas in order to determine their suitability for prospective land uses. Suitable lands are selected either by eliminating lands deemed unsuitable for the potential land uses (e.g., Lewis’s delineation of environmental corridors and resource nodes) or by establishing compatibilities between the natural and cultural characteristics used in defining the homogenous areas (e.g., McHarg’s Staten Island Study). In addition, suitability analysis may focus on a single use, such as recreation (Lewis), or on multiple land uses (as in numerous projects undertaken by McHarg and his colleagues, such as their  Comprehensive Landscape Plan for Washington, D.C., or the  Ecological Study for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region in Minnesota). Landscape-resource survey and assessment methods also permit the evaluation of environmental impacts. Examples include Toth’s Tock Island Study and McHarg’s  Least Social Cost Corridor Study for the Richmond Parkway. The Parkway study heavily influenced the articulation of the conceptual base of the environmentalimpact assessment, which is the centerpiece of NEPA.39 However, the impacts are implied but not reported explicitly. Allocation-evaluation methods, which were only in the formative stages in the late s, assign land uses to different locations on a tract of land and assess the social, economic, and environmental consequences of alternative land-use options. Computer-assisted methods proposed by Steinitz and his colleagues, for instance, can be used to assess the landscape to determine suitability and to evaluate the impacts of alternative land-use options. These methods broaden the criteria tradi-

The First Landscape-Suitability Approach

tionally used in determining landscape suitability to include social and economic criteria. In addition, they employ computer technology, which enhances the ability to manage complex and diverse information. LSA  methods are also varied in their ability to address development and conservation or preservation issues in both urbanizing and natural or rural areas. Variations of the McHarg method can address both, as can other methods, such as computer-assisted methods. Some LSA  methods are useful in dealing with one specific type of land use, such as conservation or preservation; however, they may also be used to make informed judgments about suitability for other uses. Examples include the NRCS capability system, Hills’s physiographic-unit method, Zube’s visual-resource method, and Lewis’s resourcepattern method. Other LSA  methods focus on ascertaining suitability for a specific land use; for example, the Lewis method emphasizes recreational land use. Problems may arise when a method developed to establish landscape suitability for one type of use is adapted to establish landscape suitability for other types of uses. For example, the use of the NRCS classification for planning and resourcemanagement purposes produces inconsistent results. While it accurately identifies septic-tank limitations, it is inconsistent in determining home sites and roads.40 In general, LSA  methods are primarily used to address macro-scaled issues rather than sitespecific projects. However, this does not mean that they cannot be adapted to deal with site-specific issues. For example, the NRCS soil-classification maps are usually published on a county-by-county basis, and the soils are mapped at a scale of :,, yet the soil information can be adapted to address site-specific conservation and development issues as long as on-site investigations are conducted to validate the data. In contrast, the gestalt method is useful in understanding and an-

ⱍ



alyzing small tracts of land. As the size of the parcel of land increases, it becomes more difficult to fully comprehend the parcel in its entirety. Another notable exception is Hills’s physiographicunit method, which was designed to address multi-scaled issues. Since the method involves a hierarchical classification 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 scientific 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 classification schemes expert judgment was used to assign soils to various classes and to prescribe varied land uses. Hills used expert judgment to assess the landscape’s 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 officials 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-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

ria for management actions. These methods rarely offer strategies for predicting the cumulative consequences of the outcomes of suitability assessments.42 However, some LSA  methods, such as Angus Hills’s, suggest substantive management guidelines that would put the outcome of suitability assessment into effect. Rarely do LSA  methods recommend institutional arrangements or administrative strategies to implement the outcome of suitability assessments.

In conclusion, significant theoretical-methodological advances in landscape-suitability methods occurred in the s. However, they only hinted at the developments in ecological-planning approaches that would occur subsequently. As the nature, scope, and complexity of ecological issues increased, and as public awareness of the negative environmental impacts of human actions rose worldwide, the need to develop accurate, legally defensible landscape-suitability methods strengthened.

the second landscapesuitability approach



As discussed in chapter , in the final 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  



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available. Fig. .. Transactions between economic, social, and biophysical factors that define landscape suitability.

from the earlier LSA . A simplified heuristic model illuminates the transactions among the major considerations essential in determining the optimal uses of the landscape (Fig. .). In LSA , landscape suitability is determined by the dialectic balance between economic, social, and biophysical factors. Technological issues are included in the economic factors, while legal and political issues are included in the sociocultural factors. In determining suitability, these factors may be examined based on assumptions made about them, such as development trends, economic costs and benefits, user needs and values, and acceptable levels of environmental degradation. Or the factors may be used as criteria incorporated into logical combination rules or rating systems for establishing landscape suitability. Not surprisingly, the central questions addressed in estimating suitability expanded with LSA . In addition to examining the site’s or region’s environmental suitability for a particular land use, LSA  asks, What type, amount, and intensity of modifications to the landscape are necessary to maintain an optimal degree of ecological stability and productivity? By what social, economic, and political circumstances is the optimal land use guided, and how is it influenced by technological forces? For instance, if biotechnology

results in rapid increases in production, large amounts of agricultural land will become surplus, which in turn could affect the final estimation of landscape suitability. Additionally, what are the long-range social and environmental costs and benefits associated with alternative land-suitability options? How can choices among competing suitability options be made? How is the optimal option implemented? Researchers and practitioners have proposed suitability methods that address one or more of these questions. In this chapter I examine LSA  methods by reviewing the major substantive and procedural themes that distinguish them from LSA  methods. I then examine the major types of methods based on their theoretical intent and procedures, using actual examples to illustrate variations within each group. Finally, I reflect on the substantive and procedural developments in LSA  methods.

S U B S TA N T I V E A N D PROCEDURAL THEMES Ecological Concepts In addition to reflecting expanded concerns in estimating landscape suitability, LSA  methods attempt to better describe landscape dynamics by

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

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 efficient 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.

ⱍ



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 fiber, 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 .

Substantive Concepts in Landscape Suitability Carrying Capacity Carrying capacity is a concept that grew out of the field of population ecology and now is used widely in other fields including wildlife, recreation, and planning.4 Biologists define it as the number of organisms, or biomass, that a given habitat can support without significant deteriora-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

tion. Sociologists refer to carrying capacity as the “volume and intensity of use that can be sustained without degrading the environment’s future sustainability for that use.”5 Put differently, carrying capacity expresses the best empirical approximations of the ability of the landscape to recover from disturbance. This assumes, of course, that the organisms have more or less the same impacts on the landscape, which often is not the case. If, indeed, suitability analysis is concerned with ascertaining the optimal uses of the landscape, one way of doing so is to determine the threshold carrying capacity of the landscape for different uses. Thus, carrying capacity can be used as a surrogate measure to establish the optimal uses of the landscape. Research concerned with the potential linkages between landscape suitability analysis and carrying capacity has been one major direction for improving the estimation of landscape suitability. Landscape Opportunities and Constraints The critical points in the evolution of a landscape at which its capacity for continued production will not lead to degradation can also be established by understanding the dialectic between the opportunities and the constraints of natural and cultural landscape characteristics for different human uses. By focusing on opportunities, we can identify locations where human actions will create the least disturbance to the landscape or even improve the productivity of the landscape. An example of improvement is landscape restoration, which reintroduces successional processes to previously disturbed sites. In contrast, concentrating on constraints helps identity locations where disturbance from human actions limits the continued productivity of the landscape and perhaps degrades it. This is the fundamental idea underlying many applications of suitability analysis, including most of the work done by McHarg and his colleagues and students at the University of Pennsylvania.6 In LSA  methods the selection and combination of factors for determining opportunities and con-

straints were improved for enhanced ecological and technical validity, and social and economic considerations were also included. Impact Assessment Examining the potential social, economic, and environmental consequences of human actions in the landscape is another way to ensure that a site’s or region’s resilience stability and resistance stability will not be exceeded. This is the underlying logic of environmental-impact assessment (EIA), the centerpiece of the National Environmental Policy Act. It requires identifying developmental actions that will not exceed the ability of the landscape to recover from disturbance and developing measures to counteract the potential negative effects. EIAs thus address many questions: Which actions impact upon which components of the landscape at what points, in what ways, and to what degree? at what social, economic, and environmental costs? What corrective measures may be needed to mitigate the significant developmental impacts? Making EIAs an explicit, integral component of suitability analyses led to improvements in estimating the optimal uses of the landscape. By the same token, focusing on impacts after suitability options are generated may encourage the development of options that are not in harmony with nature. Given current knowledge about the complexity of ecosystems, we can only predict the results of disturbance to a certain degree. Cause-and-effect relationships are not entirely linear, and some impacts do not manifest themselves immediately. Nevertheless, the consideration of impacts has broadened the type and number of factors used in estimating suitability and has been another feature of LSA . Landscape Regeneration The concept of regeneration is a more recent addition to LSA . It was urged persuasively by John Tillman Lyle in Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development () and practiced extensively by the

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

Philadelphia landscape architects Andropogon, made up of four former McHarg students, Carol Franklin, Colin Franklin, Leslie Sauer, and Rolf Sauer.7 Regeneration focuses on renewing the resources of the landscape to ensure that the essential ecological processes continue. It is based on the idea that the landscape provides ongoing fiber, energy, and materials for daily physical and economic activities. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one state to another (first law of thermodynamics), it follows that energy and materials must always be renewed. The reason for embracing the notion of regeneration in estimating landscape suitability, therefore, is to ensure sustainability or the continued stability of landscapes.

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 flow 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 different scales, such as population, community, and ecosystem, since each scale has special properties.

ⱍ



As Gerald Young and his colleagues remarked: “Thinking in terms of level formalizes the partwhole relationship, implies synthesis as well as analysis, provides context and implies interdependence.”11 By implication, what is considered a whole at on one level become a part at a higher level.12 Consequently, proponents of LSA  methods have paid more attention to multiscale understanding and analysis of landscapes. The technical operations used in determining landscape suitability also have been improved. Important contributions were made by the landscape architects and planners Lewis Hopkins, Bruce MacDougall, and Carl Steinitz.13 These individuals critically examined the way landscape suitability was determined and made suggestions for improved accuracy.14 Most techniques for analyzing the relationships between landscape characteristics fall into one or more of the categories Hopkins examined in his widely read article published in , “Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps: A Comparative Evaluation.” These are: ordinal combination, linear combination, nonlinear combination, factor combination, and rules of combination. The techniques follow steps similar to those used in chapter  to illustrate McHarg’s method (see Fig. .). They differ, however, in the degree of explicitness in defining homogenous areas, in the mathematical validity of operations used to combine natural and cultural characteristics, and in the handling of interdependencies among the characteristics. Ordinal Combination Ordinal combination is a variation of the overlay technique used by Olmsted and Eliot and then by Warren Manning in his  plan for Billerica, Massachusetts. McHarg revolutionized and provided a theoretical base for ordinal combination, especially in his Richmond Parkway study (). The study involved () mapping the pertinent landscape characteristics; () rating the features of each landscape characteristic, such as soil depth or



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Ordinal-combination method. Redrawn from Chapin and Kaiser, Urban Land Use Planning, by M. Rapelje, .

soil drainage, for each prospective land use; () preparing single-characteristic suitability maps for each prospective land use; and () combining the single-characteristic suitability maps into a composite suitability map. Using transparent overlays, the composite map shows shades of gray that depict the spatial patterns of suitability for the prospective land uses. The lighter the gray, the more suitable the use (Fig. .). According to Lewis Hopkin, overlaying shaded maps is the graphic equivalent of adding numbers. That is, whenever two or more shades of different strengths are overlaid, the strength of the composite shade can be predicted mathematically. Since these shades represent individual ratings of each landscape characteristic for each land use, overlaying them to develop a composite map is an invalid mathematical operation, equivalent to

combining numbers that indicate that a value is higher or lower without indicating how much. In addition, the operations does not assume that interdependencies exist among the combined characteristics. For example, the type of vegetation on a parcel of land may be dependent on the type and conditions of the soil. Because of these problems, ordinal combination is not a preferred technique for landscape suitability analysis using LSA  methods. Linear Combination Linear combination takes into account the relative importance of the natural and cultural characteristics by placing the characteristics on a common scale and using a multiplier to indicate their relative importance. The suitability for each land use based on each characteristic can then be determined.

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

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 influence importance of different 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 sufficiently understood to be defined 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

ⱍ



equations for computing soil loss and runoff based on slope, soil type, and land cover. Factor Combination Another way of accounting for interrelationships is to combine the individual landscape characteristics into homogenous areas before assigning suitability ratings. This is exactly what the factorcombination technique does. The Plan for the Valley developed by the firm of McHarg-Wallace Associates illustrates this technique (see Fig. .). Using two natural landscape characteristics, forest cover and topography, they generated five homogenous areas: valley forests, unforested valley, forested valley walls, forested plateau, and unforested plateau. Rather than using numerical ratings to establish suitability, they developed management guidelines for each homogenous area. The guidelines were derived by relating land uses to the ecological features of the homogenous areas. Factor combination can take into account the interactions among the characteristics of the landscape when assigning suitability ratings. Imagine, however, that Wallace and McHarg had used five landscape characteristics instead of two in delineating the homogenous areas. The number of homogenous areas would have increased exponentially, making the estimation of suitability too cumbersome and even impractical. Rules of combination have the potential to overcome this problem. Rules of Combination A class of techniques known as rules of combination employ rules in examining the relationship between natural and cultural phenomena. The rules define the logic for combining ecological, economic, social, or aesthetic considerations to estimate suitability. Similar to other techniques, the rules-of-combination techniques begin by mapping out the pertinent individual landscape characteristics. Then, the characteristics are combined to develop explicit homogenous areas in a manner



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

similar to that used by the Wallace-McHarg Plan for the Valley. Next, explicit rules are used to assign suitability. Because the rules can be applied to whole sets of combinations, the number of homogenous areas to be examined explicitly is reduced substantially. Rules, if stated correctly, can also handle interdependency among landscape characteristics. Moreover, they make explicit the basis for judging suitability. A simple rule for estimating suitability for residential land use, for instance, may be to exclude areas that are prone to flooding, possess slopes of  percent or greater, contain lowland hardwoods, and are located within a quarter-mile of public sewer and water mains. The logic governing this rule is that certain types of landscapes may be degraded by development and thus should be protected. Moreover, the financial costs of development may increase substantially if the proposed development is not located in close proximity to existing infrastructure. Thomas Ingmire, Tito Patri, and David Streatfield used rules of combination in their proposal for an environmental-degradation early-warning system for the Santa Cruz Mountain Range in the San Francisco metropolitan region in .15 Narendra Juneja used it in developing performance measures for Medford Township, New Jersey, in , and Frederick Steiner used it in locating rural housing in Whitman County, Washington, in .16 I used it in  to study the feasibility of locating multiple land uses along the shoreline of the Richard B. Russell Lake, one of the three lakes along the Savannah River located at the boundary between Georgia and South Carolina.17 Most of McHarg’s work used rules of combination, though he is often associated with the ordinal-combination technique. The primary consideration in using rules of combination is to make sure that the rules are theoretically and technically appropriate for the intended use. These five techniques—ordinal combination, linear combination, nonlinear combination, factor

combination, and rules of combination—have several complementary characteristics. Thus, depending on the proposed land use, it may be necessary to use one or more techniques. For instance, Hopkins suggested to begin by using linear and nonlinear techniques in combining those familiar and well-understood landscape characteristics (social and economic considerations may be included) and then complement these techniques by applying rules of combination to account for environmental (social and economic) impacts and the cost implications for which precise mathematical relationships are unknown. Much analysis of the characteristics of the landscape is carried out using statistical analysis. More often, statistical analysis is used within LSA  methods to define homogenous areas and analyze natural and cultural data. Statistics refers to the body of techniques or methodologies that have been developed for the collection, classification, and analysis of data. Statistical techniques serve two broad functions, descriptive and inferential. Descriptive statistics is used to summarize numerical data to make them more manageable and useful. Examples include measures of central tendency, such as mode, mean, and median; measures of dispersion, including standard deviation and variance; and bivariate relationships. Biologists have used descriptive statistics to provide information on the character of a woodland by examining the type, distribution, density, and height of tree stands. Such information is useful in classifying the landscape into units that are similar in one or more characteristics. In contrast, inferential statistics enable generalizations to be made based on limited observations. It is a more useful tool in ecological planning since it can be used to predict the mathematical probability of future events based on historical trends. Examples include one- and two-tailed t-tests, analysis of variance, cluster analysis, multiple regression, and factor analysis. The use of inferential statistics in ecological planning ranges from iden-

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

tifying locations in a study area that are hazardous to human health and safety, such as flood zones and fire-prone areas, to estimating soil productivity. Another type of statistical analysis frequently used in ecological assessment is nonparametric statistics. Nonparametric statistics is useful in analyzing data that do not have a magnitude but can be ranked in relation to one another, such as soil type, vegetation, or slope. One frequent use of nonparametric statistics is in analyzing how people value different characteristics of the landscape. In this instance, nonparametric Q-sort tests have been extremely useful. Despite the capabilities of inferential statistics, descriptive statistics is used more frequently in ecological planning, perhaps because the input data requirements are less stringent, among other considerations. Regardless, both types of statistical analysis can be performed by computers, thereby making them powerful tools in describing and analyzing landscapes. Rapid developments in computer technology have improved the accuracy, efficiency, and economy of information handling, mostly in large and complex projects. Some computer programs are intended to model the location of landscape processes and phenomena, while others are designed for comprehensive information storage, manipulation, management, retrieval, and display. Over the past three decades the ability of computers to

ⱍ



store and manipulate information has expanded vastly. Spatial information consists of data referenced in two or three dimensions by spatial coordinates. The computer can store this information digitally in three types of format: cell, polygon, and imageprocessing.18 When a cell (or raster) format is used, spatial information is stored in square grids resembling a checkerboard (Fig. .). The data in each grid are aggregated for each characteristic of the landscape under study. For example, if the characteristic is soil, the data recorded in a grid may be  percent of sandy clay loam,  percent of loamy silt, and  percent of silty clay. The primary advantage of a cell format is that the data stored can be compared easily since the same geographical unit is used. The disadvantage is that details can be omitted if the cells are not very small. Moreover, information is lost in the process of aggregation. A polygon (or vector) format assumes that the earth surface is made up of irregular enclosed lines. Data are stored by recording the coordinates of points along the lines. Thus, a soil map can be displayed as polygons with lines enclosing similar soil types. A major advantage of the polygon format is that data are referenced more precisely. The closer the points, the more precise the geographical specificity. A disadvantage is that the data govern the size, number, and configuration of the polygon. When a datum (e.g., soil) has may sub-

Image not available.

Fig. .. Mapped areas represented by grid cells. Reproduced, by permission, from Laird et al., Quantitative LandCapability Analysis.



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

types scattered over an area, the number and size of the polygons increase. In turn, the operations and storage abilities of the computer must increase in order to process the data to accomplish a desired goal, such as overlaying the data with other data, such as topography or vegetation. The image-processing format is similar to the grid format, but the size of the grid is smaller, comparable to what one would observe on a television screen. Only a single point in the grid is recorded; that is, the point recorded is assumed to be representative of the grid. Thus, maps can be created directly from photo imagery such as Landsat imagery or aerial photographs. Image processing has the advantage of referencing spatial data easily and precisely. Yet, it has a remarkably greater internalstorage capacity than do the cell and polygon formats. A drawback is that it is based on the idea of homogeneity of an area surrounding a dot, which in turn is contingent on the size of the dot. In the past three decades the array of operations that computers can perform has broadened immensely. The speed for performing them has increased rapidly, and the quality and quantity of the software for dealing with ecological issues has increased. Because of these advances there is a great tendency to use computer technology in determining landscape suitability. Occasions exist, however, when manual techniques may be more appropriate, for instance, when the study area is small or it is necessary to evaluate, discuss, and even change focus in the process of determining suitability. Despite the promising capabilities of computer technology, many have cautioned that, to use Frederick Steiner’s words, “the results developed through the use of a computer system are only as good as the procedure employed and the quality of data used.”19 Moreover, financial costs, time, human power, and the availability of pertinent data are important considerations when deciding whether to use computers to estimate landscape suitability.

Similar developments in remote-sensing technology enhanced the ability to capture spatial information more accurately. The major developments include the invention of the multi-spectral scanner, which can provide separate images of the same area on the ground; the ability to capture information more precisely and at a very small scale; and the ability to store information electronically. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is at the forefront of developments in remote-sensing technology. Its first earth-resources satellite, commonly known as Landsat, was launched in . Since then many more satellites have been launched in the United States and other countries, such as France and Russia. The data obtained from the earlier satellites had a resolution of . acres. Today’s satellites are capable of producing a spatial resolution of  square meters, or . square feet.

TYPES OF LANDSCAPES U I TA B I L I T Y M E T H O D S The combined effects 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 landscapeclassification 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

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

gestalt method among the four major types, it is a valid LSA  method.

Landscape-Unit and LandscapeClassification Methods Landscape-unit and landscape-classification methods categorize the natural and cultural characteristics of the landscape into homogenous areas based on predetermined of criteria, regardless of the prospective land uses. The resultant areas are interpreted systematically to investigate the relationships between the natural and cultural characteristics of the landscape with respect to a given end, for example, assessing the impacts of development or determining landscape suitability for other uses. Besides providing a way for conceptualizing the landscape, some of the methods serve a practical purpose as well. They reduce the enormous costs of data collection associated with ecological planning since most of the information is presented in a map format with an accompanying explanatory text. Landscape-unit and landscape-classification methods examined in my review of LSA  include the NRCS capability system, the Hills physiographic-unit method, and the Christian, or Australian, method. LSA  landscape-unit and landscape-classification methods examined the landscape in a static way. If landscape processes were deemed important, they were described in text accompanying the classification. From the early s on, the landscape-unit and landscape-classification methods were improved to ensure that the homogenous areas would be meaningful ecological units. Additional emphasis was placed on interpretive rather than descriptive features of the landscape; inclusion of social and economic information; adaptability to macro- and micro-scaled issues; enhancement of information-management capabilities; and improvement of the clarity of information communicated to intended users. Since landscape-unit and landscape-classifica-

ⱍ



tion methods reflect ways in which people impose order on natural and cultural phenomena, the possibility for variation is infinite (Table .). As Warmsley and Van Narnveld explained, “Classification systems are simply contrivances of people, structured to suit their particular needs, reflecting the development of science at that point.”21 Obvious variations in LSA  landscape-unit and landscape-classification methods that deserve further comment are those that () focus on a single landscape characteristic, () emphasize multiple landscape characteristics, () identify ecological homogenous areas explicitly, and () include social, cultural, and economic considerations. In addition, I briefly review computerization of classification systems and provide a preliminary critique of the landscape-unit and landscape-classification methods. Focus on a Single Landscape Characteristic Some LSA  methods delineate the homogenous areas to denote the productivity and quality of the landscape by isolating similar properties of an individual natural resource, such as soils or vegetation. Examples include the NRCS soil surveys, the Canadian Land Inventory (CLI) system, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife classification of wetlands (Fig. .).22 The information obtained using these methods is presented in a raw or an interpretive form. Presented in a raw form, the methods provide baseline data on a single characteristic of the landscape, such as wetland and wildlife surveys, which may be combined into a program of several independent surveys. Presented in an interpretive form, the information may be used independently or in combination with other information to assist in determining landscape suitability. The NRCS soil survey and the CLI system are excellent examples since soils are grouped into classes based on their capability for production. The CLI system was designed to produce land-capability information and to provide an information base for im-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Table .. Selected Landscape-Unit and Landscape-Classification Methods

Image not available.

proved resource planning. Land-capability information was established for six classes of land uses, including agriculture, forestry, recreation, and wildlife. Similar to the NRCS classification, the CLI system devised a set of numerical classes (–) to indicate limitations within each capability classification.23 Focus on Multiple Landscape Characteristics Other landscape-unit and landscape-classification 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,

biological, and sociocultural processes (see Fig. .). The model displays the interrelationships in a historical sequence culminating in a causative explanation of the processes. By understanding the landscape’s physical processes, such as climate, geology, and soils, we can better understand the corresponding biological processes. In turn, the history of a location’s physical and biological processes helps to explain the nature of human influences on the landscape. Holdridge’s bioclimatic-life-zones classification is another example of an attempt to define the relationships between natural and cultural phenomena (Fig. .). Although the classification was developed in the late s, I discuss it here because of its focus on associations that can be used to make judgments about the type and quality of plant associations and climax vegetation. Holdridge’s intent was to convey a general level of biological homogeneity in the landscape that could be used as an analytical unit in planning for larger,

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and deepwater habitats. Redrawn from Cowardin et al., Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States, by M. Rapelje, .



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Life-zone system of ecological classification. Redrawn from Holdridge, Life Zone Ecology, by M. Rapelje, .

more complex landscapes. His classification is based on certain ecologically significant associations measured by mean annual rainfall, temperature, and evaporation. He hypothesized that “the association must be thought of as a natural unit in which vegetation, the animal activities, the climate, the land physiography, geological formation and the soil are all interrelated in a unique recognizable combination which has a distinct aspect or physiognomy.”24 In  Steiner, Kenneth Brooks, and their students at Washington State University combined McHarg’s layer-cake model and Holdridge’s life-zone classification to analyze a large county in southeastern Washington State. Their effort also included suitability analyses for several land uses, as well as recommendations for future planning.25

Identifiable Ecological Homogenous Areas In the effort to develop ecologically significant classification systems Hills in  reinterpreted the analytical unit in his  physiographic-unit classification in terms of ecosystems. He argued that ecosystems should be the basic unit for understanding and analyzing landscapes: “In landscape [ecological] planning, it is useful to conceive ecosystems as ‘production systems’ whether the production is biological from farm, forest or fishery ecosystem or physiographic from mine, aquifer or energy developing ecosystems or societal cultural ecosystems.”26 Hills proposed that the basic unit for understanding landscapes is the site type, derived from the congruence of those features of the landscape that in their interactions control production. The site types include () physiographic site types—

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

climate, landform, soil, water, etc.; () biotic site types—biotic communities of plants and animals; and () cultural site types—those in which human communities are congruent with biotic site types. No one can quarrel with the logic of Hills’s classification; however, the replicability of the classification is questionable. It is unlikely that people using his classification will achieve the same results because of the practical difficulties in delineating site types in the manner he proposed. Hills also presents a simplistic view of the interaction between natural and cultural phenomena, which are complex and dynamic. Social, Cultural, and Economic Considerations Most classification methods have paid little attention to human processes, considering them too complex, confusing, and value-based to be included with biophysical processes. In addition, it was feared that the inclusion of human processes might reduce the method’s replicability. On theoretical and pragmatic grounds, however, classification methods that classify landscapes solely by biophysical processes have reduced value because human concerns are excluded.27 Hills’s work represents an important step in integrating cultural concerns in classification systems. Another innovative effort was the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) classification system, developed by the SCS in the early s under the leadership of Lloyd E. Wright, of the SCS Office of Land Use in Washington, D.C. Wright based LESA on his own work in Suffolk County, Long Island, as well as on similar systems developed in Black Hawk County, Iowa; Walworth County, Wisconsin; and Whitman County, Washington. Moreover, LESA is consistent with the idea of making classification schemes interpretive rather than descriptive and embracing interpretative criteria that emphasize the dynamics of landuse modifications. Like Hills’s classification method,

ⱍ



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 affect the relative suitability of the landscape for urban uses. As I noted in chapter , the NRCS method’s 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 classification, and soil potential ratings. The NRCS’s important-farmland classification uses national criteria to define 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 specified indicator crop. The soil potential ratings are calcu-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Table .. Sample Agricultural-Land-Evaluation Worksheet

Image not available.

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 identified, and comparable weights are assigned. The final LE score is determined by multiplying the number of points

by the relative weights and aggregating the total score. For example, a site that is well serviced, zoned for the proposed use, and far from other agricultural uses may receive a higher aggregate score than one that does not have these features. Table . shows factors used in assessing agricultural land for conversion to heavy commercial uses in Whitman County. Table . depicts sample land-evaluation computations for four sites in Whitman County.28 The Whitman County planning commission and staff members derived these factors from those recommended by the NRCS and from the Whitman County Comprehensive Plan. The NRCS suggests that the resultant LE and SA scores are most useful when combined. In the Whitman County example the scores were not combined since the information the two evaluations communicated was noticeably different. The LESA system represents an important step in integrating factors that dictate the optimal uses of a tract of land in estimations of landscape suitability. Fundamentally, estimations of suitability are still based on the limitations of one landscape feature, soils. Social and economic factors only become important after the limitations of the tract of land for soil productivity are determined. Nev-

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

Table .. Factors Used in Assessing Agricultural Land for Conversion to Heavy Commercial Uses, Whitman County, Washington

Image not available.

Table .. Sample Land-Evaluation Computations for Four Sites in Whitman County, Washington

Image not available.

ⱍ





ⱍ

Ecological Planning

ertheless, data on soil limitations serve as the basis for development of many land regulatory tools and techniques that have been referred to as growth-guidance systems. Growth-guidance systems combine elements of performance-based land regulation, rating techniques, and impact assessments. Examples include the performance zoning system adopted by Bath Township, Michigan (); the development-guidance system proposed by Hardin County, Kentucky (); and the land-use guidance system adopted by Bedford County, Virginia (). Computerization of Classification Systems In theory, any of the classification schemes discussed above can be adapted to use computer technology for data capture, storage, manipulation, retrieval, and display. Computer technology increases the ease, accuracy, and efficiency of information handling. Its utility is particularly obvious in classification schemes that are linked to huge and complex databases. One pioneering effort to integrate computer technology into classification schemes is the Canadian Geographical Information System (CGIS), developed in s. Since then, refinements have been made to the system to take advantage of recent developments in computer technology. Similar efforts in computerizing classification systems have been undertaken by international agencies and U.S. federal, state, and local agencies that deal with spatial information. Notable examples include the NRCS, the U.S. Geological Service (USGS), the U.S. Forestry Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s GAP (Gap Analysis Program), an effort to systematically inventory and plot the distribution of all plant and wildlife species in the United States. I use the CGIS to illustrate the logic underlying the computerization of classification systems. The roots of the CGIS lie in the Canadian Land Inventory (CLI) system. Users of the CLI realized that the data-handling processes were extremely

cumbersome, thereby preventing the system from reaching its full potential as a source of accurate and timely information for resource planning and management. In response, the CGIS, developed by Environment Canada, transferred CLI maps into a computer data bank to provide statistical tabulations and summaries of information contained in the maps, to permit rapid and detailed analysis, and to enable interactive use of the information.29 The CGIS has three subsystems: data input, data storage, and data retrieval.30 Data from the CLI source maps are converted into a digital database. The resultant data are stored as image data (IDS), the data that define the spatial units or polygons, and as a data bank that contains the characteristics of each polygon (DDS). The raw or processed data can be retrieved in a tabular or map format or in an interactive way using a computer terminal to query the system. For example, the user can request maps or tables from a digital storage system and see them almost immediately. Thus, the computerization of classification systems enhances the management of spatial and nonspatial information and communicates it in a user-friendly manner. In sum, there is no doubt that landscape-unit and landscape-classification methods provide a useful framework for organizing natural and cultural data to facilitate suitability analyses and ecological assessments. In general, LSA  classification methods have been improved for enhanced ecological and technical validity, replicability, practical utility, and ease of communication to the intended audience. I find, however, that some issues remain partially unresolved. For instance, the land-unit and land-classification methods employ remarkably different rules for identifying and integrating information when defining homogenous land units. Indeed, many observers have commented, and I concur, that although in practice the rules of integration have some scientific basis, the final delineation of homogenous areas relies heavily on, to

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

use the planner Jamie Bastedo’s words, “intuition, experience, and empathy with subject matter.” Bastedo also remarked that a lot of information is lost when we integrate data to such an extent that sometimes the “resultant homogenous areas may have little bearing with ecological realities.”31 Additionally, ecosystems are complex systems, and we know only so much about their structure and interactions. While arguments have been advanced to make the classifications more dynamic, the harsh reality is that most classification methods are still quite static. Our ability to incorporate information regarding landscapes dynamics into classification schemes remains limited. The schemes require maps and supporting text to describe historical and future ecological processes and interrelationships. Moreover, integrating human considerations into a definition of homogenous land units is problematic irrespective of how ecologically sound the rationale is. Apart from the typical social and economic information that is used regularly in planning studies, there is still a lack of consensus on how human factors can be captured and integrated in a systematic way with biophysical information.

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 defined, 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 defining 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-

ⱍ



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 effect 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 specific 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



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

factors have been used to determine landscape suitability is linked to specific applications. Two major subgroups of landscape-resource survey and assessment methods that merit closer examination are () those that combine independent evaluations of social, economic, and ecological factors and () those that use surrogates to determine suitability. I use surrogates to denote substantive concepts in landscape suitability that provide empirical estimates of the fitness of a tract of land to support intended uses. The surrogates examined are opportunities and constraints, potential land capability, and carrying capacity. Selected applications are reviewed, and preliminary observations on resource survey-and-assessment methods are presented. Combining Independent Assessments One promising way that landscape architects and planners, also referred to here as ecological planners and designers, use the transactions presented in Figure . to determine suitability is to first examine the relevant sets of information independently (e.g. development needs, user needs, ecological compatibility). Next, each set is analyzed in terms of its relationship to project goals. After that, allocation rules or rating functions are established to synthesize the outcome of the independent analyses in relation to one another, to the project goals, and to other relevant values. Finally, land uses are assigned in accordance with those rules. This procedure is consistent with the procedural principles suggested by Robert Dorney and Jamie Bastedo. Peter Jacobs’s work in Halifax, Nova Scotia, illustrates the procedure. In the early s he proposed a site-planning method for allocating developmental activities in a series of watersheds on the urban fringe of Halifax.32 The method involved several processes: site assessment and evaluation of the general developmental potential of an area; determination of user needs based on the outcomes of the first step; and development of a

preliminary design schema exploring the type, structure, and intensity of land-use activities to be located in an area and a preliminary evaluation of the optimal design schema (Fig. .). Of interest to us here are steps  and . For Jacobs, the optimal uses of a site were contingent upon the inherent ability of an area to support potential land uses (supply), the forces of urban growth generated by a metropolitan region (demand), including the needs and values of the user group (social costs and benefits), and the evaluation of impacts that development might have on the study area in time (developmental impact). The interactions of these features are used to determine the optimal level of use of a tract of land for prospective uses and to estimate the social and environmental costs and benefits of exceeding that optimal level over time. A somewhat similar framework was developed in  by Thomas Ingmire, Tito Patri, David Streatfield, and others from the University of California at Berkeley. Streatfield, then at Berkeley and now former chair of landscape architecture at the University of Washington, had been a student of McHarg’s at the University of Pennsylvania. Their proposal for an early-warning system for regional planning was applied to the Santa Cruz Mountains, located close to the San Francisco metropolitan region.33 The central notion in the warning system was to alert decision makers about potential conflicts between development and ecological processes. Although not stated explicitly, the system can be viewed as another way of establishing the suitability of a site for prospective land uses. Instead of developing suitability options, the planners used the synthesis of information to develop criteria for allocating land uses in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Ingmire and Patri developed criteria by synthesizing information derived from assessments of consumer interests and needs, factors that affect the dynamics of the landscape (similar to what McHarg refers to as natural processes), and the environ-

Image not available.

Fig. .. Site-planning process. Redrawn from Jacobs, “Landscape Development in the Urban Fringe,” by M. Rapelje, .



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

mental effects of development. Consequently, the warning system accounted for the many differing and often conflicting values in society and for continually changing information about the capacity of the ecosystem for self-recovery. Two features of the warning system are of interest to us. The first is that the assessment of consumer interests and needs was used to determine the demand for the development of a particular site. Social, economic, and environmental considerations were implicitly considered. Second, the assessment and predictions of the environmental effects of developmental actions were the output of biophysical analysis. However, this analysis was undertaken as an intermediate step in the development of policy guidelines. Other notable applications that combine supply and demand factors in a somewhat similar manner include: the metropolitan landscape planning (METLAND) studies carried out by University of Massachusetts researchers under the leadership of Julius Fabos since the early s; the information system developed by Lyle and von Wodtke at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona, and the work of Steinitz and his Harvard colleagues in the southeastern part of metropolitan Boston in the late s and in the late s, the development of alternative futures for the Upper San Pedro Watershed in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico. These are discussed under allocation-evaluation methods. Surrogate Measures Planners and landscape architects use various surrogate measures to determine the fitness of a tract of land for prospective uses. Carrying capacity, for instance, is used to estimate land suitability because it focuses on the ability of landscape to withstand the particular use or recover from disturbance. In contrast, consideration of opportunities and constraints emphasizes maximizing the productivity of the landscape for intended uses while minimizing landscape degradation. Most applica-

tions of landscape-resource survey and assessment methods involve surrogates.                         . One way in which surrogates are used in landscape-resource survey and assessment methods is in defining and applying criteria that capture land-demand and land-supply factors. Social, economic, and biophysical considerations are usually implied in the criteria selected. In addition, the interactions among individual factors are examined at the outset in relation to the project goals and other social values. Initially, ecological planners who used this strategy only defined criteria to isolate areas in the landscape that presented particular difficulties. Widely known as sieve mapping, the strategy was used in planning new British towns after World War II. Once applied, a criterion was not used again. For instance, if our concern is to select suitable sites for locating housing, natural hazard areas, which include sites prone to flooding, fire, or landslides, may be used as one criterion for eliminating unsuitable lands. Areas meeting the criterion are eliminated from subsequent analysis. Sieve analysis has been used extensively in many ecological-planning endeavors in the United States and other parts of the world. For example, the landscape-architecture and land-planning firm EDAW used it in  to locate sites for power plants in the state of Minnesota.34 Deitholm & Bressler also used it to lay out ski runs for Mount Bachelor in Oregon in .35 The problem with focusing on the problems of a site, as the example shows, is that the delineation of hazard areas argues against locating particular land uses in specific locations; it does not embrace those landscape features that make the location attractive. To include the latter, planners and landscape architects developed attractiveness measures, which reflect the demand for prospective uses. Attractiveness measures make explicit and implicit

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

judgments about social, economic, and other concerns that affect 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 offsetting 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 firm, and the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania were among the first 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-

ⱍ



jor players); the Laguna Creek study, Sacramento, California (, with McHarg as the partner-incharge); and the site selection and development of a master plan for Abuja, the federal capital of Nigeria (–, with Thomas Todd as the principalin-charge).38 Throughout the s McHarg relied on teams of natural and social scientists working with landscape architects and planners to undertake ecologically based suitability analysis. Three of these projects illustrate variations in determining a site’s problems and opportunities: The Woodlands, Texas; Abuja, Nigeria; and Medford Township, New Jersey.             ,      . The planning of The Woodlands, a new ,-acre (, ha.) community north of Houston, Texas, illustrates the conceptual base for most of the studies undertaken by WMRT. McHarg was the partner-incharge, working in conjunction with a team that included the landscape architects and ecological planners Juneja, Leslie Sauer, James Veltman, Colin Franklin, Ann Spirn, and Carol Franklin. While many aspects of The Woodlands study deserve detailed comment, my focus is on how ecological, social, economic, and legal information was used to define the problems and opportunities presented by the site. The theoretical framework for The Woodlands study is suggested in McHarg’s writings. It was based on the notion that the natural characteristics of the landscape provide constraints (limitations) as well as opportunities (attractiveness) for certain land uses. Arthur Johnson, Jonathan Berger, and McHarg summarized the conceptual framework as follows: “Areas which are most suitable for a specific use will have the greatest number of opportunities provided by the landscape and the least number of, or least severe, constraints imposed by the landscape on that particular use. By using the approach of combining analyses of opportunities



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

and constraints, the environmental impacts of the planned uses will be minimized, and the energy requirement to implement and maintain the proposed uses and artifacts can likewise be minimized.”39 McHarg and his colleagues argued that an understanding of these constraints and opportunities based on ecological considerations by itself was insufficient to determine the optimal uses of the site. This understanding must be considered as part of a more comprehensive planning process that includes consideration of social, economic, political, and legal factors, as well as the needs, desires, and perceptions of the user group. Thus, McHarg’s works examined in terms of LSA  differed from those reviewed here under LSA . In the procedure used by McHarg and his partners an ecological inventory and analysis was conducted to establish constraints and opportunities for potential land uses. The uses were determined by demographic, social, and economic analyses of development trends and needs. The ecological analysis involved determining how the landscape worked as a system of related components (Fig. .). The resultant information was mapped. Based on an understanding of the interactions, McHarg and his colleagues identified and mapped the constraints for prospective land uses. Then they developed opportunity maps for each land use, which they aggregated using rules of combination to produce a composite opportunity map. They then synthesized the opportunities and constraints for a selected land use to produce suitability maps. At this point in the assessment procedure McHarg and his colleagues revisited the relevant social, economic, and legal factors to ensure compatibility with the suitable areas. When assessments showed that a given tract was suitable for multiple uses, they resolved the conflicts based on information regarding the needs and desires of the user group from surveys, interviews, and published reports.

Image not available.

Fig. .. Matrix showing bivariate relationships. Reproduced, by permission, from Johnson, Berger, and McHarg, “Case Study in Ecological Planning: The Woodlands, Texas.”

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

Indeed, many subtle yet important contributions to suitability concepts were made by The Woodlands study. It empirically reaffirmed 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 conflicts 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 effects 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

ⱍ



and social data collected in most studies, the data on constitution and governmental organization were used to establish the nature of the future governmental organization and to determine its spatial and program requirements. Once the inventory of the site and natural environment was completed, the information was interpreted, correlated, and evaluated for the opportunities and constraints for urban development and other uses. Table . illustrates the rating of factors for urban suitability. Sieve analysis was used to eliminate unsuitable sites based on preemptive criteria that included flood plains, slopes over  percent, riparian and rain forests, swamps, and geological hazards. The candidate sites were subjected to further assessment that included visual and other human considerations, such as the location of transportation facilities and the water supply. Finally, information generated from the subsequent steps was synthesized into a composite suitability map that resulted in the selection of Abuja as the new capital. The planning and design of Abuja represents an innovative, successful attempt to explicate and integrate subtle but important cultural considerations in ecological planning and design. The lifestyles, customs, and social structures of Nigeria and West Africa are dramatically different from those of Western societies. For instance, the extended-family system permeates the social structure. As Thomas Todd wrote, “The all pervasive physical, organizational, and structural consequences of the differences [in cultural backgrounds] cannot be understated by western planners. . . . The implications for density, land coverage, and organization are of extreme importance in estimating the physical size [demand forces] of Abuja.”41               ,         . McHarg, Juneja, and their colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania examined the problems and opportunities in Medford Township in a slightly different manner than was employed in Abuja. They pro-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. The suitability-analysis process for selecting Abuja, Nigeria. Redrawn from International Planning Associates, New Federal Capital for Nigeria, by M. Rapelje, .

posed and applied a method in the development of performance requirements or standards.42 The township is located at the edge of New Jersey’s Pinelands, within commuting distance of Phila-

delphia. The plan was re-examined in  by McHarg and Berger. McHarg, Juneja, and their colleagues defined the supply and demand of land as the interactions

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

Table .. Rating of Urban-Suitability Factors for Selecting a New Capital in Nigeria

Image not available.

between ecological processes, the values of individuals, and the values of society. Individuals hold different values depending on their interests. These values may be similar or may be in conflict with those held by other individuals or with those associated with maintaining the health, safety, and welfare of society. In Juneja’s words, The values assigned vary depending upon an individual’s 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 conflicting. 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-

ⱍ



derstanding of the extant phenomena and processes in terms which are clearly definable and about which agreement can be reached by all those affected.43

McHarg and Juneja used a system of matrices to relate individual and social values to natural processes (Fig. .). Logical rules of combination were used to aggregate the resultant information. The values to society embrace explicit and implicit measures of the landscape features essential in maintaining a continued degree of ecological stability. In Figure ., for instance, the stream dissections in lowland and upland terraces were vulnerable to development and required regulation to minimize the social costs. In contrast, the values to individuals focused on the attractive features of site and the type of development actions. Accounting for the values individuals hold involves making judgments about biophysical, social, economic, and aesthetic considerations. Thus, the interactions between biophysical factors and values serve as a surrogate that expresses the optimal uses of the landscape.                      ,                            . A. P. A. Vink, a Dutch professor of physical geography and soil science at the University of Amsterdam, used the concept of potential land capability as a surrogate to express the social and economic factors dictating land supply and utilization. In Land Use in Advancing Agriculture () Vink distinguished between actual land suitability, soil suitability, and potential land suitability.44 He was interested in how land improvement can be used to adapt land resources to human needs. Vink’s distinction was based on the idea that land is the outcome of various interactive processes, some directly related to the nature and quality of resources and others historical, reflecting past social and economic conditions. The estimation of the optimal uses of the land, therefore, should be based on its potential capability, that is, the potential of a given tract of



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Matrix of physiographic values to society and individuals in Medford Township, New Jersey. Redrawn from Juneja, Medford, by M. Rapelje, .

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

land to support different types of land utilization under given cultural and socioeconomic conditions. Vink’s actual land suitability is similar to McHarg’s intrinsic suitability. Vink defined actual land suitability as “an indication of the possibility of using the land within a particular land utilization type without the application of land improvement which require major capital investments.” Soil suitability is “the physical suitability of soil and climate for production of a crop or group or sequence of crops, or for other defined uses or benefits, within a specified socio-economic context, but not considering economic factors specific to areas of land.”45 Indeed, soil suitability defined in this manner is analogous to the NRCS capability classification. It is directly concerned with the usefulness of soils for crop production and may be used to generalize about the conditions of resources that may or may not be directly connected with the soils themselves. Lastly, potential land suitability “relates the suitability of land units for the use in question at some future date after major improvements have been effected where necessary, suitability being assessed in terms of expected future benefits in relation to future recurrent and minor capital expenditure.”46 For Vink, soils were a crucial factor in estimating land suitability. He noted, however, that in the final estimation of the optimal uses land should be judged in terms of the social and economic costs and benefits of its future utilization for potential uses. Dutch methods like those explained by Vink have been applied successfully in many reclamation projects in the Netherlands, including the building of polders on the former Zuiderzee, an extension of the North Sea into the heart of the Netherlands.                . Carrying capacity is another surrogate measure that can be used to determine supply and demand factors deemed important in estimating the optimal uses of the

ⱍ



landscape. Used widely in the field of outdoor recreation, its application in landscape-suitability analysis, tends to focus on the biophysical component of the model sketched in Figure .. Even at that, planners and landscape architects still struggle with translating information about how landscapes function into concrete and quantifiable measures, which are crucial in precisely estimating carrying capacity. Nevertheless, some promising work has been done in this regard. In The Woodlands study the fragile nature of the site made it a difficult place to build. Because it was entirely forested, flat in most areas, and dominated by impermeable soils, especially in the numerous depressions that existed on the site, minimizing the disruption of the hydrological regime was an important consideration in planning for development. Other considerations included preserving woodland and wildlife habitats and corridors, as well as minimizing development costs. To preserve woodland, for instance, McHarg and his colleagues developed a system for predicting the amount of vegetation that would have to be cleared for development. The system employed the model of ecological succession as its conceptual framework. From the ecosystem-succession model we know that progression from the pioneer stage to the climax stage indicates increasingly stable of ecosystems. The Woodlands site is a mixed woodland dominated by loblolly pine. Hardwoods include hickories, magnolias, oaks, sycamore, and sweet gum. A stand of pure hardwood is likely to survive more perturbations than a stand of mixed hardwood or open fields. It is also more tolerant of soil compaction and changes in ground-water levels, and it regenerates slowly. McHarg and his colleagues used their knowledge of ecosystem succession, along with information on soil permeability, to develop a scale of permissible clearing (Fig. .). For instance, pure stands of pine on permeable soils present the most favorable opportunity for clearing and for the lo-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

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, .

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

cation of high density uses because of their high regenerative potential. In contrast, lowland hardwoods located on low permeable soil present the least. If a value is placed on maintaining an optimal degree of stability and productivity, then the carrying capacity of The Woodlands site can be inferred by understanding its ability to accommodate potential uses without being irreparably damaged. Other notable methods for estimating carrying capacity in the s include the environmentalthreshold approach proposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the cumulativethreshold approach suggested by the late Thomas Dickert and Andrea Tuttle, both of the University of California at Berkeley. Dickert was yet another of McHarg’s students at Pennsylvania. Thresholds can be best understood as the limits beyond which the continued use of a tract of land for specific land uses will result in degradation. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency expanded the notion of threshold to include significant natural, scenic, recreational, educational, and scientific values necessary to protect public health and safety within an area. Dickert and Tuttle emphasized the need to use thresholds that take into account the cumulative impacts of land-use decisions. They suggested that such thresholds be based on “an assumed acceptable amount of land use change over time.”47 However, as the geographers Harry Spaling, Barry Smit, and their colleagues pointed out, “While conceptual frameworks of cumulative environmental change continue to emerge . . . theoretical constructs and commonly accepted definitions are still incomplete.”48 I find, however, that the logic for assessing cumulative environmental change is fundamentally different from that used in assessing landscape suitability. Thus, I examine them in a greater detail in chapter . In sum, LSA landscape-resource survey and assessment methods combine assessments of the supply (physical and biological landscape charac-

ⱍ



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 effects 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 efforts to make landscape suitability more inclusive, landscape-resource and survey methods generally are not useful in estimating the potential cumulative environmental, social, or economic effects 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-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

nomic, fiscal, and environmental effects. The theoretical intent and procedural principles of allocation-evaluation methods are similar to those of landscape-resource survey and assessment methods. The major difference 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 identifies 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 project’s 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 financial 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 significant refinements in the development of allocationevaluation methods. NEPA specifically 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 affect. Federal agencies are required to prepare environmental-

impact statements (EIS) for all federally funded projects that may significantly affect the environment. Several American states and many other nations have similar requirements. Consequently, many suitability methods have been expanded and refined to embrace the evaluation of impacts as integral to determining and evaluating the optimal uses of a landscape. The development of the evaluation component of allocation-evaluation methods was slow. Besides struggling with the development of analytical techniques for accurately identifying, quantifying, predicting, and evaluating impacts, planners and landscape architects grappled with conceptual issues. For example, which natural and cultural landscape characteristics should be examined for impacts? How are the distribution and magnitude of an impact determined? What constitutes the significance or relative importance of an impact? What difference does a proposed suitability option make, or what difference is it likely to make, in the lives of the residents in the affected areas and how should it be determined? Two parallel but related developments occurred in the evolution of allocation-evaluation methods. The first was the development and refinement of techniques for conducting impact assessments. The second was the incorporation of the techniques into internally consistent and systematic procedures for determining the optimal uses of the landscape. I first review techniques for impact assessment and then discuss applications to illustrate their integration into allocation-evaluation methods. Three examples illuminate variations in the application of allocation-methods: () Lyle and von Wodtke’s Information System for Planning;49 () the Boston Information System, developed by an interdisciplinary group of researchers at Harvard under the leadership of Steinitz,50 as well as his recent work on identifying alternative futures of the Upper San Pedro River Watershed in Arizona; and

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

() the METLAND model proposed by Fabos and his colleagues at the University of Massachusetts.51 Techniques for Impact Assessment Numerous EIA techniques have been proposed. We can distinguish four major techniques based on the way impacts are identified: ad hoc, checklists, matrices, and networks.52 This list does not include many techniques used in conducting social, economic, or visual impacts, such as cost-benefit analysis, energy analysis, visual-impact assessment, and goals-achievement matrices. The reader can refer to many books and articles that address impact assessment exhaustively.53 Ad hoc techniques use expert judgment to suggest probable impacts of alternative development options or specific projects. Usually specialists are assembled to identify and predict impacts in their areas of expertise following general guidelines. Certainly the results are best guesses. Ad hoc techniques are useful when a project requires quick, preliminary judgments on probable impacts. Checklists, an improvement on ad hoc techniques, use a more structured format to evaluate impacts based on a predetermined set of questions. They also rely on expert judgment in evaluating impacts. More sophisticated procedures have been developed. A notable example is the Battelle technique, developed in  by a group of researchers at the Battelle Columbus Laboratories for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.54 It was developed for evaluating the impacts of waterresource projects but has proven to be useful for other types of projects. The Battelle technique first identifies a comprehensive list of natural and cultural landscape characteristics, which are classified into four categories: ecology, environmental pollution, aesthetics, and human interests. Each category is further subdivided to obtain a comprehensive list of landscape characteristics. Then a team of experts converts the characteristics into an environmental-

ⱍ



quality value and assigns numerical weights to their significance in light of proposed actions. Next an algorithm is used to combine the values and weights to establish a composite environmentalimpact index, which is interpreted and presented in a tabular format showing the environmental impacts of proposed actions for each set of landscape characteristics. In addition, another table depicts landscape characteristics that would be seriously affected by the proposed project since adverse impacts may not be accounted for adequately in the composite index. The Battelle technique is useful in illuminating both tangible and intangible impacts. A potential problem, however, is that the validity of an algorithm is suspect. It has no way of correcting or making explicit the errors that may be associated with many mathematical computations associated with calculating the composite environmentalimpact index, such as converting landscape characteristics into environmental-quality values or assigning weights to determine the significance of probable impacts. Matrices are a more direct way of identifying and assessing impacts. The fundamental idea of a matrix is to correlate development actions with pertinent landscape characteristics and processes that may be affected. Development actions and landscape characteristics are related in a matrix, one presented on a horizontal axis and the other on a vertical axis. One widely used matrix was developed in  by Luna Leopold and his colleagues for the U.S. Geological Survey.55 Leopold had worked with many of McHarg’s Pennsylvania colleagues, notably Ann Strong, on a study of the Brandywine basin, outside Philadelphia. In the first step Leopold and his colleagues identified and listed natural and cultural phenomena on the vertical axis and the proposed actions that might cause environmental impacts on the horizontal axis (Fig. .). Natural and cultural phenomena are subdivided into categories, much as in



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

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 beneficial, while a negative sign shows otherwise. Redrawn from Leopold et al., Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact, by M. Rapelje, .

the layer-cake model developed by WMRT. The actions are varied and include land transformation, resource extraction, and land alteration. Each action is further subdivided into subcategories; for example, land transformation may include clearing, cut and fill, and soil compaction. Next, Leopold and his colleagues placed a slash in each cell representing an action likely to have an

impact. For each cell so marked, they used expert judgment to assign a value reflecting the magnitude of the anticipated impact,  for the least impact,  for the greatest. This was followed by assigning another value reflecting the significance of the particular impact. Again, a value of  represents the least influence, and  the greatest. Finally, a text provides an interpretation of the val-

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

ues in the cells. No attempt is made to combine the scores. Rather, the matrix and the accompanying text are used as a tool for both assessing the impact and communicating the outcomes. Leopold’s matrix is a useful, straightforward means for identifying and assessing primary, or first-order, impacts. It is not helpful in assessing cumulative or indirect impacts. Networks are useful in identifying short- and long-term impacts because of their explicit focus on cause-and-effect relationships between development actions and landscape characteristics and processes. They are designed to trace a single action through a series of iterations, usually depicted in the form of flow diagrams. In the construction of a highway, for instance, the network approach traces erosion to determine the effect on hydrological processes, which in turn may reveal other cumulative impacts. The environmental-impact

ⱍ



component of Lyle and von Wodtke’s Information System illustrates the use of a network technique.56 They used flow diagrams to show the interrelationships between proposed actions and changes that may occur in physical, biological, and human processes. Thus, given specific development actions, it is possible to trace the cause-andeffect relationships. Another example of a network is the Environmental Management Decision Assistance System (EDMAS), developed by researchers at the Rice University Center for Community Design Research in the mid-s.57 Developed initially in , the system depicts the linkages between development actions and particular natural landscape characteristics and processes, the relationships among landscape characteristics, and the connections between landscape characteristics and potential environmental effects (Fig. .).

Image not available.

Fig. .. A simplified cause-and-effect 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, .



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

The network technique requires enormous quantities of information to make it effective in evaluating short and cumulative impacts of development decisions. As Figure . shows, it relies heavily on modeling information about the flow of water, chemical elements, and energy in the landscape. Recent developments in geographical information systems have enhanced the efficiency of information management in network techniques. These four techniques for impact assessment are built into the process used in evaluating allocation options. The typical process used in allocationevaluation methods has four identifiable steps. First, economic, sociocultural, and ecological inventories are conducted. Second, a set of rules or rating systems is developed and used to assign land uses to different locations, resulting in alternative suitability options. Third, the consequences of the options are evaluated in relation to the desired goals and objectives and other important values, using one or more of the impact-assessment techniques reviewed above or techniques not examined here that are used in assessing social, economic, and visual impacts. Fourth, the optimal suitability option is then selected. Information System for Planning Lyle and von Wodtke, at California State Polytechnic University, developed a method for ecological planning that they called the Information System for Planning. The system was used in numerous projects in the coastal plain of San Diego County, California, in the early to mid-s. The conceptual framework for the method, which is as relevant today as it was then, is based on a systemic interrelationship involving three factors: development actions, locational considerations, and environmental effects. Development actions are those activities that alter ecological processes. They include capital actions that invest energy and material resources in the physical transformation of the landscape and op-

erational actions that occur as a result of human use of the landscape. The construction of a highway, for example, involves clearing, compaction of soil, and paving, which together bring about environmental effects such as erosion, runoff, and possible siltation of nearby steams. In turn, human use of the highway involves operations such as driving motor vehicles that have additional environmental effects: increased noise, exhaust emissions, oil deposits, and dust. Locational variables are those physical and natural characteristics of the landscape that interact with major ecological processes. In the example above, soil and water are important locational characteristics of the landscape. Finally, environmental effects are those disruptions caused in flows of energy and material from source to sink as a result of specific development actions. These effects are represented as flow diagrams similar to the energy pathways proposed by Howard Odum, the distinguished ecologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Lyle and von Wodtke hypothesized that if two of the three variables were known, the third could be predicted. If the development actions and environmental effects are known, one can determine the most and least optimal locations for those actions. Transformation charts showing acceptable locations where environmental processes were to be maintained were used to depict the interactions among location, development actions, and environmental effects. Lyle and von Wodtke developed a three-step procedure for determining the optimal uses of the landscape. First, suitability maps were generated based on the inherent ability of the natural characteristics of the landscape to support the prospective uses. The land uses were described in terms of development actions, which suggested sources of change. Intermediate steps in developing suitability maps included analyzing the interactions between landscape characteristics and development actions and between the characteristics and po-

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

tential environmental effects. The relevant information was combined using a linear-combination technique to account for the relative influence 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-specific. In Lyle and von Wodtke’s Information System, the interactions among development actions, impacts, and locational factors defined 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

ⱍ



methods. Notable among them are the San Elijo Lagoon Revitalization Project, conducted for the city of San Diego; the Bolsa Chica Lagoon study, undertaken for the city of Huntington Beach, California; and the San Dieguito Lagoon study, conducted on behalf of the city of Delmar, California. In Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development () Lyle argued forcefully that the optimal uses of the landscape should be regenerative, adding that “regeneration has to do with rebirth of life itself, thus with the hope for the future.”59 Metropolitan Boston Information System Steinitz and an interdisciplinary group of Harvard researchers have used an allocation-evaluation method in many planning-and-design projects conducted in Massachusetts since the mid-s. One notable example is the information system they developed for allocating and evaluating land uses in a rapidly urbanizing southeastern section of metropolitan Boston. The objective was to develop a regional development strategy for an area of  square kilometers ( sq. mi.) falling within the jurisdictions of eight towns. Public input was used to establish the project’s goals and objectives. The research group then compiled the pertinent social, economic, cultural, and natural-resource data, which they stored in a computerized database. The database consisted of grid cells of . acres ( ha.), , cells for the study area. The data were compiled for  and became the baseline information for comparing alternative regional development strategies. The research group used allocation models to assign land uses to various locations in the study area based on specific rules and on various assumptions about preferred type, amount, and intensity of growth. The examined land uses included industry, commerce, public institutions, conservation, and recreation. The rules were intended to seek the optimal locations for each land use. For example, the rule for allocating housing emphasized the most profitable locations based on



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Best-action model. Reproduced, by permission, from Lyle and von Wodtke, “Information System for Environmental Planning.”

the economic value of potential sites. When siting areas for conservation, the rules focused on identifying environmentally sensitive resources in existing legislation, such as unstable soils, watershed protection areas, flood plains, and scenic and his-

torical resources. They ranked the locations for each type of land use based on economic costs and public preferences. Twenty-eight different mathematical-simulation models were developed to predict the social,

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

economic, fiscal, and environmental impacts of the various land-use allocation options. Impacts examined include those on water quality, visual quality, air quality, and land values. The simulation models were similar to the network technique, which examines cause-and-effect relationships. The information generated from the various assessments—allocation options based on different assumptions about growth and the impact studies— were subjected to public debate, resulting in the development of a combined regional-development strategy. The Boston Information System thus establishes the optimal allocation of land uses by first conducting independent assessments of pertinent social, economic, and ecological data in light of the project’s goals and objectives and then using an algorithm or grand index built into an interactive computer program to combine the resultant information. Visual impact was one important component of impact prediction conducted by the Harvard group. It is useful to note that this Harvard group has been in the forefront of those using computer technology to creatively combine ecological and visual assessments to facilitate the development and evaluation of alternative landscape-allocation scenarios. This was particularly evident in their  study on simulating alternative policies for implementing the Massachusetts Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act.60 In  they developed landscape-management and landscape-design guidelines and criteria for the Acadia National Park and Mount Desert Island in Maine by synthesizing information on the patterns of visual preference and on the roles of various landscape characteristics in maintaining wildlife habitats.61 In the past decade Carl Steinitz and his colleagues have conducted numerous studies that refined several aspects of the Boston Information System, including an exploration of alternative futures for the Camp Pendleton region in California

ⱍ



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 different 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 different scenarios for change. Because the study examined the impacts of growth on the region’s hydrology and biodiversity, the team used a hydrological model to evaluate the effect of loss of groundwater storage, flows into the San Pedro River, the steam-capture volume, and headwater configuration. Next they employed a vegetation model to predict changes in vegetation patterns based on changes in the management of the hydrological regime, fire, 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 region’s 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 different models to evaluate the scenarios for water availability, land management, and biodiversity. These evaluations



ⱍ

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 Fabos’s colleagues—Bruce MacDougall, Meir Gross, and Jack Ahern—also 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.

Image not available.

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.

Over the past thirty years the model has been refined to take advantage of recent developments in computer technology and remote-sensing technology. Today it is used in an interactive way to facilitate land-use decision making. Variations of the METLAND model were used in numerous regional landscape and rural planning projects in Massachusetts, such as the development of a landuse plan for Burlington, Massachusetts, in the late s. The typical procedure has three phases: composite landscape assessment, formulation of alternative landscape plans, and evaluation. Figure . illustrates the conceptual base for the method. In Phase I a series of interrelated analyses are conducted to identify landscape, ecological sensitivity, and public-service values. An analysis of landscape values is used to assess the quantity, quality, and distribution of natural and cultural resources on a tract of land. An ecological-sensitivity analysis evaluates critical resources for preservation and highly valued resources for protection from development. Also included is the assessment of ecological compatibility and the determination of development suitability. Finally, the availability and adequacy of public services and infrastructure for prospective uses are assessed. The individual analyses are integrated subsequently into a composite landscape assessment. Phase II involves generating alternative development options, each of which emphasizes one of three biases: landscape, ecological, and publicservice values; existing zoning and plans, or the status quo; and community preference. The status quo and the landscape-value options can be viewed as two extremes within which a variety of alternatives can be developed. In Phase III the tradeoffs among the alternative options are evaluated to determine an optimal solution based on criteria that focus on the effects of the alternative options on the landscape-value profile, on ecological compatibility, and on the public-service-value profile. The outcome of the

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Conceptual base for the METLAND model. Reproduced, by permission, from Fabos and Caswell, Composite Landscape Assessment.

evaluation is fed back into Phase III. The iteration continues until an alternative is developed that satisfies community preference and at the same time has minimal impact on landscape, ecological, and public-service values. The METLAND model is informed by a set of

allocation rules synthesized from many sources, especially from the writings and works of George Perkins Marsh and Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. The rules include: discouraging development of areas of significant resource values and natural and human-made hazards; directing development to lo-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

cations best suited for it; and ensuring that the ecological carrying capacity of a region is not exceeded. These are preset rules that become the point of departure in estimating the optimal uses of the landscape. These rules also dictate the type of assessments to be undertaken. Unlike methods that determine landscape suitability by examining the opportunities and constraints, Fabos and his colleagues assign land uses to different locations on a site based on the outcome of a set of integrated assessments. They typically analyze the quantity, quality, and distribution of landscape resources on a location; the resources that may be irreversibly degraded by human actions; the ability of the landscape to support prospective uses; and the ecological stability of the landscape in light of land-use distribution. Sometimes included are assessments of the development potential and the public preferences for the use of the location. Almost always, Fabos and his research team describe the relevant landscape resources as ordinal data or parameters, which can be subjected to quantitative assessments facilitated by computers and GIS. The METLAND model also makes explicit the assumptions about land-use conversion. Developing alternative plans is one way they obtained the needed assumptions. Fabos and his colleagues also contended that calculations of the tradeoffs among competing alternatives should be based on an explicit set of values. Even though they emphasized landscape, ecological, and public-service values, other values can be defined in relation to the project goals and objectives or based on other considerations. Computer technology makes it possible to generate an infinite number of alternatives. Conflicts among alternative options can also be reconciled by using computer programs that search for points of agreement or conflict in the spatial distribution of land uses. In sum, allocation-evaluation methods are used to make large-scale or regional land-use decisions. This does not mean that allocation-evaluation

methods cannot be used on a smaller scale, as many examples described in Lyle’s Design for Human Ecosystems make clear. All the applications examined multiple land uses that often had conflicting land-use requirements. The goals and objectives were long-term rather than short-term. Also, balancing conflicting public interest and values on the use of the landscape was a major consideration. Because of the enormous amount of data required, the applications used computer technology for data storage, manipulation, and display. In the San Pedro study, which is the most recent, the latest innovations in computer- and visual-simulation technologies were employed. The study team used GIS and visual-simulation technologies to describe the Upper San Pedro Watershed. The process and analytical models used the digital data to describe and evaluate the complex dynamic processes at work in the watershed. Explicit rules for allocating land uses were also evident. Unlike the Boston Information System, the San Pedro study, or the METLAND model, Lyle and von Wodtke’s Information System did not explicitly consider social, economic, and technological factors in formulating the rules for allocating land uses. However, the conceptual base of their information system suggests that the capability exists for specifying social and economic rules. For Lyle and von Wodtke, the rules were based on the interrelationships between development actions, locational considerations, and environmental effects. The Boston Information System first developed rules for allocating the individual land uses and later ranked the locations based on costs and public preferences. In the San Pedro study, rules were used to establish the sequence of process, development, and evaluation models employed. The rules employed varied with the object of interest. For instance, the hydrological model employed emphasized rules dealing with issues such as the loss of ground water and flows into the San Pedro River. In the METLAND model, the

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

rules governing environmental considerations in land-use allocation were set a priori and dictated the type of assessments conducted. Except in the San Pedro study, the rules were used to reduce the number of allocation options based on their environmental effects even before a detailed evaluation of the remaining options was undertaken. In the San Pedro study, the urbanization of the watershed under different scenarios for change was simulated before the effects on hydrology and biodiversity were assessed. Moreover, sensitivity to legal and political issues was evident; the Boston Information System and the San Pedro do this most effectively. Also, variations of the network technique were used to model cause-andeffect relationships. Lastly, the criteria used in selecting the optimal allocation of land uses were explicit. Lyle and von Wodtke’s Information System relied heavily on environmental considerations. In comparison, social and economic considerations were heavily weighted in the Boston Information System and the METLAND model, with the public playing a major role in deciding the optimal allocation. Selecting the optimal land-use allocation was not the goal of the San Pedro study. Rather, emphasis was placed on providing the region’s stakeholders with information about alternative futures and the implications for issues such as water availability and biodiversity so that they could make informed decisions.

Strategic Suitability Methods The strategic suitability methods are the most comprehensive of the suitability methods. They may be viewed as allocation-evaluation methods that have the added capacity of implementing the optimal-land-use-allocation option. Indeed, they are comprehensive planning systems that focus simultaneously on how decisions about the optimal uses of the landscape are made and on how the resultant decisions are implemented. The typical interrelated functions they are designed to perform

ⱍ



are: () articulation of the goals and objectives of the planning project or program; () assignment of land uses to different locations on a tract of land based on a set of allocation rules; () evaluation of alternative allocation options based on the project’s goals and objectives and on other pertinent values; () selection of the optimal option; () development of substantive management guidelines that specify permissible land-use activities and strategies for managing them; () development of administrative mechanisms, strategies, and programs for ensuring that activities included in the selected option are implemented; and () establishment of mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the effects of the implementation. These functions are standard tasks performed in the various steps of the conventional planning process. The difference, however, is that the functions are organized according to an ecological perspective. As Frederick Steiner noted, ecology provides insights into landscape processes, functions, and interactions. Consequently, each function influences and is affected by the others. Together, the interrelated functions constitute an organizational framework for making and implementing decisions about the optimal uses of the landscape. Most of the suitability methods reviewed in this volume placed a greater emphasis on functions  through . By way of contrast, strategic suitability methods place additional emphasis on functions , , , and . Thus, they have a strategic bias in that they integrate implementation considerations with goal setting, as opposed to mere long-range planning. As the planner Frank So observed, “Strategic planning focuses on the allocation of scarce resources to critical issues. Development of the plan sets the stage for the crucial implementation phase.”63 The theoretical base of strategic suitability methods can be found in the literature on organizational and management theory, in procedural theories of urban and regional planning, and in methodologies specifically adapted for ecological



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

planning. Strategic suitability methods are used frequently in large-scale planning projects and programs, especially when concerns about environmental quality and about public health, welfare, and safety are paramount. Functions  through , which deal with implementation and administration, tend to be the least developed in many of the strategic landscapesuitability models that have been proposed. For example, the METLAND model was designed to have an implementation phase, which would have placed it in the category of strategic suitability methods. However, this phase has yet to be fully developed. Implementation is also implied but not examined in any detail in Lyle’s Design for Human Ecosystems. From a theoretical perspective, it is feasible to refine most the allocation-evaluation methods to include an implementation component. The Australian planning method, SIROPLAN, and the ecological-planning method proposed by Frederick Steiner in The Living Landscape are promising examples of attempts to bridge goal setting, plan formulation, and plan implementation. Both SIRO-PLAN and Steiner’s methods are influenced strongly by McHarg’s work and can be viewed as extensions of the Pennsylvania method. SIRO-PLAN: An Australian Approach to Regional Land-Use Planning SIRO-PLAN is a methodology for land-use planning specifically tailored to the institutional and statutory context of planning in Australia.64 The context is characterized by conflicting plural values, diverse and conflicting uses of landscape planning, and fragmented decision making at various levels of government. Also included are the demand for public participation in land-use and ecological decision making and the need to accommodate contingencies. Certainly, these are common features in the context for planning in most industrialized countries. SIRO-PLAN provides a framework for balancing the demands of competing land-use issues

through the spatial allocation of land uses in agreement with the judgments of varied interest groups. Developed by CSIRO, the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, in Australia in the early s, it has since undergone many refinements. SIRO-PLAN has been adopted as the premier planning method by many agencies in Australia, including the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Also, the applications are well documented.65 Several computerprogramming modules collectively referred to as LUPLAN were developed to facilitate the implementation of SIRO-PLAN.66 Since the focus of SIRO-PLAN is to seek a common ground in balancing public interests with the sustained use of the landscape for competing land uses, it draws upon literature from many sources.67 It draws from ecological-planning literature for ideas on how the fitness of a given tract of land can be established for various land uses. From the literature of multiple-objective planning come its basic ideas on determining the extent to which different allocation options satisfy the objectives defined by the public. Lastly, mathematical-programmingoptimization literature provides the basic insights on maximizing the allocation of uses on a tract of land given preset or progressively determined goals for each land use. The SIRO-PLAN method can be collapsed into four phases: () policy establishment, () data collection and generation of allocation options, () selection of the optimal option, and () legitimization and implementation. The first phase involves developing policies for the use of the landscape that express the attitudes and values of interests groups, such as those concerned with urban development, agricultural development, and nature conservation. Table . illustrates some of the policies set for Redland Shire, a rapidly growing urbanfringe area in Australia using LUPLAN. In the second phase the site is divided into homogenous parcels of land by natural- and cultural-landscape characteristics in a manner similar to the way

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

ⱍ



Table .. Selected Policies for Redland Shire, Australia

Image not available.

landscape-unit and landscape-classification methods organize the landscape into homogenous units. The characteristics considered are biophysical factors such as geology, topography, and soil type. The output is a map showing homogenous areas or planning zones. The generation of alternative allocation options requires that each planning zone be evaluated in two steps to ascertain the degree to which it satisfies the policies developed in phase . A policy-satisfaction rating (R) is established for each planning zone. For example, in rating policy zones for urban development in the Redland Shire study one consideration was thermal comfort. A value of  was assigned to planning zones that provided the greatest thermal comfort based on solar radiation, aspect, and slope, and a value of  was assigned to those providing the least thermal comfort. For instance, if there are ten policies and three land uses in twenty planning zones, the total number of ratings is  ⫻  ⫻  ⫽ .

Policy weights (V) are then assigned to establish the relative importance of each policy. The product of R and V (R ⫻ V ) establishes the land suit-

ability of each location. The output is depicted in the form of a map and a table showing the landuse and management regimes and controls allocated for each planning zone. Since interest groups may vary in the way they rate the planning zones, many allocation options may be generated. These options are often referred to as discussion plans. In the third phase, the discussion plans are subjected to public debate. At this point many other considerations come into play, for example, projected demands on urban land, availability of public services and facilities, and legal controls. Through public debate a search is conducted for a plan that maximizes all the policies developed in phase . The last phase in the SIRO-PLAN method involves developing an implementation plan, allocating available resources to the tasks required for plan implementation, and monitoring the plan to ensure the continued implementation of the various policies. The SIRO-PLAN method possesses a number of distinct features. Unlike McHarg, it does not accept that the landscape has intrinsic values but believes instead that the values depend on the situation. They evolve and are refined in the course of ongoing actions. Thus, the values are issue-based



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

rather than intrinsic. Goal setting is a crucial task since it forms the basis for establishing policies. Ultimately, the optimal plan is one that maximizes the policies generated by often competing and contending interest groups. Moreover, because the policies play a key role in evaluating alternative allocation options, the type of input sought from the public is specific rather than general. Since many planning zones are generated, assigning a policy rating may be a very difficult task. To minimize this, the method enables the development of exclusion policies, similar to the way sieve methods eliminate lands that are unsuitable for certain uses. This reduces the number of ratings dramatically. The SIRO-PLAN method uses a conventional planning process widely known and understood by most planners. It is explicit in the way choices are made among competing landscape-allocation options. Moreover, the feasibility of implementing the resultant option is included in the evaluation criteria. One major weakness is that the implementation phase is the least developed. Several planners have commented on the obvious weaknesses of the SIRO-PLAN method. Even with the development of exclusion policies, the data requirements are still too cumbersome, especially in light of the number of ratings to be undertaken. This problem has been corrected partially by the adoption of computer technology to facilitate data management. In addition, the policysatisfaction measures have been criticized as being simplistic. The planners G. McDonald and A. Brown, who applied a version of the method in their work on the Redland Shire urban-fringe study, pointed out that the outputs of the method defied economic evaluation. Another shortcoming is that spatial interdependency between adjacent planning zones is often ignored. An Ecological Method for Landscape Planning Frederick Steiner, dean of the College of Architecture at the University of Texas in Austin,

proposed an alternative method for ecological planning in The Living Landscape (). Steiner described the method as an organizational framework for “studying the biophysical and sociocultural systems of a place to reveal where specific land uses may be best practiced.”68 The method examines the landscape at a variety of scales in terms of how people use the landscape and how they affect or are affected by social, cultural, economic, and political forces. Thus, it has a humanecology bias. Steiner’s method is capable of performing all the functions of the strategic suitability methods. Adaptations of the method have been applied in numerous planning projects and programs, including locating areas for rural housing in Whitman County, Washington, and developing a growth-management plan for Teller County, Colorado. I used a variation of the method in my study of environmentally sensitive lands in Walton County, Georgia. Steiner has also worked with Lloyd Wright and others for years refining the NRCS LESA system. Steiner’s prime theme is balancing social equity and ecological parity in making and implementing landscape decisions. Its theoretical underpinning is drawn from many sources, including the ideas and practices of McHarg and his research team at the University of Pennsylvania, the planning historian Lewis Mumford, and the sociologist and planner Herbert Gans. Other influences include the ecological designer Carol Franklin; the landscape architects Laurie Olin, Bob Hanna, Anne Spirn, and John Lyle; and the planning theorist John Friedmann. From the ideas of Friedmann, Gans, and the community advocate Saul Alinsky led Steiner to sharpened his ideas on why social processes should be emphasized in ecological planning. Steiner was part of the Pennsylvania group (in fact he was a student of McHarg’s and taught ecological planning there for a year), and the imprint of Ian McHarg and other faculty members there is obvious, especially their views on

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. An ecological-planning process. Reproduced, by permission, from Steiner, Living Landscape.

seeking the intrinsic suitability of the landscape for human uses and on the importance of culture in ecological planning. Steiner was also influenced by the lawyer-planners Ann Louise Strong and John Keene regarding the importance of due process and the connection of planning to protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare. In Steiner’s view, suitability analysis presents a legally defensible, rational process that can protect the health and safety of people while improving their communities’ welfare. Steiner’s eleven-step method uses techniques and procedures adapted from both conventional and ecological planning (Fig. .). The logical sequence of activities provides a framework for organizing the functions to be executed in deter-

mining where specific land uses might best be practiced. The sequence is punctuated by feedback loops, which means that the process is not totally linear. As Steiner noted, “Each step in the process contributes to and is affected by a plan and implementing measures, which may be the official controls of the planning area. The plan and implementing measures may be viewed as the results of the process, although products may be generated from each step.”69 Although citizen participation is a distinct step in the process, it occurs simultaneously in all the steps. The depiction of citizen participation as a distinct step emphasizes the primary role it plays in the making of choices among competing allocation options, what Steiner referred to as “plan-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

ning options.” Moreover, natural and cultural phenomena are analyzed at multiple scales, embracing the idea of hierarchical levels of organization, described earlier. Conventional planning methods examine socioeconomic issues but provide very little guidance on how they should be combined with biophysical information. Steiner’s method embraces techniques for examining the linkages between the socioeconomic and biophysical factors. The detailed studies (step ) are based on suitabilityanalysis techniques similar to those documented in the works of McHarg and Juneja. For Steiner, the optimal allocation option is a landscape plan rather than a land-use plan. The landscape plan provides a strategy for managing land uses in a given location. It is more than a land-use plan since it emphasizes the overlap and integration of land uses. Unlike most suitability methods, design remains integral and explicit in Steiner’s ecological-planning method. Design at the site level helps decision makers visualize the impacts of the policies embodied in the landscape plan. Site-design decisions also synthesize the previous steps in the planning process, enabling the shortterm benefits for the user groups and the longterm economic and economic objectives to be scrutinized spatially. As Steiner stated, an important difference exists between his method and that proposed by the McHarg, or Pennsylvania, method. The latter stresses inventory, analysis, and synthesis, placing more emphasis on “the establishment of goals, implementation, administration, and public participation, yet does so in an ecological manner.”70 In sum, the interrelated series of functions performed in Steiner’s method is similar to that in the SIRO-PLAN method. Both methods are promising in how they link goals to plan formulation and implementation; however, Steiner’s method holds the most promise. Citizen education and involvement are at the heart of the processes of both

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, Steiner’s 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-classification methods, () landscape-resource survey and assessment methods, () allocation-evaluation methods, and () strategic suitability methods. Each group of methods serves a specific purpose. For example, when the cost of data collection is a limiting factor, one may decide to use the landscapeunit and landscape-classification method as a first step in determining suitability. When the evalua-

The Second Landscape-Suitability Approach

tion of alternative landscape-allocation options is a major consideration, allocation-evaluation methods may serve the purpose. Irrespective of the type of LSA  method, there are trends that continue to shape each method’s development. An obvious one is understanding landscapes based on how they function. Lyle’s work is promising in this regard. Whenever feasible, planners and landscape architects using LSA  methods should describe the tract of land under consideration in terms of meaningful ecological units or ecosystems. Since these units are ultimately analyzed for their relative suitability for prospective uses, the idea is to ensure that the units make ecological sense in the first place. However, agreement is still lacking with regard to the extent to which locations in the landscape must be similar to constitute a meaningful ecological unit. There is a tendency in LSA  toward understanding and analyzing landscapes from a multiscale perspective since each scale has unique properties. The strategic suitability method proposed by Steiner exemplifies multiscale examination of the landscape. Society at large is becoming increasingly well informed about the impacts of planning-and-design projects on people and on cultural and natural landscapes. Consequently,

ⱍ



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 significantly 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 effort 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 Steiner’s 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 conflicting 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 influenced 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, scientific 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 insufficient 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. 

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

One outcome was distinct alternative ecologicalplanning approaches. Like the LSAs, each of these approaches reflects a particular way of defining, 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 definitive 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 specifically, this approach focuses on how people affect and are affected by their environment and on how decisions concerning the environment affect 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 first sympathize with people affected by social ills, then

ⱍ



synthesize all considerations pertinent to a planning situation, and finally work cooperatively with everyone affected 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 flexibility 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 difficult 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 suffice 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,



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. People transform landscapes to suit their needs. Photograph by William Mann, .

economic, and demographic profiles 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 efforts 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 influence 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 specific 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 effective adaptation? Who benefits, 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-

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

opment of such frameworks is hampered for many reasons. For now, it is enough to say that human-ecological planning has not yet evolved into a mature approach with a unified body of concepts and rigorously tested techniques. However, some methods have been proposed, and procedural directives can be inferred from very promising applications. Human ecology is widely recognized as a conceptual foundation for human-ecological planning but it is not firmly established in any one discipline. Rather, it occurs at the margins of many disciplines, including sociology, geography, psychology, and anthropology. Cultural adaptation is arguably the pivotal theme emphasized in most human-ecological-planning studies that employ the cultural-ecology perspective. Another is the notion of place that results from the interactions between environmental forces and human actions. I examine these themes in depth here, focusing on how they are defined, operationalized, and applied in ecological-planning studies, as well as on those applications that integrate concepts about social processes from sociology, environmental psychology, and geography.

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 influences the processes of natural evolution and selection. Subsequent biologists only studied environments little affected 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

ⱍ



series of books and articles written in the s and s by the University of Chicago biosociologists R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, and, a little later, by R. D. McKenzie. In their pioneering book, Introduction to the Science of Sociology (), Park and Burgess drew heavily on biological concepts such as symbiosis, succession, dominance, and competition to explain interactions between humans and their environment. Since then many types of human-ecology models have been proposed by such theorists as A. Hawley, C. Steward, O. Duncan, R. Rappaport, K. Bailey, and J. Bennett.8 Partly because the vocabularies of disciplines vary, a synthesis of these interdisciplinary contributions has yet to be achieved.9 Gerald Young’s multilevel definition of human ecology is aimed at such a synthesis, and his is the viewpoint I adopt. He defines human ecology: “) From a bioecological standpoint as the study of man as the ecological dominant in plant and animal communities and systems; ) from a bio-ecological standpoint as simply another animal affecting and being affected by his physical environment; and ) as a human being, somewhat different from animal life in general, interacting with physical and modified environments in a distinctive and creative way. A truly interdisciplinary human ecology will most likely address itself to all three.”10 Human ecology provides the primary conceptual base for human-ecological-planning studies, but other disciplines have made important contributions as well. For example, human-ecology studies in sociology provided planners with insights into the structure of human communities. Most of the insights emphasize a functional analysis defined in terms of community structure, as well as mechanisms for adaptation acquired through habits, social traditions, and modifications of the physical environment. Amos Hawley viewed community structure as the functional basis of ecological studies. His book Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure (), is still widely used in urban planning.



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Many documented studies in human-ecological planning use human-ecology models adapted from cultural ecology. The basic premise in culturalecology studies is that human adaptation to the environment is contingent upon cultural patterns— values, knowledge, and belief systems—and technology. Julian Steward’s book Theory of Culture Change () provided a definitive statement of “how interactions between culture and the environment could be studied in casual terms without reverting to a simple geographical determinism.”11 Steward (–) illuminated cultural aspects in which cultural ties with the natural environment were most explicit. Subsequent modifications to the Stewardian model emphasized a systems approach that acknowledged that complex feedback mechanisms operate between cultural variables and ecological factors.12 If ecological planning seeks the optimal fitness of the landscape for human and other uses, then cultural adaptation can be viewed as one mechanism for achieving fitness. Human-ecology studies in environmental or ecological psychology have provided planning and design with original insights into how stimuli influence the social behavior of individuals in “naturally occurring environments,” that is, in behavioral settings that “represent discernable, describable units of every day ecological environments of persons.”13 Roger Barker, E. P. Willems, S. B. Sells, H. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, R. Kaplan, and S. Kaplan are noted environmental psychologists who have provided planners and designers with valuable insights on individuals’ perception, cognition, and behavior in activity settings. In turn, these insights served as templates for operational concepts that enabled ecological planners to be more sensitive to landscape values and meanings in design and policy making. One such concept, that of place, has been used by planners and designers as a framework for understanding human-environment relations. Place is a specific landscape that embod-

ies cultural meanings where social activities occur and biological needs are satisfied. Geographers brought their focus on spatial analysis to the understanding of ecological relationships. But according to Gerald Young, they have been inconsistent in their willingness to define their discipline in ecological terms. Geographers have contributed to our understanding of interactions between humans and the environment by () analyzing settlement locations based on time and distance, resulting in the development of central-place theory; () integrating spatial and ecological concepts that ultimately led to the emergence of landscape ecology; and () interpreting landscapes in terms of their importance and meaning to people. Central-place theory explains how centers of economic activity are arranged hierarchically in space, with larger centers surrounded by numerous secondary and tertiary centers. The theory is based on the assumption that when all things are equal, people will minimize the cost of movement to acquire the goods and services they need. Centralplace theory and its modifications are used extensively in urban and regional planning studies. Landscape ecology is an emerging interdisciplinary area of study that combines the spatial approach of geographers with the ecosystem approach of ecologists. It examines spatial change involving interactions among biological, physical, and humancultural processes. The German geographer and ecologist Carl Troll is widely regarded as the founder of landscape ecology. Humanistic, or cultural, geographers such as D. W. Meinig, D. Lowenthal, Y-Fu Tuan, Peirce Lewis, W. H. Hoskins, Ervin Zube (also a landscape architect), Edward Relph, and Jay Appleton have vastly enriched our understanding of the meanings people attach to the landscape. These geographers consider the landscape as places that are, in Meinig’s words, “symbolic” and “expressions of cultural values, social behavior, and indi-

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Agricultural landscape on Kauai Island, Hawaii. Subtle but diagnostic features of this landscape reveal a lot about the island’s social and cultural history. Photograph by M. Rapelje, .

vidual actions worked upon particular localities over a span of time.”14 The famed American landscape historian and writer J. B. Jackson described the “sense of place” associated with vernacular landscapes as one way of understanding the distinct features of a landscape and its inhabitants (Fig. .). Jackson urged his readers to “understand the landscape in living terms . . . in terms of its inhabitants.” He argued that in order to determine the quality of the landscape one must begin by assessing it “as a place for living and working” and proceed toward a conclusion based on how well it meets “the needs of the whole human—biological, social, sensual, spiritual.”15 According to Jackson, an understanding of the landscape comes not only from written and oral histories but also from an appreciation of various art forms dealing with landscapes, such as poetry, painting, and music. Similar insights have been pro-

vided by other human geographers. Interpretations of landscapes provide a rich body of information that can help determine how the landscape should be used. Indeed, such interpretations have also been very useful in landscape-perception studies. Thus, many disciplines loosely grouped under the umbrella of human ecology share a common interest in understanding the interactions between humans and their environment. Their contributions are equally diverse and beg for synthesis. This may partly explain why it has taken so long to systematically integrate human-ecology concepts into planning and design and, by extension, why their applications have occurred largely on a projectby-project basis. Nevertheless, one common thread in human-ecology studies is a focus on how biophysical and human-cultural systems interact, what the interactions signify, and how they change over time.



ⱍ

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 fitting the landscape to social behavior, material needs, and artifacts to enhance the quality of human life. Ian McHarg defined the fitness of an environment (landscape) for an individual or group “as that requiring a minimum of adaptation.”17 Sustained adaptation, then—seeking and maintaining the optimal fitness of the landscape for human and other uses—can 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 definitions 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-

mensions is clear if we view culture as an information system, a perspective initially proposed by E. B. Tylor in  and further developed by M. Freilich in .18 According to this perspective, culture is an information system that deals with the relationships between ideas and beliefs, the process of social interaction, and material products that culture creates. Culture may be viewed as a problem-solving mechanism because it provides “a set of control mechanisms—plans, receipts, and rules—for the governance of behavior.”19 The rules and guides are essentially bits of information that provide general answers to general types of problems. The word general is important since no information system contains all the information necessary for solving every problem. Because culture focuses on general rules and techniques it can be viewed as a system for solving general human problems. It provides the “standards for deciding what is, . . . for deciding what can be, . . . for deciding how one feels about it, . . . for deciding how to go about it.”20 The normative function of culture parallels that of planning and design in terms of how individual and group actions “ought” to be guided. Given that culture guides behavior and social interaction, planning theories and practice, including those of ecological planning, can be interpreted as material products of culture. The information that constitutes culture is structured primarily by a value system. Values are the aspect of culture that give meaning to individual and group actions. Indeed, the anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn posited that it is a culture’s value system that distinguishes it from other cultures.21 Culture and values in large part account for the people’s ability to cope with immediate problems that confront them, including the way they use and adapt to the landscape. In The Ecological Transition () the anthropologist John Bennett succinctly summarized three ways in which anthropologists have conceptual-

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

ized human interactions with the environment: deterministic, mutualistic, and adaptive. In deterministic models, biophysical environmental factors shape culture or culture shapes the environment; the relationship is strictly a linear causative one. This model was modified slightly in the early twentieth century, when the anthropologist Franz Boas and his students proposed the doctrine of possibilism.22 According to this doctrine, the environment creates a set of opportunities and constraints, from which people make choices in order to satisfy their needs. But the point of departure in understanding possibilism is culture, which Boas assumes shapes human perceptions and needs within a given geographical area. Possibilism is thus essentially deterministic. It provides a simplistic view of interactions between culture and the environment that is useful in explaining such interactions in relatively simple, isolated societies. In more complex societies many extraneous factors, such as technology and human choices, come into play. It becomes necessary to search for explanations of social behavior in something other than culture or at least to acknowledge that culture and environment are mutually reinforcing causative mechanisms. Mutualistic models use the notion of feedback to explain how culture and environmental forces reinforce each other (Fig. .). The cultural ecologist Julian Steward was a well-known, respected spokesperson for the mutualistic viewpoint. He examined the aspects of culture in which functional ties with the natural environment were most explicit in order to “determine whether similar adjustments occur in similar environments.”23 The central tenet of Steward’s mutualistic model is the cultural core, “the constellation of features which are most closely related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements” and “any other institutional feature that happens, in particular cases, to be closely connected with the core.”24 The cultural core, therefore, becomes the prime mechanism for explaining how people ad-

ⱍ



just to their environment. But Steward assumed that people live in a closed system that can be explained by simple cause-and-effect relationships. For instance, he rarely considered the direct impact of technological activities on the biophysical environment or the fact that people make conscious decisions that may not necessarily be culturally induced. I would also argue that the interactions between people and their environment are multifaceted, sometimes induced by forces outside of the immediate geographical location under consideration. Subsequent modifications to Steward’s model emphasized more complex feedback relations. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz, for instance, viewed human activities as destructive, stabilizing, or restorative to the physical and natural environment.25 He emphasized process rather than outcomes of human actions on the environment. John Bennett moved the argument one step further by integrating complex feedback relationships with the ability of people to make conscious decisions. This is the adaptive systemic model (Fig. .). The model assumes that “control or stability is reached by human decisions and bargains and not by the automatic operations of processes beyond awareness, although it acknowledges that such processes do occur in human systems from time to time.”26 It suggests an “open” system linked hierarchically through resource use, units of production, economic and political institutions, technology, and the like, to higher and lower levels of a specific locality. It also assumes that human choices may not necessarily lead to positive impacts on the environment; certainly, some are negative. The model does not reject the mutualistic or even the deterministic model but regards them as empirical outcomes of behavior. Jonathan Berger and John Sinton neatly summarized the significance of the adaptive model in human-ecological planning as follows: “The model attempts to integrate data on ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ scales by linking



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Major theories of human ecology. Reproduced, by permission, from Bennett, Ecological Transition.

local units of production or resource use of local social organization, environmental conditions, and regional markets, and thence, to larger systems.”27 The adaptive model is consistent with the cul-

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-

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. The adaptive systemic model. Reproduced, by permission, from J. Bennett, Ecological Transition.

istic or the adaptive model, or a variation, as their prime theoretical framework. Proponents of the models of relations between culture and environment also prescribed methodological directives for studying them. One of the most explicit sets of directives was proposed by Steward, who argued that the most effective way to understand the cultural core was through historical analysis and synthesis of () the relationships between the exploitative system and the physical environment (which resources were selected and what technology was used to select them); () the behavioral patterns involved in the exploitation (e.g., particular techniques of farming required specific types of organization); and () the degree to which the behavioral patterns affected other aspects of culture.

For Steward, these considerations represent “a genuinely holistic approach” to understanding how people relate to their environment.28 His approach raises a crucial methodological issue, however: Who analyzes the cultural core—scientists, planners, designers, and so on, or the people being studied? The anthropologist R. Rappaport believed that the scientific viewpoint certainly differed from that of the people involved, or insiders: Two models of the environment are significant in ecological studies, the operational and the cognitive. The operational model is that which the anthropologist (scientist, planner, designer) constructs through observation and measurement of empirical entities, events and material relationships. He takes this model to represent for analytical pur-



ⱍ

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

Both viewpoints illuminate at least two ways of knowing and introduce dual perspectives on social reality that have long been recognized by scholars in other disciplines, where they are referred to variously using such terms as outsider and insider; explicit and implicit; etic and emic; processed and experiential; and exogenous and endogenous.30 Unfortunately, the experiential viewpoint is not well understood by planners and designers since they do not have a framework in which to readily incorporate such information. As a result, insiders’ views often conflict with those of outsiders (e.g., scientists). Yet human-ecological planning requires that planners and designers elicit both viewpoints to explain the historical and cultural processes that created the present spatial configuration of landscapes and to ascertain future preferences for land use.

Place Constructs The terms space and place are used interchangeably in everyday usage. Space is an abstract concept that is defined 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-

tween disciplines involved in human-environment interactions since it can apply to all environmental scales.33 F. Lukerman was more precise in identifying the characteristics of place: . Every place has a location, described in terms of internal characteristics (site) and external connectivity to other locations (situation). . Place involves an integration of elements of nature and culture; therefore, every place has a unique identity. . Although every place is unique, it does not exist in isolation. It is interconnected by a system of spatial interactions and transfers. . Places are localized, yet they are parts of larger areas. . Places have meanings; they are characterized by the values and beliefs of the users. . Places are emerging or becoming and so have a distinct historical component.34

I would add a seventh characteristic: places are healthy and maintain their integrity when their essential natural and cultural processes continue to operate. People’s identification with a place, therefore, extends beyond the specific place to embrace its geographical, social, and historical context. Places are not static; they constantly change as people adapt to them and to themselves. The past, present, and future of places mutually reinforce one another. Their span and content are affected by such external factors as the stability and success of past experiences, the security of the perceived environment, and the reasonableness of future expectations. David Canter provided a condensed synthesis of the interactions among the characteristics of places prescribed by Lukerman. According to Canter, a place is a state of harmony created by the dialogue between human activities, conceptions, and the physical attributes of the environment viewed from a historical perspective. The types of human activities and the ways in which they are carried out are contingent on factors such as

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Place as the intersection of natural processes, activity systems, and experience. The idea of fit is captured concisely in David Canter’s and Edward Relph’s construct of place. Reproduced, by permission, from Ndubisi, “Phenomenological Approach to Design for Amer-Indian Cultures.”

people’s 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 Canter’s 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 definition 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 effective plans or designs. The main reason for em-

ploying the place construct in planning and design is to determine whether there is a consistent fit between what people experience and how the functioning of natural processes and the spatial organization of the physical environment support the experience. The architect Amos Rapoport and the planner Kevin Lynch asserted that the environment, that is, the landscape, is meaningful to its inhabitants and users when this fit occurs. Our task as designers and planners, therefore, is to search for ways to achieve and maintain the fit, acknowledging that places maintain their integrity when their natural and cultural processes are sustained and connected in time and space. This connection provides the users or inhabitants with a sense of identity and belonging. This review represents only a small part of the literature on place constructs. Perspectives on place are diverse, as are the ways for studying them.36 In the absence of any definitive perspective on place, variations of the notion of place have been applied by planners and designers on a project-by-project basis.



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

PROCEDURAL DIRECTIVES A N D A P P L I C AT I O N S Efforts 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 influenced 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 differs from that of the client group. The Canadian landscape architect Michael Hough, another McHarg protégé, 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 ().

The University of Pennsylvania has been at the forefront of integrating human-ecology concepts in planning. From the early s to the late s planners, landscape architects, and anthropologists at Pennsylvania conducted numerous successful human-ecological-planning studies. Because of their importance, the following studies are reviewed below: () the Hazleton-region study, () the Kennett-region study, () McHarg’s humanecological-planning method; () Jackson and Steiner’s human-ecology method for land-use planning; () Steiner’s human-community analysis in The Living Landscape; and () the New Jersey Pinelands study. I also briefly examine Berger’s landscape synthesis. Some of these are applications that illuminate procedural directives, while others suggest methods. The sequence in which I discuss them reveals a maturation in their theoretical base.

Hazleton Human-Ecological-Planning Study The Hazleton human-ecological-planning study was conducted in the early to mid-s by planners and landscape architects at Pennsylvania under the leadership of Professors Jonathan Berger and Dan Rose.38 The purpose was to develop future land-use scenarios for the Hazleton region. The researchers explored the ecological contexts of various groups as a complement to their landscape-suitability analyses. The Hazleton region is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, approximately one hundred miles northeast of Philadelphia. It is a rural mining and agricultural area located in the Appalachian Ridge and Valley Province. The researchers employed the Stewardian adaptive model as the conceptual base for their work. They attempted to explore the relationships between exploitative technology and the biophysical environment, the behavior associated with the exploitation, and the form that behavior takes in interactions with other institutions. They interpreted the relationships in terms of () landscape

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

suitability and () adaptation strategies and processes that support exploitative behavior. They defined 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 people’s 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 five interrelated components: () a biophysical-resource assessment; () land-economy analyses; () a community-health-profile 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, flora, 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 five years. The community-health-profile assessment involved linking morbidity rates of different 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

ⱍ



region.” The resultant data were synthesized as a “folk model,” defined as “a summary of a particular respondent’s view of the world.”40 The final component of the study was what the researchers referred to as a human-ecologicalplanning method. In this phase ecologically suitable lands were matched with culturally desirable locations optimized for the maintenance of the users’ quality of life. This component had four identifiable steps: . Develop different land-use scenarios for different groups to determine regional resource use picture based on the ethnographic survey. . Assess the compatibility of different land-use scenarios based on their maintenance of the various users’ quality of life. The assumption was that different land-use scenarios reflect different adaptive strategies and behavior. The output was a gradient of compatibility: compatible, semicompatible, incompatible, and no competition. . Recommend ways to mitigate the impacts detrimental to the quality of life of the user groups. . Match the compatible culturally desirable locations identified in step  with the ecologically suitable locations developed from the suitability analysis.

The implementation of these four steps resulted in policies for managing future land uses in the Hazleton region. The ethnographic survey, for example, revealed that eight different groups—who referred to themselves as farmers, working-class, lower-class, and middle-class persons, native professionals, non-native managers, retirees, and land speculators—had specific preferences for the location of housing, industry, cottage industries, and commercial activities. For instance, for various reasons, including proximity to kin, low land rents, and prior knowledge of local institutions, the low-income group preferred to locate in the canyons of the creek corridor, especially in company patch towns, outlying villages, and specific agricultural areas. In contrast, the middle-class group first settled in inner sections of central cities and then, for



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

amenities and economic opportunities, moved into newer subdivisions on the fringes of cities. Berger, Rose, and their colleagues also noted potential conflicts between the groups over the future use of resources in the region. They suggested policies to mitigate potential conflicts while identifying future land uses for the region. Though cumbersome, the Hazleton study was a pioneering effort to adapt principles from the Stewardian model to determine the optimal uses of the landscape. An important discovery of the study was that the land users did not place the same value on all ecologically suitable lands. It is puzzling, however, that Rose, Berger, and their colleagues treated landscape-suitability assessment as if it were different from human-ecological planning. In my view, the entire study may be seen as human-ecological planning, with interrelated components dealing with the analysis and synthesis of biophysical and human-cultural information. Nevertheless, the study sparked interest in more rigorous investigations of the linkages between human actions and natural processes.

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 effective ways to integrate human and natural processes the team investigated how people affect and are affected 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 Steward’s cultural-core concept, Rappaport’s “scientific” and “cognized” models, Hunter’s community studies on peer identification of local influentials, and Von Bertalanffy’s general systems theory’s emphasis on regulatory controls of local economy.43 To document the biophysical processes and such information as social, economic, and demographic profiles 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 affected people’s 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 specific 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 economy—agribusiness, 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 affected the supply of economic resources, which in turn affected the use of natural resources. The team implemented a five-step procedure.

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

First, they conducted a historical survey to determine how the current settlement pattern had emerged. Second, they delineated the extent of settlement patterns from field 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 region’s 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 region’s productive core (Table .). In the fifth 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 specifically, they intended to “develop a process based on an ecological account of people’s values, accepting that in many cases those values result in some groups’ suffering, while others benefit. The aim was that the suffering could be minimized by developing a plan that reflected 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 () identified 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 system—the local political economy, the values of the working class, affluent homeowners, etc. (Table .); () investigated which groups suffered and which ones benefited from resource allocation; and finally () developed plans and imple-

ⱍ



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 modified 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 affected 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.

McHarg’s Human-Ecological-Planning Method After McHarg’s Design with Nature was published in , he quickly realized that human processes did not receive the same emphasis biophysical ones did in his suitability approach, although he had consistently emphasized human values and human health in his previous work. He began to explore ways to integrate them in planning and design. Indeed, he influenced the Pennsylvania group of landscape architects, planners, and anthropologists who worked on the studies of the Hazleton and Kennett regions and sometimes played a leading role in their search for methods for human-ecological planning. Not surprisingly, the teams in both studies struggled with adapting a workable theoretical framework for integrating human processes in planning and design. In 

Image not available.

Table .. Distribution of People in the Core Institutions of the Kennett Region, Pennsylvania

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Table .. Impact of Housing Issue on the Sociocultural System of the Kennett Region, Pennsylvania

Image not available.

McHarg provided a definitive direction in his provocative article “Human Ecological Planning at Pennsylvania,” in which he offered a theoretical framework and method for human-ecological planning.46 McHarg’s proposition was that the inclusion of humans as an integral and yet distinct group of organisms interacting with their environment has immense theoretical and methodological ramifications for planning. McHarg suggested viewing the interactions between humans and their environment as a process of adaptation directed at improving and sustaining human health and wellbeing in a humanly responsible way. The purpose of planning, therefore, is to create a dynamic balance between syntropy, fitness, and health, which McHarg believed was the basis for the evolution of life forms. The opposite was entropy, misfitness, and morbidity.

Syntropy is increased stability and a higher level of ordered energy and matter resulting from energy transactions. McHarg considered healthy natural environments to be the desired outcome of planning. Healthy environments can be achieved by finding fit environments and adapting to them. To fit implies the “active selection of environments, adapting those and the self.” The fittest environment requires a minimum of adaptation, allowing us to maintain and enhance human health and well-being. The pursuit of fitness is a function of adaptation. Of all the forms of adaptation— physiological, innate behavior, and cultural—the latter “is the most plastic instrument for voluntary action leading to survival and success.”47 The specific aim of human-ecological planning, therefore, can be reinterpreted as selecting fit environments for all users (other organisms included) and adapting to these environments and to each other



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

in a sustained way. The fittest environment would be achieved by matching the values, needs, and desires of people with the opportunities and constraints offered by the biological and physical environments. McHarg contended that in order to select fit environments, we must first model the physical, biological, and cultural region as interacting systems using a “layer cake” that expresses historical causality. The analysis of the biophysical systems is conducted independently to reveal landscape opportunities and constraints. The cultural analysis, which McHarg viewed as the “threshold between ecology and human ecological planning,” represents a major advancement over his earlier suitability approach.48 It is consequently of particular interest to us. McHarg suggested that the analysis should be based on Geddes’s  “folk-work-place” framework for analyzing regions: Which people populate a particular region? Why do they inhabit the region? Why are they where they are and doing what they are doing? Such analysis involves an investigation of the environmental history of a region and a scrutiny of people-place interactions. The ethnographic history reveals the processes of landscape evolution. Changes in land use respond to technological changes, major social events, and the use of resources. Resource use is specific to locale and depends on perceptions and values, which are conditioned by available technology and capital accumulation. Studying ethnographic history involves () analysis of historical land use beginning with the initial aboriginal inhabitants, their settlement patterns, transportation corridors, and the like; () scrutiny of changes and trends in land-use patterns to reveal the impacts of technology, social events, and resource use, including those induced by nonphysical instruments of adaptation such as mores, codes, and institutions; and () examination of current land-use patterns. People-place analysis is intended to reveal the

perceptions people have of themselves and of their environment, their needs and desires, and the instruments they use to attain them. Consensual mapping and interviews with key informants are the primary data-gathering techniques. The specific procedure involves () locating social groups within the region that have explicit or implicit interests in land use, for example, the chamber of commerce; () using them to identify issues and to state their positions on those issues; () developing a community-interaction matrix that relates land uses, the occupants, their location, and their positions on issues; and () ascertaining who benefits and who loses in order to identify the consequences of using people’s values for land-resource allocation. The final phase in human-ecological planning involves synthesizing the outcomes of the cultural analysis and the biophysical assessment. An overlay technique or variation thereof is used to develop a gradient of landscape suitability for each land use, such as agriculture, commerce, recreation, and housing by types. The suitability analysis also shows locations where multiple uses coexist or are in conflict. In addition, a protection map is prepared to identify all hazards to human life and health (e.g., flood plains, hurricane zones), areas where human actions exacerbate benign conditions (e.g., induced subsistence by withdrawal of water), and the locations of rare and endangered plants and animal species. Since a key variable in resource allocation is the value systems of the users, multiple suitability maps may be prepared based on the diverse value systems of the users. The maps reveal the implications of employing the users’ value systems in resource allocation and illuminate where values may be modified to achieve the ends sought. Additionally, because of McHarg’s long-term interest in human health, he proposed a series of steps for identifying landscapes that facilitate entropy, misfitness, and morbidity. Based on the scope of the issues addressed,

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

McHarg’s method is comprehensive. Fundamentally, he elaborated upon his suitability method in order to embrace human processes. In doing so, he employed the concept of cultural adaptation used in the Hazleton and Kennett regional studies, including the use of ethnographic techniques for data collection. McHarg also articulated the relationship between cultural adaptation and ecological planning in a succinct and convincing way. Yet, the comprehensiveness of his method is also its weakness, a fact he fully acknowledged. The implementation of the method is expensive: the resource commitment exceeds the financial and human-resource capabilities of most communities.

New Jersey Pinelands Study In the early s Jonathan Berger and John Sinton conducted a human-ecological-planning study for the New Jersey Pinelands Commission. Designated as a national reserve by Congress in , the New Jersey Pinelands is a substate, multicounty region comprising  million acres (, ha.) in a densely populated region along the Eastern seaboard of the United States. The state of New Jersey established the New Jersey Pinelands Commission to develop a plan for preserving, protecting, and enhancing the significant value of the land and water resources in the Pinelands. Berger and Sinton were among several consultants who worked on the plan. Many of the consultants had close connections with McHarg and the University of Pennsylvania, including Jack McCormick, Fritts Golden of Rogers and Golden, and Leslie Sauer and her Andropogon colleagues. Berger has long had an interest in the planning consequences of how people adapt to the landscape. The Pinelands study enabled him and his colleagues to explore in greater detail the concept of the socionatural system and the implications of utilizing the planners’ (scientific) and users’ (cognitive) viewpoints in understanding a region. In his study of the Hazleton region Berger adopted the

ⱍ



Stewardian model of cultural adaptation. In the Pinelands study, however, they employed Bennett’s adaptive systemic model. In this way they could account for the complex feedback relations and the explicit role of human choices in humanenvironment interactions (see Fig. .). Additionally, Berger and Sinton’s work on the Pinelands built on, and was influenced by, the earlier JunejaMcHarg plan for Medford, New Jersey, which borders the Pinelands. Bennett’s adaptive model permits the conceptualization of regions as socionatural entities that are open systems interconnected functionally at several scales, from local to national. Socionatural systems are governed by complex feedback, part positive and part negative. Moreover, they do not have a definitive way of responding to changes in human values, technology, or political systems. In the New Jersey Pinelands study, adopting the concept of socionatural systems enabled Berger and Sinton to examine people’s use of resources from a historical perspective, including how the use was linked to local, regional, and national institutions and markets. Moreover, they asserted that a holistic understanding of the New Jersey Pinelands as a socionatural system required that the planners’ perspectives be augmented with the cognized viewpoints of the users. In their fieldwork for the Pinelands study Berger and Sinton applied environmental ethnography as a way to reveal the material and affective aspects of land use. They used an ethnographic technique similar to that employed in the Hazleton study to explore people’s use of resources within the context of local history and ecology. The technique (interviewing key informants, participant observation, etc.) also enabled them to enrich the planners’ perspective with the users’ rich and pragmatic knowledge of the area. Berger and Sinton used a map-overlay method to delineate the policy regions of the Pine Barrens. Then they surveyed various periods of historical land use, focusing on resource use, migration, de-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

their results, Berger and Stinton stated five major propositions:

Image not available.

Fig. .. Land use in the late nineteenth century. Reproduced, by permission, from Berger and Sinton, Water, Earth, and Fire.

mography, and economic structure (Fig. .). The intent was to reveal the cultural basis of current land use patterns and to explicate the relationships between the local and regional socionatural systems. They also examined contemporary land uses, emphasizing such issues as the seasonality and distribution of resource uses, methods of resource extraction, and the cultural significance of the resource use in both the ecological and cultural contexts. The examination revealed the traditional techniques of resource use and management; local and subregional aesthetic forces; local and regional attitudes based on how social, economic, and political resources are controlled; conflict-resolution strategies; and extant land-use patterns. Based on

. Maintain regional control but decentralize the planning process through relevant public participation. . Select, when feasible, management strategies that are best adapted to the social, economic, and ecological arrangements of a subregion. . Recognize patterns of landscape use and tradition as a basis for locating new uses. . Embrace local skills and actors in site management. . Recognize local and aesthetic subregional norms in site design and management.49

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, fire 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 life—the 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

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Traditions of land and water use for woodcraft within the Manahawkin-Tuckerson subregion. Reproduced, by permission, from Berger and Sinton, Water, Earth, and Fire.

While planning practitioners may not have the time, technical expertise, or funds to scrutinize socionatural systems in the manner suggested by Berger and Sinton, these researchers persuasively demonstrate that understanding a region as a socionatural entity is crucial if one is to understand the inner workings of biophysical-cultural systems at many spatial scales. Most importantly, they proposed that ecological-planning studies should include a section, written from a historical perspective, on interactions between the user group and the environment. The studies would thus explicitly reveal the natural and cultural forces that dictate landscape evolution. Additionally, ethnographic surveys provide valuable and rich information that complements information obtained through conventional techniques of citizen participation. In a  article titled “Guidelines for Landscape Synthesis” Berger proposed that human-

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 filled by the others. Berger acknowledged that although the Stewardian mutualistic model and Bennett’s 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 fit 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-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

pressed in the writings of the landscape historian J. B. Jackson and those of cultural and human geographers such as D. Meinig, W. G. Hoskins, and the historian J. Stilgoe provide valuable insights into historical, political, and sociocultural processes, but they generalize about the natural environment. A synthesis of information from the three domains of knowledge, Berger argued, should be fundamental in any human-ecological-planning endeavor. He recommended a list of biophysical and sociocultural data to be inventoried and analyzed to reveal information about the history of landscape evolution; attitudes, norms, and controls associated with resource use; the social organization of resource use; future expectations about the use of the landscape; and the fit between historical and proposed activities and natural processes. With this information, planners can formulate effective plans for the use, management, and protection of landscapes.

Image not available.

“Human Ecology for Land-Use Planning” If human-ecological planning is to effectively guide the use of the landscape, its concepts and procedures should be well understood by planners, politicians, and user groups. The inventory and analysis of pertinent data should be easily managed as well. The procedure prescribed by Joanne Jackson and Steiner in “Human Ecology for Land-Use Planning” () makes humanecology concepts readily accessible to planning practitioners.52 It shows how insiders’ views of land users and their adaptive strategies guide the development of plans and how the plans can be implemented through the existing social organization of the users. The procedure is organized around the steps found in most planning studies (Fig. .). The steps are: . Establish planning goals. . Gather a multidisciplinary team. . Employ the human-ecology model. . Obtain an overview.

Fig. .. Flow chart of a human-ecology study. Note the numerous channels for feedback, indicating that the process is iterative rather than linear. Redrawn from Jackson and Steiner, “Human Ecology for LandUse Planning,” by M. Rapelje, .

. 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.

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Human-ecology model. Reproduced, by permission, from Jackson and Steiner, “Human Ecology for Land-Use Planning.”

Steps , , and  provide the human-ecology dimension. Jackson and Steiner argued that a generalized model of human ecology is sufficient 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 specific 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 difficult 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 specific 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 effectiveness of existing



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

regulations in achieving the future needs of each user group. Standard suitability rankings are used to combine the outcomes of the analysis to formulate an ecological plan. The outcomes can also serve as a human-ecology accounting system for evaluating proposed planning actions. In summary, Jackson and Steiner’s procedure is an adaptation of human-ecology ideas into planning processes that planners understand well. They noted that the most compelling argument for human-ecological planning was the increased likelihood that the resultant plans would be implemented. However, the human-ecology model should be employed at the outset as a framework for defining the nature and scope of the planning problem. The model explicates interactions between humans and their environment and consequently profoundly affects how planning problems are defined.

The Living Landscape: A Human-Ecology Bias In his effort to make human-ecological planning more accessible to planners and designers, Steiner included human-community inventory and analysis in the ecological-planning method he proposed in The Living Landscape (). He argued for connecting socioeconomic analyses, which planners do very well, to biophysical information. Every locale, Steiner contended, has unique qualities that should be examined and included in landscape assessment and planning. He reviewed techniques and data sources for conducting social inventories, including how to generate new information through surveys, interviews, and participant observation. Once inventoried, social information is linked to information about biophysical processes through an analysis of established visual and landscape patterns and through an identification of interactions. Visual-resource techniques are used to reveal visual patterns. Landscape patterns are discerned through spatial frameworks similar to the patch-corridor-matrix framework suggested by Richard Forman and Michel Godron (see chapter ).

Matrices are used to identify interactions between biophysical factors, between user groups, and between user demands. The results of the various analyses—population and economic characteristics, visual and landscape patterns, interrelationships—are 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 find 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 efforts to integrate social values into ecological planning. Zev Naveh and Arthur Lieberman’s “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.

A Culture-Sensitive Method: The Burwash Native Canadian Community-Design Study In the early s I worked with a team of geographers, landscape architects, and planners from the Rural Development Outreach Project at the University of Guelph, in Canada, on numerous projects that included developing community plans for Native (Indian) Canadian communities in northern Ontario.55 The Burwash Native People’s Project

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. The Burwash community site. The foreground and midground are covered by pasture and open fields. The background, with its knobs, ridges, marshes, hardwoods, and evergreen trees, is typical of northern Ontario’s boreal forests. For the Burwash group the site evokes strong feelings about the Ojibway historical settlements, characterized by diverse ecosystems that support housing, fishing, hunting, and trapping. Photograph by author, .

(BNPP), in which I played a leading role, entailed assessing the biophysical and cultural resources on an ,-acre site, selecting the location for a new community within the site, and developing conceptual master plans.56 The site is located in the transitional zone between the St. Lawrence River and the boreal forest regions of northern Ontario,  miles south of Sudbury (Fig. .). The study was conducted on behalf of the nonprofit BNPP, led by an eighteen-member board of directors made up of both Ojibway Indians () and non-native Canadians (). It was formed in  to address social and economic decline in Indian communities. Besides the typical biophysical assessment conducted in most ecological studies, the BNPP board required that the planning and design team involve members of the community and use other mechanisms to ensure that the planning

and design process, as well as the products, reflected 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 efforts reviewed so far. Cross-cultural situations occur when a planner or designer belongs to a social group whose culture differs from that of the client group. Among other ramifications, cross-cultural



ⱍ

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 challenge—seeking the sustained fit between the experiential and physical environments of the future inhabitants of the Burwash community. Kevin Lynch’s 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 fit between the experiential and physical environments differs, however, among various social groups since the basis of the fit is largely culturespecific. The idea of fit is captured concisely in David Canter and Edward Relph’s 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 effectively in planning and design involved an examination of () the opportunities and constraints afforded 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 identified 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 people’s way of life is limited, continuous involvement of the client group

in all phases of the planning process was undoubtedly crucial. We applied the framework in the planning and design of the Burwash community using an ethnographic inquiry similar to that used by Jonathan Berger. It involved () a review of the cultural and natural history of the Ojibway drawn from varied sources, such as land-use histories, folklore, and myths; () participant observation; () interviews with key informants, especially the elders, whose views were well respected within the Ojibway social structure; () direct communication, including “environmental” walks with the client on the geographical site proposed for development; () cognitive mapping to ascertain future preferences for the organization of space and elements on the site; and () site reconnaissance and analysis (Fig. .). We obtained three types of results organized in a past-present-future continuum. These results included: () significant factors in their way of life that have remained consistent over time as formal determinants in the physical organization of their settlements; () cultural interpretations of biophysical resources, notions of environmental quality in relation to the site, and preferred linkages of activities within the site; and () cultural definitions of land-use requirements and notions of environmental quality as expressed through ideal spatial qualities of activities and their locational relationships. The results were synthesized as culturally based planning and design criteria and guidelines that might be used in two ways. First, the future inhabitants of the Burwash community might use them to lay out the proposed settlement after the designer had developed a structural plan depicting a generalized layout of spaces and infrastructure. Second, working in conjunction with the community, the planner or designer might develop a master and site plan based on the cultural criteria. Although the first method captured the real meaning of ongoing community involvement, we recommended the latter since it was more consistent

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

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 affairs 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 specifically 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



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

underlying social structure of this Ojibway group, permitting us to move beyond the typical functional and aesthetic considerations employed in most planning and design studies. For example, I attempted to conduct visual studies, only to find out that my notions of perceived beauty were different from those of the Ojibway, for whom an environment was beautiful if it served their everyday needs. While I do not expect most planners and designers to commit the resources essential to undertaking this type of study, much can be learned from the Burwash study. Crucial aspects include examining the client’s viewpoint and expectations on issues defined by the client; understanding landscape evolution from both a natural and a cultural perspective; understanding the client’s notion of spatial organization and environmental quality; and providing mechanisms for continuous community involvement in the development and implementation of a plan. The BNPP study provided the conceptual and procedural framework for subsequent community planning and design studies conducted for native communities by an interdisciplinary team that included Elizabeth Brabec, Richard Forster, George Penfold, and my mentor and friend, the late architect Joan Simon.60

Other Studies Recently, two of my former students utilized the place construct as the analytical base for their work. Jeffery 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 Rio’s population are Mexican Americans. Many of them migrated from Ciudad Acuna, Mexico, a sister city to Del Rio, located just beyond the border. Jeffery Fahs operationalized the place construct I used in the Burwash study in the form of a series of questions. People’s responses were intended to

“reveal spatial elements and relationships in the landscape that have persisted over time, and also, based on the user expectations and experience, [to reveal] which elements are [likely] to persist in the future.”62 He deconstructed the elements of place into functional, structural, and experiential categories: Functional: What do people do? Who does what, why, how, and when? Structural: Where do people perform which activities? How does the form of the site respond to the user’s purpose? Experiential: How are overt and covert site phenomena revealed? What significance do the site elements and site phenomena have for the users? What are the major spatial themes associated with the phenomena?

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 user’s 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-five 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. Doineau’s 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 differentiate among subcultures, motivate people to satisfy their needs in specific ways. Given the same goals, and within a perceived and cognitively defined field, the ways of satisfying needs become roughly similar. The satisfaction of people’s needs, therefore, is reflected in their activity systems and lifestyles, both of which are culturally informed. As defined by Amos Rapoport, lifestyles comprise

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

manners, roles, choices, role allocation, and resource allocation.66 Doineau’s design of the heritage and demonstration trail was based on () the values the Sapelo Island residents placed on the landscape and its resources; () constancy in the artifacts and technology of the Gullah culture, especially vernacular forms that have not changed much; () the traditional activities in which the African American inhabitants are currently engaged; () the manner in which those activities are conducted; and () the identification of ecologically suitable lands that support such activities. His design was based on the fit between the outcomes of steps –  and step . In his provocative, well-illustrated book Out of Place () Michael Hough examined why and how contemporary landscapes lose their identity and then prescribed procedural principles for reestablishing their uniqueness. Hough’s ideas are particularly instructive because they touch upon an important debate reflected in the writings and comments of many landscape architects in the s and s, namely, the culture-ecology divide.67 One important argument in the debate was that the need to deconstruct natural and cultural systems in order to analyze them by itself created a separation between natural processes and humanity. If that argument is valid, which I doubt, then the human-ecological methods, especially those developed at Pennsylvania, must be subject to the same criticism. Additionally, I suspect that Hough and many others do not view their works as falling under the label of human ecological planning and design. Yet, their obvious concern for a synthesis of human and natural processes to guide design decisions certainly is human ecology. Natural processes and social forces, according to Hough, create characteristic and distinctly identifiable landscapes. Drawing on examples from diverse parts of the world, including Hong Kong, England, Turkey, Canada, and the United States, he illuminated forces that erode identity in con-

ⱍ



temporary landscapes. The primary determinants of today’s landscapes are capitalism, economics, and technological forces that disregard the rich traditions of the past and the inherent diversity of ecological systems and human communities. Creating places in contemporary landscapes, he argued, begins with a search for their regional identity. For Hough, regional identity represents a blending of the native landscape—the natural processes of a region or locality—and the social processes—the way people perceive, use, and adapt to the region. Whenever the processes of nature are the same, similar landscapes emerge. Conversely, similar cultural forces “produce similar forms in biophysically different landscapes . . . [and] regional differences where biophysical forces produce similar forms.” One begins, therefore, with an examination of the natural history of the landscape to reveal, among other things, “the complexity of forms and species . . . and life forms uniquely adapted to the environment.”68 But natural history, Hough noted, is not totally “natural” once we view humanity as a part of natural processes. The next important and parallel consideration, therefore, is cultural history. The vernacular of a region is the dominant expression of the place’s history, the forms that emerge from people’s adaptation to the landscape to satisfy needs given the constraints of the region, climate, social and legal control mechanisms, and technology. Vernacular forms occur when people are tied to places because of their sense of investment in the landscape. As new human needs and technological forces exert themselves, new landscape forms may emerge that are not congruent with the existing vernacular. But the vernacular is not totally erased: its elements may still be revealed in remnant plant communities, old paving stones, land forms, and the like. A third component of regional identity is the aesthetic experience people have as a consequence of interactions between natural processes and cultural forces. Once humanity is viewed as part



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

of nature, we can seek to understand people’s aesthetic experience of the landscape. But people’s 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 people’s regional identity is not fixed 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 different places for different 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 benefits. Invest in the productivity and diversity of landscapes, Focus on the things that can be accomplished.

Similar views are evident in the writings of many designers. In “The Poetics of City and Nature” Anne Spirn argues for understanding the un-

derlying landscape structure (natural processes and social structure) as a basis of design, a theme she elaborated upon convincingly in The Language of Landscape (). The social critic and landscape architect Randolph Hester has long advocated the integration of social values and design. His numerous works, especially that on Manteo (on Roanoke Island, off the northeast coast of North Carolina) in the early s, illustrate how places can be understood in terms of their importance to those who use them and how the continued maintenance of such places is related fundamentally to the social structure and the natural processes from which they evolved.71 The ecological-planning-and-design studies undertaken by Jones & Jones, a landscape-architecture, environmental-planning, and urban-design firm in Seattle, exemplify efforts to operationalize the notion of place in ecological design and planning. In numerous projects conducted in the past three decades, the firm sought to understand people’s aesthetic experiences in the landscape to better illuminate how the landscape functions. Grant Jones, a co-founder and partner in the firm, and Megan Atkinson describe the firm’s philosophy as “knowing how to design our relationship with the land.”72 Jones & Jones’s study of the Nooksack River in Washington State in  was a notable early study that put their philosophy into practice.73 The purpose of the study was to identify those portions of the river that were best suited for preservation (limited use), passive recreation (moderate use), and active recreation (intensive use); to recommend areas of the river to be acquired; and to identify critical areas where conservation-management techniques must be implemented. Their emphasis was “to discover the highest potential levels of a river experience based on how strongly the river expressed itself.”74 To address the first question in their philosophy, “Where am I, and what is this place?” Jones & Jones postulated that the way people experienced

The Applied-Human-Ecology Approach

a landscape, in this case a river, was a function of the river’s intrinsic characteristics. According to Grant Jones, areas of the river possessing “the highest aesthetic quality were assumed to be those that most strongly and distinctly express inherent natural processes and form. . . . The Quality of Experience can be predicted and given a value based on the magnitude of natural landscape expression and its health, which combined represent landscape integrity.”75 To implement the firm’s postulation in the Nooksack River study, Jones & Jones established a hierarchy of river segments that served as a framework for data collection and evaluation. They defined the study boundary as the river realm, made up of the geographical territory of the watershed and the viewshed, what people see in the watershed. They broke the river realm down into its component parts, smaller drainage basins linked to a stream order. Jones & Jones then recorded the type, frequency, and magnitude of the natural and cultural characteristics within each segment. Each segment was evaluated for its ecological health, based on indicators such as uniqueness, the significance and distinctiveness of natural or cultural characteristics; diversity, the variety, complexity, and evenness of the physical and visual characteristics of the river and within the river landscape; and fragility, the ability to survive stress. Information on the magnitude of the river characteristics was combined with information on the health of the river to establish the overall value for the river’s integrity, which they used as the primary criterion for designating segments of the Nooksack River for preservation, recreation, and conservation. After the first question was addressed, Jones & Jones then focused on the second and third questions, which I will not elaborate upon because they emphasize site-specific design issues. The firm’s postulation about how people experience the landscape provided the framework for numerous later projects, including their upper Susitna River study in south-central Alaska (), the Yakima

ⱍ



River Conservancy in Washington State (), the lowland-gorilla exhibit in Seattle (), and the North Carolina Botanical Garden (). The works of Darrel Morrison, formerly dean of the School of Environmental Design at the University of Georgia, deserve mention. Morrison views his work as sustainable design. Deeply influenced by Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, Jens Jenson’s ideas on capturing the essence of a regional landscape, as well as the Brazilian Burle Marx’s notions of curvilinear forms, where the “visual terminus is always changing,” he espoused specific ideas about understanding places. One must understand the character of the regional landscape, the types of human uses, and the “visual essence” of a site. The visual essence of a place—forms, lines, texture, and patterns that together endow a place with its coherence, intactness, and memorability—evolves from the landscape.76 Place making, according to Darrel Morrison, is a design process that reflects the patterns created by historically and ecologically identifiable patterns: naturally occurring plant communities, the values and aspirations expressed by the users of the site, and the visual character. His plans for the Atlanta Historical Society and the Wildflower Center in Austin, Texas, reflect the principles he espoused (see Fig. .). If the fundamental idea in human ecological planning and design is to synthesize information about natural and human processes to guide planning and design decisions, then the idea is alive and well today. Irrespective of the perspective from which one views relations between humans and the environment, the central argument of human-ecological planners and designers is to search for the best fit between ecologically suitable and culturally desirable locations, maximized for the adaptive strengths of the various users of an area. People and their interactions with the land are the primary focus of humanecological planning, which assumes that culture



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. The Wildflower Center in Austin, Texas. Morrison’s design captures the landscape structure and the visual essence of the site. Photograph by Darrel Morrison, .

is the mediating factor in human-environment interactions. Human-ecological planning has not received the attention it deserves in ecological-planning lit-

erature or practice. In fact, recent literature hardly uses the term human-ecological planning. Instead, planners and designers use terms such as sustainable design and place making. Human ecology has always been a stepchild of many disciplines and is rarely recognized as a discipline. Its conceptual boundaries are poorly defined. There are numerous human-ecology concepts, but well-developed ecological-planning methods are lacking. Additionally, while humanecology concepts provide valuable insights into social and cultural processes, they generalize about the natural environments. In the absence of a definite set of methodological directives, the translation of the concepts is cumbersome, involving a repertoire of qualitative techniques, such as ethnographic surveys, unfamiliar to most planners and designers. Consequently, the operationalization of these concepts into planning has occurred on a project-by-project basis. The emerging discipline of landscape ecology fascinates many planners and landscape architects because of its concern with three inseparable perspectives: visual, chronological, and ecosystemic.77 Indeed, these are quite similar to the issues addressed by human-ecological planners and designers. Unlike human ecology, however, landscape ecology has an explicit spatial emphasis.

the applied-ecosystem approach



APPLIED-ECOSYSTEM PLANNING The applied-ecosystem approach is chiefly 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 influences. 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 field 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 confluence 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 fieldwork;1 systems theory, leaning toward cause-and-effect 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 confluence was made possible by the dominant influence of systems thinking in the late s and early s and the popularity of the ecosystem concept as an organizing theme for understanding 



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

human-dominated and natural landscapes and how they respond to change. In the applied-ecosystem approach general systems theory structures and defines the boundaries of a management problem or issue. At its most elemental level, the concept of system entails physical or social environment, inputs, transformations, outputs, and complex feedback mechanisms. Once the boundary of the landscape is described in terms of ecosystems, concepts such as resiliency, replacement time, and equilibrium are employed to examine the characteristics of the ecosystems and to understand their potential responses to human and natural influences. Quantitative rather than qualitative techniques are favored in assessing ecosystem dynamics and responses. Criteria for evaluating the state of the ecosystem include explicit or implicit considerations of its value, quality, well-being, or integrity. The output is varied but often results in principles that guide management actions. Many applied-ecosystem methods also have a strong administrative and institutional orientation. Often deemphasized in studies using applied-ecosystem methods are the aesthetic features of the ecosystems. The applied-ecosystem approach is used by a much wider group of ecological-planning professionals, including landscape architects, planners, resource managers, wildlife and conservation biologists, and environmental managers, than are the LSAs and the applied-human-ecology approach. The applied-ecosystem approach is used to address large-scale development, conservation, preservation, restoration, and management issues in both urbanizing and rural landscapes, though most applications have occurred in natural and rural landscapes. The applications are numerous, for example, the development of state-of-the-environment reports such as the United Nations Environmental Programme’s (UNEP) Environmental Data Report, prepared by the Global Environmental Monitoring Center in London; the development of indices for air and water quality; the management of agri-

cultural ecosystems to maximize the production of food and fiber; the restoration of damaged landscapes; the enhancement of water quality in the Great Lakes based on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of , amended in ; and the planning and management of state and national parks, wildlife preserves, and wilderness areas. A majority of the documented applications are found in the research environment, such as in pilot and experimental projects; however, applications in practice are increasing. Ecological-planning professionals use the applied-ecosystem approach to answer the following questions: What is the current state, health, wellbeing, or integrity of the ecosystem under consideration and what is its capacity for self-sustenance? How does the ecosystem behave in response to human and natural influences? What management actions and administrative arrangements ensure the sustained integrity or well-being of the ecosystem in the face of human and naturally induced change? These broad questions largely separate the applied-ecosystem approach from other approaches, especially in terms of the methodological directives it offers for managing human actions in the landscape. The more specific questions typically include: How can the study area be defined in terms of ecologically meaningful units? What are the structural characteristics of the ecosystem? What are the primary pathways for the input and output of materials, nutrients, and energy? How does change (human and natural influences) affect the quantity and quality of the pathways? What is the impact of the change on the ecosystem? How are the byproducts of output treated? Which measures best describe the stability of the ecosystem? Which management actions (restoration, conservation, preservation) ensure the sustained productivity of the ecosystem? How can the cumulative effects of the management decisions on the ecosystem be predicted? What resources (funds, manpower, organization) will be needed to ensure the successful implementation of the management actions;

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

for instance, which agencies are best suited to manage the ecosystem, and how will they cooperate in its long-term management? Methods within the applied-ecosystem approach address these questions but vary on which ones they emphasize. The adjective applied affirms that ecological planning is a problem-solving activity that draws on principles from ecosystem sciences and allied disciplines to solve problems dealing with human adaptation to the landscape. Thus, my review of the methods favors the applied rather than the theoretical methods.

KEY CONCEPTS The Ecosystem Concept The ecosystem is made up of interacting physical and chemical environmental and biotic factors connected through the flow of energy and material. It is a part of a hierarchy of physical systems

ⱍ



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 flow 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

Image not available.

Fig. .. The visible features of the landscape—landform, riparian areas, and trees—are sustained by the flow of nutrients, energy, and species. Photograph by author, .



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

biogeochemical cycles is fundamental to ecology and to human affairs generally.”3 How has the ecosystem concept informed the applied-ecosystem approach? Golley suggested three ways in which the ecosystem concept has served science and society. First, the ecosystem is the object under scientific investigation. In this sense the ecosystem is viewed as an ecotype, “the smallest spatial object that has scientific properties.”4 This was the way Arthur Tansley conceptualized the ecosystem in . Following Tansley’s lead, Raymond Lindeman operationalized the ecosystem in his study of an object, the Cedar Bog Lake in Minnesota, published in . Numerous ecological studies conducted under the auspices of the International Biological Program, or IBP, have also investigated the ecosystem. Second, the ecosystem is used as a theoretical paradigm for organizing ecological research. “When used in this way,” stated Golley, “the concept meant that the investigators [as well as ecological planners] had in mind that they were dealing with a natural system wherein the components were linked and interacted; this system has certain operating properties and controls and evidenced a constant pattern under certain conditions . . . if we adopt this latter point of view, we will manage our relations with each other and with the environment in a different 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.”5 The third way combines the notions of the ecosystem as object, scientific paradigm, and holistic point of view. Since the applied-ecosystem methods focus on the application of ecological principles in planning, most planners adopt the third perspective. A study area is usually reinterpreted as ecosystems, which then become objects to be investigated. Properties and behavior are examined, the examiners bearing in mind that

the components of an ecosystem interact and are linked by the flow of nutrients, energy, and species. When additional substantive information is needed, the methods draw upon ecological research that uses the ecosystem as object. An example is the long-term ecosystem studies conducted by Herbert Bormann and Gene Likens on watersheds, discussed in chapter .

General Systems Theory Tansley used the idea of systems in his conceptualization of the ecosystem. Delineating systems helped him clarify his ideas about the organization of nature. A system is a complex in which the interactions of the parts constitute the functioning of the whole. The landscape ecologists Zev Naveh and Arthur Lieberman defined general systems theory, or GST, as “a holistic scientific theory and philosophy of the hierarchical order of nature as open systems with increasing complexity and organization and with living systems and ecological systems as their special biosystem subsets.”6 It stresses the cybernetics of open systems, placing emphasis on self-regulation, self-organization, and feedback, cybernetics being the study of interactional systems. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the German theoretical biologist, proposed GST in the late s, though the idea can be traced back to the fifthcentury .. Greek philosopher Heraclitus ( – ).7 Heraclitus, Von Bertalanffy realized that biological systems are too complex to be understood in terms of simple causal linear relationships. Traditional scientific methods tend to reduce a system to its component parts to reveal causal linear relationships. In contrast, GST emphasizes the relationship between the parts, taking into account the possibility for feedback, self-regulation, and hierarchical relationships. GST assumes that the parts are in harmony as long as the system remains in a state of equilibrium. Since ecosystems are open systems, GST has been especially useful for ex-

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

plaining the complexity of ecosystems and, by extension, defining the nature and boundaries of ecological-planning and resource-management problems. Similar to the ecosystem concept, GST “links and integrates cultural and ideological, quantitative and normative approaches, and qualitative and descriptive approaches.”8 The problem with using GST, some argue, is that details are sacrificed when the focus is on the relationships among the parts of a system. In addition, there is always a tendency to use GST to develop models that are removed from reality. This was particularly evident in the ecological modeling studies undertaken by the IBP. They suffered from the lack of adequate data and failed to produce comprehensive descriptions of ecosystems and predictions that could be readily verified. Related to GST is the concept of holism proposed by the ecologist John Smuts in Holism and Evolution. Holism is grounded in the notion that unified structures or wholes have an identity and an existence that are more than the sum of their component parts. A holistic entity results from a process of creative synthesis that integrates its components. Extended into ecological studies, the significance was that one could study an ecosystem without knowing all the components. As Anna Hersperger points out, “Holism gave the impetus to the development of GST and modeling to bridge the gap between the analyst and the holist.”9 However, the utility of holism at an operational level remains a subject of much debate.

Ecosystem Dynamics and Behavior The applied-ecosystem approach is used to understand an ecosystem’s structural and functional characteristics and how they interact. The effects and significance of human-induced and naturally occurring stresses are evaluated, and appropriate management actions are prescribed. I use the term dynamics to denote the interactions among an ecosystem’s characteristic components. Behavior implies changes in the interactions as ecosystems

ⱍ



Table .. Key Structural and Functional Characteristics of an Ecosystem

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 flows 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 effects of the interactions are carried back to their source (feedbacks). Some feedbacks may be positive when the effect 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.



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Because of these characteristics of ecological systems, ecologists have examined ecosystem function, structure, and dynamics in many ways.12 Natural history records ecological entities that can easily be perceived rather than abstract concepts such as energy and nutrient cycles. Usually, one or more subsets of ecosystem characteristics, such as predator-prey relationships or the habitats of keystone plant species, are examined in greater detail. Other ways of describing ecosystem characteristics and interactions include the compartmentflow analysis, which simulates energy and material exchange processes within and among ecosystems;13 the stimulus-response strategy, which relates natural influences or human actions to transformations in ecological systems and pays particular attention to the ability of the systems to survive the effects of the actions;14 the thermodynamics method, which describes the physical states and transactions in ecological systems using the concept of entropy to determine whether the systems will transform from one state to another.15 These varied ways of examining ecosystem characteristics and dynamics recognize the complexity of ecological systems and the limits of predicting the effects of human-induced and naturally occurring stresses.

Ecosystem Response to Stress Equilibrium and stability are two fundamental features of ecosystems. Since ecosystems are dynamic entities, they always move toward equilibrium or seek a state of stability (Fig. .). The more stable an ecosystem, the greater the likelihood that it will be able to sustain itself. According to the ecologist Eugene Odum, ecosystem development “culminates in a stabilized ecosystem in which maximum biomass [or high information content] and symbiotic function between organisms are maintained per unit of energy flow. In a word, the ‘strategy’ of succession as a short-term process is basically the same as the ‘strategy’ of long-term

evolutionary development of the biosphere— namely increased control of, or homeostasis with, the physical environment in the sense of achieving maximum protection from perturbations.”16 Stresses or perturbations may disrupt the stability of an ecosystem by modifying its behavior. Defining stress in ecosystems is problematic even though published summaries are numerous.17 The problem arises because ecosystems are continuously subjected to external conditions that cause stress. Naturally induced stresses may be air pollution, extreme fluctuations in climatic conditions, or pest infestation on plant species. These stresses may be intensified by human actions such as construction activities, deforestation, and elevated levels of ozone. Under certain conditions, minimal levels of stress enhance the productivity of ecosystems. Indeed, the evolutionary development of ecosystems has occurred under divergent stress conditions; ecosystems have developed varied abilities to recover from stress and establish a new equilibrium. The inability to do so results in a progressive degradation of the ecosystem. Sustaining an ecosystem’s stability while maximizing its productivity for other uses, therefore, is the end state most applied-ecosystem methods seek to promote. This end state is termed ecosystem health or well-being, ecosystem integrity, and ecosystem value. Stability is implied in each of these terms, implicitly or explicitly. Stability is a much more complex state than suggested in chapter . There is much controversy over how ecosystem stability can best be measured. An important question at the core of this controversy is, What characteristics of the ecosystem should be stable in the face of change induced by natural and human stresses? Ecologists’ responses to this question are varied. Among factors they suggest examining are the stability of species populations, including their feeding relationships;18 the biomass of the species;19 and the integrity of the ecosystem, defined by variables such as species diversity,20 nat-

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Successional sequence after disturbance in the Piedmont landscape in Georgia. Photograph by author, .

uralness,21 and the efficiency of energy transfer and nutrient cycling.22 Other responses include determining the ecosystem’s sensitivity or vulnerability to perturbation (the greater the sensitivity, the less the stability);23 its resilience, or ability to respond to disturbances, measured by factors such as the presence or absence of biota and water-holding capacity;24 its resistance to disturbance, measured in terms of biomass, capacity to store essential resources, and survival history of past environmental changes; and changes to its structure and functioning, measured in terms of factors such as species composition, species diversity, gross production, biomassrespiration ratio, and entropy.25 These varied responses suggest the immense disagreement that exists about indicators of ecosystem dynamics and behavior. In the last thirty years, catastrophe theory and nonequilibrium

dynamics have further complicated the search for reliable indicators of ecosystem stability. These theories suggest that complex systems such as ecosystems sometimes develop in nonlinear, discontinuous (catastrophes), unpredictable (bifurcations), and multiple pathways.26 In  Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for explaining better than anyone before him how living systems defy the second law of thermodynamics, sometimes known as the entropy law: under certain conditions living systems move away from equilibrium and establish new organizational structures and species.27 To sum up, the ecosystem concept provides the organizational framework for both investigating the landscape and defining questions to be resolved in managing landscape change. GST and holism establish the methodological rules by emphasizing a systems approach. The complexity of



ⱍ

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.

SUBGROUPS OF APPLIEDECOSYSTEM METHODS The applied-ecosystem approach may be subdivided into methods for ecosystem classification, ecosystem evaluation, and holistic ecosystem management. Similar to the LSA  methods, the divisions reflect an increasing capability of the appliedecosystem methods to accomplish tasks typically associated with conventional planning: goal setting, inventory and assessment, development of alternative plans, decision making, and implementation. The tasks, however, are organized from a system perspective that emphasizes cause-andeffect, interdependency, and feedback relationships. Ecosystem-classification methods are used to describe the structural and functional characteristics of ecosystems, spatially and temporally. Ecosystem-evaluation methods are used to classify ecosystem characteristics, examine their interactions, and evaluate their behavior in response to stress. The holistic-ecosystem methods can perform all these tasks; in addition, they are comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and goal-oriented, as well as having a strong administrative and institutional orientation.

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 first describe the characteristics and then examine the interconnections among them (abiotic, biotic, and cultural components). This is what ecosystem-classification methods do. However, the description is undertaken irrespective of the prospective uses of the ecosystem. The

classification of an ecosystem’s characteristics is the primary connection between the ecosystem sciences and planning since the resultant ecological and spatial units are evaluated in light of project goals and other pertinent considerations. Implied in classification methods is the notion of spatial heterogeneity in the characteristics of ecosystems. The cataloging of these characteristics is intended to provide a uniform understanding of the type and magnitude of the heterogeneity. The prime difference between LSA classification methods and those I review here is that the ecosystem is the unit of the landscape examined. Moreover, emphasis is placed on ecosystem dynamics—codifying the interconnections among ecosystem characteristics. Cataloging interactions in ecological systems arose from many sources, but certainly two were particularly influential: the long-term watershed studies conducted by Bormann and Likens and Eugene Odum’s conceptualization of the ecological functions of landscapes.28 In the past three decades technological advances, especially in computer and remote-sensing technology, have vastly increased the objectivity and efficiency of information management in ecology-based classification schemes. Despite continued advances in ecological studies, the development of ecological land classifications has been hampered by the complexity of human and natural ecosystems. As the ecologist Paul Risser noted, “Simple connections—for example, between soil productivity and plant productivity—are easily visualized. More complex connections are not so intuitively obvious.”29 The major debates on the development of classification schemes focus on how ecosystems are defined and which transactions among the abiotic, biotic, and cultural components should be emphasized. As I pointed out in my review of humanecological planning, North American ecological studies traditionally emphasized the physical (abiotic) and biological (biotic) aspects of ecosystems. The inclusion of human processes, when it occurs,

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

is recent, though it is practically impossible to find ecosystems that have not been influenced in some way by humans. The problem with including human-cultural processes is that they are too complex and confusing to be integrated with the abiotic and biotic components. The complexity arises in part from insufficient knowledge of human-cultural processes and from the fact that human-dominated ecosystems are fundamentally different from the natural ones. For instance, the distribution and functioning of human ecosystems are influenced heavily by sociocultural, economic, and political factors. The stability of natural ecosystems rests on a more narrow base than that of humandominated ecosystems since energy and materials are transferred from the former into the latter. In addition, the rates of change in ecosystem structure and function in human-dominated ecosystems differ from those in natural ecosystems.30 Classification schemes describe the properties of ecosystem structure and function listed in Table . in many ways. Excluding the naturalhistory method, they are of academic rather than practical interest. Promising strategies adapted for classifying ecosystem characteristics in ecologicalplanning studies include variations of the naturalhistory classification, the qualitative compartmentflow classification prescribed by Eugene Odum,31 and the energy-flux classification suggested by the ecologist Pierre Dansereau and the geographer M. R. Moss.32

Variations of the Natural-History Classification Vegetation classifications are widely used in ecological-planning studies largely because vegetation can be used as an indicator of the ecosystem state. Vegetation is a primary producer on which other organisms ultimately depend. It also integrates environmental factors involved in ecosystem function and is relatively stable. The widely used vegetation classifications are the floristic, the dominant-species, and the ecological.

ⱍ



The floristic technique, proposed by Josias BraunBlanquet (–) in , classifies individual plants based on species, genera, families, and so forth, using the widely recognized system of botanical names. The dominant-species technique, popularized by Tansley in his  study of wild and seminatural vegetation in Britain, focuses on dominant-species associations that occur in the successional development of plant communities. For example, in the Piedmont region of the eastern United States the associations of hickories (Carya sp.) and oaks (Quercus sp.) are dominant in climax hardwood forests. The ecological scheme classifies plants according to their habitats or some critical association of the physical environment, such as soil moisture or seasonal air temperatures. Although the dominant-species and ecological schemes can serve as surrogates for ecological associations, focusing on a subset of an ecosystem rarely provides complete information about the response of the whole ecosystem to intentional alteration, a prime objective in ecological-planning studies. A variation of the natural-history strategy popularized by McHarg in numerous ecologicalplanning studies describes the structural and functional characteristics of ecosystems in an evolutionary sequence—historical geology, bedrock geology, physiography, hydrology, and so forth. Socially valuable or relevant functional processes are described in greater depth with regard to the prospective uses of the ecosystem. Functional relationships are examined further by combining the independent characteristics recorded using welldeveloped techniques for spatial analysis, for example, the overlay technique and matrices. The problem with examining ecosystem dynamics in this way is that the ecosystem characteristics are treated as if they were separate and independent features. Moreover, emphasis is placed on the ecosystem’s potential for use and the effects of use. The ecological planner Brenda Lee noted that “aspects of the ecosystem which define its re-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

siliency and longevity, and which do not have any use implications, are not addressed. . . . [McHarg’s strategy does not provide] a framework for predicting the cumulative effects of management decisions on ecosystems or for judging whole ecosystem responses [to change].”33 Continuing the development of ecological land-classification schemes, Angus Hills in  reinterpreted his  physiographic-unit classification in terms of ecosystems. He argued that ecosystems should be the basic unit for understanding and analyzing landscapes: “In landscape [ecological] planning, it is useful to conceive ecosystems as ‘production systems’ whether the production is biological from farm, forest or fishery ecosystem or physiographic from mine, aquifer or energy developing ecosystems or societal cultural ecosystems.”34 Hills proposed that the basic unit for understanding landscapes is the site type, derived from the congruence of those features of the landscape that in their interactions control production. Site types include () physiographic, that is, climate,

landform, soil, water, and so on; () biotic, that is, biotic communities of plants and animals; and () cultural, the congruence of human communities with biotic site types. No one can quarrel with the logic of Hills’s classification; however, its replicability remains questionable. It is unlikely that people using his classification will achieve the same results because of the practical difficulties in delineating site types in the manner he proposed. Hills also presents a simplistic view of the interactions between natural and cultural phenomena, which in reality are complex and dynamic.

The Compartment-Flow Classification In a paper published in , “The Strategy of Ecosystem Development,” Eugene Odum proposed an ecological compartment scheme that classified landscapes based on the ecological functions they serve (Fig. .). Based on ecosystemdevelopment theory, Odum asserted that ecological functions are carried out by different land uses: protection (e.g., mature forests, wetlands), production (e.g., agricultural land, productive

Fig. .. Eugene Odum’s compartment scheme. Redrawn by M. Rapelje, .

Image not available.

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Howard Odum’s 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 flows among the different 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 conflicts between human uses and resource conservation are inevitable, and he suggested that land-use allocation be based on the ecological functions that different land uses serve. Moreover, the classification 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 Odum’s scheme has been applied in many ecological-planning projects. However, the landscape architect William Hendrix and others observed, and I concur, that Odum’s 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.

The Energy-Flux Classification Pierre Dansereau and his colleagues at the University of Montreal developed a classification scheme based on energy flux. First proposed in  and subsequently refined in , the scheme related energy processes between natural and human systems to land-use changes.35 Historical uses of the land can be inferred as land-use transformations occurring over time. The geographer M. R. Moss, at the University of Guelph, Ontario, in  proposed a classification system based on the moisture and energy transactions taking place between the natural and cultural features of the landscape.36 The result was a set of maps depicting primary productivity that can be used to allocate land uses in large, more complex planning areas. Indeed, the works of Dansereau and Moss are promising targets for research. At the level of practice, however, the applications require significant technical expertise, and the mapping techniques are cumbersome. More recently, Frans Klijn, at Leiden University in the Netherlands, examined numerous ecosystem-classification methods in his edited volume Ecosystem Classification for Environmental Management (). Some methods, such as Roman Lenz’s, definitely fall under ecosystem classification,37 while others lean more toward landscape ecology. Lenz proposed a hierarchical classification based on different levels of organization of matter and the necessity of integrating them into a unified



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

scheme. One significant point he made was that the larger the impact of human-induced disturbances in a given area, the greater the need to base ecosystem classification on processes rather than on structural characteristics. Despite these promising efforts, insufficient knowledge of the dynamics of ecosystems has hampered the development of ecological classifications. Those used, often in ecological planning, tend to describe the functioning of ecosystems in a static way, requiring supplementary text and graphic illustrations to describe historical and future ecological processes. Classifications that emphasize ecosystem functioning are used extensively in experimental projects, usually requiring substantial outlay of resources (time, skilled manpower, funds) that are not cost-effective in professional practice. When used in applied work, these function-based classifications, such as Odum’s compartment model, are only conceptually useful. Including human-cultural processes in classification schemes continues to be problematic. While progress has been made in including social, economic, and demographic characteristics in classification schemes, the ways people value, use, and adapt to the landscape are often neglected. Ultimately, a project’s goals and objectives are paramount in determining what classifications are adopted in ecological-planning and resourcemanagement studies. Other important considerations include costs, simplicity, replicability, adaptability to varying spatial scales of problem solving, and ease of communication to lay and technical audience.

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-

act. Often such detailed studies involve examining the dynamics and behavior of the ecosystems and evaluating the resultant information with respect to the project goals, to the maintenance of ecological stability, and to other relevant social values. The output is a prescription of spatial units that are valuable and deserve preservation, as well as spatial units that may be altered under specific management practices. These are the primary concerns of the ecosystem-evaluation methods. Ecological-planning professionals using the ecosystem-evaluation methods usually () define the boundaries of the problem and identify project goals and objectives; () reinterpret the study area in terms of ecosystems; () describe the structural and functional characteristics of the ecosystem using one or more classification schemes; () examine the dynamics and behavior of ecosystems, especially the quantity and quality of nutrient cycles and energy pathways and their responses to stresses; () assess the significance or impact of the changes in light of project goals and objectives using a variety of valuative concepts similar to those reviewed earlier under the heading “Ecosystem Response to Stress”; and () develop management options that sustain the stability of the ecosystem while accommodating prospective uses. In practice, these activities may not occur in the sequence presented here since feedbacks occur among them. The major variations in ecosystem-evaluation methods are largely contingent upon how they evaluate ecosystem well-being and behavior. Two major subgroups stand out. The first, which I refer to as index-based methods, relies on indicators to evaluate ecosystem dynamics, state, and wellbeing.38 The second uses a modeling approach to simulate the flow of energy and materials essential in understanding ecosystem behavior and response to perturbations. However, the distinction between indices and modeling is sometimes obscured. William Hendrix and others elaborated further: “The distinction [between the subgroups]

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

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.

Index-Based Assessment Methods Index-based assessment methods are used to manage or monitor specific resources such as wetlands, water quality, and eroding soils, or to plan for the management of multiple resources. They assume that the structural and functional characteristics of an ecosystem vary predictably with their location in the landscape and that ecosystem quality and well-being can be inferred from indices. Indices reduces a large amount of data to its simplest form, retaining the essential meaning of questions being asked about the data.40 An indicator focuses on one ecosystem characteristic, for example, soil productivity, dominant plant species, or nitratenitrogen concentrations in a water body. Indicators are combined to form indices in order to account for behavior and changes in the whole ecosystem. Indeed, numerous methods for evaluating ecological resources described in the ecologicalplanning, resource-management, and conservationplanning literature are indices-based assessment methods. One subgroup, resource survey-andassessment methods, sometimes referred to as ecological evaluation methods, are arguably the most widely used and merit closer examination. Also briefly reviewed are state-of-the-environment reporting, environmental indicators and indices, environmental thresholds, and cumulative-impact assessment.

ⱍ



Resource Survey-and-Assessment Methods Resource survey-and-assessment methods are used to describe the characteristics of an ecosystem and to evaluate its dynamics and behavior using indicators. The purpose is to maximize the productivity of an ecosystem while sustaining the quantity and quality of its nutrient cycles and energy pathways. Which methods are used depends on considerations such as the project goals, the availability of resources (skills, funds, time) and pertinent data, the scale of application, and the level of detail necessary to allow generalization of the results. Planners who use these methods must also address other questions, some of which are technical in nature. Which abiotic, biotic, and cultural characteristics of the ecosystem should be described and surveyed? Are the raw data gathered in sufficient detail to permit generalization of the results? How are the interactions among ecosystem characteristics examined? At what steps in the inventory, assessment, and evaluation phases are the recorded individual ecosystem characteristics integrated to illuminate their interactions? What form does the integration take—interdisciplinary, graphic, ecological? What valuative criteria are used to assess ecosystem productivity and stability? How valid are they? How can the resultant information be communicated in a form that is meaningful to technical and lay audience? These questions are the main sources of the variability found in the resource-survey-andassessment methods. I describe the abiotic-bioticcultural (ABC) strategy to illustrate their theoretical intent and then use it as a template to discuss alternative responses. The Abiotic-Biotic-Cultural Strategy The ABC strategy was proposed by Robert Dorney in  and modified by other researchers at the University of Waterloo, Canada, including Jamie Bastedo and John Therberge, who applied it to the planning of environmentally sensitive areas



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

(ESAs) that involved large tracts of land in the Canadian Yukon Territory.41 In  my graduate students and I used the ABC strategy in a resource survey and assessment for greenway planning in Walton County, Georgia, forty miles east of Atlanta.42 The ABC strategy divides the landscape into naturally occurring or humanized ecosystems and classifies abiotic (e.g., physiography and soils), biotic (e.g., flora and fauna), and cultural (e.g., changes in human activities) phenomena in terms of their structural (descriptive) and functional (relational) characteristics. The resultant information is interpreted for relative ecological values and constraints, which are then integrated to establish priorities and to develop policies for managing ESAs (Fig. .). The ABC strategy is organized vertically into four levels of data integration. Level  involves the identification and mapping of raw data on abiotic, biotic, and cultural characteristics of an ecosystem organized in terms of its structural and functional attributes. An example of a structural abiotic attribute would be the soil and drainage, while an example of a functional attribute would be a contemporary modifying feature, such as soil erosion (Table .). In level , raw data are organized more meaningfully using interpretive indices to permit a comparison of significant natural and cultural values, as well as constraints, within ESAs. For example, an interpretive index for cultural resources may be historical uniqueness (Table .). The interpretive indices reflect specific objectives and natural, cultural, and management considerations. Level  provides a summary picture of ecological significance and constraints through the integration of abiotic-, biotic-, and cultural-significance maps. The integration displays the coincidence between concentrations of ecological values and conflicts with extant and adjacent land uses. Other specific issues resolved at this level include boundary refinements and the establishment of priorities

and management guidelines for protecting ESAs. Level  involves matching the policies and management guidelines to the institutional arrangements for implementation. These may include delineating the roles and responsibilities of relevant public or private agencies and landowners and making appropriate modifications to land-use regulations and development controls. However, Level  is not fully developed, which is why the ABC strategy is reviewed here rather than under the holistic-ecosystem methods. Bastedo stated that the ABC strategy “attempts to stimulate a form of land-use (ecosystem) planning that incorporates the three objectives of the World Conservation Strategy . . . : (a) maintenance of ecological processes and life-support systems, (b) preservation of genetic diversity, and (c) sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems.”43 The ABC strategy acknowledges the interdependency of natural and human processes and therefore seeks to understand an ecosystem in terms of its abiotic, biotic, and cultural characteristics. A similar procedure is used in the welldocumented general ecological model (GEM) for regional ecological planning developed by the Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning in the Netherlands (Fig. .).44 GEM examines the biotic and abiotic characteristics of the landscape and interprets them in terms of the functions they serve to society, similar to the way Eugene Odum proposed in his compartment model. The examination includes the diagramming of energy, material, and information exchanges within ecosystems. Next, an ecological evaluation is conducted to assess the capability of the characteristics to fulfill these functions. Ecological-interaction analysis follows, focusing on the threats that restrict the abiotic and biotic characteristics from fulfilling the functions, especially those that emanate from the side effects of social activities. Lastly, social evaluation and conflict analysis are conducted to identify the in-

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. The abiotic-biotic-cultural strategy. Redrawn from Bastedo, ABC Resource Survey Method for Environmentally Significant Areas, by M. Rapelje, .

terests of various social groups in the fulfillment of these functions. A series of analyses are conducted to develop management options that reflect the optimal uses of a landscape. Unlike the ABC strategy, GEM

examines the interactions between natural and cultural processes by emphasizing the functions ecosystems serve to society, the values people place on the functions, and the manner in which conflicting values are minimized. Values that do



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Table .. Data Variables for Greenway Planning

Image not available.

not have obvious human-use implications, such as the continued ability of unthreatened plant and animal species to survive, are often neglected. The ABC strategy pays attention to both the structural and the functional characteristics of an ecosystem and thus makes the examination of ecosystem dynamics explicit. In some methods, however, indices are employed at the outset to define which ecosystem characteristics should be surveyed and analyzed. In these cases, unlike in the ABC strategy, only those defined by the indices are surveyed. For example, J. P. Grime proposed a procedure that examined plant habitats defined by three indicators: species composition, stress, and disturbance.45 Only the data needed to describe the indicators were collected. The spatial locations

of habitats identified using the indicators became the ecosystem units Grime evaluated for their sensitivity to human influences. In a similar vein, the conservation biologist Jay Anderson suggested using the concept of naturalness to assess ecosystem integrity. He defined naturalness as “the way a system in question would function (or would have functioned) in the absence of humans.”46 Anderson suggested that subsequent data collection, assessment, and evaluation should focus on indicators such as the energy subsidy supplied by technology required to maintain the functioning of the ecosystem as it currently exists or the number of native species currently present in the area compared with the number present prior to settlement.

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

ⱍ

Table .. Sample Interpretive Indices

Image not available.

Image not available.

Fig. .. The General ecological model. Reproduced, by permission, from Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Summary of General Ecological Model .





ⱍ

Ecological Planning

The effectiveness of using indices to define the scope of resource survey and evaluation undoubtedly depends heavily on their reliability and validity. When ecosystem characteristics are first classified is critical. Classification is an objective exercise of categorizing regularities in the distribution of ecosystem characteristics, whereas assessment and evaluation embrace subjective judgments because values are assigned to the categories. The botanist P. Wathern and his colleagues argued that when classification, assessment, and evaluation are combined in a single activity, objective and subjective arguments become obscured.47 R. G. Bailey and his colleagues provided another explanation: “Resources are usually too different and their interaction with other resources are too complex to be combined in the same classification. Each should be classified separately by its intrinsic character and in the context of values and uses for society. Once classified independently, different resources can be compared objectively to study their interactions.”48 A related issue is how the recorded ecosystem characteristics are integrated to illuminate functional relationships. Bastedo defined three types of integration: () multidisciplinary, when research efforts (field schedules, write-ups, etc.) of surveyors from several disciplines are consolidated; () graphic, when aggregation techniques such as overlays and matrices are used; and () ecological, when ecosystem dynamics and behavior are examined using modeling or other techniques to simulate the flow of materials and energy critical to ecosystem self-maintenance. The ABC strategy explores functional relationships using multidisciplinary and graphic integration. It is not surprising, therefore, that it is static: the functional processes are compiled in the form of supplementary text to the base information. The evaluation phase is the point in resourcesurvey-and-assessment methods at which the most variability occurs. This is not surprising given the lack of agreement on the appropriate

measures of ecosystem state, stability, or wellbeing. Because of the complexity of ecosystems, it is not always feasible in ecological-planning studies to undertake a rigorous examination of ecosystem dynamics and behavior. Instead, values are assigned to ecosystem characteristics based on their functions. For example, wetlands have many values, including providing habitats to endangered wildlife. These values are not measured directly; instead, surrogate measures that illustrate their worth are evaluated. The interpretive indices presented in Table . are typical of the measures employed. Single indicators may be used, or they can be aggregated to form composite indices. For example, in numerous conservation-planning studies in the United Kingdom conducted by D. Helliwell in the s plant rarity was the sole basis for delineating conservation areas.49 Similarly, in an ecological evaluation study in the Voorne dunes, near Rotterdam, in  the biologists M. J. Adriani and E. Van der Maarel in Voorne assessed a site based on flora, avifauna, and geomorphology.50 Each factor was interpreted independently, and no attempt was made to combine them into a composite score. Instead, Adriani and Van der Maarel developed a baseline value from literature and other sources that they used as a reference point against which to evaluate the site. In contrast, C. F. Cooper and P. H. Zedler used a composite index to locate power-transmission lines in southern California in .51 They synthesized three factors to develop an index of ecological sensitivity: ecosystem significance, rarity, and resilience. Ecological units were identified, mapped, and assessed for each of the three factors. A team of six ecologists assigned sensitivity values by aggregating the results of the independent assessments. In a comparable manner, the ABC strategy uses a composite index for assessment and evaluation. In general, the ecological validity of aggregating single indicators into a composite index is suspect. Values are scored numerically on

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

subjectively defined criteria and then combined into an aggregate value, thereby compounding the subjectivity in the evaluation process.52 Lastly, resource-survey methods vary in the way they communicate the output of ecological evaluation to the intended users. To be legitimate, the output of ecological evaluation must be understood by the intended users and decision makers, and the merits and weaknesses debated in an open political arena. One strength of the ABC strategy is the ease with which its results can be communicated to technical and lay audiences. Miscellaneous Index-Based Techniques Environmental monitoring is a strategy that standardizes the collection and organization of a wide range of ecological, demographic, and socioeconomic data. It assumes that reliable, readily available information is crucial for understanding and intervening in environmental problems. In the United States, NEPA provided the legislative framework for environmental reporting and the use of indices by requiring federal agencies to gather authoritative, timely information on the quality of the environment. It also directed the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to “document and define changes in the natural environment.”53 Similar legislation requiring the reporting of environmental quality has been passed in many countries. Environmental monitoring addresses two fundamental but related questions: What are the structural and functional characteristics of the natural and cultural environment? What is its current quality and value? These questions emphasize the cause-and-effect relationship between understanding and monitoring the effects of human actions on the landscape. State-of-the-environment reports address one or both questions. On a global scale, one of the most authoritative and comprehensive reporting is done by the Global Environmental Monitoring Center based in London. Since  the center has prepared the

ⱍ



UNEP’s biennial Environmental Data Report, which contains data that can be interpreted and used for a variety of purposes. This report alternates with the World Resource Report, prepared by the World Resource Institute for Environment and Development, based in Washington, D.C., which contains interpretive information about environmental quality. By , according to the  Environmental Data Report, ten international agencies and thirty-eight countries had prepared similar reports. Moreover, some countries prepared multiple reports on various aspects of the environment. In the United States, for example, the CEQ publishes reports such as Environmental Statistics, Environmental Trends, and the annual Environmental Quality. State-of-the-environment reports are also prepared by state agencies and nonprofit organizations in many countries. Environmental-monitoring reports generate data on which indices are calculated. Indices assist in policy formulation by providing benchmarks for environmental conditions; evaluating the effectiveness of regulatory programs; allocating funds and priorities in program design; determining changes in environmental quality; and informing the public about the well-being of ecological systems.54 In addition, indices are used to establish environmental thresholds, to assess the cumulative effects of environmental change, and to conduct ecosystem-risk assessments.55 Even though many state and nonprofit organizations in the United States have compiled indices on various aspects of the environment, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken a leadership role. The indices prepared by these various bodies are quite varied, especially in terms of which variables are included (air, water, etc.), the process for aggregating indicators into indices, the organization of the information, and the intended audience. An environmental index is constructed by aggregating indices and indicators through mathematical manipulation. There are indices in which



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

the value increases with the intensity of pollution (e.g., air-pollution indices) and indices in which the value decreases with increasing pollution (e.g., water-pollution indices). A water-pollution index, for instance, is an aggregation of many indicators, such as trophic conditions (intensity of biological conditions), dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature. The current trend is to relate these aggregate indices to their effects on humans and other organisms using the concepts such as environmental thresholds, which provide empirical estimates of the impacts of stresses on ecosystems. The major debates in the use of indicators and indices have been over the acceptable amount of information lost when indicators are used to simplify complex ecological relationships; the validity and reliability of the indicators; the technical validity of the mathematical operations used in aggregating the indicators; and the manner in which extraneous variables are taken into account in the aggregation process, given that ecological systems are complex entities characterized by the flow of energy, nutrients, and species within and across their boundaries. Environmental thresholds have been advocated in ecological-planning and resource-management studies as a means for assessing the point beyond which additional stress to an ecological system results in a marked decrease in its functioning. As the planner Stuart Glasoe and his colleagues put it, “Our ability to recognize and understand the limitative quality of ecosystems directly influences our ability to design appropriate landuse and environmental regulations capable of maintaining ecosystem integrity.”56 Threshold analysis was first conceptualized in the early s as a tool for assessing urbandevelopment opportunities and constraints; it has since been applied in ecological-planning studies.57 Over the past three decades the documentation of ecological-planning and resource-management studies that use thresholds and the related concept of cumulative-impact assessment has expanded.58

How thresholds are used depends on how they are defined. Glasoe and his colleagues from the Program in Environmental Science and Regional Planning at Washington State University examined thresholds that had been applied successfully in their comparative examination of water-resource management in the New Jersey Pinelands, the Lake Tahoe Basin of Nevada and California, the Edwards Aquifer in Texas, and the Spokane-Rathdrum Aquifer of Washington and Idaho. The thresholds include () capability studies and carrying-capacity assessments; () descriptive policy thresholds expressed in statements such as maintaining the current water quality while preventing degradation, reducing nutrient loading, and sustaining algal populations; and () quantitative indicators that reveal ecosystem state and quality. For example, in the New Jersey study Glasoe and his colleagues reported that an increase in nitrogen-nitrate concentrations from levels of . ppm (parts per million) to . ppm in undisturbed watersheds had an adverse impact on the sensitivity of the Pinelands’ terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Environmental thresholds are especially useful when precise cause-and-effect relationships between specific ecological interactions and human activities are known and agreed upon. Such relationships can be transformed into mathematical equations that can be used to predict ecosystem value and stability. In practice, however, these relationships are rarely sufficiently understood to be defined precisely by mathematical relationships. Even so, the ecosystem interactions considered, such as nitrogen-nitrate concentrations, are few. In addition, the thorny issues regarding the use of indicators and indices hold true when environmental thresholds are employed in ecological planning studies. I prefer to use multiple indicators and to make decisions based on their relative merits rather than to aggregate them into indices. Aggregating indicators that measure one or more dimensions of the complex interactions between

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

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 simplified 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 simplified 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 quantification, 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. Jeffers 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 effects of stress (e.g., reduced trout populations). The variables are connected by feedbacks and the pathways for nutrient and energy flow. In ecological-planning studies, ecosystem dynamics and behavior can be examined using compartment-flow and stimulus-response models, which can be descriptive, mathematical, or both.59

ⱍ



Compartment models depict ecosystems as a series of compartments between which energy, nutrients, and materials flow. Some of these models manipulate quantitative data using mathematical operations, such as the compartment-flow 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-flow models are also used in situations where quantitative analysis is inappropriate or impossible, for example, where simple cause-andeffect analysis will not do. In such situations compartment-flow models serve in a conceptual way to structure research questions. (A notable example is Odum’s 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 effect, and response is usually an internal cause. Emphasis is placed on identifying indicators that best describe and measure the threshold at which energy flows 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 difficult to construct, operate, and even validate. Studies often take a long time, and the complexity of the models makes interpretation difficult.63 The current trend, especially in ecological-planning and resource-management



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Effects of upstream grading. A simplified representation of cause-and-effect relationships in the filling 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 conflicts with prospective uses. A concise review of an application of Odum’s compartment model illustrates one way compartment models have been used in

ecological-planning endeavors. Also examined are the Statistics Canada Stress-Response Environmental Statistical System, or S-RESS, technique and cumulative effect assessment (CEA) to illustrate the theoretical intent and procedural principles of stimulus-response models.

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

An Ecosystem-Evaluation Procedure Utilizing Odum’s Compartment Model In the mid-s researchers at the University of Massachusetts adapted Odum’s compartment model to a regional ecosystem-evaluation procedure. The procedure was applied in forestmanagement and land-use studies in the communities of Bernardston and Greenfield in western Massachusetts.64 William Hendrix, Julius Fabos, and Joan Price adopted Odum’s model because it recognizes that ecological functions are carried out by different land uses, for example, agriculture (productive lands) and matured forests (protective lands) (see Fig. .). Odum’s model also recognizes that interactions between land uses are characterized by biogeochemical cycles and energy flows. Hendrix, Fabos, and Price modified Odum’s 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 first developed a two-part classification of the ecosystems. They used the statistical techniques of discriminate analysis to assign land uses to five 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 differentiated 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 (runoff 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 classification was an aggregation of the biological and denudation potential of the land broken down into eight categories, such as protection, high agri-

ⱍ



cultural production, and natural production. For instance, lands with a very high denudation potential were classified as protection ecosystems. Once the physical-substrate classification was conducted, Hendrix and his colleagues used an overlay technique to assess the ecological compatibility of land assigned to each of the eight categories (Fig. .). The assessment assumed that a relationship exists between the ecological characteristics of the cultural landscape and the substrate characteristics of the physical landscape. The application of Hendrix’s procedure to forest management and land-use planning for the two towns in Massachusetts resulted in ecologicalcompatibility maps showing areas deserving protection, conservation, and development. The classification and evaluation of ecosystem dynamics were facilitated by the use of geographical information systems that permitted the manipulation of spatial and attribute (e.g., ecosystem characteristics) data. In his compartment model Odum suggested factors that may be used to classify the landscape based on the ecological functions they serve. These include community energetics, nutrient cycles, community structure, and life history. Because it is extremely difficult to measure these factors on a regional landscape level, Hendrix and his colleagues focused only on community energetics, for which a substantial amount of quantified and empirical data already existed. Additionally, the researchers attempted to model ecosystem behavior, but they resorted to using an ecologicalcompatibility index as the primary basis for deciding which spatial units deserved protection and which were to be modified under management practices. The Stress-Response Environmental Statistical System Developed by Statistics Canada in the late s, the Stress-Response Environmental Statistical



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Interactions between the substrate and ecological functions of the landscape. The delineation of the eight substrate categories was based on the biological and denudation potential of the land. Reproduced, by permission, from Hendrix, Fabos, and Price, “Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning Using Geographical Information System Technology.”

System, or S-RESS, technique was one strategy for managing the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin ecosystems, located between Canada and the United States.65 This technique focuses on the relationship between ecosystem health and the activities that enhance or degrade it. S-RESS provides a database that informs three concerns: stewardship, environmental quality, and irreversibility (damaging the biophysical environment permanently). S-RESS recognizes that species within

an ecosystem have differential capacities to absorb and funnel impacts of human activities and therefore systematically relates human-induced stresses to ecosystem dynamics and behavior. The S-RESS strategy has four major features. First, it describes the types of stresses and the ecosystem characteristics and interactions potentially affected; it also recognizes the synergistic effects of stresses. Second, it establishes indicators for stressor activities (human impact defined in so-

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

cial and economic terms), behavior (changes in ecosystem interactions), and responses (individual and collective responses of the ecosystem); data related to these measures are collected. Third, it makes explicit the relationships between stressor activities and ecosystem behavior. Fourth, it differentiates among stressor activities, ecosystem behavior, and the individual and collective ecosystem responses. The data are accumulated for as much of the past as possible to build a continuum of data. The effects of stresses on ecosystems are subsequently evaluated based on the stressor data, which are socioeconomic, and on the responses, which are ecological. Future management options are prescribed based on predictions of how the ecosystem will respond to particular human activities. But what constitute the best indicators of an ecosystem response to stress continues to be debated. Cumulative Effect Assessment (CEA) The cumulative effect assessment focuses on landscape changes that result from the additive, compounding, and synergistic effects of individual human actions over time. People’s individual actions accumulate in space, so that over time the cumulative effects exceed the sum of the individual effects. For instance, the use of pesticides or fertilizers by individual farmers residing in a watershed may result in small, ecologically insignificant amounts of pollution in a nearby lake. Continued over time, the use of the fertilizers may lead to a significant deterioration of the lake’s water quality. Certainly, this is the nature of most human and naturally induced environmental stresses. NEPA’s development of environmental-impact assessments served as a catalyst for the evolution of CEA. Historically, EIAs did not stress the cumulative nature of individual actions; however, the nature of EIAs influenced the development of CEA. EIAs strengthened the theoretical understanding of cumulative change through empirical

ⱍ



modeling of ecosystems and through the refinement 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 effects of the stresses (e.g., reduction in trout population). Unlike the network technique, which traces the effects of a single action or perturbation, the CEA emphasizes multiple actions, direct and indirect processes or pathways, and cumulative and synergistic effects (e.g., synergistic chemical reactions between fertilizers). CEA has evolved in two directions, scientific and applied. The scientific orientation emphasizes information gathering that identifies and defines ecosystem dynamics and behavior affected 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 scientific orientation are not significantly different 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 confined to the immediate locale. Additional constraints are resource limitations and a partial knowledge of the synergistic effects of multiple change sources and pathways. Ultimately, few actions, as well as few ecosystem characteristics and interactions, are examined using simple cause-and-effect relationships. The geographers Harry Spaling and Barry Smit added that “this limited scope overlooks environmental change involving multiple perturba-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

tions, complex causation, higher-order impacts, interacting processes, time lags, and extended spatial boundaries.”67 In sum, many conceptual frameworks for CEA have been proposed, but few successful applications are documented. The use of CEAs in ecological-planning and resourcemanagement studies is still hampered by the shortage of valid indicators of cumulative change.

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 define 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 effects of stresses on the ecosystem assessed? Can the ecosystem accommodate prospective uses while sustaining its stability? How does the understanding of the effects 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 definition, ecosystem assessment, formulation of management options, and implementation? Which agencies or bodies will implement the prescribed management options and

which one(s) will take on the coordinating role? Do they agree on their roles and responsibilities in ensuring the long-term management of the options? What resources (funds, time, etc.) are committed to implementation and by whom? What mechanisms are put in place to evaluate and monitor the effects of the implementation? These questions reflect the HEM methods’ emphasis on a holistic understanding of the interactions and responses among social, economic, technological, and ecological factors impacting an ecosystem. Again, cause-and-effect relationships are implied. Moreover, HEM methods pay attention to the systematic generation of management goals and options using both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Also emphasized are public involvement and institutional strategies for the longterm implementation of the management options. HEM methods tend to be used in well-funded, long-term, regional landscape-planning and resource-management studies that involve multiple objectives, resources, affected interests, and numerous political subdivisions. One of the welldocumented applications of HEM methods is the numerous strategies for implementing the  amended Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The formal agreement between Canada and the United States works to restore and enhance water quality within the drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River. HEM applications include the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission study, which examined the ecological rehabilitation of aquatic ecosystems and explored the applications for the Great Lakes ecosystems;68 the six-year (–) study conducted by the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes on managing point and nonpoint pollution in the lakes;69 and the  joint Royal Society of Canada (RSC) and National Research Council (NRC) study on evolving instruments for managing the Great Lakes ecosystems.70 Others include numerous habitat-conservation plans documented by Reed

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

Noss, Michael O’Connell and Dennis Murphy in The Science of Conservation Planning (). Although the HEM methods have been applied to large-scale ecosystems, it is feasible to adapt their logic and theoretical intent to address planning and resource-management issues in smaller ecosystems. Robert Dorney, for instance, applied the key principles of the ecosystem-management methods to numerous ecological-planning studies he conducted in Ontario, Canada, in the s and s. His studies include the planning of Erin Mills and the new town of Townsend, both in Ontario. My brief comments below on how the proponents of the HEM methods have addressed these technical and policy questions are illustrative only. Implied in the HEM methods is the idea that ecosystems evolve in response to social, economic, ecological, technological, and institutional forces. The temporal and spatial interactions among these forces are complex. Singularly or in combination the forces are seen as temporal. The method anticipates that those that predominate at one time will be replaced by others at a later time.71 HEM methods’ exploration of systemic interactions between stresses and ecosystem characteristics is the point of departure for defining the boundaries of the problem and structuring the planning and management questions to be examined. A strategy proposed for fisheries management in Ontario illustrates this point: “To define and understand fisheries problems and issues, a larger system must be considered. The system includes, among other components, fish communities, aquatic environment, fishermen, polluters, conflicting users of land, water, and air, and fisheries agencies themselves.”72 Thus, the boundaries of the problem are framed by the expanded system, and the components of the expanded system are the variables evaluated for their response to stresses. The procedures used in the HEM methods have common threads. The strategy prescribed in the

ⱍ



 RSC-NRC joint report, for example, involves the following interrelated steps: . Conduct scientific assessment of the conditions of the lakes and trends that influence their future human use. . Develop scientific and technical measures for addressing the problems (management options). . Examine problems of laws, politics, and economics that impede effective implementation of the options. . Identify and build support among key actors and administrative bodies involved in implementation.

This procedure is typical of those used in numerous ecosystem-management studies.73 A variation proposed by Dorney makes a clear distinction between plan making and implementation. His procedure has two phases: ecoplanning and environmental protection (Fig. .). Ecoplanning embraces problem definition, plan making, and decision making, while environmental protection addresses implementation and monitoring. Both phases can be adapted to the planning of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems at a variety of scales. Another noteworthy variation cited extensively in the ecosystem-management literature is the ecologist C. S. Holling’s adaptive management strategy, first described in Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management () and updated in subsequent publications in  and .74 Holling and his colleagues at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, proposed a strategy for ecosystem management that emphasizes the adaptive nature of ecosystems. Their strategy assumes uncertainty in the extant knowledge of ecological interactions, including the manner in which economic systems and ecological systems are linked. Their procedures also acknowledge the unpredictable way in which ecosystems respond to change: “The more the variability in partially known systems is retained, the more likely that both the natural and management parts of the system will be responsive to the unexpected.”75 To account for



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Ecosystem-management process. Redrawn from Dorney, Professional Practice of Environmental Management, by M. Rapelje, .

uncertainty and for the unpredictable nature of ecosystems, their strategy permits the design of trial-and-error management options. Holling’s adaptive ecosystem-management strategy places equal emphasis on social, economic, and ecological considerations used in problem definition and ecosystem assessment. It emphasizes the multidisciplinary nature of ecosystem assessment and management by paying explicit at-

tention to how information is generated by various analytical techniques that are refined by the key actors—staff, 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 elements—variables, management acts, objectives, indicators, time horizons, and spatial

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

extent—are jointly considered and integrated.”76 Workshops are used to define the boundaries of the problem, to set management objectives, and then to explore uncertainties in order to provide new information for constructing alternative management options. Both quantitative and qualitative techniques are employed in assessing ecosystem behavior, in exploring unknown and partially known human impacts on ecosystems, and in evaluating management options. The techniques range from nonqualitative (e.g., cross-impact matrices) to simple descriptive models and large quantitative models. The selection of appropriate techniques depends on the number of variables considered, the management actions and their spatial extent, the scope and depth of understanding required of social, economic, and ecological processes, and the number and quality of data. In addition, remedial mechanisms are developed as an integral part of the ecosystem-management process rather than as additions after implementation. Models are used in two ways: to understand the behavior of ecosystems and to evaluate the social, economic, and ecological effects of alternative management options. One documented application of Holling’s adaptive procedure is the forestmanagement study of the spruce budworm in New Brunswick, Canada, in the s. The study was conducted by an interdisciplinary, interinstitutional group made up of the Canadian Forest Service and the Institute of Resource Ecology at the University of British Columbia. Another exemplary management study is the study of the Pacific salmon undertaken by Holling and his colleagues in British Columbia in the s. The essential features of Holling’s adaptivemanagement strategy were incorporated in the strategies and principles Noss, O’Connell, and Murphy documented in  for developing habitatconservation plans. They noted that “adaptive management is perhaps the most important issue for the implementation phase of conservation

ⱍ



planning. Because habitat conservation plans will always be experiments with uncertain outcomes, some elasticity is required in implementation so that managers have the advantage of learning from experience and modifying their practices accordingly.”77 Managing uncertainty was also the major theme in the procedure suggested by James Agee and Darryll Johnson in Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness (). They acknowledged that while the quality and quantity of social and biological information may improve over time, it will never allow precise prediction of ecosystem behavior. Their strategy involves () defining goals and measurable targets for ecosystem condition; () clarifying the ecosystem boundaries for the primary components of the ecosystem since each component (e.g., grizzly bears or giant sequoias) will likely have different boundaries; () formulating management strategies to achieve goals that transcend political boundaries; and () evaluating the effectiveness of the management strategies in achieving the identified goals. Agee and Johnson also emphasized that political boundaries are inadequate for defining ecology-level problems and solutions. The study area, therefore, should be redefined in terms of ecosystems. Almost always, the assessment of the well-being of the ecosystem is the point of departure for identifying the appropriate intervention strategies: protective (conservation, maintenance, or preservation); corrective (restoration or rehabilitation); and exploitative (maximizing productivity for human-type uses such as development). Some HEM methods used in ecosystem management in the Great Lakes regard ecosystems as a continuum of more or less degraded states. A wide range of ecosystem states are established; for example, examining the historical states and comparing similar ecosystems. At one end of the continuum is the “pristine” state, reconstructed from historical records, species composition, and waterquality data. The state of the current ecosystem



ⱍ

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 affected local groups, elected officials, 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 policy’s 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 effective 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 different 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 efforts 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

a promising way to manage ecosystems, “we must . . . accept the fact that regional management efforts remain experiments, and hence must remain open to change.”81 The applied-ecosystem approach embraces a wide array of methods and techniques for examining the structure, function, dynamics, and behavior of the ecosystem. Irrespective of a project’s goals and objectives, maintaining the integrity and stability of the ecosystems is a central feature of the approach. The ecosystem concept provides the framework for defining the study area as, to use Frank Golley’s word, “objects” that can be referenced geographically at any time. The ecosystem is used also as a conceptual framework to determine problems arising from the human-nature dialectic. Except when ecosystem boundaries can be nicely fitted around convenient landscape units such as watersheds and drainage basins, defining study areas in terms of ecosystems is still problematic. Because of the extreme complexity of ecosystems and the limited knowledge about how they respond to human-induced and natural stresses, users of this approach differ about which interactions among ecosystem characteristics should be studied in order to understand and mitigate the effects of stresses and which indicators best measure the short- and long-term consequences of the stresses. The evaluation of ecosystems always entails implicit or explicit judgments about their quality, well-being, and ecological integrity. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses are employed in order to understand the behavior of ecological systems and to suggest appropriate management options. Quantitative analysis is predominant. The major subgroups of the applied-ecosystem approach are the ecosystem-classification methods, the ecosystem-evaluation methods, and the holistic-ecosystem methods. The subgroups reflect an increasing level of sophistication in ad-

The Applied-Ecosystem Approach

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 effective in revealing how the spatial arrangements of ecosystem characteristics affect ecological processes, and vice versa;82 how ecosystems evolve to develop an identifiable visual and cultural identity; how ecological systems are linked both vertically and horizontally through the flow of nutrients, energy,

ⱍ



and materials; and how to understand ecological processes across large areas such as the southern Appalachian Mountains or Yellowstone National Park.83 In addition, human-cultural processes are rarely rigorously examined in applied-ecosystem methods. This is another shortcoming of the method, especially when it is essential to understand the way people perceive, value, use, and adapt to the landscape. Information on the physical and biological features of the landscape has less meaning when it is separated from human concerns.

the applied-landscapeecology approach



Landscape ecology is an interdisciplinary area of theoretical and applied study having most of the features of a well-established scientific discipline. It is chiefly concerned with understanding spatial change that involves interacting biophysical and human-cultural processes. Landscape ecology combines the spatial approach of geographers, which emphasizes spatial analysis, with the functional approach of ecologists, which focuses on the functioning of ecosystems. In Europe, landscape ecology emerged in the s as an interdisciplinary area of inquiry concentrating on land conservation in human-dominated landscapes. It was introduced to North America in the early s. Perhaps because of the opportunity to study natural landscapes, North American landscape ecology focused mainly on landscape patterns and processes. Regardless, its introduction to North America was a catalyst for new interactions among ecologists, geographers, landscape architects, wildlife biologists, and others. Landscape ecology, with its concern for understanding spatial change involving interacting ecosystems, provides a template for exchanging ideas about ways to create sustainable landscapes. Since it is a relatively new discipline, landscape ecology has not yet developed a core body of knowledge to give it a clear sense of identity and direction.1 The last decade, however, has witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of studies that fall under this broader rubric of landscape ecology. The landscape ecologists Monica Turner, Robert Gardner, and Robert O’Neill pointed out that this increased expansion in landscape-ecology studies is largely due to the need to better understand and evaluate impacts of broad changes in our environment, the development of new concepts about spatial and temporal scales, and technologi

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Relatively regular pattern of volcanic loess, used for agricultural production in western Washington. The patches have different shapes but with homogenous properties—planted fields, hedgerows, and woodlands. Materials, energy, and species move across the patches. Photograph by Robert Scarfo, .

cal advances.2 Nevertheless, there is substantial agreement on the major questions it addresses: How does the spatial arrangement (structure) of landscape elements and ecological objects influence the flow of energy, materials, and species (processes) across large land mosaics? In turn, how does landscape function influence structure? How are these spatial arrangements revealed? What levels of spatial resolution and temporal scale are appropriate in understanding landscape structure and processes? What are the physical, visual, and cultural manifestations of modifications in landscape structure and processes? How does the understanding of landscape structure, processes, and change inform the resolution of spatial problems arising from human-nature dialectic? The first five questions address theoretical issues in landscape ecology. They emphasize the origin, functioning, and modification of landscape

patterns and processes. The last question stresses the applied aspect of landscape ecology, the application of landscape-ecology knowledge to land use and ecological problems that have a spatial component. Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence in the literature that landscape ecology is a valid and reliable scientific foundation for ecological planning and design. I refer to planning that employs the substantive theory of landscape ecology as landscape-ecological planning. Landscape ecology is still developing its identity as a distinctive area of scholarly inquiry and an applied field. It is just beginning to develop a theoretical foundation backed up by a body of rigorous empirical studies. Even though applications exist, there are no definitive procedures for applying landscape ecology to ecological planning and design.3 In this chapter I introduce the basic principles of landscape ecology and present a synthe-



ⱍ

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 specific 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 first, an awakening phase, began in the late nineteenth century and prevailed until the s, when scientific 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 solidified. 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 first coined by the German ecologist and geographer Carl Troll in the late s. Troll was fascinated by the ecosystem concept as defined 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

in  Troll defined landscape ecology as “the study of the entire complex cause-effect network between living communities [biocoenosis] and their environmental conditions which prevail in specific sections of the landscape. This becomes apparent in specific landscape pattern [as depicted in aerial photographs] or in a natural space classification of different orders of size.”7 Troll’s definition revealed the landscape as made up of heterogenous landscape elements. He referred to the smallest ecological landscape element as an ecotope, a notion similar to the biogeocoenose concept proposed in the Soviet Union by the Russian forest botanist V. N. Sukachev.8 Troll also made explicit the dominance of two disciplines in defining the core subject matter of landscape ecology: geography and biology. Geography bestows on landscape ecology its spatial and holistic approach. From biology, landscape ecology draws its insights into the structure and functioning of ecosystems. Soil science, geomorphology, and vegetation science also contributed to the spatial approach, particularly the emphasis they place on mapping the land and its resources in terms of location and area. Besides Troll, other ecologists and geographers made important contributions to the definition of landscape ecology as a distinct discipline. In the s and s the German scholars Ernst Neef, Josef Schmithusen, and G. Haase provided additional insights into the ecological structure of landscapes. Their contributions, along with those made by the Dutch scholars Isaak Zonneveld and A. P. A. Vink, the Soviet ecologists V. Sochava and V. Vinogradov, and the Slovak Milan Ruzicka, revealed certain distinctive features about landscape ecology. Unlike ecosystem ecology, which focuses, in Zonneveld’s words, on the “topologic,” or vertical, relationships within biophysical elements (plants, animals, water, soil) in relatively homogenous spatial units, landscape ecology examines the “chorological,” or horizontal, relationships among the units as well. Indeed, the topologic and choro-

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Isaak Zonneveld’s widely referenced illustration depicts the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the landscape examined in landscape-ecological studies, in addition to the specific landscape characteristics under study. Redrawn from Zonneveld, “Land Unit,” by M. Rapelje, .

logical emphasis in understanding landscapes is a major distinguishing feature of landscape ecology (Fig. .).9 Zonneveld elaborated: “While each separate relevant science (geology, soil science, etc.) selects a stratum for study and considers the others as ‘forming factors’ for its own selected attribute, landscape ecology takes the [horizontal] and vertical heterogeneity formed by all land attributes as a holistic object of study.”10 Many people made important contributions to the clarification of the relationship between spatial change and landscape structure. In  R. H. MacArthur and E. O. Wilson introduced the concept of island biogeography, focusing on habitat diversity and its relation to the size, shape, and interactions among species on isolated islands.11 In  R. Levin offered his metapopulation theory for examining wildlife-habitat relations.12 Ecolog-

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 classification and ordination.15 The Dutch ecologist C. Van Leeuwen linked temporal variation to spatial heterogeneity in landscapes.16 As interest in landscape-ecology studies flourished, scholars from allied disciplines expanded the boundaries of landscape ecology. Urbaniza-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

tion theorists identified and described landscape corridors and networks.17 The cultural geographer D. Meinig and the landscape historian J. B. Jackson illuminated the importance of culture and aesthetics in landscape studies. Landscape architects introduced an understanding of the relationship among landscape structure, function, and aesthetics.18 The development of land-evaluation techniques similar to those used in LSA  and LSA  provided additional definition to landscape ecology. Land classification is a major linkage between landscape ecology and its applications. The classification units are the basis of land evaluation, on which ecological and land-use planning rely. Especially noteworthy are the land classifications proposed by the Australians C. Christian and A. Steward (), the German G. Olshowy (), the Canadians J. Thei and G. Ironside (), and Zonneveld (), from the Netherlands.19 In addition, foresters, conservation biologists, and those in allied disciplines provided supportive case studies. By the end of the s landscape ecology had emerged as a definitive domain of interdisciplinary inquiry in Europe. Indeed, many landscape scholars in Europe realized that a truly comprehensive understanding of the landscape as interacting ecosystems can only be gained from the contributions of many disciplines. John Smut’s concept of holism provided a philosophical and conceptual basis for a holistic understanding of landscapes, especially the emphasis he placed on examining a whole system without knowing the details of constituent components. GST enhanced the understanding of the landscape as a system made up of interacting and related components organized in a hierarchical manner. Understanding the landscape as a holistic entity made up of heterogenous components is another distinctive feature of landscape ecology. Advances in remote-sensing technology since the s provided additional stimulus for the holistic understanding of landscapes. Satellite im-

agery permitted a more comprehensive depiction than did aerial photographs of the earth’s surface as comprising heterogenous elements. In addition, satellite images provided more accurate information about the physical systems of large land mosaics. With the broad-scale image, scientists were better able to study the earth’s surface at an organizational scale larger than the ecosystem—the landscape—but with a finer resolution. Moreover, developments in GIS technology enhanced the ability to capture, store, manipulate, and display holistically surveyed landscape data. European landscape ecologists also made important contributions to the application of the substantive theory of landscape ecology, especially with regard to addressing land-use and ecological concerns in human-dominated landscapes. They quickly realized that landscape ecology provides a framework within which ecological planners can explore how the structure of the land evolves with relevant human-induced and natural processes. The emphasis landscape ecology places on how spatial change influences the functioning of natural and cultural landscapes, and vice versa, makes it especially useful in landscape-ecological planning. The landscape classification schemes of Dutch and German landscape ecologists are instructive. In fact, until the early s the major literature of landscape ecology was mainly in German and Dutch.20 Landscape ecology is a much younger science in North America than in Europe. It was introduced in , after U.S. scientists began to attend European conferences on landscape ecology. In an important paper published in Bioscience in  Richard Forman and Michel Godron raised conceptual issues about the validity of the landscape as a useful unit for conducting ecological studies. They provided definitions for terms such as patch, corridor, and matrix, used widely today in landscapeecology studies.21 The ecologist Zev Naveh provided the conceptual basis for landscape ecology by articulating the integral relationships between

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

humans and the landscape, as well as the importance of a system approach in understanding the relationships.22 Richard Romme’s study of fire 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 first, 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-

ⱍ



crease knowledge, nor is it a purely applied science, with the sole purpose of solving problems.”28

LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY AND ECOLOGICAL PLANNING: MAJOR CONNECTIONS The landscape—its spatial structure, function, and change—is the subject of landscape ecology. Landscape ecology is closely related to ecological planning; both focus on the ecology of natural and human-dominated landscapes, especially their spatial and temporal patterns and processes. They are interdisciplinary fields that focus on spatial change induced by the interactions between humans and natural processes. Ecological planning might be viewed as a process of making spatially explicit hypotheses or predictions on how landscape functioning will change in response to human-induced and naturally occurring influences. Landscape ecology arguably provides a scientific foundation for making such predictions. Landscape ecology and landscape-ecological planning differ in other ways. Ecological planning involves making normative statements about a desired spatial structure of the landscape. While landscape ecology may provide the substantive theory for identifying an optimal spatial structure, ecological planning must address the consequences, including ethical ones, of applying the theory: Is ecological planning appropriate within its social, economic, and political context? What are the social costs and benefits? Additionally, ecological planning involves a synthesis of the relevant information with respect to the ends sought, rather than the description, analysis, and modeling of landscape patterns and processes.29 It seeks to understand the forces that bring about the need for intervention and to propose appropriate spatial structures and policies to mitigate the forces and prevent them from occurring again. Figure . presents one way to conceptualize the connections between landscape ecology and



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Connections between landscape ecology and ecological planning. Redrawn from author’s original by M. Rapelje, .

ecological planning. The diagram is intended to serve only as a heuristic devise. In Figure ., A represents landscape ecology’s substantive theories that focus on patterns, processes, and change, the primary domain of scientific work for theoretical landscape ecologists. Applied landscape ecologists test and validate these theories through field experiments (AB), using both quantitative and qualitative methods tailored to analyze landscape heterogeneity. These ecologists also explore the implications of both theory and fieldwork for managing human actions in the landscape and present the implications in the form of what I refer to as bridging concepts (B).

Bridging concepts are spatial ideas and frameworks that specify landscape patterns and processes used to create sustainable spatial configurations 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 specific ecological-planning principles and procedures (BC), using appropriate tech-

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

nology (e.g., geographical information systems and satellite-imaging technology) to prescribe sustainable arrangements of land uses in the landscape (C). Planned landscapes (C), in turn, provide a template that enables landscape ecologists to validate the principles, which subsequently enrich the theoretical foundation of landscape ecology (A). At each phase (AB, B, BC, C), feedback may occur to reinforce A. Landscape-ecological planning deals explicitly with phases BC and C. In the remainder of this chapter I review basic scientific concepts that frame landscape-ecology knowledge (A). Less attention is given to those concepts that simply explain the biological aspects of landscape-ecology studies. Next, I review selected bridging concepts (B) to illustrate the varied functions they serve. Procedural directives (BC) are examined using examples of applications in diverse settings (C).

BASIC CONCEPTS Drawing from a diverse philosophical and theoretical base, landscape ecology is based on many scientific theories and concepts, some of which are difficult 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 specific contributions to landscape ecology below.

Ecosystem Functions at the Landscape Scale The term landscape has different meanings for different people. Its usage in the English language began toward the end of the sixteenth century, when the Dutch word landschap was introduced to England through Dutch scenery paintings, or landschappen. Since then the word has been used

ⱍ



loosely in everyday language. Landscape commonly refers to the land surface and its associated features or to natural scenery seen from a single point.30 From a landscape-ecology perspective, landscapes have certain distinctive features. They comprise heterogenous elements and objects, such as landforms, vegetation, and roads. Landscapes vary in scale, from a few meters to several kilometers. Repeated over time and across large land mosaics, processes that form the landscapes (geomorphology, natural disturbances, and human influences) create a distinct, recognizable visual and cultural identity. Moreover, landscapes are sustained by ecological processes that occur at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. In their book Landscape Ecology () the ecologists Richard Forman and Michel Godron synthesized these features into a rigorous definition of landscape: “a heterogenous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems or elements that is repeated in a similar form throughout its kilometer-wide extent.”31 Ecosystems, as conceptualized by Arthur Tansley, are part of a hierarchy of systems involving interacting the physicalchemical elements and their biotic (and cultural) features. Ecosystems are connected through the flow of minerals, energy, and species across the landscape mosaic. Not surprisingly, Golley defined landscape ecology as the study of ecosystem functions at the landscape scale.32 Recent studies in landscape ecology, however, argue against using absolute spatial scale in defining the landscape. Landscape ecologists typically study areas that are larger than those examined in most community- and ecosystem-level studies, such as the studies of the Columbia River Basin or the southern Appalachian Mountains. Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill elaborated: “Landscape ecology does not define, a priori, specific spatial scales that may be universally applied: rather, the emphasis is to identify scales that best characterize relationships between spatial heterogeneity and the processes of interest.”33 Thus, they define the



ⱍ

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 defined in an aquatic system.”35 I agree with Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill and adopt their definition 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 defined 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, fine 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 modification 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.

Romme and D. H. Knight illuminated two spatial and temporal scales of fire disturbances in Yellowstone National Park: small, frequent fires affecting areas of fewer than  hectares; and larger, less frequent fires affecting large land mosaics ( ha. or more).39 Ecosystem studies at the landscape scale embrace spatial and temporal patterns and processes that occur across large areas. Which ecosystem features are useful to consider in relation to landscape scale? Forman and Godron suggest three: structure, function, and change. Structure deals with the spatial relationships between the heterogenous elements that make up the landscape mosaic. Landscape function refers to the interactions among the spatial elements, that is, the flow of energy, materials, and species among the component elements. Change is the alteration of the structure and function of an ecological mosaic over time. An alteration may be caused by natural disturbances, human influences, or both. One important characteristic of landscape ecology is that it examines both the vertical and the horizontal structure of landscapes. It is common practice to describe the vertically overlaying layers as land attributes, such as landform, soils, vegetation, animals, and human artifacts. Indeed, most of the resource surveys conducted under the LSA  and LSA  methods describe the landscape in terms of the vertical structure. Following the lead of Forman and Godron, we can define the horizontal landscape elements in terms of patches, corridors, and their surrounding matrix. Each of these has specific characteristics and functions. Landscape elements can also be defined in terms of ecotopes, a term suggested earlier by Troll and used widely today. It refers to the smallest spatial land unit that has homogenous properties. An ecotope is the spatial expression of ecosystems determined by their structural characteristics, such as soil and vegetation. The structure of the landscape can thus be described by aggregating ecotopes.

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

Ordering of Landscape-Ecology Knowledge Landscape ecologists regard the landscape as a holistic entity, composed of interacting landscape elements integrated into levels of increasing complexity and organization. Each level has a capacity for self-regulation, self-organization, and feedbacks. GST and the related concepts of cybernetics, hierarchy, stability, and holism help explain this unique characteristic of landscape ecology. As explained in chapter , GST is a philosophy that views nature as comprising interacting open systems hierarchically organized. The systems are made up of living organisms and ecosystems and become increasingly complex as we move up the hierarchy. Extended into landscape studies, GST formalizes the way we understand and perceive the landscape comprising interdependent wholes. It enables scholars from diverse disciplines to study the landscape by focusing on the interactions among its components, even though accuracy in detail may be sacrificed. Z. Naveh and A. Lieberman identify as one of GST’s greatest contributions to landscape ecology its ability to “provide a conceptual framework to bridge the gap not only between the two cultures of science and the humanities, but also between these and the techno-economic and political culture in which decision making on actual land uses are carried out.”40 GST also enables us to focus on cause-andeffect relationships among landscape components and to embrace other system-related concepts to enrich our understanding of landscapes. Holism provides the philosophical basis for GST. As conceptualized by John Smuts in  and expanded upon by ecologically minded scientists and philosophers such as F. E. Egler, J. Phillips, and E. V. Bakuzis, the universe is an ordered whole that is organized in a hierarchical structure consisting of atoms, molecules, minerals, organisms, and so forth. Each whole represents an organized set of relationships that are in a state of stability. A. Koestler coined the term holon to describe this stable set of relations.41 Yet the functioning of a

ⱍ



holon is contingent upon its interactions with a larger context, or whole; thus a holon must be considered both part and whole. The importance of holism to GST, and by extension to landscape studies, is that one can comprehend an ecological system or a landscape without understanding the details of its internal functioning. Because landscapes are complex systems, it would be extremely difficult, as well as expensive, to understand them by working from their basic components upwards. While holism has been extremely useful in understanding landscapes as interacting wholes, operationalizing it is troublesome. At the interface between science and philosophy, holism is often misinterpreted in landscape-ecology studies when it is used in a nonscientific context, for instance, emphasizing the metaphysical linkages between the components of the universe. Zonneveld cautioned that we should avoid its usage when discussing methodological issues in landscape ecology.42 Landscape ecologists and traditional ecologists refer to the mechanisms for maintaining a state of stability, such as in holons, as homeostasis. Ecological systems are self-maintained through a set of positive and negative feedback mechanisms that hold the system in a state of dynamic equilibrium. Cybernetics, the study of interactional systems, provides valuable insights into how feedback mechanisms work. It deals with the interactions among components of a system based on causeand-effect relationships. We know from ecological studies that disrupted ecological systems reorganize to reach another state of stability. But these systems are not as easily disrupted as one might expect because they have internal feedbacks that minimize strong fluctuations and help maintain their stability. Homeorhesis is another concept that helps landscape ecologists understand how systems move toward a state of stability. Hierarchy, the idea of levels of organization, is fundamental to both GST and holism. It evolved as a framework for understanding a complex sys-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

tem by examining the functional linkages among its constituent parts at two or more scales. Hierarchically organized systems can be divided into functional elements. A large forested landscape, for instance, can be hierarchically divided into its component watersheds, which in turn are made up of tree stands and tree gaps. The tree gaps have their own properties and dynamic, such as the nutrient and energy exchanges that occur between a single tree and its surroundings. These properties and dynamics become the functional aggregates at the next level, the tree stands, which represent a mosaic of gap-sized patches with similar properties, for example, species composition and growth conditions. Thus, as we move up the hierarchy, the structure at each level and the ecological processes occurring become increasingly complex. R. V. O’Neill and his colleagues reinterpreted the concept of hierarchical organization in the context of different rate processes.43 Thus, events at a given level, say, the tree stands, have a characteristic natural frequency and a corresponding spatial and temporal scale.44 In our earlier example of fire events in Yellowstone National Park, low-level events or processes tend to be comparatively small and frequent, while the higher-level ones are large and less frequent. Indeed, the application of hierarchy theory in landscape-ecology studies helps us to better understand landscapes by directing our attention to their functional components and process rates and by defining how they are linked at different temporal and spatial scales. It may even be feasible to predict how external factors will alter the functioning of landscapes. Other concepts have provided valuable insights into spatial patterns and processes in natural and cultural landscapes. Euclidean geometry enables us to understand scaler relationships in spaces and objects with regular dimensions, such as points, lines, planes, and solids. It is not helpful in dealing with objects or features with irregular dimensions, such as landscapes that exhibit consistency in tem-

poral, spatial, and biotic scaling relationships (Fig. .). Fractal geometry, the study of dynamic systems with nonlinear, unpredictable behavior, is one means for understanding spatial relationships in landscapes. Unpredictability arises in part from a phenomenon known as “extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.”45 Small, perhaps unnoticeable changes in different parts of a system aggregate in time and space to induce significant systemwide changes. Following the lead of P. A. Burrough, B. T. Milne, and F. Burrel, landscape ecologists can now quantitatively measure and describe the shapes and textures of landscape elements and even attempt to predict the dynamics of landscape processes at varied scale levels.46 Other recent applications of fractal geometry in landscape-ecology studies include measuring landscape texture,47 characterizing landscape pattern,48 creating artificial landscapes,49 and designing landscapes.50 Fractal geometry is arguably a geometry of chaos. Simply put, chaos is “order without predictability.”51 Chaos theory alerts us to the potential for uncertainty in predicting the behavior of systems, including ecological systems. It has heightened the sensitivity of landscape ecologists to the potential for chaos behavior in ecological systems, thereby broadening our traditional understanding of landscape stability. The application of other system-related concepts, such as information theory, in landscape ecology is described in detail in a well written book by M. Berdoulay and M. Phipps, Paysage et systeme ecologique. Perculation theory has provided insights into the nature of fragmentation and connectivity in the landscape.52 It deals with spatial patterns in systems that are randomly assembled.53 The application of perculation theory to landscape studies has provided deeper insights into the relationships between size, shape, and connectivity of habitats as a function of the amount of the landscape occupied by that habitat type.54

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

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 five illustrate

the varied functions that bridging concepts serve. The first three describe the functional components of landscapes. They provide a basis for classifying the landscape, a major way to link landscape-ecology principles to application. The concept of habitat relations emphasizes the synthesis of information derived from examining patterns and processes to achieve a desired goal. The fifth concept, landscape-ecology-based spatial principles, illustrates principles for guiding landuse allocation in which assumptions about ecological relations and effects are made explicit. Bridging concepts can also aid in evaluating alternative spatial arrangements of the landscape.

Ecotope Assemblages Landscapes are typically described in terms of their features—physiography, climatic regimes,



ⱍ

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 specific locations in the landscape, they are regarded as classification 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 specific ecological functions.

Examples include classifications proposed by G. Haase, W. Haber, and Zonneveld. For instance, Zonneveld proposed a scheme in which the increasing scale levels were sites (ecotopes), land facets (combinations of ecotopes), land systems (combinations of land facets), and main landscapes (combinations of land systems) (see Fig. .). Ecochores is another term used by geographers to represent assemblages of ecotopes. Haber combined ecotopes and ecochores into larger spatial units, regional natural units (RNUs), distinguished by common geological and geomorphological properties and by a characteristic climatic regime (Table .). Larger landscape units can be subdivided into smaller ones, the smallest being the ecotope. The Australian and Commonwealth classification, developed by C. Christian and G. Steward, and the Canadian Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification, proposed by J. Thie and G. Ironside, are notable examples. In the Australian scheme the land-

Table .. Main Ecosystem or Land-use Types

Image not available.

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

scape is subdivided into land systems, land units, and sites (ecotopes). The land system is a unit of mapping described in terms of the patterns generated by its component land units and sites. A land unit is an aggregation of sites that depict recurring patterns of landforms. The site is the smallest identifiable unit that is homogenous in terms of landform, soil, and vegetation. The increasing or decreasing scale levels (spatial hierarchy) may not have a corresponding systematic hierarchical structure (hierarchy of aggregation). For instance, in a landscape mosaic made up of individual forest patches with different species composition, combining patches with similar species to obtain a higher level of systematic hierarchy does not yield larger forest patches.56 But a systematic hierarchical classification can be achieved if each has unique characteristics. “The result,” states F. Klign, “is not one single classification at different systematic levels, but rather a series of classifications at specified spatial scale levels.”57 A similar classification proposed by R. Dorney conceptualizes the landscape as either a natural or a cultural ecosystem resulting in an assemblage of hierarchical ecotopes (Table .). Dorney’s scheme subdivides the landscape hierarchically into ecotope assemblage units of progressively finer scale. His intent was to describe major and minor biological uses of the landscape informed by the concept of island biogeography. As Dorney pointed out: “An island biogeography concept implies that such islands [agricultural and urban] are minor uses; i.e. areas embedded in a dominant matrix.”58 Dorney’s classification identifies three major ecotope assemblages—natural, agricultural, and urban. Natural assemblages have more than  percent of the land in natural vegetation cover, either managed or unmanaged. In agroecoystems  percent or more of the land is in agricultural production. There are three types of urban ecotope assemblages—built city, urban fringe, and urban shadow—which together embrace all lands having more than  percent of their designated land

ⱍ



type within a daily commuting field 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 first step in defining 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.

The Patch-Corridor-Matrix Spatial Framework In their book Landscape Ecology Forman and Godron proposed a patch-corridor-matrix spatial framework for describing the functional components of any landscape, from urban to rural. They first described the terms patch, corridor, and matrix in an article in .59 Unlike the ecotope assemblages, their framework stresses the heterogeneity of landscape elements, making it possible to describe the landscape as a mosaic of patches. Patches are landscape elements that differ from their surroundings. Patches vary widely in size, shape, type of edge, and so forth. In a rural landscape, for instance, they may include farmsteads, distinct areas of clear-cut timber, and farm fields. Corridors are linear strips of land that differ from their surroundings on all sides. What surrounds them is the matrix. Water courses, power lines, and hedgerows are examples of corridors. Width, connectivity, and quality are three important characteristics of corridor structure. Connectivity refers to the presence or absence of breaks. The area identified as the matrix is the landscape element that exerts the most influence over landscape processes and change. In general, the total area of a matrix exceeds that of any other landscape element present, even though it may be distributed unevenly. Each component of the patch-corridor-matrix framework serves a specific ecological function. Shape, size, and edges, for instance, are important patch characteristics that affect biomass, production, nutrient storage, species composition, and diversity. Corridor characteristics such as connectiv-

Table .. Natural, Agricultural, and Urban Ecosystems

Image not available.

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Models of mosaic sequences. Each configuration exerts a distinct regulatory function on the flow of minerals, energy, and species across the landscape. Reproduced, by permission, from Forman, Land Mosaics.

ity, width, and nodes control conduit and barrier functions, while the landscape matrix is crucial in landscape dynamics. Since landscapes are modified by human and natural disturbances, the patch-corridor-matrix framework theoretically permits informed speculation on the influence of disturbances on landscape structure and processes, and vice versa. I use the word speculation because we do not exactly know how the patch-corridor-matrix framework contributes to a precise understanding of ecological function. Nevertheless, it is a promising approach to understanding spatial relations in landscapes. In fact, Forman used the framework as the basis for distinguishing types of mosaic sequences that exert distinct influences on the functioning of landscapes (Fig. .). In his comprehensive and insightful book Land Mosaics () Forman examined the landscapetransformation processes that create different spatial arrangements of patches, corridors, and matrices. He also explored their ecological consequences for creating sustainable landscapes. The patch-corridor-matrix spatial framework is increasingly being used for describing landscape structure in ecological-planning-and-design projects. Forman has been especially influential in fusing landscape ecology with landscape design and planning.

Hydrological Landscape Structure Hydrological phenomena have long been recognized as a valuable source of information for eco-

logical planning and design. Water, for instance, is an important visual element in landscape design. It also has cultural significance, as lucidly described by the landscape architect Anne Spirn in her  essay on a new aesthetic of landscape and urban design.60 From a landscape-ecology perspective, water and, more specifically, hydrological systems and the landscape relations they create can play a key role in allocating land uses to the landscape. Building upon the concept of ground-water flow proposed by J. Toth in , Michael van Buuren and Klass Kerkstra, of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, suggested that the flows of surface and ground water result in specific landscape patterns, which they referred to as the hydrological landscape structure.61 These patterns or relations determine the extent to which the various landscape elements and ecological objects are connected. They distinguished between surfaceand ground-water flows to permit a precise understanding of how the chorological, or vertical, relationships in the landscape influence hydrological phenomena. The fundamental idea of the concept of hydrological landscape structure is that the flow of water through a landscape transports nutrients and other chemical matter. Over time, different patterns of water-related landscapes are created, from wetter to dryer areas. These landscapes have well-defined environmental characteristics that create ecological gradients for diverse flora and



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

fauna. While these characteristics may change with specific landscape features (e.g., geology, geomorphology, climate), the structural features of the water-related landscape types remain relatively stable. Consequently, a knowledge of relations among the landscape types may be used to create sustainable multifunctional landscapes. Hydrological landscape structure is arguably a special type of ecotope assemblage since land types formed by water relations have homogenous properties. While the concept of hydrological landscape structure focuses on which landscape relations should be examined, the subsequent allocation of land uses is governed by the framework concept, proposed by Kerkstra and P. Vrijlandt.62 It implies delineating and interconnecting large natural areas to provide a long-term sustainable environment for land uses requiring stability and continuity in space and time, for example, nature conservation, forestry, and outdoor recreation. Van Buuren and Kerkstra have applied their hydrological-landscapeframework concept successfully in numerous projects, including the planning of a network of nature areas for the catchment of the Regge River, in the eastern Netherlands. The concept of hydrological landscape structure reinforces similar ideas advanced by Spirn and Paul Selman.63 Both authors contend that the “deep structure” underlying the surface manifestation of landscapes provides valuable insights into the dynamics of human actions in the landscape. Consequently, plans and designs can be created based on these slowly changing structures. Understanding hydrological phenomena is one way to reveal the deep structure of landscapes.

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 intensification of urban and rural areas has led to decreasing heterogeneity and increasing fragmentation of

landscapes. Both homogenous and fragmented landscapes disrupt, among other things, the flow and survival of species. Indeed, they rank among the most serious causes of the erosion of ecological values and reduced biological diversity.64 Extensive research has been conducted on the dynamics of species in fragmented landscapes.65 One such effort is directed at sustaining interactions among species in a landscape mosaic through habitat networks, the spatial connectedness of species habitats with comparable physical characteristics and structural features (e.g., species composition, soil moisture content). Networks are essential for the survival of native species that have not adapted well to human-dominated landscapes. They act as vehicles for the dispersal of species and the enhancement of the flow of nutrients and energy. The theoretical basis for habitat networks is provided largely by the metapopulation theory of R. Levins and the connectivity concept suggested by G. Merriam.66 Metapopulation refers to a set of local populations of animals and plant species in which the individuals mingle. Together, hospitable patches for local species and dispersal corridors, which ensure connectivity of patches, prevent species extinction and enhance colonization of empty patches.67 The concept of connectivity explains those landscape qualities that enhance interactions among local species so that they can form metapopulations in which individuals interact freely. Sustaining metapopulations, therefore, is a major goal of habitat networks.68 Because species vary in their habitat requirements, habitat-network structures will differ among species. Research on habitat networks has provided ecological planning with substantive criteria and guidelines for dealing with such diverse issues as planning nature preserves and allocating land uses in fragmented landscapes. The landscape ecologist and planner Michael Kleyer, for instance, used habitat networks with great success to develop a plan for nature conservation in the metropolitan area of Stuttgart, Germany.69

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Landscape-Ecology-Based Spatial Guidelines It is evident from our review that the interactions of landscape patterns and processes at various spatial and temporal scales are complex. Ecological planners do not have time to conduct the pertinent empirical studies to ascertain which spatial arrangements sustain which landscape processes. They therefore have to rely on generalized knowledge derived from landscape-ecology research and from related disciplines, such as conservation biology. Landscape ecologists sometimes present the generalized knowledge in the form of spatially explicit principles and guidelines that facilitate the creation of sustainable spatial arrangements of the landscape. Increasingly, such principles are being documented. Drawing upon the theory of island biogeography, J. M. Diamond and others prescribed generalized spatial principles for designing nature reserves.70 Island biogeography theory, as originally conceptualized by R. MacArthur and E. Wilson, states that the likelihood of species’ migrating to an island is directly proportional to the size of the island and inversely proportional to the distance from the island to the mainland. Once an island is invaded by species, the likelihood of extinction is dictated by the size of the island. Figure . is a graphic representation of Diamond’s principles. In a book that is popular among conservation biologists and landscape ecologists, Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice (), M. L. Shafer refined Diamond’s spatial principles and proposed others that address habitat heterogeneity. Many of them are yet to be tested. In fact, considerable evidence suggests that while the island-biogeography theory was a milestone in the development of conservation biology and landscape ecology, there are significant limits to its use as a primary model for studying the landscape because of its simplified assumptions. In landscape ecology, extrapolating the islandbiogeography theory to study patches in the landscape has been criticized. For instance, while

Image not available.

Fig. .. Spatial principles for designing nature reserves based on principles of island biogeography. Principles B, C, and F continue to be debated. Simberloff, “Biogeography,” and Simberloff and Abele, “Conservation and Obfuscation,” maintain that some principles are not derivable from the theory of island biogeography (e.g., B) or are unrelated to it, for example, F. Reproduced, by permission, from Diamond, “Island Dilemma.”

species richness and isolation are primary features of island biogeography, they are relatively minor variables on land.71 Nevertheless, it has served well as a useful heuristic tool for designing nature reserves. In fact, many empirical studies have validated the general features of the theory. Metapopulation models, however, have proved to be more useful that island biogeography as theoretical frameworks for exploring habitat fragmentation. Similarly, R. Noss and L. Harris proposed multiple-use-modules (MUMs), clearly defined habitat cores sufficiently large to support interior species,



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

as a way to sustain habitat diversity at all spatial scales.72 They argued persuasively that each landscape should have at least one MUM. External perturbations are minimized by providing a concentric buffer around MUMs. Since species differ in their habitat requirements, the size and spatial configuration of the patches that make up the habitat core will likely be species-specific. Although it has yet to be tested rigorously, Forman’s aggregate-with-outliers principle makes sense. Many empirical studies validate the principle. The principle focuses on spatial guidelines for creating sustainable multifunctional landscapes (Fig. .). “One should aggregate land uses, yet maintain corridors and small patches of nature throughout developed areas, as well as outliers of human activity spatially arranged along major boundaries,” stated Forman.73 Components of Forman’s principle include maintaining () a few large patches of natural vegetation; () wide vegetation corridors along major streams; () connectivity for the move-

ment of key species among the large patches; and () heterogenous bits of nature throughout humandeveloped area. Forman further explained specific landscapeecology attributes that are addressed by the aggregate-with-outliers principle. They include the significance of large patches of natural vegetation, grain size (the average area of all patches in the landscape), and boundary zones between land uses. Large patches of natural vegetation, for instance, should be integrated in the design of multifunctional landscapes because they protect aquifers, support viable populations of interior species, and serve as shock absorbers for natural disturbances. Forman warned, however, that the principle has not been tested across spatial scales. The  book Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning, written by W. Dramstad, J. Olson, and Forman, names fifty-five landscape-ecology, spatially based principles and guidelines and provides numerous ex-

Image not available.

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.

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

amples of how they can be used in planning-anddesign projects. In fact, some of the principles are detailed elaborations of Forman’s aggregatewith-outliers principle. The fifty-five 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 effects 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 identified 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 affects the distribution, survival, and perseverance of wildlife populations and communities. In contrast, at the site scale, development influences 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, Forman’s aggregate-with-outliers principle.75 A comparable guideline at the site scale was to “maintain buffers 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 effective in urban landscapes that are already fragmented, whereas the landscape-scale principles

ⱍ



and guidelines are more suited to rural areas, where animal habitats are relatively intact and where future development can be guided to prevent negative impacts on wildlife habitats. Similar principles have been proposed for rehabilitating species habitats,77 planning habitat networks,78 and developing greenway corridors.79 The challenge for ecological planners and designers is to apply these principles cautiously since many of them have yet to be tested. Perhaps, we can learn from planned landscapes to know which ones work.

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 definitive methods for applying landscape ecology to planning. It is not surprising, therefore, to find 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,



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Milan Ruzicka, and Lanislav Miklos have offered specific procedures. Those reviewed are: () uses of the ecotope-based topologies; () applications of the patch-corridor-matrix spatial framework; () uses of habitat networks; and () integrated assessments based on well-known interrelations of ecosystem components.

Selected Uses of Ecotope Assemblages Early applications of landscape-ecology principles focused on land evaluation in rural and semirural areas in an effort to determine the suitability of land for different uses. Ecotopes and their assemblages are the spatial units of the landscapes mapped and evaluated. Because ecotope assemblages can be regarded as holons with a capacity for self-regulation (homeostasis and homeorhesis), land evaluation aims at illuminating interactions within and among ecotope assemblages that enable them to maintain a state of stability, or sustained yield.80 Thus, their stability, fragility, or vulnerability to anticipated uses is usually stressed in land evaluations. When topologies of ecotope assemblages are used in landscape-ecological planning, additional emphasis is placed on their connectivity, or mutual interdependency, since they are linked by the flow of materials, energy, and species. Often, the results of land evaluations are used directly as inputs in land-use decision making, similar to the way soil surveys are used. At present, most ecotope-based classifications primarily describe land attributes and their patterns; however, ecotope assemblages delineated provide a static picture of the landscape. Mapped units have to be supplemented with text that describes the interactions between landscape function and processes. Notwithstanding, ecotopebased topologies have been used in more dynamic ways in landscape-ecological planning. Isaak Zonneveld summarized the generalized ecotope-based method developed by Dutch landscape ecologists as follows.

. Through initial consultations, establish project goals, scope, data requirements, and clarify the nature of survey and evaluation activities. . Identify the kinds of land uses to be considered, as well as their land-use requirements and limitations. . Ascertain ecotype assemblages (land units) to be mapped and evaluate their qualities. . Assess interactions between land-use requirements (step ) and the land qualities (step ) to determine land uses that best match the land qualities, taking into account economic, social, and environmental-impact considerations. . Establish a land-suitability rating based on the outcomes of step . . Present results to stakeholders. . Recommend appropriate uses of the land.81

Note that this method developed by Dutch landscape ecologists is strikingly similar to LSA  methods. Unlike the LSA  methods, which examine the vertical relationships between biophysical and sociocultural features in the landscape, the Dutch method examines the horizontal relationships between the features as well. The German professor of landscape ecology Wolfgang Haber and his colleagues at the Munich University of Technology proposed a strategy for conducting impact assessment using the regionalnatural-units classification (see Table .).82 Their strategy involves five steps: . Identify the principal regional land-use types and their subtypes using the RNU scheme, arrange them according to decreasing naturalness, and assign environmental impacts typically generated by them grouped by material and nonmaterial impact and by impact-receiving natural resources, such as water and soil. . Map the spatial distribution of RNUs and assess the amount of land in each RNU to ascertain ecotope diversity. . Conduct a special inventory and assessment of ecotopes or ecotope assemblages within RNUs that are most sensitive to environmental impacts and worthy of preservation. .Assess the spatial interrelations among all eco-

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

topes or assemblages of an RNU with special emphasis on connectedness and interdependencies. . Assess the impact structure of an RNU based on information generated from steps – with special emphasis on impact sensitivity and impact extent.

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-effect 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 influence of social, economic, and environmental factors on the systems is known. In Ecosystem Classification for Environmental Management (), Klign demonstrated how the hierarchical ecotope classification he proposed can inform the spatial scale at which specific environmental problems can be addressed. He argued that environmental hazards such as ground-water pollution, fragmentation, and acidification may be viewed as chains of ecological processes that affect 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 flow. Each hazard has an immediate impact on specific 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 five-step procedure for evaluating the susceptibility of ecotopes to specific environmental hazards: . Establish the spatial and temporal scale or “point of attack” for addressing the hazard. . Examine processes that determine the suscepti-

ⱍ



bility of ecotopes and their assemblages for a particular environmental problem, e.g., precipitation and leaching. . Identify structural landscape characteristics that control these processes, e.g., mineral content of soil and ground-water fluctuations. . Determine the relations between these characteristics and the processes identified in step  to estimate carrying capacity. . Synthesize the resultant information into a gradient of susceptibility.

Klign’s contention was that focusing on the point at which a hazard impacts directly upon a landscape reveals the most appropriate scale at which to address the problem. Also implied in the procedure is a cause-and-effect assessment of human actions on specific characteristics of ecotopes at various scales. If ecotopes represent spatial units with homogenous properties, then the landscape types formed by the flow of surface and ground water can be regarded as ecotopes. By implication, Van Buuren and Kerkstra’s hydrological landscape structure may be viewed as ecotope assemblages defined on the basis of hydrological phenomena. They also prescribed a procedure, the hydrological approach to landscape planning, for creating sustainable multifunctional landscapes. The approach involves () a description of the hydrological landscape structure for a given type, including a reconstruction of the historical and contemporary surface- and ground-water characteristics; () an assessment of the linkages between the spatial distribution of extant land uses and the characteristics of the hydrological landscape structure, and () the reallocation of land uses corresponding to the spatial units within the hydrological landscape structure. The first step requires further elaboration. Van Buuren and Kerkstra suggested that the procedure for analyzing regional hydrological systems proposed by G. B. Engelen and G. P. Jones be used as a point of departure for analyzing the hydrologi-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

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, .

cal landscape structure. The analysis consists of a qualitative description of existing maps and data on geology, geomorphology, soil types, ground-water tables, drainage patterns, land use, and vegetation. Engelen and Jones noted, however, that the assessment should be augmented with a simple computer model, FLOWNET, that simulates a steady, saturated ground-water flow in rectangular heterogenous sections of the subsoil. But the results do not provide exact information on the quantities and quantities of these hydrological relations. Specifically, Engelen and Jones prescribed a reconstruction of the historical hydrological structure of a landscape that would provide information on the hydrological conditions before extensive modification by humans. By comparing the historical and contemporary hydrological conditions, one can obtain a better grasp of the nature of the emergent ecological problems in a particu-

lar landscape. Engelen and Jones also suggest ways of addressing those problems. Van Buuren and Kerkstra applied their method successfully in the formulation of a network of nature areas in the catchment of the Regge River (Fig. .). Edward Cook, of the Arizona State University School of Planning and Landscape Architecture employed a similar procedure in reestablishing the biological components of the lower Salt River in Arizona, while accommodating the needs of the urban residents.83 The application of the concept of hydrological landscape structure is an innovative research enterprise that has immense potential for understanding a specific aspect of landscape-ecology relations. As with other procedures discussed here, the resultant information still needs to be supplemented with social, economic, and technological considerations to determine the optimal land-use allocation.

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

Uses of the Patch-Corridor-Matrix Spatial Framework When Forman and Godron formulated their patch-corridor-matrix framework, they also suggested a procedure for using it to guide land-use allocation.84 Their procedure is intended to manage both heterogeneity and change in the landscape through the analysis of patch-corridor-matrix interactions, the relative uniqueness of patches and their recovery time once modified, as well as the modeling of cause-and-effect relationships. Once the project goals are established, for example, the transformation of patches into building sites, then the patches and their surroundings (matrix) are identified and mapped. Next, a patchmatrix-interaction analysis is conducted to discover how the transformed patches will affect the matrix, and vice versa. For instance, will the development lead to increased surface runoff upstream? Will the migratory path for wildlife be interrupted? Patch (site) characteristics are examined subsequently to determine their relative uniqueness and replacement time. It will take longer to replace a mature stand of oak-hickory forest, for instance, than it will take to replace an open field. An input-output model is then employed to estimate the optimal and maximum levels of impacts generated by site modification based on causeand-effect relationships. Variables are described for atmospheric inputs (e.g., precipitation), soil inputs (e.g., a toxic substance in ground water), and human inputs (e.g., construction equipment), as well as for outputs, which express the effects of site modification on landscape structure and processes, such as soil compaction and excessive runoff. The modeling is intended to produce three types of results: () a ratio of direct human inputs to human outputs described in caloric terms; () the difference in the levels of pollution generated by incoming and outgoing atmospheric and soil flows (an increase in flow is a cost to the sur-

ⱍ



roundings); and () changes in the level of storage or biomass of the site characteristics to ascertain the level of degradation resulting from the proposed site modification. An example of such degradation is a decline in species diversity or colonization by non-native species. The optimal allocation of land uses is determined by combining the outcomes of these evaluations with pertinent social and economic data. Variations of this procedure have been employed or prescribed for developing greenway corridors and multifunctional landscapes and for designing wildlife reserves and river-corridor networks. In Land Mosaics Forman illustrated how a variation of the procedure was used to plan a network of open spaces in Concord, Massachusetts,  kilometers ( mi.) east of Boston. The procedure is presented in Figure .. Figure . shows the proposed open space plan for Concord. Forman analyzed the spatial relationships between patches and corridors and evaluated special sites for their uniqueness and replacement time. In general, the economic justification for preserving large patches of land where land prices are high is yet to be rigorously debated. Edward Cook proposed a framework that uses the assessment of patch-corridor-matrix interactions to develop an ecological network in urban river corridors.85 The framework was refined subsequently by the Canadian landscape architects L. Baschak and R. Brown into an Ecological Design Framework (EDF).86 The EDF has three main components: () an assessment of the natural and cultural resources of the study area; () development of the river corridor’s spatial structure; and () establishment of the corridor-network components. Baschak and Brown applied the assessment component in the development of a corridor network in the South Saskatoon River, in western Canada, and they provided elaborate guidelines for how the other two components could be applied.



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Procedure used to plan a network of open spaces. Redrawn from Forman, Land Mosaics, by M. Rapelje, .

Baschak and Brown first identified the landscape’s 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 finer scales can be very tedious. Baschak and Brown demonstrated effectively that representative mapping can be used without sacrificing 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: () defining the study area; () surveying the social, economic, and ecological characteristics of

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Proposed open-space plan for Concord, Massachusetts. Note that the plan reflects Forman’s 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.

the area; () identifying a small range of indicator species; ) defining interpatch dispersal distance; () identifying sources of colonists species; () delineating edges, corridors, and areas of protected and limited use; () establishing, whenever feasible, large, intact patches as well as numerous small ones and connecting them with wide corridors, such as hedgerows; () developing a design for a hierarchical plan; () integrating ecological, visual, and recreational attributes; () developing management guidelines; () creating a GIS model; and () monitoring future change.88 The twelve steps form a loose but coherent framework for in-

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 definitive 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 specific functions of greenways and suggests how they can be put to work in creating different types of greenways. Guidelines are prescribed for maintaining



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Table .. Evaluation of Landscape Elements

Image not available.

biological diversity, protecting water resources, conserving soil, and supporting recreation. The method has four stages: . Determining the overall importance of the regional features and the plausible ways of protecting them. . Identifying goals to guide the development of the project and determining the preliminary geographical boundaries of the study area. . Defining the greenway alignments and widths in light of the key uses. . Developing site designs and implementation schemes.

Each phase corresponds to a different spatial scale in the process of greenway design. Hellmund pointed out that the method is a framework for exploring important landscape-ecology issues in greenway design by responding to a detailed set of

questions based on landscape-ecology principles adapted for managing greenway functions. Greenway designers must adapt the questions to suit their project requirements and the local conditions. The questions make sense intuitively and are informed by the substantive theory of landscape ecology but have yet to be tested.

Uses of Habitat Networks Wim Timmermans and Robert Snep’s recent work in the Netherlands illustrates the use of habitat networks in ecological planning. They adapted an expert model developed by the Alterra Green World Research at Wageningen, The Netherlands, to explore how the viability of animal populations in urban areas can be assessed.89 The expert model, Landscape Ecological Analyses and Rules for the Configuration of Habitat (LARCH), was

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

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 specific 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 identified 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 identified 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 different 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 configuration 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-

ⱍ



tat networks of metapopulations based on the total number of individuals and the presence of key populations. The key populations include large numbers of individuals that serve as reservoirs for colonizing neighboring patches.

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 Lier’s 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 landscape—the supply and demand of land, varying human needs, political realities, and new technologies. M. Ruzicka and L. Miklos’s 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 significant 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 configuration of the landscape. LANDEP addresses three questions: . How is a given set of ecological properties of the landscape adapted to the functional demands of



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Landscape ecology and land-use-optimization method. Redrawn from Ruzicka and Miklos, “Basic Premises and Methods in Landscape Ecological Planning and Optimization,” by M. Rapelje, .

land uses; that is, to what extent can some activity be developed in a given area? . What effects 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 modified by humans?92

These questions are examined in two phases (Fig. .): . Gathering of landscape-ecology data. This phase includes the inventory, assessment, interpretation, and synthesis of biotic and abiotic factors, the contemporary landscape structure, ecological phenomena and processes, and effects and consequences of human actions in the landscape.

. Ecological optimization of landscape use. Optimization focuses on the landscape-ecology data, especially for the ecologically homogenous spatial units. These units are compared with the development needs for a particular site, locale, or region. After each spatial unit’s degree of fitness for a particular human activity or land use is determined, the most suitable location of the activity in the landscape is proposed based on landscape-ecology criteria.

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 

The Applied-Landscape-Ecology Approach

assessment-evaluation methods, such as METLAND. The primary difference is that LANDEP examines the landscape in terms of its vertical (primary) and horizontal (secondary) structures and specifies explicit criteria for analyzing, interpreting, and synthesizing the relevant information, whereas LSA or ecosystem-based methods, for instance, rarely focus explicitly on how the horizontal structure of the landscape influences ecological function, and vice versa. In LANDEP the horizontal landscape elements are defined in terms of ecotope aggregates, which are analyzed for their quality, quantity, spatial structure, and function (ecological integrity). Certainly, LANDEP is intended to ensure longterm stability of the landscape by linking all utilizable stabilizing landscape elements and processes. Stability is defined in terms of constancy (resistance to stress) and resistance (resistance to external disturbance). LANDEP has been applied in more than one hundred projects at a variety of scales (from : through :,), including the optimization of agricultural production, nature conservation and management, and regional planning. Landscape-ecological planning uses the knowledge of patterns and processes to seek the sustainable arrangement of land uses. The introduction of landscape ecology into planning enables an understanding, planning, and design of places in ways distinctly different from those afforded by other ecological-planning approaches. Landscape ecology emphasizes the relationship between spatial patterns and processes. It provides a holistic way to understand landscapes by focusing on the horizontal and vertical heterogeneity formed by all land attributes. In contrast, other approaches stress the vertical relationships within biophysical and, sometimes, sociocultural elements in relatively homogenous units. Thus, they assume that the horizontal relationships will be revealed through an examination of the vertical ele-

ⱍ



ments. The horizontal structure—patches, corridors, and matrices, or ecotopes—serve specific ecological functions in the landscape mosaic. Landscape ecology has enriched planning through the development of bridging concepts, which translate the knowledge of patterns and processes into spatial frameworks and principles for creating sustainable spatial arrangements of the landscape. But the development of procedures for the systemic integration of landscape-ecology concepts into planning is still a major challenge. Until such procedures are well developed, the ability of ecological planning to benefit fully from what landscape ecology offers will be severely limited. Notwithstanding, we can identify common features of procedures implied or suggested in the literature. Most procedures first examine the larger context of a study area—biophysical phenomena, including hydrological structure and processes, large patches of woodland, species-dispersal routes. Also examined are the history of human habitation and natural disturbances. Next, they describe the landscape as hierarchical spatial units and in terms of functionally significant landscape elements, such as patches, corridors, matrices, and networks. The vertical relationships are described and analyzed using, say, the overlay technique. Next, the resultant spatial units are evaluated in light of the project goals and other relevant criteria, bearing in mind that the units are connected at various spatial and temporal scales. The evaluation assumes that the landscape has critical thresholds at which ecological processes will display dramatic qualitative changes. Landscape-ecological planning is still relatively young. Its potential is yet to be fully realized. Zonneveld reminded us that landscape ecology permits understanding the landscape in terms of three inseparable aspects: visual, chronological, and ecosystemic. It is not quite clear how information on the visual aspects or on how people value, adapt, and use the land is captured and used



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

in the process of creating sustainable landscapes. Some progress is being made, such as the landscape architect Joan Nassauer’s work on cultural interpretation of landscapes to enhance ecological function.93 We are only beginning to understand how the spatial configurations of landscape elements affect function, beyond broad generalizations. Also unclear is which types of institutional arrangements are most likely to ensure that the

outputs of landscape ecological planning will be implemented. With continued advances in computer and remote-sensing technology, and as we come to know more about landscape patterns and processes and how to apply them in planning and design, landscape-ecological planning arguably will emerge as a definitive way to use ecological principles in creating sustainable landscapes.

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 aesthetic—“intrinsically 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 scientific), 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 effects of public policy on urban and rural landscapes in Sienna. The significant 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 different 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



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Which one of the two landscapes is more gratifying—Smith Rock State Park, near Bend, Oregon (top), or the Palouse landscape in eastern Washington (bottom)? Photograph by B. Scarfo, .

scape as an embodiment of values and cultural meanings revealed through its physical elements (e.g., landforms, vegetation), aggregate elements (e.g., scale, form, color), and psychological attributes (e.g., complexity, mystery, legibility). Individuals and groups perceive the qualities in their interactions with landscapes to meet basic needs for habitation. The interactions also evoke varied experiences, such as satisfaction or dissatisfaction, pleasure or discomfort, inclusion or alienation, a sense of failure or achievement, or a sense of ugliness or beauty (Fig. .). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines aesthetic

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 difficult to capture them in their entirety, if that is possible, which I doubt.

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

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 significance of the valuation?10 Which experiences in people’s interactions with the landscape are aesthetic, and how can the experiences be identified and incorporated in designing landscapes in ways that are beneficial 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 first briefly summarize the evolution of the field. I conclude by illuminating the similarities and differences 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

ⱍ



minerals, a commodity to be exchanged, a beauty to admire.12 Italian painters in the fourteenth century popularized the appreciation of the landscape for its beauty, pointing to the landscape’s intrinsic values, some aesthetic, which can be appreciated for pleasure. During the Renaissance and the baroque era in Europe, from the fourteenth century through the seventeenth, designed landscapes reflected a formal geometric order, whether the land was flat, rolling, or hilly. In Italy, for example, there was a great fascination with the classical in the arts and in daily life (Fig. .). Design emphasized the high value Romans placed on orderliness in all facets of life.13 In the eighteenth century, landscape painters and designers in England reacted negatively to this formal geometry imposed on landscapes through designs and built works. The painters Claude Lorrain, Nicholas Poussin, and Salvator Rosa romanticized the English landscape, portraying it with sweeping, serpentine curves and avoiding straight lines. This “organic” depiction of the landscape was reinforced in critical essays such as Alexander Pope’s writings in the Guardian () and William Kent’s statements on the theme of nature’s abhorring a straight line. However, the general tendency during this period was to appraise the landscape in the same way as paintings. Joseph Addison’s and Richard Steele’s essays in the Spectator (–) under the title “Nature and Art should Imitate Each Other” were influential statements.14 Landscape gardeners created landscapes that echoed the organic, naturalistic view of nature depicted in landscape paintings. Three dominant themes emerged during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that shaped aesthetic values that are still operative today: the pastoral, the picturesque, and the sublime. Lancelot “Capability” Brown (–), perhaps the most articulate advocate of the pastoral viewpoint, argued for the enhancement of scenery to reveal the topography and for the creation of manicured landscapes with



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

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 influenced urban designs in the United States, such as the plan of Washington, D.C., designed by Charles L’Enfant with Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Reproduced, by permission, from Smardon, Palmer, and Felleman, Foundations for Visual Project Analysis.

“simple and flowing forms.” Later, William Gilpin, Uvedale Price, and Richard Knight criticized Capability Brown’s conception of landscape, arguing that it was rounded and tidy, creating basically a type of “stylized nature.”15 They offered an alternative that emphasized the picturesque character of landscapes—irregular, unkempt, and rugged. In his “Essay on the Picturesque” (), Uvedale Price drew a distinction between the picturesque and the sublime, saying that the latter emphasized greatness of dimension and a wilderness character that was lodged in the principles of admiration and terror.16 Ervin Zube remarked that “landscape gardeners could create beautiful and picturesque landscapes, but they do not have the power to create sublime landscapes. These were created by a higher power.”17 I noted earlier that during the nineteenth century in the United States, George Catlin, Ralph

Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and John Muir advocated the preservation of the picturesque and wild character of landscapes. Henry Thoreau remarked in his journal in : “What are the natural features which make a township handsome? A river, with its waterfalls and meadows, a lake, a hill, or cliff or individual rocks, a forest, and the ancient trees standing single. Such things are beautiful; they have a high use which dollars and cents never represent. If the inhabitants of a town were wise, they would seek to preserve these things.”18 These visionaries alerted us to the fact that the beauty of a landscape is a function of its natural character. The more natural, the more beautiful. The same theme was echoed in the works of the Hudson Valley school of painters, who romanticized the picturesque, sublime character of the Hudson River landscape. Additionally, the democratic virtues of an agrarian economy popularized

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

ⱍ



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.

Image not available.

Fig. .. Ervin Zube, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, Tucson, pushed the boundaries and made significant contributions in the assessment of landscape values and perception. Photograph courtesy of Ervin Zube.

by such prominent American figures as Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Law Olmsted, and Frank Lloyd Wright increased the public’s appreciation of the countryside and established a bias toward rural living. Naturalistic themes were also espoused in the designed landscapes of Olmsted and his followers. Examples include the plans for Central Park in New York (), Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland, California (), the Yosemite Valley Wilderness Reservation in California (), and the Riverside community in Illinois (). In the twentieth century, thinkers such as Jens Jenson, Benton MacKaye, Aldo Leopold, Raymond Dasman, Philip Lewis, and Ian McHarg continued in the tradition of the Thoreaus and the Muirs to reinforce the connections between aes-

Public Policy and Landscape Values Landscape beauty has been a legitimate objective of public policy in the United States since the late nineteenth century. The evolution, however, has been slow and sporadic. In  the federal government set aside millions of acres of land for Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, the first major effort at the national level to reserve land for social and aesthetic purposes rather than for the economic benefits of individuals. A similar initiative at the state level began in , largely through Olmsted’s efforts to secure the Yosemite Valley as a public landscape preserve. The state of California acquired the valley in  as America’s first state park, and Olmsted wrote the design and management guidelines in . The establishment of the first national and first state parks provided a stimulus for various states to identify, acquire, and set aside unique land areas for protection. This movement expanded into the twentieth century to embrace not only large natural and beautiful landscapes but also parkway systems, sites of historical significance, and small tracts of ecologically sensitive lands. There was increased public recognition that in addition to being beautiful such lands had recreational values that people could enjoy as well. From the early twentieth century on, the federal government enacted laws and created policies and institutions that enhanced the preservation and conservation of vast amounts of public lands. The Antiquities Act of  authorized the president to establish national monuments, enabling the protection of cultural resources and landscapes.19 The National Park Act of  legit-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

imized the protection of large natural areas for their ecological and aesthetic integrity and for the enjoyment of current and future populations.20 Additional support was provided in legislation passed in the s and s that specifically targeted the conservation of scenic landscapes for their recreation values, as well as the amelioration of ugly ones. The  Land and Water Conservation Act, for instance, bolstered the development of parks by providing financial incentives and technical assistance to state and local governments. An important shift occurred in public policy on the protection of beautiful landscapes in the s. The amelioration of ugly landscapes, rather than the protection of beautiful lands, was the primary concern. Books such as P. Blake’s God’s Own Junkyard () C. Tunnard and B. Pushkarev’s ManMade America: Chaos or Control? (), as well as the  White House Conference on Natural Beauty, focused national attention on the deteriorating visual quality of the built landscape.21 Not surprisingly, the scenic qualities of natural landscapes served as the benchmark for identifying and ameliorating ugly landscapes. Additionally, U.S. Supreme Court decisions paved the way for eradicating visual blight in built landscapes. The  Supreme Court decision in Berman v. Parker laid the foundation for local governments to regulate aesthetics in the built landscape.22 Among its impacts on ecological planning, NEPA required federal agencies to ensure “aesthetically and culturally pleasing environments” and to “identify and develop methods and procedures” for systematically including aesthetic values in land-use decision making. Other countries passed similar legislation, such as the Countryside Act of  in Britain, which called for the “conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the Countryside.” Following NEPA, federal and state governments passed a substantial body of legislation that specifically identified scenic beauty and amenity as a valid public purpose of regulation.23 These legislative developments stimulated exten-

sive research aimed at understanding and assessing aesthetic values for use in land-use decisions. Undoubtedly, we have made major strides in protecting beautiful landscapes, ameliorating ugly ones, and embracing aesthetic values in managing landscapes. The naturalistic character of landscapes seems to dominate public perceptions of what is beautiful. Accordingly, Zube remarked that the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century aesthetic conceptions of the picturesque and sublime are operative today.

Studies of Landscape Perception and Assessment Designers have always embraced aesthetic considerations in arranging natural and cultural phenomena spatially and temporally. The gestalt method, examined in chapter , analyzes landscape patterns and their perceptual qualities without considering the compositional elements. The development of methods for systematically integrating aesthetic values in ecological planning and land-use decision making began in the mid-s. K. Craik, L. Leopold, B. Linton, E. Shafer, J. Wohwill, and E. Zube in the United States and K. D. Fines and his colleagues in Britain conducted pioneering studies in landscape perception and assessment during the late s.24 Zube’s  visual-assessment study on Nantucket Island in Massachusetts and his  resource-assessment study of the U.S. Virgin Islands provided significant methodological directives for the assessment and integration of visual resources in ecological planning.25 Similarly, Burton Linton Jr., a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who also worked for the USFS Pacific Southwest Experimental Station, developed a framework in  for describing and analyzing visual elements in large forested landscapes.26 Linton’s visual framework was subsequently adopted for use by federal agencies responsible for the management of public lands. The then director of environmental forestry research at the USFS, E. Shafer, developed a model

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

in  for predicting landscape preferences.27 In the same vein, the psychologist Kenneth Craik, at Berkeley, studied public perceptions of visual quality and related them to physical landscape elements.28 NEPA, along with much environmental legislation passed in the s, propelled development of methods for perceiving and assessing the landscape, especially within federal agencies that managed public lands. These methods, widely known as visual-resource-management systems (VRMs), were designed to identify, evaluate, and integrate visual values, along with other considerations, in land-use and management decision making. They were also used to investigate the visual effects of current and proposed land-use decisions and landmanagement practices. The first VRM was developed by the USFS in  based on Linton’s visual framework, followed by systems developed by the NRCS system in  and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in .29 These systems focus on visual values, have a strong bias toward the natural character of landscape, embrace both professional expertise and public input in evaluating visual resources, and utilize both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Practitioners and researchers have adapted them for use in numerous studies. A series of symposiums, conferences, and workshops in England and the United States debated conceptual and methodological issues in research in landscape perception and assessment. For instance, the first conference, held by the Landscape Research Group in England in , examined methods of landscape analysis. A second took place in Amherst, Massachusetts, in , resulting in the publication of Zube, Brush, and Fabos’s book, Landscape Perception: Values, Perceptions, and Resources (). Another, held in Nevada in  under the auspices of the USFS, the NRCS, and the BLM, focused on qualitative and quantitative methods for visual assessment. These conferences illuminated both accomplishments and theoretical .

ⱍ



and conceptual gaps in the field of landscape perception and assessment. As research in the field flourished in the s and early s, most studies relied on professional expertise or public input in making judgments about visual-landscape quality and preferences. But the studies lacked a rigorous theoretical framework of landscape perception that would permit generalization of the results to other landscape settings and problem types. The exceptions to this trend include the pioneering works of the British geographer Jay Appleton and the environmental psychologists Rachel and Stephen Kaplan at the University of Michigan. Appleton proposed a “prospect-refuge theory,” based on people’s innate and biological need to see without being seen, essential for survival, in .30 In  the Kaplans proposed an information model linking preferences for landscapes with human abilities to process information, which they refined in .31 (I discuss these theories in greater detail below.) Early studies in landscape perception focused exclusively on visual quality and preferences and excluded other landscape values. Consequently, another research effort was directed at understanding the meaning people ascribe to landscapes and the experiences they have in their interactions with landscapes. The effort embraced the works of anthropologists, cultural geographers, and phenomenologists such as Edward Relph, Yi-Fu Tuan, and David Lowenthal. These works assume that landscapes have cultural meanings, “reflecting our tastes, our values, our aspirations, and even our fears, in tangible, visible form . . . no matter how ordinary the landscape may be.”32 Consequently, they do not separate the visual from other aesthetic responses for further investigation. Two orientations have emerged in the study of landscape perception and assessment: a professional orientation, aimed at solving physical problems, and a scholarly orientation, aimed at advancing knowledge about landscape aesthetic values and perception. These efforts are supported by nu-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

merous methods, techniques, and applications. The methods embrace visual and graphic representations of visual landscape character, professional and public judgments of landscape quality and preferences, and quantitative and qualitative evaluation techniques. In practice, landscape perception is “a continuum without boundaries, and in most cases a method may incorporate characteristics of one or more paradigms [or methods].”33 Most studies are still empirically based. Whereas earlier studies emphasized rural and natural contexts, today studies cover the whole spectrum of urban, rural, and natural landscapes.

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 field of landscape perception is characterized by numerous theoretical and conceptual themes (paradigms) about human-landscape interactions. The paradigms have been defined in many ways. I prefer to use Zube’s  scheme, which categorizes the paradigms as professional, behavioral, and humanistic based on their disciplinary orientation.34 The major strength of Zube’s scheme is its conceptual simplicity, which is particularly crucial in a field 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 different modes of perception, although the methods are similar. Table . compares Zube’s scheme with other classifications. The schemes proposed by Daniel and Vining; Penning-Rowsell; Zube, Sell, and Taylor; and Chenoweth and Gobster emphasize rural and natural landscapes. Punter’s classification focuses on urban landscapes. Those proposed by Arthur,

Daniel, and Boster, by Porteous, and by Palmer cover the spectrum of urban and rural landscapes.35

The Professional Paradigm The professional paradigm is used by professionals or experts primarily to address visual concerns about the organization of spaces and objects in the landscape. Its theory, therefore, is defined based on ideal solutions to physical problems. This paradigm assumes that the landscape has attributes— physical, artistic, and psychological—that provide stimuli to which the observer responds. The observer in this instance is a skilled professional trained in the arts, design, ecology, or resource management. The conceptual base is drawn from art theories or ecological concepts. When the arts are the predominant base, emphasis is placed on the formal artistic qualities of the landscape, such as form, balance, contrast, and character. Burt Linton, Kevin Lynch, and Donald Appleyard’s works are typical of the arts orientation.36 When ecology or resource management is the prime knowledge base, biological-resource-management concepts, such as degree of naturalness, ecological diversity, and so forth, are emphasized. Richard Smardon’s work exemplifies this orientation.37 In ecological planning, however, both orientations are employed to evaluate landscape beauty. Examples include the scenery-classification component of VRMs, developed by the USFS and the BLM, and the scenic assessment of the North Atlantic Region (NAR) of the United States conducted by Zube and others in  as part of a multidisciplinary water and resource-management project.38 In general, qualitative techniques are used to judge visual quality. When quantitative techniques are employed, they usually involve simple statistical manipulations such as means and frequencies. The primary output of the professional paradigm is a “statement of landscape quality” or an enhanced sense of the landscape.39 Methods based

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

ⱍ



Table 7.1. Paradigms of Landscape Values and Perception

Image not available.

The Behavioral Paradigm

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

The Psychophysical Model Sometimes called the public-preference model, the psychophysical model is primarily concerned with a systematic assessment of people’s preferences and judgments about scenic beauty based on specific features of the physical landscape, such as landform, vegetation, water, and built structures.

on the professional paradigm are arguably the most well established and the ones most often used by practitioners. The applications include the whole spectrum of urban and rural landscapes and problem types, for example, the siting of roads and utility-transmission corridors and the assessment of special resources such as wetlands, derelict landscapes, and scenic rivers.



ⱍ

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 affect them. The psychophysical model links the public’s affective responses to specific 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 affect of landscape complexity on aesthetic judgments. The arousal theory links aesthetic stimulus elements to their biological heritage.43 However, the important contributions include Appleton’s prospect-refuge theory and the Kaplans’ informational-processing model. The cognitive model uses quantitative tech-

niques to relate public preferences to landscape properties hypothesized to account for aesthetic beauty. The outputs are statements about arousal levels and meanings, as well as ratings of satisfaction and preferences. Applications span a wide range of contexts, including natural, rural, suburban, and urban landscapes. Unlike the professional paradigm or the psychophysical model, which emphasize problem solving, the cognitive model seeks to advance knowledge about landscape perception and values. The Prospect-Refuge Theory In a pioneering book, The Experience of Landscape (), Appleton proposed a prospect-refuge theory, about human aesthetic experiences in landscapes based on innate and biological requirements for survival. The theory argued that the need to see without being seen was crucial during the hunting-and-gathering phase in human evolution and that the instinct is still operative today. Landscapes that afford rich aesthetic experiences provide opportunities to see (prospect) without being seen (refuge). There are certain ways in which we can improve our chances of survival by paying attention to certain kinds of environmental opportunity, and two of these emerge as having particular importance. The first is the opportunity to keep open the channels by which we receive information. All the senses are involved, but in considering “landscape” we are naturally more concerned with the sense of sight and therefore can be justified in using the word “seeing” to describe the process. The second is the opportunity to achieve concealment, and this gives us the twin bases of our simple classification of “prospect” and “refuge.”44

Appleton’s theory gave a theoretical rigor to the field of landscape perception at a time when there was virtually no conceptual base. Drawing upon findings culled from both the arts and the sciences, including the writings of poets, historians, philosophers, and behavioral scientists, he placed aesthetic experience of the landscape in the con-

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

text of biological interpretation by linking behavior to environmental adaptation. Appleton’s prospect-refuge theory has been a subject of intense debate.45 Appleton addressed his prospectrefuge theory again in , but he did not propose any major changes. So far, empirical tests of this theory have been promising but not conclusive. The Information-Processing Framework In the early s Rachel and Stephen Kaplan proposed a framework for environmental perception that links the evolution of human cognitive capabilities with findings about landscape preferences. They asserted that the long-term survival of humans was contingent upon the development of cognitive information-processing skills that enabled them to become proficient at extracting information from the environment.46 They called the storage and processing of information “the cornerstone of human functioning.”47 The Kaplans initially postulated that two basic domains representing two critical aspects of people’s relationship to information—making sense and involvement—influence environmental preference. In a nutshell, people prefer landscapes that make sense and permit their involvement. This framework for environmental preference has gone through several transformations. In their most recent framework, documented in Experience with Nature (), the Kaplans replaced the domains of making sense and involvement with understanding and exploration. The need to understand, “to make sense of what is going on,” is a familiar human tendency that is “far reaching in its expression.” Environmental preferences, therefore, are likely to be greater when comprehension is facilitated. Often, however, comprehension is not sufficient. People also prefer situations that require them to broaden their horizons, or at least situations in which such enrichment is possible. To enrich oneself, or precisely, to explore, enables people “to find out more of what is going on in one’s surrounding.”48

ⱍ



Through exploration, people can expand their knowledge, increase their capacity to understand previously confusing circumstances, and even probe into new facets of familiar situations. People’s effectiveness in understanding and exploring a particular landscape scene is strongly influenced by the availability of information about the scene, that is, the degree of inference that is needed to extract the pertinent information. The immediate environment readily provides a majority of this information. Other information is not provided but can be inferred because we already possess much of the information essential to our functioning as a result of previous experiences. When the information is readily available in the immediate environment, such as in a picture that reveals two-dimensional aspects of the visual environment, very little inference is required to process the information. In contrast, greater inference is needed when the information is not readily available in the immediate environment, such as when a three-dimensional arrangement of an actual or depicted space reveals the depth of the scene from the observer’s vantage point. Four distinct informational factors emerge when the two basic information needs—understanding and exploration—are combined with how readily available the information is—immediate and inferred, or predicted (Table .). As noted by the Kaplans, these informational factors have been an integral part of the landscape-assessment literature. They help people understand or explore a landscape scene in terms of its two-or threedimensional characteristics. In other words, they Table .. Informational Factors



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

reveal the environmental attributes of the way a landscape scene is organized. The Kaplans define these attributes as follows: Coherence, the degree to which a landscape scene is unified or hangs together. It is enhanced by anything that helps organize the patterns of brightness, size, and texture in a scene into a few major units. Legibility, the clarity of a landscape scene, which permits the observer to understand and remember it. Legibility entails a promise, or prediction, of the capacity to both comprehend and function effectively. Complexity, the number of different visual elements in a scene; how intricate the scene is; its richness. Mystery, the extent to which the landscape scene promises that one will learn more about something that is not readily apparent from the original vantage point.49

Of the four information factors, coherence and complexity are based on the two-dimensional aspects of a landscape scene. Both involve the direct perception of the features of the scene in relation to their number, placement, and grouping.50 By way of contrast, legibility and mystery are based on the scene’s three-dimensional aspects since they require people to infer a third dimension and even imagine themselves in the scene. In general, a scene that is coherent and legible is more readily comprehended. Thus, it is easier for people to make sense of an environment that is well organized and distinct. By contrast, a scene that is complex and holds out the promise that one will learn more (mystery) encourages exploration. The four informational factors, however, work jointly in the context of a scene or landscape. The Kaplans’ informational framework has been tested empirically in numerous studies of landscape values and perception, some of which are discussed below. In With People in Mind the Kaplans used their framework as the basis for proposing forty-five detailed recommendations on how to design and manage the landscape in ways that are appreciated and beneficial to people.51

The Humanistic Paradigm The humanistic paradigm attempts to understand transactions and experiences among individuals, social groups, and landscapes. It incorporates experiences that exceed an “intellectual conception of aesthetics as a response to stimuli or internal mental process alone.”52 These experiences embrace values, meanings, preferences, and behavior. They are holistic, making it difficult to isolate aesthetic responses from other types of experiences. The humanistic paradigm grew out of the desire of anthropologists, geographers, and phenomenologists to understand how individuals and groups interact with and experience landscapes and the changes that arise therefrom. Since it focuses on landscape experiences that are largely context-dependent, the paradigm relies heavily on qualitative techniques, such as reviews of literary and creative works. The outputs include statements about landscape tastes, desirable landscape qualities, ideal beauty, and the development of the self or group.

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, defining the project goals and objectives and establishing study boundaries. The goals may be estimating landscape preferences, landscape quality, or the landscape’s capacity for visual absorption. . Defining 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.

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

. Analyzing the resultant aesthetic resources based on the project goals and other pertinent criteria by means of qualitative or quantitative techniques. . Ranking, aggregating, and comparing alternative statements, preferences, or judgments about aesthetic quality. . Specifying appropriate design, planning, and management actions and criteria to mitigate, sustain, or enhance aesthetic quality.

The outcomes are often used as inputs for larger studies. In practice, these activities may not occur precisely as presented since feedbacks occur. Additionally, the specific activities undertaken depend on the project goals, the resources (time, funds, manpower) available, and the spatial scale of the study (regional, local, site). The greatest variability within each activity, however, depends largely on the landscape-perception paradigm employed. For instance, the professional paradigm follows most closely the activities outlined in step . In the psychophysical model, activities in step  may include relating preferences to physical landscape elements manipulable through planning and management to build statistical models of aesthetic quality or preferences. The cognitive model is similar, but the focus is on relating meanings to spatial configurations of landscape to develop predictive models of landscape preferences. In contrast, step  may not exist in humanistic studies since they tend to be nonjudgmental. Applications cover a wide range of problem types (e.g., corridor studies, recreation, and forestry) undertaken at varied geographical scales (e.g., regional, local, and site) and in a multiplicity of physical settings (e.g., urban, suburban, rural, and natural). The professional and behavioral paradigms account for the majority of documented studies.

Studies Based on the Professional Paradigm Studies based on the professional paradigm use both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the visual quality of the landscape but more

ⱍ



of the former. Such studies assume that landscape aesthetics are more readily revealed through the visual aspects. Features related to visual quality (e.g., landform and cover) are first identified and then inventoried or rated.53 Summary conclusions depend on the standards of the professional. The visual-analysis system proposed by Lynch in Image of the City () is an exemplary qualitative scheme for understanding how people perceive and use urban environments. Lynch’s system permits the recording of individual and composite images of commonly held perceptions about urban landscapes. The basic elements of the system—path, edge, node, district, and landmark— are commonly used by urban designers and professionals in ecological planning and design. Another noteworthy work is Appleyard, Lynch, and Meyer’s View from the Road (), in which they prescribed a system for analyzing urban landscapes as perceived by a person in motion, for example, a person traveling in a car. Linton’s work at the USFS Pacific Southwest Experimental Station in , mentioned earlier, was another pioneering effort to describe the visual resources of nonurban and large forested landscapes. Linton identified five main factors that affect our visual perception of landscapes: spatial definition, viewing distance, observer’s position, light, and sequence. The spatial definition is the three-dimensional space created by the concavity of the physical landscape features, particularly landform, vegetation, or both. The viewing distance influences the depth of perception. In general, the foreground (up to
 –
 mi.) provides the most detail, while that detail is lost in the background (– mi.), where forms tend to be simplified as outline shapes. The middle ground (
 –
 to  – mi.) provides the crucial link between the foreground and the background. The observer’s position limits or enhances his or her ability to fully visualize the landscape. Figure . shows that the higher up the observer is located in a hilly landscape, the better his or her viewing



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. The higher the observer’s 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 influence color, texture, distance, and direction. The way space and objects, observer’s 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. Linton’s visual-classification system was subsequently developed for use by the USFS and the BLM. Linton and R. Tetlow’s scenic analysis of the northern Great Plains in  was another remarkable effort to develop a visual classification 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 specific landscape. The quantified elements may be physical, such as landform and vegetative cover, or artistic or compositional, such as vividness, unity, coherence, color, and texture. Quantification occurs especially in large-scale resource-

assessment studies, where the intent is to provide accurate, numerical, and defensible indices of visual quality so that they can be compared and aggregated with other resources, such as vegetation and soils. There are numerous examples of such studies, including Luna Leopold’s quantitative comparison of the aesthetic characteristics of rivers in ; the landscape-evaluation studies conducted by K. Fines in East Sussex, England; Zube’s assessment of visual values of the North Atlantic Region (NAR) of the United States in ; and the visual-assessment components of the VRMs developed by the USFS, the NRCS, and the BLM. VRMs rely on professional and public judgments to analyze the visual resources of large landscapes, to investigate potential visual impacts of landscape modifications, and to conduct detailed evaluation of visual impacts of projects. Their common steps are () classification, inventory, and analysis of the visual quality of landscapes based on physical features; () evaluation of the sensitivity of landscapes based on people’s use, visibility, and interpretation; and () mapping of the resultant landscape units to assign appropriate management objectives or, in the case of the NRCS, to identify priorities that require further professional attention. The first step involves expert judgments. In the USFS system, for instance, form, line, color, and texture are the four basic elements used to define visual quality. The unique combination of landscape features such as land, vegetation, water, and

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

ⱍ



Table .. USFS Classes of Scenic Variety

Image not available.

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 .).

Studies Based on the Behavioral Paradigm The systematic inclusion of public input in assessments of aesthetic preferences and quality is a fundamental feature of the behavioral paradigm. Studies based on this paradigm are grounded on

empirical social- and behavioral-science methods that emphasize scientific rigor. Quantitative analytical techniques are often employed. The studies make assumptions about how landscape descriptors and spatial configurations are related to some aspects of a scene or to the overall aesthetic quality. The typical procedure is to select public groups to view specific landscape scenes or to respond to perception-related questions about them. Data collection involves on-site visits, photographic or



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

video representations, and verbal surveys. The data should be readily translatable into ordinal or numerical form to permit both simple and inferential statistical manipulations. The outcomes depend on the behavioral model used.

Studies Based on the Psychophysical Model of the Behavioral Paradigm Psychophysical studies identify physical descriptors hypothesized to account for preferences and aesthetic quality. Examples include landform, vegetation, and built structures. Affective responses to scenes are then related statistically to the descriptors. The outcomes are numerical ratings of preferences for individual scenes, overall ratings of aesthetic quality, or a determination of the importance of specific descriptors in accounting for the overall quality. Documented studies are extensive.56 An exemplary, well-referenced work is the visual-assessment study conducted by Zube and his University of Massachusetts colleagues in the southern Connecticut River valley in .57 They assessed the perceived scenic values of the valley. In addition, they explored several controversial issues in landscape-perception research at that time, such as the degree to which people agree in their evaluation of a particular scene; whether the public and professionals always agree in their judgments of a given scene; whether it make a difference whether the scenes are judged on-site or through photographic representations?58 One component of the study involved asking participants to describe and evaluate eight out of fifty-six scenes documented in color photographs deemed representative of the diversity of nonurban landscapes found in the southern Connecticut valley. The respondents examined the photographs, completed a landscape-feature checklist for each of the eight photographs, and ranked them according to scenic quality. In addition, the participants sorted all fifty-six scenes into seven categories of scenic quality. Another set of partic-

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 significant agreement among the participants in their preferences for specific uses but little consensus between the uses and their valuative judgments. The ecological-planning-and-design studies conducted by the Seattle-based firm of Jones & Jones are exemplary efforts to develop methods for estimating people’s 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 defining 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 refined 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 firm of CHM Hill); the social, aesthetic, and economic implications of routing a transmission line for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (in conjunction with Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories); and the inventory and evaluation of the environmental, aesthetic, and

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

recreational resources of the upper Susitna River in Alaska for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. In these studies the assessment of visual quality was used as an input in a larger ecological study. Terry Daniel and Ron Boster’s Scenic Beauty Estimation (SBE) method () is widely used to measure landscape beauty.60 The method’s primary objective is to measure the perceptual preferences of landscape scenes. Daniel and Boster argued that people’s perceptual response to landscapes relies on several cognitive factors rather than on the visual dimension. They therefore distinguished between the “true” perceived landscape beauty (what is actually perceived) and the observer’s judgmental criteria (the evaluative factors used), both of which are employed simultaneously in assessing beauty. A valid estimate of landscape beauty should eliminate the uncertainty created by people’s judgmental criteria. Daniel and Boster asked participants to rank landscapes depicted on color slides on a scale from  to , where  represented low scenic value and , high scenic value. Rather than using the mean ratings as the basis for estimating the overall landscape beauty, they compared the distribution of the participants’ rankings for one landscape scene with those for several other scenes. Since landscape beauty is not a single value, mean ratings do not differentiate between the “true” and judgmental criteria used by the participants. Daniel and Boster argued that when the distribution of rankings are overlapping or the same for all landscape scenes, the differences are likely to be the result of the participants’ judgmental criteria.61 Carl Steinitz’s study of visual preference and ecological integrity on the Loop Road in the Acadia National Park and Mount Desert Island, Maine, is noteworthy and deserves elaboration.62 Charles Eliot and McHarg have also conducted ecological studies of Mount Desert Island. Using visual-simulation modeling methods, Steinitz evaluated the park users’ views from the Loop Road,

ⱍ



which provided access to spectacular view sheds; assessed the predictive power of selected visualpreference conceptual frameworks to reveal factors accounting for preferences; and developed a predictive visual-preference framework that synthesized factors from the others. He also explored the congruence between visually preferred scenes and landscape features that were important for sustaining a diversity of wildlife habitats. In  and  Steinitz conducted exit interviews with about fifteen hundred park visitors to ascertain patterns of use. In addition, he conducted a visual-preference study in . Two hundred park visitors ranked forty-eight black-andwhite photographs of views from the Loop Road twice, once viewing the photographs in the clockwise direction and once viewing them in the counterclockwise direction, on a five-point scale, from the most beautiful to the ugliest. He analyzed the data to ascertain the rank order of preferences and examined the strength of preferences among subgroups based on socioeconomic and cultural background. There was a  percent correlation between strength of preference and socioeconomic and cultural background. Using linear-regression analysis, Steinitz further identified and tested five visual-preference frameworks with different theoretical bases for their ability to predict the patterns of responses to the survey. The frameworks were () the BLM visualresource-management system, which emphasizes the physical features of a scene; () Shafer’s work on the perception of natural environments, which focuses on a structural view of landscapes using such factors as the area and perimeter of vegetation in the foreground and the middle ground; () the Kaplans’ information-processing framework, which places high value on the psychological interactions between people and landscapes; () Steinitz’s earlier work on the Massachusetts Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act, which examined the affective meanings associated with a diversity of landscape features in a particular scene;63 and () Ap-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

pleton’s prospect-refuge theory, based on people’s evolutionary requirements for survival. Steinitz’s results indicated that these frameworks had varied but limited predictive capacity. The physical features used in the BLM method, such as landform and vegetation, predicted the highest (%) of the survey responses, while Shafer’s framework predicted the least (%). Steinitz rejected these frameworks and proposed an alternative that included key predictive factors from the others. Factors such as the absence of cultural modification, mystery, and water were important predictors. However, unlike the Kaplans’ information framework or Appleton’s prospectrefuge theory, Steinitz’s model did not provide a rigorous conceptual explanation of how these predictive factors interact to explain people’s preference for certain landscape scenes over others. In addition, components of the other frameworks, such as the Kaplans’, have tested well in other empirical studies. In another phase of the study Steinitz used GIS to examine the degree of congruence between patterns of visual preferences and landscapes important for the maintenance of wildlife habitats. The findings indicated high degree of agreement but significant areas of mismatch. Since highly valued landscapes may not necessarily coincide with ecologically sustainable lands, a crucial task in ecological-planning studies is to find ways to optimize ecological and aesthetic values. Steinitz suggested a range of management options to resolve the conflicts. For instance, he recommended that areas with high visual preference and high ecological values, such as freshwater marshes, lakes, and edge vegetation, be targeted for preservation, while management policies for lands with low scenic preference and high ecological integrity, or vice versa, should focus on improving the visual quality or conditions. He simulated the spatial implications of the policies along the Loop Road and used spreadsheet methods to evaluate their visual and ecological impacts.

Since this study, Carl Steinitz and his Harvard colleagues have conducted numerous scenic-preference studies based on sophisticated variations of the method used in the Acadia National Park study. The variations employ advanced visual simulation technologies and a geographic information system that integrates a variety of data and information in social, economic, environmental, and political analyses. Carl Steinitz and his colleagues used scenic preference as an input in exploring alternative futures for Monroe County, Pennsylvania, for the Camp Pendleton region in California, and, in , for the Upper San Pedro River Watershed in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico.

Studies Based on the Cognitive Model of the Behavioral Paradigm Cognitive studies focus on the “the psychological dimensions manifested in or attached to the landscape.”64 The procedure and analytical techniques are similar to those used in studies based on the psychophysical model. The difference is that the descriptors focus on the compositional qualities of landscapes, such as coherence, mystery, and complexity, rather than on their physical features. Emphasis is placed on extracting the values and meanings these qualities hold for people in order to build predictive models of landscape preferences. Of the two popular conceptual frameworks— Appleton’s prospect-refuge theory and the Kaplans’ information model, the latter has enjoyed more support as a basis for a general theory of landscape perception. Many empirical studies have been conducted to validate the Kaplans’ model, while others have used it as a basis for problem solving. Examples of the former include Robert Itami’s study of the scenic quality of a rural landscape in Australia ();65 J. Herbert’s investigation of the scenic resources in Oakland, Michigan, in  using techniques for measuring, rating, and weighing developed by Itami;66 Itami and Terry Brown’s  evaluation of the scenic quality of a rural area in

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

Victoria, Australia;67 and a series of preference studies conducted by the Kaplans, as well as those undertaken by T. Herzog on natural landscapes.68 Examples of its use for estimating preferences and scenic quality for managing landscapes include Michael Lee’s visual-preference study for the Louisiana River landscapes in 69 and William Whitmore’s visual assessment (with Cook and Steiner) of the Verde River corridor in central Arizona, published in .70 The  study conducted by Randy Gimblett, Itami, and John Fitzgibbon in a rural landscape in southern Ontario illustrates the typical procedure.71 They examined how well respondents agreed upon their perceptions of mystery, a dimension of the Kaplans’ framework, and then explored the physical attributes contributing to their perceptions. Thirty-six respondents were asked to rate two hundred black-and-white photographs of rural landscape scenery on a five-point scale for the degree of mystery in the landscape based on the Kaplans’ definition. The rankings were analyzed using arithmetic means, standard deviations, and a multidimensional scaling procedure (MSP); the MSP allows ordinal data (respondents’ ratings) to be distributed along an interval scale. By examining the content of the photographs in relation to each of the scales, Gimblett and his colleagues identified the physical landscape features that contributed to perceptions of mystery. Gimblett, Itami, and Fitzgibbon identified five spatial configurations of the landscape that were clearly consistent with mystery. These were screening (degree of obstruction of views), viewing distance, spatial definition or spatial enclosure, physical accessibility (ease of movement through a scene), and radiant forest (contrast of light and shade). They concluded that the promise of information and opportunity for involvement were two important dimensions of mystery that enabled the respondents to develop a mental image of the landscape. The former was influenced by screening and radiant forest, the latter by physical ac-

ⱍ



cessibility, viewing distance, and spatial definition. Similarly, in  Richard Kent examined whether mystery was related to preferences for shopping-mall settings that represented built rather than natural environments. A group of experts rated forty-five slides of shopping malls for mystery, and  students ranked them for preferences.72 Pearson’s product-moment-correlation analysis of the data indicated moderate correlation between ratings for mystery and preferences (.). Kent used factor analysis to isolate groupings of spatial configurations of the landscape contributing to the preferences. He employed a similar procedure in his estimation of scenic quality along existing highways in Connecticut in .73 A study conducted at Arizona State University by Whitmore, Cook, and Steiner on the Verde River corridor in Arizona was patterned after a perception study conducted in the Pinelands National Reserve in New Jersey under the direction of Richi McKenzie, of the Philadelphia regional office of the U.S. Department of the Interior in . They used three techniques to evaluate the visual preferences and quality of the corridor: public valuation, as they called it, expert evaluation, and public nomination.74 Their descriptions of the corridor’s spatial configurations were adapted from Michael Lee’s  study of visual preferences for Louisiana River landscapes. The study group used color slides to capture twenty-nine visual landscape types that approximated the spatial configurations defined in the four dimensions of the Kaplans’ model. Table . shows a sample of the spatial characteristics of the landscape types. Sixty-two respondents were asked to rank paired slides that compared every landscape type in the Verde River corridor with the others. Slide preferences were converted into preference scores, and scores for each landscape type were estimated using means and frequencies. The composite visual-landscape score was computed



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Table .. Spatial Characteristics of Landscape Types

Image not available.

by aggregating the individual means. No attempt was made to combine the results of the cognitive assessment with those obtained from the expert judgment and public nomination. Whitmore, Cook, and Steiner’s study did not account for the judgmental criteria of the respondents, which Daniel and Boster recommended.

Studies Based on the Humanistic Paradigm Studies based on the humanistic paradigm examine how people use, value, and adapt to the landscape and, in turn, how changes in the landscape influence people’s values and behavior. Aesthetic experiences arise from the interactions between individuals and groups with landscapes, and no attempt is made to isolate them for further scrutiny. The methods are predominantly phenomenological explorations of these interactions. The geographer D. W. Meinig remarked in his essay “The Beholding Eye” that “any landscape is composed not only of what lies before our eyes but what lies within our head.”75 Humanistic studies of the same landscape, therefore, can be conducted from various perspectives—those of history, literature,

conservation, and so forth—depending primarily on the researcher’s interest and on his or her “mind’s eye.” Humanistic investigations include historical analyses of landscapes, demonstrated in the works of W. G. Hoskins, David Lowenthal, and John Stilgoe, and decoding of social and cultural meanings of landscape artifacts, epitomized in the works of J. B. Jackson, D. W. Meinig, and Peirce Lewis.76 The data-gathering techniques rely heavily on open-ended exploratory interviews with key informants and reviews of literary and other creative works, such as content analysis of historical and contemporary documents of ordinary people and elites, journals, travel logs, and other materials that might illuminate landscape values. Literary and artistic creations are perhaps the most important sources of information because the “experience of aesthetic landscapes or landscape elements is best seen through the aesthetic creations they inspire.”77 To be meaningful, however, the data gathered must be placed in their appropriate historical context, where they can be interpreted correctly.

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

Many techniques used in humanistic studies are similar to those for understanding the insider’s viewpoint, reviewed under the applied-humanecology approach (chapter ). J. B. Jackson’s essay on the historical development of landscape values in the United States illustrates one approach to humanistic inquiry. Using the diaries of the theologian and educator Timothy Dwight on his travels in the Connecticut River valley in the eighteenth century, Jackson traced two social forces that not only shaped the American landscape but prescribed ideals by which landscapes were to be appreciated. Dwight’s detailed descriptions of the valley epitomized the Puritan ethic that prevailed at the time. The ethic fostered small communities of families who nurtured the landscape. For these families, the beauty of the landscape was revealed in its moral or ethical truth: “The landscape, in short, possessed the quality of beauty insofar as it reflected the moral or ethical perfection to which all its inhabitants presumably aspired. Perfection or completeness resided not in the landscape itself, but in the spirit that had brought it into being and continued to animate it.”78 Jackson used the Puritan ethic as a template to analyze critically the utilitarianism of the nineteenth century, which placed a high premium on efficiency in production. Beautiful landscapes were measured by the efficiency of energy flows in the landscape. This new industrial order, as Jackson described it, was accompanied by migration from rural to urban areas, breaking people’s ties to the landscape. Thus, people’s contact with the landscape was “not only brief and infrequent but scheduled.” Jackson concluded by challenging ecological planners and designers to provide and sustain beautiful landscapes—“the scene of a significant experience in self-awareness and eventual knowledge.”79 It is precisely this type of rich information that expands our knowledge about what people value and about the meanings landscapes hold for them. Jackson related aesthetic perceptions to people’s

ⱍ



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 influence of Andrew Wyeth’s paintings on the evolution of the landscape in southeastern Pennsylvania.86 Some of these studies, such as Jackson’s and mine, focus on group values. Others, such as P. T. Newby’s evaluation of aesthetic values associated with specific types of landscapes, examine individual expressions.87 A recurrent theme in humanistic studies is the recognition that people’s interactions with landscapes



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

reveal a broadly based aesthetic that engages people’s emotions in addition to what they see. Recognizing that humanistic studies are a rich source of qualitative information about landscape values, numerous studies based on other paradigms are increasingly including a humanistic component. Such studies have taken many directions. For instance, one method used in the visualquality study of the Verde River corridor in Arizona was public nomination. Whitmore, Cook, and Steiner acknowledged that the technique was consistent with the principles of humanistic inquiry. They asked a cross section of people who were familiar with the river corridor or had contact with it to nominate segments that they felt had high scenic quality. The respondents were required to include a depiction of the spatial location of the segments, a brief written description, and a rationale for their choice. All nominations received equal weight. Similar nominations were grouped together, and an aggregate weight was obtained through an additive process. Eight segments of the river corridor received nominations. Written descriptions provided the rich information used to interpret the nominations. A quite different example is the landscape-character study for Warwickshire County, England, conducted by the Countryside Commission in .88 The study was aimed at developing conservation, restoration, and enhancement measures in light of anticipated land-use changes in the county. The study group first conducted an assessment of the Warwickshire region focusing on biophysical factors, historical and ecological associations, and demographic and land-use trends. They then identified and mapped the distinctive visual qualities of the region and grouped them into “regional character areas and landscape types,” based on fieldwork. For each landscape type the group assessed features that contributed to its “sense of place,” with special emphasis placed on aesthetic factors, dominant landscape elements, and historical and ecological associations. Figure . is a

sample character-assessment sheet used for the analysis. The next phase of the study involved an investigation of local perceptions about the character of the Warwickshire landscape. Drawing upon historical records, literary and artistic works, and in-depth interviews with the various users of the area, including residents, professionals, and conservationists, the study group articulated historical and contemporary perceptions of the landscape character. They also analyzed the vulnerability of each landscape to change, focusing on the existing landscape conditions, pressures affecting the area, and strategies for managing landscape modification. The outputs of the independent assessments were synthesized to recommend which landscape types should be conserved, restored, or enhanced and to prioritize them. Studies of landscape values and perceptions are multidisciplinary, based on varied theoretical positions on the experiences people have in interactions with landscapes and on the perceptual outcomes of those interactions. An understanding of the perceptions, values, and meanings associated with landscapes is crucial to the development and maintenance of socially responsible and ecologically sound landscapes. In relation to ecological planning, the critical issue is how to best capture landscape values so that they can be integrated effectively with other kinds of data in designing, planning, and managing landscapes. Irrespective of the paradigm employed, most researchers acknowledge that individuals and groups largely agree on what they regard as the most beautiful or the most ugly. Between these two extremes, however, there is less agreement. Each paradigm of landscape values and landscape perception makes assumptions about how best to understand and study aesthetic experiences. The questions the paradigms seek to answer include: To what degree do visual perceptions capture aesthetic experiences? How do visual values

Landscape Values and Landscape Perception

ⱍ



Image not available.

Fig. .. Sample characterassessment sheet. Reproduced, by permission, from Countryside Commission, Assessment and Conservation of Landscape Character.

interact with other aesthetic values? Can aesthetic experiences be isolated objectively and described comparatively? “Are particular qualities of the landscape necessary for healthy humans and is this determined by nature, culture, or [both]? Over time, as landscapes change, how do people’s perceptions change, and [how do we best capture them in designing landscapes that are beneficial to people]? How do people discriminate among landscapes?”89 Should judgments about aesthetic quality and preferences be based solely on the standards of trained professionals, the public, or both? and, How are the outputs best represented—geographically, statistically, textually, or using a combination of these? The stance each paradigm adopts in response to these questions has immense ramifications for the

validity, reliability, sensitivity, and demonstrated utility of study outcomes.90 The professional paradigm is the most widely used, but the results have low reliability. The outcomes of the behavioral paradigm have high validity and reliability, but low sensitivity. Moreover, it is difficult to assess their effectiveness. The humanistic paradigm is the most sensitive, but the results have low validity and reliability.91 Since the paradigms differ in the way they respond to the questions, developing a unified theory of landscape values and perception has been a major challenge. In practice, however, many studies combine elements from the different paradigms since landscape perception is a continuum without boundaries.

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 ramifications 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 refined for subsequent use. From the late s to the present the evolutionary progression has intensified, almost surpassing that during the era of awakening, the formative era, and consolidation. Unlike in the earlier eras, when evolutionary progression elaborated and clarified the theme of planning with nature, the progression over the past four decades has been in more divergent but related directions. The field 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 reflects 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 classification of the five approaches to ecological planning—landscape suitability (LSA  and LSA ), applied human ecology, applied ecosystem ecology, applied landscape ecology, and assessment of landscape values and perception—as a way to systematically examine the linkages among them and to explore their similarities and differences. I review their similarities and differences by exploring three questions: What are their ma

Approaches to Ecological Planning

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 approach’s 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 fields as anthropology, biology, ecology, fine arts, geography, geology, and history. When we seek to understand the landscape as a reflection of culture, we turn to the

ⱍ



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 conflicts in the landscape. The five approaches examined in this book are procedural theories of ecological planning. Each offers 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 classification of the major approaches to ecological planning. The classification 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 fit neatly into the classification. 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



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

Image not available.

Fig. .. Ecological-planning practice: plural approaches. Drawn by M. Rapelje, .

the relationship through conscious choice, much more than other members of Aldo Leopold’s biotic community, “soils, water, plants, and animals, or collectively the land.”5 Each approach defines the knowledge and how it should be used. The approaches span the entire spectrum, from those that view the interactions as heavily influenced by the natural environment, such as LSA ; to those that see them as a potential tension to be resolved, for example, the appliedecosystem approach; to studies of landscape values and perception, which focus entirely on the perceptions, values, and experiences of individuals and groups in the interactions. Some approaches are more developed than others. The oldest, LSA , reaches back into the nineteenth century, rooted in the wisdom of such visionaries as Emerson, Olmsted, and George Perkin Marsh. In the twentieth century, Manning, Geddes, the NRCS, Hills, McHarg, Steinitz, and others provided methodological directions. LSA  evolved into LSA  in the late s and early s in response to increased pressure on resource-

management professionals to develop methods that were systematic, technically, and ecologically sound, as well as legally defensible. LSA , the wellestablished applied-ecosystem approach, and the assessment of landscape values and perception are arguably the most widely used. In contrast, the applied-human-ecology and applied-landscapeecology approaches have not yet developed a coherent body of knowledge to give them a clear identity and direction. Some approaches have distinct subgroups, reflecting an increased sophistication in their way of executing tasks typically associated with steps in the conventional planning process. Distinctions within LSA  occur at a rudimentary level, linked to individuals and projects. The gestalt method is used in making elemental judgments about suitability. The NRCS capability system and Hills’s physiographic-unit method classify the landscape into homogenous areas irrespective of intended uses.6 Lewis’s resource-pattern method and the method associated with McHarg’s Staten Island study define

Approaches to Ecological Planning

homogenous areas in order to judge their suitability for prospective land uses. Some methods, for example, those used in Richard Toth’s Tock Island study and McHarg’s  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  reflects the next phase in the evolution of LSA , its subgroupings—landscapeunit and landscape-classification, landscape-resource survey and assessment, allocation-and-evaluation, and strategic landscape-suitability methods—are distinct and systematic. A similar division exists in the subgroupings of the applied-ecosystem approach: ecosystem-classification, 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, Dorney’s abiotic-biotic-cultural (ABC) strategy, or on a modeling process to simulate the effects of perturbations on the flow 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-effect and feedback relationships. The assessment of Landscape values and perception has definitive 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-

ⱍ



trast, developed in an ad hoc fashion, linked to specific individuals and applications. They have not yet developed a coherent body of empirically tested methods that can be organized systematically around specific themes even though several well-documented applications exist. Since the early s, however, rigorous theoretical and empirical landscape-ecology studies have been conducted, so we should certainly expect definitive methods to emerge.

MAJOR CONCERNS The landscape-suitability approaches seek to determine the fitness 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 fitness. LSA  defines fitness 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 fitness 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 specifically, it is con-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

cerned with how people use, value, and adapt to the landscape and how they influence land-use allocation. It is interdisciplinary, originating from social and ecological sciences, especially cultural anthropology, ecology, ecological psychology, economics, human geography, and sociology. The applied-ecosystem approach is primarily concerned with examining the structure and function of landscapes and exploring how they respond to human and natural influences. Its intellectual roots lie in ecosystem sciences, especially ecosystem ecology, systems theory, economics, and policy sciences. It also draws on landscapesuitability studies for techniques that link ecological processes to their specific locations in the landscape. The approach assumes that ecosystems are responsive to human and natural influences. The purpose of intervention, therefore, is to identify the current state of the ecosystems studied, to assess their capability for self-sustenance, and to propose appropriate management goals and actions. Additionally, the holistic-ecosystem methods address institutional considerations to ensure that the resultant management criteria are implemented. The primary concern of the applied-landscapeecology approach is to understand how landscape structure evolves along with relevant ecological processes in response to natural and human influences. It uses this knowledge to seek sustainable spatial arrangements of land uses in the landscape. Adherents of this approach view the landscape as a mosaic of interacting ecosystems connected by the flows of materials, energy, and species across spatial scales. It is an interdisciplinary area of inquiry with the intellectual roots primarily in ecosystem ecology and geography. However, other fields have contributed immensely to its theoretical base, especially soil science, geomorphology, and vegetation sciences. The applied-landscapeecology approach has two branches with different but related focuses. The European branch emphasizes the identification and naming of landscape

elements, reflecting 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 different 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 affective 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 define 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 flow 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

Approaches to Ecological Planning

sustain the stability of ecosystems while maximizing their productivity. Frank Golley noted that the ecosystem concept has been treated as the object under investigation or a framework for understanding how the components interact. I argue that the LSA and appliedhuman-ecology approaches use the ecosystem more as a framework for understanding ecological interactions and less as object. Except in specific applications, they rarely redefine a study area in terms of ecosystems to permit a more precise empirical understanding of how the components interact. In contrast, the concept is used as both a framework and an object in the ecosystem and landscape-ecology approaches, which attempt to redefine a study site explicitly as interacting ecosystems with boundaries whose properties and behavior can be studied empirically. In a strict sense, the usage of the ecosystem concept as object is more often associated with empirical research in ecosystem sciences, which enrich the substantive theory of ecological planning. Hierarchy theory, general systems theory (GST), and the related concepts of holism, cybernetics, homeostasis, feedbacks, cause and effect, and selfregulation are important principles that make ecological knowledge more comprehensible. These principles help us understand the landscape as interacting ecological systems that display an increasing level of organization and complexity. Ecosystems at each level of organization are always in a state of flux that entails social and physical conditions, inputs, system changes, outputs, and complex feedback mechanisms. This perspective on the organization of ecological systems is fundamental to how the appliedecosystem and landscape-ecology approaches conceptualize the relations between people and the landscape; what their primary concerns should be; and how problems arising from the relations should be resolved. However, landscape ecology is more holistic because it deals with three inseparable perspectives: the aesthetic, focusing on visual

ⱍ



concerns; the chorological; and the ecosystemic.9 Aesthetic concerns are equally important in the landscape-suitability and applied-human-ecology approaches but are often deemphasized in the applied-ecosystem approach. They are the primary focus of assessments of landscape values and perception. The applied-human-ecology approach adopts a parallel systemic and hierarchically ordered viewpoint on ecological relations, but the degree of emphasis depends on the human-ecology framework employed. Place constructs, for instance, acknowledge that the past, present, and future of a place are linked and are that places are also connected to larger places. The human-ecology framework proposed by Young and others uses interaction, hierarchy, functionalism, and holism in a way parallel to the way they are used in the appliedecosystem and landscape-ecology approaches, but from a social perspective. According to G. Young and his colleagues, interaction implies “reciprocal action, the action or influence of persons or things on each other. . . . It is nature and frequency of interaction that most strongly affects relationships and associations, including those with the landscape or environment. . . . Interaction provides the medium through which systems, including ecosystems and regional systems, perform functions and, in terms of human systems, carry out intended purposes. Unless interaction takes place, no system can continue to exist.”10 Flowing from the concept of interaction are the notions of hierarchy, functionalism, and holism. These help explain the interactions between parts and wholes and among components in social processes. John Bennett’s human-ecology framework, for instance, is based on a systemic view of people’s adaptation to landscapes.11 It regards the landscape as comprising human ecosystems that are open and linked through resource use, organizations, and technology to ecosystems at lower and higher levels of the hierarchy. LSA  and LSA  adopt this systemic, hierarchi-



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

cally ordered perspective on ecological relations philosophically. In other words, many LSA methods and techniques have adopted this perspective, but they are inconsistent in how they use it to define and solve problems. Hills’s physiographicunit method, for instance, uses the concept of hierarchy to delineate levels of productivity at varied spatial scales. Lyle and von Wodtke’s information system for planning illustrates an LSA  method that regards the landscape as comprising ecological systems with input-output relations. This enabled them to model the effects of developmental activities on the flow of nutrients and materials in numerous projects they conducted in San Diego County in the s. In a similar vein, Steiner’s strategic suitability method employs the concept of hierarchy in resource survey and assessment. He recommended three scales—region, locality, and specific site— with an emphasis on the local. He noted that “the use of different scales is consistent with the concept of levels-of-organization used by ecologists. According to this concept, each level of organization has special properties.”12 In contrast, theories on design, arousal, prospect and refuge, information processing, and sense of place are more relevant in understanding the organization of aesthetic experiences in the assessment of landscape values and perception. The extent to which human-cultural considerations are emphasized deserves further elaboration because it helps define more precisely the nature of the concerns addressed by the approaches and has direct bearing on how they should be resolved. Information on the physical and biological features of the landscape has reduced meaning when it is separated from human concerns.

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 define fitness. The NRCS method interprets fitness as the limitations of the soil to support different uses. Hence, physical landscape features are stressed. Similarly, the methods described in McHarg’s 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 fitness. Hills’s physiographic-unit method recognizes the dynamics of landscape change in ascertaining fitness. It defines fitness in terms of the landscape’s 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. Lewis’s 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 fit 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-

Approaches to Ecological Planning

ception and, to a lesser degree, LSA , applied landscape ecology, and applied ecosystem ecology. Both human-ecology and landscape-perception studies attempt to understand the values, meanings, and experiences associated with humanlandscape interactions. The former examine the interactions in terms of the relationships between exploitative systems and the natural environment, the behavioral patterns associated with exploitation, and the conscious choices people make in the process of adaptation, whereas the latter is more concerned with aesthetic values and experiences encountered in such interactions. Assessments of landscape values and perception differ in the way they define aesthetic experiences. The professional paradigm and the psychophysical behavioral model assume that the aesthetic values of landscape are based on their visual merit. Visual perceptions, therefore, provide reasonably accurate estimates of these values. Besides, the visual is the most consistently definable of all aesthetic values that can be readily captured and used in making planning-and-design decisions. The cognitive behavioral model emphasizes meanings and values, while the humanistic paradigm deals with a much broader realm of experiences. Additionally, whereas the professional paradigm uses mostly expert knowledge to evaluate visual quality, the behavioral paradigm uses public judgments. Of the three landscape-perception paradigms, the humanistic paradigm is most like the appliedhuman-ecology approach in its focus. They share a concern with understanding cultural values and social behavior associated with landscapes primarily because the humanistic paradigm does not isolate the aesthetic from other experiences, as do the professional and behavioral paradigms. But unlike the human-ecology approach, the humanistic paradigm is less concerned with examining the values and experiences of a broad and representative segment of the public. Rather, it focuses primarily on the interactions of specific individuals and groups in particular landscapes.

ⱍ



The European branch of landscape ecology has always been concerned with understanding the dialectic interactions between biophysical and human-cultural processes. It evolved within the context of human-dominated landscapes, unlike the North American branch, which is more oriented toward natural and seminatural landscapes. Both branches, however, acknowledge that over time spatial changes involving interacting biophysical and human-cultural processes create landscapes that have an identifiable visual and cultural identify. Landscape ecology, therefore, shares with applied human ecology a concern for the manner in which people use and value landscapes. But while landscape ecology is specific about the spatial and temporal extent of human values, human ecology and the humanistic paradigm generalize them. The central tendency of LSA  is to interpret human-cultural processes based on sociocultural, economic, and institutional forces that dictate landscape evolution. Moreover, individual methods may employ citizen involvement as an additional way to include public values in decisions about landscape use. What tends to be overlooked is the systemic spatial concurrences of social and biophysical processes. However, the LSA  methods developed, refined, or applied by landscape architects influenced by the program at the University of Pennsylvania are likely to embrace human-cultural processes since the key researchers—McHarg, Berger, and Steiner—advocated applied-human-ecology methods. After all, many of the proponents of the methods, for example, Berger, McHarg, Juneja, Rose, and Steiner, were involved in numerous human-ecologicalplanning studies in the s and s. The layer-cake model developed by Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd (WMRT) (–) and applied in the planning for The Woodlands, Texas, conceptualizes the relationship among human, biotic, and abiotic factors in a chronological sequence.13 Human factors include community needs, human history, demographics, and land



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

use. Similarly, the studies conducted by Carl Steinitz and his group in exploring alternative futures for Monroe County, Pennsylvania, the Camp Pendleton region in California, and the Upper San Pedro River Watershed explicitly examined demographic, economic, political, and environmental considerations. Steiner’s strategicsuitability method has an explicit component dealing with human-community inventory and analysis that examines the connections between sociocultural processes and biophysical information. Citizen involvement and community education are integrated systematically in all phases of the method. The systemic inclusion of human-cultural processes in the applied-ecosystem approach is relatively recent. This may be attributed in part to the historical emphasis the science of ecology placed on biophysical factors in understanding ecological processes. McHarg provided a succinct explanation: “While ecology has traditionally sought to learn laws which obtain for ecosystems, it has done so by investigating environments unaffected or little affected by man; it has emphasized biophysical environments. Yet clearly no systems are unaffected by man, indeed studies of the interactions of organisms and environment are likely to reveal human dominance.”14 This statement does not mean that ecologists do not recognize the role that humans play in ecological interactions. The basis for exclusion, as Dorney pointed out, is that human-cultural processes are too complex to be included systematically with natural and physical processes.15 McHarg’s explanation also reveals, to a certain degree, why LSA  emphasized biophysical factors: it is the oldest approach. Over the past four decades there has been an increasing tendency toward the systematic integration of human considerations in the ecosystem approach. The integration is more obvious in some methods, such as Dorney’s abiotic-biotic-cultural (ABC) strategy, later refined by Bastedo; the Netherlands’s general ecological

model (GEM); Statistic Canada’s S-RESS method; and the holistic-ecosystem methods.16

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 define 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 fitness 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 Wodtke’s 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 effects of land disturbances on the flows of energy and materials.20 What is not known, and must be assumed, is how materials, energy, or organisms actually flow among the landscape elements under study. The human-ecology approach scrutinizes the underlying social structure of the landscape—values, needs, desires, and adaptation mechanisms and then matches the structure with the opportunities and constraints offered by the natural and biological environment using qualitative techniques such as verbal descriptions, texts, and matrices. According to Berger, the underlying structure is

Approaches to Ecological Planning

better understood by “getting closer to people to discover their definitions of the world . . . and the chosen method is flexible, technically pragmatic, self-discovering, and capable of providing feedback in the course of an investigation.”21 Additionally, because the degree to which we can understand people’s values and adaptation to the landscape is limited, most human-ecologicalplanning methods also provide explicit avenues for ongoing involvement of the affected interests. The applied-ecosystem and landscape-ecology approaches regard ecological units as having structural properties organized in terms of parts and wholes. Consequently, they first attempt to redefine a study area in terms of ecosystems and input-output relations. They then use pertinent ecological indicators and modeling techniques to examine the ecosystems properties and behavior in response to human actions and natural influences. Some of the indicators deal with the properties of the ecosystems, such as thresholds, lags, and feedbacks; others focus on ecological processes, for example, resiliency, replacement time, feeding relationships, and the efficiency of energy transfer and nutrient cycling. The use of indicators is exemplified in the studies conducted by Bastedo and Therberge in the s using the ABC strategy and in Cooper and Zedler’s location of power lines in southern California in .22 These indicators can also be aggregated to establish an environmental index, such as the water-quality index developed by the EPA. But there is disagreement about what constitutes sensitive, valid, and reliable indicators of ecosystem quality and integrity. Some modeling procedures, such as the IBP studies, compartment-flow models used in determining phosphorous levels in the Great Lakes, and nutrient-enrichment landscape-ecology studies of freshwater wetlands in the Netherlands, can manipulate quantitative data. Others are descriptive, such as the process model that Lyle used to simulate material and energy exchanges in his design of the Center for

ⱍ



Regenerative Studies at California State Polytechnic University and the land-use studies in Western Massachusetts conducted by Hendrix, Fabos, and Price using Odum’s compartment model.23 Except when ecosystem boundaries can be fitted nicely around convenient landscape units such as watersheds and drainage basins, defining study areas in terms of ecosystems is still problematic. Additionally, because ecosystems are complex and we know only so much about how they respond to human-induced and natural stresses, the most significant questions asked in using the appliedecosystem and landscape-ecology approaches relate to which abiotic, biotic, and cultural characteristics of ecosystems should be described; which interactions among them should be emphasized; which stresses affect what ecosystem characteristics and processes, in what ways (temporal and spatial occurrences of stress symptoms), and to what degree; which ecosystem processes are able to withstand extreme stress; and which indicators best measure the short-and long-term effects of these stresses. But while the ecosystem approach examines a study area at the organizational level of the ecosystem, landscape ecology focuses on spatial scales that are much larger than those of traditional ecology, usually on the landscape scale from the human perspective. The landscape-ecology approach extends the interest in ecological functioning by attempting to understand the spatial resolution and temporal scale that is appropriate in examining patterns and processes. Unlike the other approaches, it explores how the spatial configurations of landscape elements and ecological objects affect function. From landscape-ecology studies, we now know more precisely how linear elements such as stream corridors serve as conduits for water, mineral nutrients, and species or as filters for the protection of water quality. We are also better informed about how patch size, shape, and edge influence the composition, amount, and diversity of interior and edge plant and animal species.



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

The landscape-ecology approach also examines the horizontal and vertical heterogeneity formed by all land attributes. The other approaches stress the vertical relationships within biophysical and sociocultural elements in relatively homogenous units, including the ecosystem-approach, with which it shares so much. The assumption is that horizontal relationships will be revealed through an examination of the vertical elements. Yet the horizontal relations—patches, corridors, matrices, or ecotopes—possess distinctive characteristics and serve specific ecological functions. The applied-landscape-ecology approach acknowledges that the structure of the whole landscape and the specific location of the tract of land under consideration are more important than its internal characteristics.24 Species, energy, and materials move across the patches, corridors, and matrix that make up the tract of land and into other ones. Additionally, landscape change involving interacting abiotic, biotic, and cultural factors suggests that the tract of land must be examined in relation to its context. The tract’s formative processes, previous human influence, and natural disturbances also influence its ability to sustain prospective uses. Moreover, one direction of the European branch of landscape ecology is toward the classification and assessment of ecotope assemblages, combining as appropriate the procedures used in the landscape-suitability and ecosystem approaches.25 Except for the humanistic paradigm, assessments of landscape values and perception attempt to identify aesthetic landscape units using physical, artistic, and psychological descriptors. Professionals and public groups judge the units based on the preferences, values, and meanings assigned to the descriptors or on their overall aesthetic quality. The behavioral paradigm uses quantitative analytical techniques to link the judgments to descriptors in order to develop statistical models of preferences. In contrast, the humanistic paradigm employs phenomenological explorations to un-

derstand people’s values and behavior, using qualitative techniques such as open-ended interviews and reviews of literary and creative works. The classification 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 Litton’s visual classification,26 or multiple criteria, such as the criteria in Hills’s physiographic-unit scheme.27 The classification methods in the other approaches do the same. Examples in LSA  include Holdridge’s bioclimatic life zones,28 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife classification of wetlands,29 and LESA.30 In the ecosystem approach they include compartment flow,31 energy flux,32 and physiographic-bioticcultural site types.33 Illustrative examples in applied landscape ecology are the Canadian ecological land classification,34 the land facet–land system–main landscape configuration,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 classifies the landscape, but in a very general way, such as in the geographer Wilbur Zelinsky’s vernacular regions, which reflect an embodiment of the spatial perceptions of indigenous people, and the geographer Donald Meinig’s cultural regions, defined in terms of cores, domains, and spheres,37 the core being an extension of the anthropologist Julian Steward’s 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-

Approaches to Ecological Planning

niques. The suitability and perception studies are clearly divided, and the applied-human-ecology approach favors qualitative analysis. The inclination toward quantification is hardly surprising; the scientific approach employed in the natural and physical sciences often strives for objectivity, which requires that issues underlying a phenomenon be made explicit. Scientific rigor is strongly associated with the ability to organize data around measurable units so that they can be manipulated to make predictions about hypothesized relationships. The likelihood of obtaining more accurate results is high as well. Proponents of qualitative assessments, however, argue that the complexity of ecosystems and the nature of social values are not understood well enough to be reduced to precise mathematical formulas and equations. Even so, the rules used to derive the mathematical formulas are greatly influenced by value judgments. Advances in ecological sciences, information and computer technologies, as well as geographical information systems in the past three decades have led to an increased leaning toward describing and analyzing the landscape in ways that facilitate quantitative assessments. While a case can be made for the dominance of quantitative assessments in the applied-ecosystem and landscapeecology approaches, I review qualitative ones as well. The division is more obvious within landscape-ecological-planning studies. Being an interdisciplinary area of inquiry, the field is dominated by ecologists, geographers, landscape architects, vegetation scientists, wildlife biologists, and so forth. Since each professional brings the orientation of his or her disciplinary approach to problem solving, there is a mix of quantitative and qualitative studies, though the former outnumber the latter. For instance, at the sixteenth annual symposium of the U.S. Regional Association of the International Association of Landscape Ecology, in , more than  percent of the papers presented were based on quantitative studies. The topics

ⱍ



ranged from quantitative modeling of vegetation and animal-habitat patterns to qualitative descriptions of cultural and aesthetic issues in landscape ecology. Monica Turner and Robert Gardner’s Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology (), A. Farina’s Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology (), as well as Turner, Gardner, and Robert O’Neill’s Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice () are testimonies to the dominance of quantitative methods in analyzing landscape heterogeneity in North American landscape-ecology studies. These studies are oriented toward spatial patterns and processes. LSA methods use quantitative and qualitative assessments or combine them to ascertain suitability. In general, when quantitative techniques are used in suitability analysis, for example, in McHarg’s Richmond Parkway study, Steinitz’s Boston information system and Upper San Pedro Watershed study, the METLAND model, and LUPLAN, the computerized programming modules used by many Australian planning agencies, a rating function is used to synthesize biophysical and sociocultural data to obtain a grand index of suitability. In contrast, qualitative assessments involve allocation rules judged by planners and landscape architects to be suitable to the objectives of the project and to the natural and cultural features of the landscape.38 In practice, most LSA studies involve both quantitative and qualitative judgments. The quantification of aesthetic values is largely a philosophical question on which landscape values and perception scholars fiercely disagree. Proponents of the professional paradigm are divided. Most of them agree that qualitative descriptions are useful when the primary objective is simply to describe the appearance of landscapes, but they disagree on whether the evaluation of their quality should be based on quantitative or qualitative judgments. The behavioral paradigm assumes that quantification is not only feasible but necessary for accurate estimates of landscape preferences and



ⱍ

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 people’s aesthetic values are inherently subjective in nature, the reasoning behind describing, weighing, comparing, and aggregating them is inherently flawed. 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 defined subjectively, judgments about aesthetic preferences and quality are likely to be questionable when these subjectively defined 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 profiles 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 reflect the project goals, the type of approach, and the

functions performed. In classification methods across the approaches the outputs are maps accompanied by explanatory text that display homogenous spatial units based on ecosystem characteristics, as in the LSA approaches, or based on interactions, as in the ecosystem and landscapeecology approaches. In the LSA, the maps may contain data on individual resources, such as soils and vegetation, for example, maps generated using data from the NRCS soil survey or from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife classification hierarchy of wetlands and deepwater habitats; or on multiple resources, such as maps using WMRT’s layer-cake model and Holdridge’s bioclimatic life-zones classification. The results from using the LSA  classification methods usually include social, cultural, and economic information, exemplified by LESA. The outputs of the ecosystem and landscapeecology methods can only be based on multiple resources since by definition they focus on processes rather than on structural characteristics.40 It follows also that the data in the maps can only be presented in an interpretive format, unlike the LSA maps, which can be either interpretive (e.g., Hills’s physiographic-unit scheme, the NRCS soil maps, and the Canadian land-inventory maps) or raw (e.g., vegetation and wildlife field surveys, which provide baseline data that are interpreted later for specific purposes). The primary output of LSA resource surveyand-assessment methods is a series of maps or a single composite map, often accompanied by text, depicting the suitability of each tract of land for single or multiple land uses. The allocation and evaluation methods also provide information on the rationale for selecting among competing suitability options. A part of the rationale is a statement of the environmental effects, as well as the social costs and benefits of each option. Additionally, the outputs of strategic suitability methods, such as Steiner’s ecological method or the SIROPLAN method, include information on the programs, institutional arrangements, and resources

Approaches to Ecological Planning

required to implement the selected suitability option. The results of human-ecological-planning studies are similar to those of suitability studies. The difference is that the suitabilities reflect a gradient of homogenous spatial areas where culturally preferred locations coincide with ecologically suitable lands. Some studies, such as Berger and Sinton’s work on the New Jersey Pinelands, also provide detailed information on organizations and institutional arrangements required for implementation since these are examined as a part of people’s adaptive strategies.41 Ecosystem-planning studies present information in maps depicting spatial units, accompanied by text. The specific outputs largely depend on project goals and objectives since they address issues beyond the spatial allocation of land uses. The goal may be to decrease non-source pollution, 42 to rehabilitate ecosystems43 to allocate land uses,44 or to assess the effects of fragmentation on animal populations.45 The outputs often include one or more of the following: a description of ecosystem quality and value to distinguish ecosystems that are valuable from those that may require modifications under management practices; the rationale for selecting appropriate indicators for evaluating ecosystem behavior; and a description of the appropriate management goals—protection (conservation, maintenance, or preservation), correction (restoration or rehabilitation), exploitation (land-disturbing activities such as residential and commercial development), or a combination of these. The outputs of the holisticecosystem methods are similar to those of the strategic suitability methods in that they include a statement of the institutional arrangements and resources for implementation. Because the applied-landscape-ecology approach does not yet have a substantial body of empirically tested methods, the outputs are varied. Some are similar to those of ecosystem-planning studies, such as hydrological-modeling studies.46 Others

ⱍ



produce maps comparable to those resulting from suitability studies, with accompanying texts that explain landscape processes.47 Moreover, the products of methods such as LANDEP contain descriptions of the rationale for selecting the preferred land-use allocation options and the mechanisms for implementation.48 The outcomes of assessments of landscape values and perception depend on the paradigm. The professional paradigm provides statements of visual preferences and quality. The behavioral paradigm produces numerical estimates of preferences, quality, meanings, and other affective responses to landscapes. The output of the humanist paradigm is somewhat similar to the outputs of human-ecology studies, including statement of tastes, ideas about beauty, valued landscapes, and in general the experience of landscapes and the accompanying changes in both people and landscapes. The difference is that the outcomes of the humanistic paradigm are primarily oriented toward advancing knowledge, while human ecology uses outputs as an input in ascertaining landscape suitability. It is obvious that no single approach can address all ecological problems. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses. Planners and landscape architects can draw on the strong features of each approach and ignore the less desirable aspects. When the emphasis is on seeking the optimal fitness of human and other uses in the landscape, we turn to LSA  and LSA . The earlier of these, LSA , stressed natural factors. The significant theoretical and methodological advances in landscape-suitability methods since the early s are reflected in LSA . Important advances were: embracing sociocultural information systematically in establishing the optimal uses of the landscape; improving the technical validity of the analytical operations; placing more emphasis on ecological processes; increasing the scope of functions performed to include evaluation and imple-



ⱍ

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 efficient 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 differences 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 difficult 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-classification method as a first 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 effects 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 fitness 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

Approaches to Ecological Planning

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 find 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 scientific rigor to the examination of landscapes. They use a system perspective to define ecological problems. Moreover, their interest in examining the landscape in terms of input-transformation-output relations makes explicit the tracking of the specific effects 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 identifiable visual and cultural identity; and how ecological systems are linked both vertically and horizontally through the flow 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 configurations of landscape elements affect function. Perhaps the most definitive 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

ⱍ



characterized by natural levels of plant productivity; minimum disruption of the flows 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 natural–rural landscapes. Landscape-ecological planning has been applied in similar settings, including urban environments. In Europe applications have focused on ecological problems arising from rapid intensification 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 influenced 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 Arizona–Phoenix 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 area’s 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 differ on what aesthetic values should be addressed, who should be involved in aesthetic



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

judgments, and how. The professional paradigm is arguably the most widely used and documented, but the results have low reliability and are less defensible in a public debate. Regardless of whether qualitative or quantitative techniques are used, their effectiveness is heavily dependent on the perceptions, technical expertise, and the sociocultural conditioning of the evaluators. The behavioral paradigm, with its emphasis on objectivity and quantification, is usually subjected to the rigorous tests of validity and reliability associated with the empirical methods of the social and behavioral sciences. The humanistic paradigm produces a rich source of qualitative information about landscape values and preferences, but it has low validity and reliability. The studies often take a long time to complete, and the results may be difficult to justify in a public debate. Generalization of the results for problem solving is restricted. But since landscape perception is a continuum without boundaries, many studies combine elements from different paradigms. Because of the paradigms’ distinctive theoretical positions on human-landscape interactions,

which in turn are strongly aligned with the orientations of participating disciplines, it has been extremely difficult to articulate a unified theory of landscape perception. This issue was raised twenty years ago by Jay Appleton, and it is still very much alive, despite concerted efforts 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 significance 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.” Justification theory provides us with a normative framework to “clarify our ideas . . . formulate our positions, argue for them, and justify them.” If it does not define 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 scientific 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 effects of human actions. Yet ecological problems continue to intensify at all spatial scales—global, national, regional, local, and site. In numerous summits, conferences, and books we are constantly reminded of global warming, acidification, 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 offered. 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 definitions 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 



ⱍ

Ecological Planning

recognizes the pervasive influence 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 efficiency of management” to solve ecological problems. Would the type, magnitude, and timing of allowable human actions be different 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 significance 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 different 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 man’s 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 scientifically 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 specific 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 influenced ecological planning undertaken in the United States. Statutory authority for planning has immense ramifications for how ecological planning is conducted worldwide. Ecological planning is certainly one way to solve the vexing conflicts 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 confidence 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 effectively this challenge posed by Forman, we must adopt or reaffirm 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 Leopold’s 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

Leopold’s ethic, we do the right thing when we preserve “the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.”8 Leopold believed that we should be “caring members” of the community, that humans have an obligation and responsibility to ensure its continued existence. Flowing from this ethical position is the need to understand the world around us in terms of relationships that embrace an appreciation of the aesthetic beauty of the biotic community. Indeed, understanding reality in terms of relationships is the essence of ecology. I am suggesting that we adopt ecology as a way of knowing, which forces ecological-planning professionals to scrutinize explicitly the linkages between biophysical and sociocultural processes at all spatial and temporal scales. A historical perspective is especially important because it compels planners to explore the historical forces that dictate landscape evolution, including human abuses of landscapes, and to adopt regenerative mechanisms that use the flows of materials, energy, and species as the operational base for replenishing the landscape continuously. According to Lyle, “Regeneration has to do with rebirth of life itself, thus with hope for the future.”9 Ecological thinking also takes the consciousness of planners and designers to a higher level, enabling them to appreciate and better understand the intricate web of interactions between human and natural processes. People, a rock outcrop, and wildflowers all come to be understood as integral, interdependent parts of a larger system, at varying scales. In ecological thinking and understanding, the distinction between I and they breaks down. Ecological thinking also presumes that ecological planners are limited in their ability to understand the intricacies of human and natural processes. It follows that ecological planning should always be viewed as a participatory process, involving the inhabitants of a place in a meaningful way. Ecological plans, whenever they are developed, become the by-product of the

ⱍ



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 reflection 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 configurations. To be effective in regenerating and sustaining the biotic community, we first 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 communities—the 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 Leopold’s 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 first 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-



ⱍ

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

than an approach or a method. It is a world view for managing our relations with the land to ensure that the ability of future generations of the “biotic community” to meet their needs is not sacrificed by current human actions.

notes

INTRODUCTION . The Club of Rome is a group of eminent educators, economists, scientists, industrialists, and public officials 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 difficult in part because their formats differ. 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 refining 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.” 



ⱍ

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 field 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 Redfield defined 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 differences 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?

. Steiner, Living Landscape, . . The suitability method developed by Ian McHarg and his colleagues and students has been the subject of many reviews. For some negative reviews, see Litton and Kieieger, “Book Review on Design with Nature”; and Gold, “Design with Nature: A Critique.” 1 ECOLOGICAL PLANNING IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE . T. D. Galloway and R. G. Mahayni used Kuhn’s idea of a paradigm to explain developments in the planning profession, which in many ways are similar to those in landscape planning (Galloway and Mahayni, “Planning Theory in Retrospect”). They discussed the difficulties in adopting Kuhn’s framework to explore the evolution of an applied field such as planning and concluded that it was a useful framework. See also Rosenberg, “Emerging Paradigm for Landscape Architecture”; Rosenberg used Kuhn’s framework to focus thinking and research in landscape architecture during the s. . Kuhn asserted that scientific communities pass through phases in which () there is no consensus on a central body of ideas or paradigm to guide the community; () there is some agreement on a paradigm; () the paradigm constitutes the basis for research and problem solving in the community; () there is an awareness of things the paradigm cannot explain or resolve; and () attempts are made to formulate alternative paradigms. . The knowledge base used in landscape architecture is drawn from the natural, physical, and social sciences, as well as from the creative arts. The artistic nature of landscape architecture may help to explain the discrepancies between the phases of paradigm development proposed by Kuhn and those I have identified for ecological planning. . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, . . For an excellent account of the history of American environmental thought, see Nash, American Environment. . Catlin, Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of North American Indians, :–. . Thoreau, Walden, . . Other notable examples of Olmsted’s works are the designs for Prospect Park in Brooklyn (–), South Park in Chicago (), Franklin Park in Boston (), and the Columbian Exposition in Chicago ().

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. Olmsted’s 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 (finished and beautiful) and the picturesque (irregular and wild). Gilpin’s 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 modifications to the landscape to reveal the topography and create “simple and flowing forms.” Uvedale Price expanded upon Gilpin’s 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 influenced 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 offered a more flexible 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. Loudon’s Suburban Gardener () and H. W. S. Cleveland’s Landscape Architecture as Applied to the Wants of

ⱍ



the West (). Olmsted subtly combined the ideas rooted in the pastoral and picturesque traditions in his works, although he was primarily concerned with revealing a site’s intrinsic natural qualities. For Olmsted, the site was the park, emphasized earlier in the writings of Catlin and Thoreau as a source of spiritual healing that counteracted the dehumanizing aspects of city life. . Wood, “Extended Garden Metaphor,” . . Marsh, Man and Nature. . Ibid., . . Powell, Reports of the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, viii. . Howard, Garden Cities of To-Morrow. . Muir, Yosemite. . Eliot, Charles Eliot, Landscape Architect, . . G. Pinchot, Breaking New Ground (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, ), cited in Roderick, American Environmentalism, . . W. J. McGee, quoted in ibid. . Landscape or ecological planning was an integral part of the profession of landscape architecture until . The division corresponded with two major events. First, many landscape architects moved away from designing parks and large open spaces to working on private estates, such as the Biltmore Estate. Second, there was disagreement among landscape architects regarding the appropriateness of the natural style to site-specific residential design. Two contrasting styles emerged in the planning and design of landscapes: the natural style, espoused by Frederick Law Olmsted and his followers, and formal geometry, based on Renaissance architecture, promoted by the landscape painter Charles Platt and the architect Richard Morris Hunt. Formal geometry emphasized simple, rectilinear spaces connected by strong long axes and views. . Peter Towbridge, at Cornell University, used the term trial and error techniques to describe a way of analyzing landscapes that relied primarily on common sense and experience (Naveh and Lieberman, Landscape Ecology [], –). . National Park Act of , U.S. Statutes at Large  (): . . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolution, . . I rely mainly on two primary sources for my discussion of the development of the overlay technique: McHarg’s account of the pioneering efforts of Charles Eliot in developing overlays using sun prints in the late nineteenth century, To Heal the Earth, – ; and



ⱍ

Notes to Pages – 

Steinitz, Parker, and Jordan’s account of subsequent development and use of the overlay technique, “HandDrawn Overlays.” . While the development of the overlay technique was a milestone in the evolution of ecological-planning methods, other developments were also important. Aerial photography, a well-known source of data in ecological-planning studies, was first used in geographical studies in . In  the geographer Carl Sauer provided theoretical rigor in analyzing landscapes when he published the article “Morphology of Landscape,” in which he proposed a “morphological method” of spatial analysis for natural and cultural landscapes. In  C. Marbut presented one of the first soil-classification systems at the International Congress of Soil Science. Soil classification was an early method for analyzing landscapes. These developments were cited in Bryant, “New Model of Landscape Planning.” . Geddes, Cities in Evolution, . . Weaver, Regional Development and the Local Community, –, provides an excellent account of regionalism. . Ibid.,  –. Weaver argues that the weakness of the regional-planning movement was the failure by members of the RPAA to integrate the issues of class relations and contradictions in their formulation of regionalism, a fundamental characteristic of capitalist industrial societies. One outcome was that the RPAA adopted an organic and unrealistic view of the region that led to “an acceptance of government as a disinterested arbiter of regional problems” (). . The Southern Regionalists, led by the University of North Carolina sociologist Howard Odum, promoted another form of regionalism. Primarily concerned with underdevelopment in the South, the Southern Regionalists advanced the notion of “regional reconstruction,” which focused on “autonomous institutional building, education, and resource development at the regional level” (ibid.,  – ). . Odum, Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems. . Quinby, “Contribution of Ecological Science to the Development of Landscape Ecology.” . Ibid., . . Although the concept of ecological succession was first described by Europeans (especially Warming) in , the pioneering work in the field was by Clements and Gleason.

. Grese, Jens Jensen, –. . Friedmann, Planning in the Public Domain, –. . See Weaver, Regional Development and the Local Community, . . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, . . I rely heavily on Golley, History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology, for my overview of the evolution of the ecosystem concept. Golley pointed out that another important aspect of the ecosystem concept was that it united the works of two opposing groups: plant ecologists, who emphasized the importance of hierarchical division among individual stands of vegetation, and those who stressed the life history and maturity of vegetation stands. . More specifically, Lindeman applied the energy approach to demonstrate how to convert the biomass (living weight of species) into energy units, how to describe the annual production of food crops in terms of trophic (feeding) levels, such as those of producers and consumers, and how to determine the efficiency of energy transfer between trophic levels (“Trophic Dynamic Aspect of Ecology”). . Quinby, “Contribution of Ecological Science to the Development of Landscape Ecology,” . . Golley, History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology, –, quotation on . . MacKaye, New Exploration. . MacKaye, “Regional Planning and Ecology,” . . Leopold, Sand County Almanac, . . McKenzie, Pinelands Scenic Study—Summary Report. . Mumford, Culture of Cities, . . Ibid., . . Ibid., –. . John Dewey, quoted in Friedmann, Planning in the Public Domain, . . Graham, Natural Principles in Land Use. . Vogt, Road to Survival. . Sears, Ecology of Man. . Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, . . APRR, Town and County Planning Textbook,  – . . Steinitz, Parker, and Jordan, “Hand-Drawn Overlays,” –. . Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, . . Thomas, Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. . The period between the mid-s and the mids corresponded with the transition from the industrial to the postindustrial era in the United States (Bell,

Notes to Pages – 

Coming of the Post Industrial Society). This period was characterized by political and economic turbulence and disenchantment. In a postindustrial era more people are employed in services and proportionately fewer are employed in industry. In “Planning in the Era of Social Revolution,” Betram Gross argued that this transition was marked by uneven technological development, changing institutional structures, and social protests. While the pace of technological development accelerated, most of the development emphasized technologies that enhanced opportunities for profit and material benefits, such as outerspace exploration. There was very little progress in technology related to education, housing, and community development. Changing institutional structures created fragmentation, deepening crisis, and rising expectations. The fragmentation was expressed in many areas, including the traditional bonds that held the family together, professionalism, and social roles. In speaking of a deepening crisis I refer to the fact that the past could no longer serve as a guide for the future. There was no obvious symbols of responsible authority. The erosion of authority began with the family and extended into the economic and political spheres. The rise in expectations was primarily focused on a better and more equitable distribution of benefits. In addition, social protests coincided with the political crisis that marked the shift to postindustrialism. The major protests included the environmental movement, against deteriorating ecological health; the civil rights movement and the movement for minority rights, against various forms of social injustice; the leftist movement, focusing on political corruption; and the women’s movement, demanding the liberation of women from centuries of imprisonment in social roles based on assumptions of their biological inferiority. . Commoner, Science and Survival. . Ehrlich, Population Bomb. . Thomas, Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. . Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful; Capra, Turning Point. While scholars such as Schumacher and Capra argued for fundamental changes in the management of finite resources, many others have complete confidence in the ability of new technology to manage the world’s resources. The well-known spokespersons for the latter view include H. Kahn, W. Brown, and L. Martel in The Next  Years and the economist J. Simon in The Ultimate Resource.

ⱍ



. Blake, God’s Own Junkyard; Tunnard and Pushkarev, Man-Made America; Nairn, American Landscape. . Ridd, “Multiple Use.” . L. B. Johnson, “Natural Beauty—Message from the President of the United States,” Congressional Record, th Cong., st sess., , , pt. : –, discussed in Nash, American Environment, –. . Federal Water Pollution Act of , U.S. Statutes at Large  (): . . National Environmental Policy Act of , U.S. Statutes at Large  (): . . In Britain, for example, ecological planning was a spinoff of controlling development to improve social and economic conditions. The legislative support was provided through a series of acts of Parliament, including the Countryside Act of , the Nature Conservancy Act of , the Land Drainage Act of , the Local Government, Planning and Land Act of , and the Wildlife and Countryside Act of . Initially, much work on ecological planning Britain in the s was restricted to identifying the scenic quality of landscapes. When other landscape resources were addressed in local planning documents, they were treated as individual entities. Thus, integrated ecological planning rarely exists in Britain. In “Landscape Planning and Environmental Sustainability” Anne Beer pointed out that the apparent lack of integrated planning in Britain resulted from the different interpretation of the phrase landscape planning there. In Britain the landscape is interpreted as scenery; thus, landscape planning is interpreted as “planning for the visual aspects of land use.” In contrast, ecological planning is fully integrated into the legislative and institutional context of planning in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. For example, the legislative basis for ecological planning in Germany is the “Landeskulturgesetz,” which provides guidelines used by each town and district in developing ecological plans. In the Netherlands the Reallotment Act, which was superseded in  by the Land Development Act, provides the key legislative framework for ecological planning. . Hills, Ecological Basis for Land-Use Planning. . Hopkins, “Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps,” – . . Lewis, “Quality Corridors for Wisconsin.” Lewis’s study of the upper Mississippi River was another significant piece of work in landscape planning during the mid-s.



ⱍ

Notes to Pages  – 

. McHarg, Design with Nature, . . Glikson, Ecological Basis of Planning. . Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, . . World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, –. . The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act of  and the National Forest Management Act of  focused on the management of public lands. They called for the management of landscape resources, including aesthetics, using an interdisciplinary approach. . Bosselman and Callies, Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control. . Frank Golley, interview by author, Athens, Ga.,  March . . Bormann and Likens, “Nutrient Cycling.” Although Bormann and Likens’s work was a useful experiment in using ecological modeling, ecologists began to question the usefulness of ecological modeling in describing whole ecological systems and producing testable hypothesis. Other theories emerged that surpassed the ecosystem concept as the dominant theory in ecological studies. For instance, a renewed interest in evolutionary ecology was propelled by the works of V. C. Wynee-Edwards (see Animals Dispersion in Relation to Social Behavior; for a more thorough discussion of the competition between ecosystem and evolutionary ecology, see Golley, History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology,  –). . Swank and Crossley, Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta; Schindler et al., “Long-Term Ecosystem Stress.” . Odum, “ Strategy of Ecosystem Development.” . Golley, History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology, . . Friedmann, Retracking America. . MacDougall, “ Accuracy of Map Overlays.” . Hopkins, “Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps.” . McHarg and Sutton, “Ecological Planning for the Texas Coastal Plain,” . . In “Design with Nature: A Critique” Andrew Gold argued that the McHarg method relied solely on nature as the framework within which human decisions must be made. Yet, the ultimate decisions regarding the use of the landscape are based on externalities, including the supply of land and economic and political realities. Consequently, stated Gold, the McHargian method “fails to recognize that it is intrinsic suitability in conjunction with the values people place on the use

of intrinsically suitable land that should determine the correct allocation” (). . Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice, . . B. J. Lee discussed nine projects using concepts about ecosystem structure and processes and compared them with the application of the McHarg method in Toronto’s Central Waterfront planning study (Lee, “Ecological Comparison of the McHarg Method with Other Planning Initiatives in the Great Lake Basin”). . Forman and Godron, Landscape Ecology. . Zonneveld, “Scope and Concepts of Landscape Ecology,” . . Berger and Sinton, Water, Earth, and Fire, . . Zube, “Landscape Meaning, Assessment, and Theory.” . Berger and Sinton, Water, Earth, and Fire, xvii. . Ndubisi, “Variations in Value Orientation.” . Kuhn’s framework is instructive in explaining the evolution of landscape planning, but it provides no basis for speculating on scenarios for its continuing evolution. 2 THE FIRST LANDSCAPE-SUITABILITY APPROACH . McAllister, Evaluation in Environmental Planning, . . Lyle, Design for Human Ecosystems. . Hopkins, “Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps,” – . . American College Dictionary,  ed. . Brady, Nature and Properties of Soils, ; Laird et al., Quantitative Land-Capability Analysis, ; U.S. Congress, “National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning.” . American College Dictionary,  ed. . Hopkins, “Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps,” . . Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary,  ed. . Passons, Gestalt Approaches to Counseling, . . Dewey, Experience and Nature, . . Hopkins, “Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps,” . . The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), originally the Soil Erosion Service, was established by the Franklin Roosevelt administration in  in response to the disastrous drought that struck the Great Plains.

Notes to Pages – 

In  it became a permanent agency under the Soil Conservation Act. . Soil surveys were conducted in the United States by . During the next twenty-five years the purpose was to supply maps showing soil selection for determining which rural lands could be used for growing crops, grasses, and trees. By the mid-s empirical studies of selected engineering properties of soils were initiated largely through the efforts of the Michigan State Highway Department. Research on integrating the engineering properties of soils to soil behavior continued, and the integration was established by the end of World War II, paving the way for the use of soil surveys in planning and resource management. One of the earliest soil surveys prepared specifically for planning purposes took place in Fairfax County, Virginia (Kellogg, “Soil Survey for Community Planning”). . Ibid., . . Steiner, “Resource Suitability,” . . P. E. Davis, L. T. Lerch, N. S. Steiger, J. T. Andrus, and G. Boltrell, Soil Survey of Montgomery County, Ohio (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, ), cited in Steiner, “Resource Suitability,” . . In  the Chester County Planning Commission, in West Chester, Pennsylvania, published one of the first extensive planning documents to make use of the NSCS classification in estimating landscape suitability, especially for urban and agricultural development (Chester County Planning Commission, Natural Environment and Planning). . Hills, Ecological Basis for Land-Use Planning. . Coombs and Thie, “Canadian Land Inventory System.” . Hills, Ecological Basis for Land-Use Planning, . . Ibid., –. . Lewis, Recreation and Open Space in Illinois; State of Wisconsin, Department of Resource Development, Recreation in Wisconsin. Philip Lewis was a consultant for the latter study. . Lewis, “Quality Corridors for Wisconsin,” . . Ecological corridors may comprise abovesurface patterns, such as weather, odor, and noise; surface patterns, such as flood and natural areas; or below-surface patterns, such as aquifer-recharge areas, ground-water sources, and mud slides. . Lewis, “Ecology,” . . Belknap and Furtado, Three Approaches to Environmental Resource Analysis, – . . Many of the projects were conducted by

ⱍ



McHarg and his colleagues and students in partnership with Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd and with its predecessor, Wallace-McHarg Associates, based in Philadelphia. A complete listing of the projects, compiled by Frederick Steiner, can be found in McHarg’s autobiography, A Quest for Life. The Wallace-McHarg Associates projects were published as Inner Harbor Master Plan, for the city of Baltimore (); and Plan for the Valley, for the Green Spring and Worthington Valley Planning Council (). The Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd projects were published as Ecological Study for Twin Cities Metropolitan Region, Minnesota, prepared for the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area (); An Ecological Study for the Future Public Improvement of the Borough of Richmond (Staten Island), for the City of New York Office of Staten Island Development, Borough President of Richmond and Park, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Administration (); Least Social Cost Corridor Study for Richmond Parkway, New York, for the New York Department of Parks and Recreation (); Towards a Comprehensive Landscape Plan for Washington, D.C., prepared for the National Capital Planning Commission (); American Institute of Architects Task Force on the Potomac (– ); and A Comprehensive Highway Route Selection Method Applied to I- between the Delaware and Raritan Rivers, for the Princeton Committee on I- (). . In an article published in  Lynn White expanded upon McHarg’s views about the causes of our ecological crises and argued that the attitudes of Western societies and their traditions of technology and science were rooted in the Judeo-Christian dogma of creation. According to White, “Man named all the animals thus establishing dominance over them . . . no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man’s purpose.” Christianity’s insistence on dominance over nature is largely to blame for the current ecological crises. By implication, the solution to the crises must be largely religious, whether or not we refer to it as such (White, “Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”). Nancy Denig, on the other hand, argued that the exploitation of nature by humans was a matter of choice rather than religion since humans have a free will. She said that Judeo-Christian theology holds that man is called into “a sacred relationship with nature that is lodged in dominion, stewardship, and convenantal co-existence” (Denig, “On Values Revisited”). . McHarg, “Ecological Determinism,” . . McHarg, Design with Nature, .



ⱍ

Notes to Pages – 

. McHarg, “Ecological Determinism,” –. . McHarg, Design with Nature, . . Hopkins refers to the quantitative version of McHarg’s method used in these studies as an ordinal combination method to suggest the underlying logic of combining factors using overlays (Hopkins, “Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps”). . Christian, “Concept of Land Units and Land Systems.” . Zube and Carlozzi, Inventory and Interpretation— Selected Resources of the Island of Nantucket. . Zube, The Islands—Selected Resources of the United States Virgin Islands. . Toth, Criteria for Evaluating Natural Resources of the TIRAC Region. . For examples of computer technology employed in ecological planning, see Steinitz, Computers and Regional Planning; Steinitz and Rogers, System Analysis Model of Urbanization and Change; and Steinitz, Enviromedia Inc., and Roger Associates Inc., Natural Resource Protection. . See above, n. . . Gordon and Gordon, “Accuracy of Soil Survey Information for Urban Land-Use Planning.” . McAllister, Evaluation in Environmental Planning, . . This issue was examined extensively in Lee’s comparison of McHarg’s method with many planning initiatives in the Great Lakes Basin (see Lee, “Ecological Comparison of the McHarg Method with Other Planning Initiatives in the Great Lakes Basin”). 3 THE SECOND LANDSCAPESUITABILITY APPROACH . R. Dorney, at the University of Waterloo, in Canada, argued that landscape evolution is driven by five forces: institutional, social, technological, economic, and ecological (Professional Practice of Environmental Management). . Gold, “Design with Nature: A Critique,” . . Odum, Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems, . . Many practitioners and researchers in the field of outdoor recreation have been very active in interpreting and applying the concept of carrying capacity. As Steiner observed, they work with forest and range ecologists and are very familiar with ecological terms. In addition, they are faced continuously with balancing the demand for recreational uses with the potential

negative consequences that arise from using recreational areas (Steiner, “Resource Suitability”). In the field 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, “World’s Most Populous Polymorphic Species.” . McHarg’s 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 Artificial. . 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 McHarg’s 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 efficiency 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 file 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  – 

vides flexibility and enhanced efficiency (see Steinitz, Parker, and Jordan, “Hand-Drawn Overlays”). MacDougall reviewed the accuracy of the types of information typically used in conducting suitability analyses, such as on soils and vegetation. He identified the limitations of some sources of data, such as soil maps, and the inaccuracy resulting from combining many maps using hand-drawn overlays; for instance, when there are more than three or four overlays the maps become opaque (MacDougall, “Accuracy of Map Overlays”). . Ingmire and Patri, “Early Warning System for Regional Planning.” . Juneja, Medford; Steiner and Theilacker, Whitman County Rural Housing Feasibility Study. . Ndubisi, Ecological Sensitivity Study for Richard B. Russell Lake. . Meyers, Kennedy, and Sampson, “Information Systems for Land Use Planning.” . Steiner, “Resource Suitability,” . . Several planners and landscape architects have proposed schemes for sorting the methods into major groupings. Fabos, for example, organizes them based on whether landscape characteristics can be described as parameters to facilitate quantitative analysis (Planning the Total Landscape). The planner Donald McAllister distinguished between quantitative and qualitative methods for suitability analysis (Evaluation in Environmental Planning). Steinitz views the relationship between facts and values and their uses as the basic concern of design processes (LSA methods). The degree to which LSA methods distinguish between facts and values was the prime consideration for his classification, tempered by issues such as scale, time, complexity, and participation (Defensible Processes for Regional Landscape Design). For Lyle, the prime considerations are the manner in which natural and cultural characteristics of the landscape are analyzed and the specific functions the methods are designed to perform (Design for Human Ecosystems). Lastly, Hopkins’s classification focused primarily on how the methods describe and analyze natural and cultural data (“Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps.”) Irrespective of the criteria used, one consideration is obvious. The methods use some process for organizing the type and array of operations to be performed in determining the optimal uses of the landscape. The process is similar to the design or planning process or variations thereof. I organize LSA methods using the logical series of activities used

ⱍ



in executing planning-and-design tasks. This series of activities is well known and understood by most planners and landscape architects. . M. E. Wamsley, G. Utzig, T. Vold, E. Moon, and J. van Barnveld, eds., Describing Ecosystems in the Field, RAB Technical Paper  (Victoria, B.C.: Ministry of Environment, ), , quoted in Bastedo, ABC Resource Survey Method for Environmentally Significant Areas, . . Cowardin et al., Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States. . Environment Canada, Lands Directorate, Land Capability Classification. . Holdridge, Life Zone Ecology, . . R. Beach, D. Benson, D. Brunton, K. Johnson, J. Knowles, H. Michalovic, G. Newman, B. Tripp, and C. Wunschel, Auston County Ecological Inventory and Land Use Suitability Analysis (Pullman: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Service, ), cited in Steiner, Living Landscape, ; for examples of layer-cake diagrams related to life zones, see p. . . Hills, “Philosophical Approach to Landscape Planning,” . . Dorney, Professional Practice of Environmental Management, . . Tyler et al., “Use of Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment in Whitman County, Washington, USA.” . For more detailed discussion of the technical aspect, see Tomlinson, Calkins, and Marble, Computer Handling of Geographical Data; and Switzer, “Canadian Geographic Information System.” . Griffith, “Geographical Information Systems and Environmental Impact Assessment.” . Bastedo, ABC Resource Survey Method for Environmentally Significant Areas, , . . Jacobs, “Landscape Development in the Urban Fringe.” . Ingmire and Patri, “Early Warning System for Regional Planning.” . EDAW, Candidate Areas for Large Electric Power Generating Plants. . Deithelm & Bressler, Mount Bachelor Recreation Area. . Crow, “Alcovy River and Swamp Interpretation Center.” . Lyle, Design for Human Ecosystems, . . These projects are cited in ch. , n. . . Johnson, Berger, and McHarg, “Case Study in Ecological Planning: The Woodlands, Texas,” . . International Planning Associates, New Federal



ⱍ

Notes to Pages – 

Capital for Nigeria. Archisystems, Planning Research Corporation, and Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd (WMRT) were consulting partners. Abraam Krushkhov was the overall project director; Walter G. Hansen, the associate project director; Thomas A. Todd, the partner-in-charge for WMRT planning and design; and Ian L. McHarg, was in charge of technical review. . T. Todd, “The Master Plan for Abuja, the New Federal Capital of Nigeria,” in Steiner and Van Lier, Land Conservation and Development, –. . Juneja, Medford. . Ibid., . . Vink, Land Use in Advancing Agriculture. . Ibid., , . . Ibid., . . Dickert and Tuttle, “Cumulative Impact Assessment in Environmental Planning,” . . Spaling et al., Methodological Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Impacts on Fish and Wildlife. . Lyle and von Wodtke, “Information System for Environmental Planning.” . Steinitz, Brown, and Goodale, Managing Suburban Growth. . Fabos, Model of Landscape Resource Assessment; Fabos and Caswell, Composite Landscape Assessment; Fabos, Green, and Joyner, METLAND Landscape Planning Process. . Warner and Preston, Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies. . See McAllister, Evaluation in Environmental Planning; Jain and Hutchings, Environmental Impact Analysis; and Shopey and Fuggle, “Comprehensive Review of Current Environmental Impact Assessment Methods and Techniques.” . Dee et al., “Environmental Evaluation System for Water Resources Planning.” . Leopold et al., Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact. . Lyle and von Wodtke, “Information System for Environmental Planning,” –. . Rice Center for Community Design and Research, Environmental Analysis for Development Planning. See also Rowe and Gevirtz, “Natural Environmental Information and Impact Assessment System.” . Lyle, Design for Human Ecosystems, . . Lyle, Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development, . . Steinitz, “Simulating Alternative Policies for Implementing the Massachusetts Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act.”

. Steinitz, “Toward a Sustainable Landscape with High Visual Preference and High Ecological Integrity.” . Steinitz et al., Biodiversity and Landscape Planning; Harvard University, Department of Landscape Architecture, et al., Alternative Futures of the Upper San Pedro River Watershed. . So, “Planning Agency Management,” . . Austin and Cocks, Land Use of the South Coast of New South Wales; Cocks, Ive, and Baird, “SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN.” . Examples include McDonald and Brown, “Land Suitability Approach to Strategic Land Use Planning in Urban Fringe Areas”; and Davis and Ive, Rural Local Government Planning; and Bishop and Fabos, Application of the CSIRO Land Use Planning Method to the Geelong Region. . Ive and Cocks, “SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: An Australian Approach to Land-Use Planning. . The LUPLAN Land Use Planning Package.” . The sources were cited in Cocks et al., “SIROPLAN and LUPLAN.” The influential ones include () for ecological planning, Christian and Steward, “Methodology of Integrated Surveys,” and McHarg, Design with Nature; () for multiobjective planning, Keeney and Raffia, Decisions with Multiple Objectives, and Dyer, “Interactive Goal Programming”; and () for mathematical programming optimization, Openshaw and Whitehead, “Structure Planning Using a Decision Optimizing Technique,” and Friend and Jessop, Local Government and Strategic Choice. . Steiner, Living Landscape, . . Ibid., . . Ibid. 4 THE APPLIED-HUMAN-ECOLOGY APPROACH . Rose, Steiner, and Jackson, “Applied Human Ecological Approach to Regional Planning.” . For works by these authors see the References. . Stalley, Patrick Geddes. . Young, Origins of Human Ecology, . . Jackson and Steiner, “Human Ecology for LandUse Planning.” . McHarg, “Human Ecological Planning at Pennsylvania,” . . Berger and Sinton, Water, Earth, and Fire, . . Hawley, Human Ecology; Hawley, Urban Sociology; Steward, Theory of Culture Change; Duncan and Schnore, “Cultural, Behavioral, and Ecological Per-

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 Young’s 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.”

ⱍ



. Cultural geographers, for instance, use historical inquiry, systematically defining the evolution of place from the past to the present, as in the works of W. G. Hoskins; or they examine the physical attributes of place to reveal their cultural and social meaning, as in the writings of the historian J. B. Jackson (see “Pair of Ideal Landscapes”). . Landscape perception is examined in detail in ch. . . Berger, “Hazleton Ecological Land Planning Study.” . Ibid., . . Ibid., . . Rose, Steiner, and Jackson, “Applied Human Ecological Approach to Regional Planning.” In addition to the authors, the study team included Jonathan Berger, Gail Breslow, Bill Cook, Greg McGinty, Kathy Poslosky, Brad Rubin, and Larry Wolinski. . Ibid., . . Steward, Theory of Culture Change; Rappaport, Pigs for the Ancestors; Hunter, Community Power Structure; Von Bertalanffy, General Systems Theory. . Rose, Steiner, and Jackson, “Applied Human Ecological Approach to Regional Planning,” . . Ibid., . . McHarg, “Human Ecological Planning at Pennsylvania.” . Ibid., . . Ibid., . . Berger and Sinton, Water, Earth, and Fire, . . Ibid., . . Berger, “Guidelines for Landscape Synthesis.” . Jackson and Steiner, “Human Ecology for LandUse Planning.” . Ibid., . . Naveh and Lieberman, Landscape Ecology (), . . The Rural Development Outreach Project (RDOP) at the University of Guelph involved outreach activities supportive of northern initiatives and institutions that promote integrated rural development. One aspect of northern Ontario outreach is to work with Native Canadian communities under the leadership of Professor Jackie Wolfe. . Ndubisi, Participatory and Culturally Interpretive Approach to Dynamic Rural Site Planning. . Alexander, Ishiwaw, and Silverston, Pattern Language; Alexander, Gitai, and Howard, Segev “Het” Master Plan, Israel; R. Dubos, “So Human an Animal,” quoted in Green, Mind and Image, ; Canter, Psychology



ⱍ

Notes to Pages – 

of Place; Lynch, Theory of Good City Form; Lynch, Image of the City; Norberg-Schulz, Existence, Space, and Architecture; Prochanky, Ittelson, and Rivlin, Environmental Psychology; Rapoport, Mutual Interaction between People and Their Built Environment; Relph, Place and Placelessness; Von Franz, Projection and Recollection in Jungian Psychology. . Lynch, Theory of Good City Form, . . Tom Alcose, head of the Department of Native Studies at Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, and future resident of the Burwash community, interview by author, Sudbury,  August . . Penfold and Ndubisi, New Post Band No.  Relocation Study and Site Selection; Simon et al., Culturally Sensitive Approach to Planning and Design with Native Canadians; Ndubisi, Development Implications of the Biophysical and Cultural Resource Assessment for the Missisuagas. . Fahs, “Paseo De Amistad.” . Ibid., . . Doineau, “Culturally Informed Design.” . Rapoport, Mutual Interaction of People and Their Built Environment. . Ndubisi, “Phenomenological Approach to Design for Amer-Indian Cultures”; Ndubisi, “Variations in Value Orientations.” . Rapoport, Mutual Interaction of People and Their Built Environment. . The landscape architect and urban designer James Corner, at Pennsylvania, is a vocal spokesperson for this viewpoint. Ian Firth and Catherine Howett, both at the University of Georgia, expressed similar concerns (interviews by author, Athens, Ga.,  and  April , respectively). For instance, Catherine Howett asserted that the deconstruction of biophysicalhuman systems for scientific analysis emphasizes a restricted mode of understanding that is severely flawed. . Hough, Out of Place, , . . Ibid., . . Ibid., . . Hester, “Subconscious Landscapes of the Heart.” . Jones and Atkinson, “Making a Marriage with the Land,” . . Jones, Nooksack Plan. . Jones, Design as Ecogram, . . Ibid. . Darrel Morrison, interview by author, Athens, Ga.,  April . . Zonneveld, “Scope and Concepts of Landscape Ecology.”

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. . Jeffers, 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  – 

. Odum, Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems. . James, “Nonequilibrium Thermodynamic Framework for Discussing Ecosystem Integrity.” . Prigogine, “Thermodynamics of Evolution.” . Risser, “Toward a Holistic Management Perspective.” . Ibid., . . Clapham, “Approach to Quantifying the Exploitability of Human Ecosystems.” . Odum, “Strategy of Ecosystem Development.” . Dansereau, “Biogeographic dynamique de Quebec.” Moss, “Landscape Synthesis, Landscape Processes, and Land Classification,”  –. See also Dansereau and Pare, Ecological Grading and Classification of Landscape Occupation and Land-Use Mosaics. . Lee, “Ecological Comparison of the McHarg Method with Other Planning Initiatives in the Great Lakes Basin,” , . . Hills, “Philosophical Approach to Landscape Planning,” . . Dansereau, “Biogeographic dynamic de Quebec.” See also Dansereau and Pare, Ecological Grading and Classification of Landscape Occupation and Land-Use Mosaics. . Moss, “Landscape Synthesis, Landscape Processes, and Land Classification,”  –. . Klign, Ecosystem Classification for Environmental Management, –. . This distinction is similar to that proposed by William Hendrix and his colleagues at the University of Massachusetts. In a  paper they distinguished two directions for ecological research. The first emphasizes ecological attributes, such as niche and trophic organization; the other, particularly related to large-scale planning, stresses a systems approach (Hendrix, Fabos, and Price, “Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning Using Geographical Information System Technology”). . Ibid., . . Ott, Environmental Indices. . Bastedo, ABC Resource Survey Method for Environmentally Significant Areas. See also Theberge, Nelson, and Fenge, Environmentally Significant Areas in the Yukon Territory. . Ndubisi, DeMeo, and Ditto, “Environmentally Sensitive Areas.” . Bastedo, ABC Resource Survey Method for Environmentally Significant Areas, . . Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Plan-

ⱍ



ning and Environment, Summary of General Ecological Model. See also idem, Summary of the Netherlands Environmental Survey. . Grime, “Vegetation Classification by Reference to Strategies.” . Anderson, “Conceptual Framework for Evaluating and Quantifying Naturalness,” . . Wathern et al., “Ecological Evaluation Techniques.” . Bailey, Pfister, and Henderson, “Nature of Land and Resource Classification.” . Helliwell, “Value of Vegetation for Conservation.” . M. J. Adriani and E. Van der Maarel, Voorne in de Branding (), cited in Wathern et al., “Ecological Evaluation Techniques.” . Cooper and Zedler, “Ecological Assessment for Regional Development.” . Bisset, “Quantification, Decision-making, and Environmental Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom.” . National Environmental Policy Act of , U.S. Statues at Large  (). . Ott, Environmental Indices,  –. . Ecosystem-risk assessment (ERA) provides a systematic means of estimating ecological risks associated with environmental problems. It estimates the uncertainty associated with a certain action, such as exceeding a certain water- or air-pollution standard. While environmental-impact assessment examines the effects of a broad range of human actions on ecosystems, risk assessment focuses on more or less well defined regulatory problems using quantitative analysis to estimate the probability of undesired effects of specific change agents, for example, effects of ozoneinduced stress on the edge of a coniferous forest. . Glasoe et al., “Assimilative Capacity and Water Resource Management,” . . The evolutionary development and applications of threshold analysis is well documented in Kozolowski, Threshold Approach in Urban, Regional, and Environmental Planning. . Dickert and Tuttle, “Cumulative Impact Assessment in Environmental Planning”; Glasoe, “Utility of the Environmental Threshold Concept in Managing Natural Resources.” . Lee, “Ecological Comparison of the McHarg Method with Other Planning Initiatives in the Great Lakes Basin,” . . Sonzogni and Heidtke, Modelling the Great Lakes.



ⱍ

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 Schaeffer, 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 Effects 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 Meffe, “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, O’Connell, and Murphy, Science of Conservation Planning, . . Lee, “Ecological Comparison of the McHarg

Method with Other Planning Initiatives in the Great Lakes Basin,” . . Similar mechanisms are reviewed in Steiner’s The Living Landscape. . Donahue, “Institutional Arrangement for Great Lakes Management,” . . Ibid., . . Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice, . . Ibid. 6 THE APPLIED-LANDSCAPE-ECOLOGY APPROACH . Hersperger, “Landscape Ecology and Its Potential Application to Planning,” . . Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. . Hersperger, “Landscape Ecology and Its Potential Application to Planning,” . Specific methods exist for examining patterns and process in the landscape (see, e.g., Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice; Farina, Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology; and Turner and Gardner, Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology). Lacking are definitive methods for applying landscape-ecology theory and principles to ecological planning. . The important works include Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice; Klopatek and Gardner, Landscape Ecological Analysis; Farina, Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology; Turner and Gardner, Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology; Hansson, Fahrig, and Merriam, Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes; Forman and Godron, Landscape Ecology; Forman, Land Mosaics; Golley and Bellot, “Interactions of Landscape Ecology, Planning, and Design”; Haase and Richter, “Current Trends in Landscape Research”; Naveh, “Landscape Ecology as an Emerging Branch of Human Ecosystem Science”; and Lieberman, Landscape Ecology (); Numata, “Basic Concepts and Methods of Landscape Ecology”; and Zonneveld and Forman, Changing Landscapes. . The sources in the preceding note provide historical accounts of the development of landscape ecology. Naveh and Lieberman, Landscape Ecology (), provides a succinct history of developments in Europe. Schreiber’s review of developments in Europe, “History of Landscape Ecology in Europe,” is precise. Forman and Godron’s Landscape Ecology described comparable developments in North America (pp. –

Notes to Pages – 

). Additional valuable references include Neef, “Stages in the Development of Landscape Ecology”; and Quinby, “Contribution of Ecological Science to the Development of Landscape Ecology.” . Forman, Land Mosaics,  –. . Carl Troll, quoted in Schreiber, “History of Landscape Ecology in Europe,” . . The term biogeocoenose is used by European ecologists to refer to the smallest indivisible spatial unit in an ecological system. . Zonneveld, “Land Unit.” . Zonneveld, “Scope and Concepts of Landscape Ecology,” . . MacArthur and Wilson, Theory of Island Biogeography. . Levins, “Extinction.” . Pollard, Hooper, and Moore, Hedges. . H. Leser, Landschaftsokologie (Stuttgart: Ulmer, ), cited in Schreiber, “History of Landscape Ecology in Europe,” . . Schreiber, “Landscape Planning and Protection of the Environment.” . Van Leeuwen, “Relation Theoretical Approach to Pattern and Process in Vegetation.” . Rapoport, Meaning of the Built Environment; Lynch, Image of the City. . Lewis, “Quality Corridors for Wisconsin”; Jackson, Landscapes; Zube, Brush, and Fabos, Landscape Assessment. . Christian and Steward, “Methodology of Integrated Surveys”; Olshowy, “Ecological Landscape Inventories and Evaluation”; Thie and Ironside, Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification in Canada; Zonneveld, “Land Unit.” . Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice, . . Forman and Godron, “Patches and Structural Components for a Landscape Ecology.” . Naveh, “Landscape Ecology as an Emerging Branch of Human Ecosystem Science.” . Romme, “Fire and Landscape Diversity in Subalpine Forests of Yellowstone National Park.” . Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice, . . Tjallingii and de Veers, Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. . Four major books published during the s provided additional scientific rigor in North American landscape-ecology studies. The first two, Allen and Starr, Hierarchy, and O’Neill et al., Hierarchical Concept

ⱍ



of Ecosystems, provided original insights into spatial scale and the behavior of complex ecological systems (based on author’s interview with Frank Golley in Athens, Ga.,  May ). The other two books, each co-authored by an American and a scholar from abroad, focused on the subject matter of landscape ecology: Naveh and Lieberman, Landscape Ecology; and Forman and Godron, Landscape Ecology. Six important books published in the s provide additional insights into landscape ecology. Zonneveld and Forman’s Changing Landscapes summarized evolving approaches, functional processes operating at the landscape scale, and applications as well. In Methods of Landscape Ecology Turner and Gardner provided a concise review of emerging quantitative methods for analyzing landscape heterogeneity. In Landscape Boundaries Hansen and di Castri integrated the concept of ecotopes with patch dynamics and presented innovative methods for studying them. Forman’s  book Landscape Mosaics synthesized the state of landscape-ecology studies and explored a new area, spatial structure and sustainable environment at the regional scale. Farina provided an incisive review of concepts and techniques used in landscape-ecology studies in Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology. In an edited book, Landscape Ecological Analysis, published in , Klopatek and Gardner highlight important issues in analyzing landscapes and demonstrate their applications. Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill’s  book Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice provides a synthetic review of theory, methods, and applications in landscape ecology. . Soule, “Land Use Planning and Wildlife Maintenance.” . Hersperger, “Landscape Ecology and Its Potential Application to Planning,” . . Van Langevelde, “Conceptual Integration of Landscape Planning and Landscape Ecology,” . . Jackson, “Pair of Ideal Landscapes.” . Forman and Godron, Landscape Ecology, . . Golley, “Introducing Landscape Ecology.” . Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice, . . Ibid., . . Ibid. . Odum, Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems. . Hersperger, “Landscape Ecology and Its Potential Application to Planning,” . I added the population level of organization to the list. . Turner and Gardner, Methods of Landscape Ecology.



ⱍ

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.” . O’Neill et al., Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. . Urban, O’Neill, and Shugart, “Landscape Ecology.” . Gleick, Chaos. . Burrough, “Fractal Dimension of Landscapes and other Environmental Data”; Burel, “Effect of Landscape Structure and Dynamics on Species Diversity in Hedgerow Networks”; Milne, “Measuring the Fractal Geometry of Landscapes.” . Plotnick, Gardner, and O’Neill, “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.” . Stauffer and Aharony, Introduction to Perculation Theory. . Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice, . . The tradition of describing the landscape based on ecotopes was influenced heavily by the ZurichMontpelier school of phytosociology’s groundbreaking detailed floristic classification 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 Classification 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.”

. Kerkstra and Vrijlandt, “Landscape Planning for Industrial Agriculture.” . Selman, “Landscape Ecology and Countryside Planning.” . Wilcox and Murphy, “Conservation Strategy.” . Merriam, “Connectivity”; Soule, “Land Use Planning and Wildlife Maintenance”; Burel and Baudry, “Hedgerow Networks Patterns and Processes in France”; Opdam et al., “Population Responses to Landscape Fragmentation.” . Levins, “Some Demographic and Genetic Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity for Biological Control”; idem, “Extinction”; Merriam, “Connectivity”; idem, “Corridors and Connectivity.” . Metapopulation biology is closely related to landscape ecology, but important differences exist. J. Wiens pointed out that unlike landscape ecology, metapopulation models often ignore variations in the quality of patches and the quality of what surrounds them, the effects of patch edges, and the influences the landscape exerts on connectivity among patches. Landscape ecologists pay attention to these issues in enhancing the viability of species (Wiens, “Metapopulation Dynamics and Landscape Ecology”). . A related concept, ecological infrastructure, delineates corridors between natural areas for the movement of species to prevent habitat fragmentation. . Kleyer, “Habitat Network Schemes in Stuttgart.” . Diamond, “Island Dilemma.” . Forman presented specific criticisms of the islandbiogeography theory in Land Mosaics, –. There is a comprehensive review of the criticisms in Shafer, Nature Reserves. . Noss and Harris, “Nodes, Networks, and Mums.” . Forman, Land Mosaics, . . Duerksen et al., “Habitat Protection Planning.” The principles and guidelines proposed by Duerksen were discussed in Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Patterns and Process, – . . Turner, Gardner, and O’Neill, Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice, . . Ibid., . . Opdam, “Metapopulation Theory and Habitat Fragmentation”; Verboom, Metz, and Meelis, “Metapopulation Models for Impact Assessment of Fragmentation.” . Diamond, “Island Dilemma”; Helliwell, “Effects of Size and Isolation on the Conservation Value of

Notes to Pages – 

Wooded Sites in Britain”; Noss and Harris, “Nodes, Networks, and Mums”; Soule, “Land Use Planning and Wildlife Maintenance.” . Smith and Hellmund, Ecology of Greenways. . Zonneveld, “Land Unit,” . . Zonneveld, Land Ecology. . Haber, “Using Landscape Ecology in Planning and Management.” . Cook, “Urban Landscape Networks.” . Forman and Godron, Landscape Ecology, –. . Cook, “Urban Landscape Networks.” . Baschak and Brown, “River Systems and Landscape Networks.” . Selman, “Landscape Ecology and Countryside Planning.” . Anna Hersperger summarized these steps in “Landscape Ecology and Its Potential Application to Planning,” . . Timmermans and Snep, “Ecological Models and Urban Wildlife.” . Ruzicka and Miklos, “Basic Premises and Methods in Landscape Ecological Planning and Optimization.” . Naveh and Lieberman, Landscape Ecology (), suppl. , . . Ruzicka and Miklos, “Basic Premises and Methods in Landscape Ecological Planning and Optimization,” . . Nassauer, Placing Nature. 7 ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE VALUES AND LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION . Chenoweth and Gobster, “Nature and Ecology of Aesthetic Experiences in the Landscape,” . . Sell, Taylor, and Zube, “Toward a Theoretical Framework for Landscape Perception,” . . Zube, Sell, and Taylor, “Landscape Perception.” . I prefer to speak of the assessment of landscape values and landscape perception rather than the assessment of landscape, which is the practice in many studies dealing with aesthetic experiences. Since assessment of the landscape is one of many activities conducted in ecological planning, the use of the term landscape assessment may confuse some readers. Moreover, referring to landscape values and landscape perception makes the object of interest clear. . Sancar, “Towards Theory Generation in Landscape Aesthetics,” . . National Environmental Policy Act of , U.S. Statutes at Large  (): .

ⱍ



. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, th ed. . Chenoweth and Gobster, “Nature and Ecology of Aesthetic Experiences in the Landscape,” . . Palmer, “Landscape Perception Model.” . Zube, Sell, Taylor, “Landscape Perception,” . . Contemporary reviews of developments in the field include: Helliwell, “Perception and Preference in Landscape Appreciation”; Zube, “Scenery as a Natural Resource”; Heath, Environmental Aesthetics and State of the Art, Theory, Practice, and Research; Arthur, Daniel, and Boster, “Scenic Assessment”; Penning-Rowsell, “Assessing the Validity of Landscape Evaluations”; Porteous, “Approaches to Environmental Aesthetics”; Punter, “Landscape Aesthetics”; Daniel and Vining, “Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Landscape Quality”; and Zube, “Themes in Landscape Assessment Theory.” Many important books have been published on the subject; for example, Porteous, Environmental Aesthetics, and Smardon, Palmer, and Felleman, Foundations for Visual Project Analysis, provide an in-depth review of methods for visual assessment for the continuum of urban and rural settings. Because of the extensive body of literature in this field, recent published materials focus on specific aspects rather than general issues about landscape perception. . I rely on but expand upon Zube’s review of landscape values, “Landscape Values: History, Concepts, and Applications.” . Mann, Landscape Architecture, . . See ibid., . . Gilpin, Remarks on Forest Scenery and Other Woodland Views. . Price, Essay on the Picturesque. . Zube, “Landscape Values,” . . Henry David Thoreau, Journal (), quoted in Dramstad, Olson, and Forman, Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning, . . Congressional interest in historic preservation officially began in  with the establishment of the Casa Grand Reservation in Arizona to protect historic adobe ruins. Subsequent developments in the protection of cultural and historic resources in the United States include the National Historic Sites, Building and Antiquities Act in , which authorized a national survey of historic buildings. The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) was chartered by Congress in  as a nonprofit organization to encourage public input in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects significant to American history and culture.



ⱍ

Notes to Pages – 

This was followed by the  National Historic Preservation Act, which solidified the preservation of historic resources by setting standards and guidelines. . National Park Act of , U.S. Statutes at Large  (): . . Blake, God’s Own Junkyard; Tunnard and Pushkarev, Man-Made America. .  U.S.  (). The plaintiff objected to the appropriation of his property for redevelopment purposes intended “merely to develop a better balanced and more attractive community.” The court ruled that the appropriation of private property was constitutional for the reasonable necessities of controlling the cycle of slum decay. Slum is the “existence of conditions injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare.” . Examples include the Coastal Zone Management Act of , the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of , and the National Forestry Management Act of . . Fines, “Landscape Evaluations.” . Zube and Carlozzi, Inventory and Interpretation— Selected Resources of the Island of Nantucket. . Linton, Forest Landscape Description and Inventories. . Shafer, “Perception of Natural Environment.” . Craik, “Comprehension of Everyday Physical Environments.” . “The Visual Management System,” ch.  in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forest Landscape Management; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Procedure to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Division of Recreation and Cultural Resource, Visual Resource Management. . Appleton, Experience of Landscape. . Kaplan and Kaplan, Experience of Nature; Kaplan and Kaplan, Cognition and Environment. . Lewis, “Axioms for Reading the Landscape,” . . Whitmore, Cook, and Steiner, “Public Involvement in Visual Assessment.” . Zube, “Themes in Landscape Assessment Theory.” . Palmer, “Landscape Perception Model.” Jim Palmer’s scheme distinguishes professional methods from those used specifically for landscape perception. The scheme views landscape perception as a function of people, view, and land. When landscape perception is viewed as a function of people, emphasis is placed

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 identifiable 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 pattern—vegetative 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, flat 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 – 

. Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology. . Appleton, “Prospects and Refuges Re-Visited,” . . D. Jeans, for instance, questioned Appleton’s dismissal of the eighteenth-century aesthetic concepts of the beautiful, the picturesque, and the sublime in his habitat theory, in answer to which Appleton affirmed his original viewpoint (“Review of J. Appleton, The Experience of Landscape”). Peter Clamp and Mary Powell questioned the validity of the theory through their empirical work with four subjects (“ProspectRefuge Theory under Test”). Another researcher at the University of Michigan, David Woodcock, explored whether environmental preference was a product of evolution, but his results were inconclusive (“Functionalist Approach to Environmental Preference”). In contrast, Petrus Heylingers provided some support for the theory through his study of the aesthetic qualities of dunes in South Australia (“Prospect-Refuge Symbolism of Dune Landscape”). . Kaplan and Kaplan, Cognition and Environment, . . Kaplan and Kaplan, Experience of Nature. . Ibid., . . Ibid.,  –. . Kaplan, Kaplan, and Ryan, With People in Mind,  –. . Ibid. . Zube, Sell, and Taylor, “Landscape Perception,” . . Vining and Stevens, “Assessment of Landscape Quality,” –. . Linton and Tetlow, Landscape Inventory Framework. . Zube, The Islands—Selected Resources of the United States Virgin Islands. . Pioneering studies include a predictive model of natural landscape preferences developed by E. Shafer (“Perception of Natural Environment”); Zube, Pitt, and Anderson’s estimation of the scenic resources in the southern Connecticut River valley (Perception and Measurement of Scenic Resources); and Schauman’s assessment of the scenic quality in a variety of agricultural landscapes in Washington State (“Countryside Scenic Assessment”). Others are T. Daniel and H. Schroeder’s prediction of preferences in forested lands (“Scenic Beauty Estimation Method”); Steinitz’s visualpreference study for the Acadia National Park, on the coast of Maine (“Toward a Sustainable Landscape with High Visual Preference and High Ecological In-

ⱍ



tegrity”); I. Bishop and D. Hulse’s prediction of scenic beauty in Melbourne, Australia (“Prediction of Scenic Beauty Using Mapped Data and Geographical Information System”; and D. Crawford assessment of the visual quality of the landscape using remotely sensed data in South Wales, Australia (“Using Remotely Sensed Data in Landscape Visual Assessment”). . Zube, Pitt, and Anderson, Perception and Measurement of Scenic Resources. . Others were testing physical landscape characteristics hypothesized to be determinants of scenicresource values and exploring the relationship between participants’ valuative responses and quantified dimensions for a variety of rural landscapes. . Jones, Ady, and Gray, “Scenic and Recreational Highway Study for the State of Washington.” . Daniel and Boster, Measuring Landscape Esthetics. . The SBE method has been used in numerous studies, including P. Cook and T. Cable’s evaluation of differences in scenic beauty judgments of the Great Plains using simple correlation and multiple regression analysis (“The Scenic Beauty of Shelterbelts on the Great Plains”). . Steinitz, “Toward a Sustainable Landscape with High Visual Preference and High Ecological Integrity.” . Steinitz, “Simulating Alternative Policies for Implementing the Massachusetts Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act.” . Pitt and Zube, “Management of Natural Resources.” . Itami, “Scenic Quality in Australia.” . Herbert, “Visual Resource Analysis.” . Brown and Itami, “Landscape Principles Study.” . Rachel and Stephen Kaplan have conducted numerous empirical studies since the early s, for example, Kaplan, “Analysis of Perception via Preference”; and Kaplan, Kaplan, and Brown, “Environmental Preference.” See also Herzog, “Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Field and Forest Environments”; and Herzog, “Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Urban Nature.” . Lee, “Assessing Visual Preference for Louisiana Landscapes.” . Whitmore, Cook, and Steiner, “Public Involvement in Visual Assessment.” . Gimblett, Itami, and Fitzgibbon, “Mystery in an Information Processing Model of Landscape Preference.” . Kent, “Role of Mystery in Preferences for Shopping Malls.”



ⱍ

Notes to Pages  – 

. Kent, “Determining Scenic Quality along Highways.” . McKenzie, Pinelands Scenic Study—Summary Report. . Meinig, Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes, . . For example, see the essays written by these authors in ibid. . Zube, Sell, and Taylor, “Landscape Perception,” . . Jackson, “Historic American Landscape,” . . Ibid., . . Zube, “Landscape Research”; Zube, “Perceived Land Use Patterns and Landscape Values.” . Relph, Modern Urban Landscape. . Ndubisi, “Variations in Value Orientations.” . Shkilnyk, Poison Stronger Than Love. . Lowenthal, “Finding Valued Landscapes.” . Stilgoe, “Fair Fields and Blasted Rock.” . Rose, “Aesthetic and Moral Ordering of the Material World in Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania.” . Newby, “Towards an Understanding of Landscape Quality.” . Countryside Commission, Assessment and Conservation of Landscape Character. . These last three questions were posed by Jim Palmer in “Landscape Perception Model.” . Reliability is a measure of the degree to which a method yields consistent results when applied in similar situations or by different people. The validity of a method is the degree to which it measures what is intended. The sensitivity of a method is a measure of its ability to differentiate between the objectives of concern to the investigator. The utility of outcomes is their usefulness in landscape intervention. . Zube, “Themes in Landscape Assessment Theory,” . 8 A SYNTHESIS OF APPROACHES TO ECOLOGICAL PLANNING . Zube, “Perceived Land Use Patterns and Landscape Values,” . . Andreas Faludi made a similar distinction in the city planning profession (see Faludi, Planning Theory). . Evernden, Social Creation of Nature, is an especially important work on the landscape as a reflection of culture. . Steiner, “Resource Suitability,” .

. Leopold, Sand County Almanac, . . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Land Capability Classification; Hills, Ecological Basis for Land-Use Planning. . Lewis, “Quality Corridors for Wisconsin,”  –; McHarg, Design with Nature; Toth, Criteria for Evaluating the Valuable Natural Resource of the TIRAC Region. . Steinitz, Computers and Regional Planning; Steinitz and Rogers, System Analysis Model of Urbanization and Change. . Zonneveld, “Scope and Concepts of Landscape Ecology,” . . Young et al., “Determining the Regional Context For Landscape Planning,” , . . Bennett, Ecological Transition. . Steiner, Living Landscape, . . Wallace et al., Woodlands New Community. . McHarg, “Human Ecological Planning at Pennsylvania,” . . Dorney, Professional Practice of Environmental Management. . Bastedo, ABC Resource Survey Method for Environmentally Significant Areas; Bastedo, Nelson, and Theberge, “Ecological Approach to Resource Survey and Planning for Environmentally Significant Areas”; Theberge, Nelson, and Fenge, Environmentally Significant Areas in the Yukon Territory; Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Summary of General Ecological Model; Rapport and Friend, Toward a Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Statistics. . Examples are Deithelm & Bressler, Mount Bachelor Recreation Area; and Lewis, “Quality Corridors for Wisconsin.” . Jacobs, “Landscape Development in the Urban Fringe”; Ingmire and Patri, “Early Warning System for Regional Planning.” . Examples are McHarg, Design with Nature; Wallace et al., Woodlands New Community; Juneja, Medford; and Ive and Cook, “SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN.” . Lyle and von Wodtke, “Information System for Environmental Planning”; Rice Center for Community Design and Research, Environmental Analysis for Development Planning. . Berger, “Landscape Patterns of Local Social Organization and Their Importance for Land Use Planning,” . . Cooper and Zedler, “Ecological Assessment for Regional Development.”

Notes to Pages – 

. Hendrix, Fabos, and Price, “Applied Approach to Landscape Planning Using Geographical Information System Technology”; Lyle, Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. . Forman, Land Mosaics. . See, e.g., Klign, “Spatially Nested Ecosystems”; Haber, “Using Landscape Ecology in Planning and Management”; and Zonneveld, “Land Unit.” . Linton, Forest Landscape Description and Inventories. . Hills, Ecological Basis for Land-Use Planning. . Holdridge, Life Zone Ecology. . Cowardin et al., Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States. . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, National Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Handbook. . Odum, “Strategy of Ecosystem Development.” . Dansereau and Pare, Ecological Grading and Classification of Landscape Occupation and Land-Use Mosaics. . Hills, “Philosophical Approach to Landscape Planning,” –. . Thie and Ironside, Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification in Canada. . Zonneveld, “The Land Unit.” . Forman and Godron, Landscape Ecology. . Zelinsky, “North American’s Vernacular Regions”; Meinig, “Mormon Culture Region.” . See, e.g., McHarg, Design with Nature, –; Juneja, Medford; and Hopkins, “Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps.” . Dearden and Miller, quoted in Buyhoff et al., “Artificial Intelligence Methodology for Landscape Visual Assessment.” . On compartment flow, see Odum, “Strategy of Ecosystem Development”; on energy flux, Dansereau and Pare, Ecological Grading and Classification of Landscape Occupation and Land-Use Mosaics, and Odum, Systems Ecology; and on nutrient budget, Lenz, “Ecosystem Classification by Budgets of Material.” . Berger and Sinton, Water, Earth, and Fire. . International Joint Commission, Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes System. . Francis et al., Rehabilitating Great Lakes Ecosystems. . Hendrix, Fabos, and Price, “Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning Using Geographical Information System Technology”; Forman, Land Mosaics.

ⱍ



. Opdam et al., “Population Responses to Landscape Fragmentation.” . Van Buuren and Kerkstra, “Framework Concept and the Hydrological Landscape Structure.” . Klign, Ecosystem Classification for Environmental Management; Baschak and Brown, “River Systems and Landscape Networks”; Selman, “Landscape Ecology and Countryside Planning”; Haber, “Using Landscape Ecology in Planning and Management.” . Ruzicka and Miklos, “Basic Premises and Methods in Landscape Ecological Planning and Optimization.” . Steinitz, “Landscape Change.” . Thorne, “Landscape Ecology.” . Hersperger, “Landscape Ecology and Its Potential Application to Planning,”  –. . Zube, Sell, and Taylor, “Landscape Perception,” . . Carlson, “On the Theoretical Vacuum in Landscape Assessment.” . Ibid., . E P I LO G UE . Lyle, Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development, . . Pepper, Roots of Modern Environmentalism, . . Positivism suggests that any given end state or goal can be obtained through logical and objective synthesis of all relevant facts and data. Positivism is implied in ecological-planning approaches. In contrast, writers who subscribe to the antipositivistic view of the world, especially in the areas of critical theory, postmodernism, and poststructuralism, reject positivism as a way of knowing. In the context of ecological planning, proponents of the antipositivistic view of the world argue that ecological-planning approaches that are based on positivism do not embrace a holistic, expansionist view of the landscape, which integrates both nature and culture and draws on knowledge from both the sciences and the arts. Antipositivistic criticisms call for multiple perspectives in understanding landscapes but offer few methodological rules for undertaking ecological assessment and planning. . Examples of these views are presented in Litton and Kieieger, “Book Review on Design with Nature”; Landecker, “In Search of an Arbiter”; Leccese, “At the Beginning, Looking Back”; Corner, “Discourse on Theory I”; and Corner, “Discourse on Theory II.”



ⱍ

Notes to Pages – 

. Steiner, Living Landscape, . . Forman, Land Mosaics, . . Leopold, Sand County Almanac, . . Ibid., . . Lyle, Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development, . . Kaplan, “Model of Personality-Environment Compatibility.”

. 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. Pfister, and J. Henderson. “Nature of Land and Resource Classification— A Review.” Journal of Forestry  (): –. 



ⱍ

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 Significant Areas with Special Reference to the Biotic Surveys in Canada’s North. Waterloo, Ont.: Department of Geography, . Bastedo, J., D. Nelson, and J. Theberge. “Ecological Approach to Resource Survey and Planning for Environmentally Significant 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 l’Université d’Ottawa, . Berger, J. “Guidelines for Landscape Synthesis: Some Directions—Old 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

Report /. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO Division of Land-Use Research, . Bishop, I., and D. Hulse. “Prediction of Scenic Beauty Using Mapped Data and Geographical Information System.” Landscape and Urban Planning  (): – . Bisset, R. “Quantification, Decision-making, and Environmental Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom.” Environmental Management  (): – . Blake, P. God’s Own Junkyard. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, . Boas, F. “The Limitations of the Comparative Method on Anthropology.” Science  (): –. Bormann, F., and G. Likens. “Nutrient Cycling.” Science  (): –. ———. Pattern and Processes in a Forested Ecosystem. New York: Springer-Verlag, . Bosselman, F., and D. Callies. The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, . Brady, N. The Nature and Properties of Soils. New York: Macmillan, . Briassoulis, H. “Theoretical Orientations in Environmental-Planning: An Inquiry into Alternative Approaches.” Environmental Management  (): – . Brown, R., and R. Itami. “Landscape Principles Study: Procedures for Assessment and Management—Australia.” Landscape Journal , no.  ():  –. Bryant, M. “A New Model of Landscape Planning: Dealing with Imperfect Knowledge in Human Dominated Ecosystems.” Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts, . Burel, F. “Effect of Landscape Structure and Dynamics on Species Diversity in Hedgerow Networks.” Landscape Ecology  (): –. Burel, F., and J. Baudry. “Hedgerow Networks Patterns and Processes in France.” In Zonneveld and Forman, Changing Landscapes,  –. Burrough, P. “Fractal Dimension of Landscapes and Other Environmental Data.” Nature  (): – . Buyhoff, G., P. Miller, J. Roach, D. Zhou, and L. Fuller. “An Artificial Intelligence Methodology for Landscape Visual Assessment.” Artificial Intelligence Applications Journal , no.  (): –. Cairns, J., Jr., and K. Dickson. “Recovery of Streams from Spills of Hazardous Materials.” In Recovery and Restoration of Damaged Ecosystems, ed. J. Cairns, K.

References

Dickson, and E. Henicks, –. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, . Canter, D. The Psychology of Place. London: Architectural Press, . Capra, F. The Turning Point. New York: Bantam Books, . Carlson, A. “On the Possibility of Quantifying Scenic Beauty.” Landscape Planning  (): –. ———. “On the Theoretical Vacuum in Landscape Assessment.” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. Catlin, G. Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of North American Indians.  vols. . Reprint, New York: Dover, . Catton, W. “The World’s Most Populous Polymorphic Species: Carrying Capacity Transgressed Two Ways.” BioScience  (): –. Chapin, S., and E. Kaiser. Urban Land Use Planning. rd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, . Chenoweth, R., and P. Gobster. “The Nature and Ecology of Aesthetic Experiences in the Landscape.” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. ———. “Wildland Description and Analysis.” In Smardon, Palmer, and Felleman, Foundations for Visual Project Analysis, –. Chester County Planning Commission. Natural Environment and Planning. West Chester, Pa., . Christian, C. “The Concept of Land Units and Land Systems.” Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Sciences Congress  ():  –. Christian, C., and S. Steward. “Methodology of Integrated Surveys.” In Aerial Surveys and Integrated Studies,  –. Paris: UNESCO, . Clamp, P., and M. Powell. “Prospect-Refuge Theory under Test.” Landscape Research  (): –. Clapham, W. “An Approach to Quantifying the Expliotability of Human Ecosystems.” Human Ecology  (): –. Cleveland, H. W. S. Landscape Architecture as Applied to the Wants of the West. Ed. Roby Lubove. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, . Cocks, K., J. Ive, J. Davis, and I. Baird. “SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: An Australian Approach to Land-Use Planning. . The SIRO-PLAN Land Use Planning Method.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design  (): – . Coleman, D. An Ecological Input into Regional Planning. Waterloo, Ont.: University of Waterloo, School of Urban and Regional Planning, . Commoner, B. Science and Survival. New York: Ballantine Books, .

ⱍ



Cook, E. “Urban Landscape Networks: An Ecological Planning Framework.” Landscape Research , no.  (): –. Cook, E., and H. van Lier, eds. Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks. Amsterdam: Elsevier, . Cook, P., and T. Cable. “The Scenic Beauty of Shelterbelts on the Great Plains.” Landscape and Urban Planning  ():  –. Coombs, D., and J. Thie. “The Canadian Land Inventory System.” In Beatty, Patersen, and Swindale, Planning the Uses and Management of the Land, – . Cooper, C., and P. Zedler. “Ecological Assessment for Regional Development.” Journal of Environmental Management  ():  –. Corner, J. “A Discourse on Theory I: Sounding the Depths—Origins, Theory, and Representation.” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. ———. “A Discourse on Theory II: Three Tyrannies of Contemporary Theory and the Alternative of Hermeneutics.” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. Countryside Commission. Assessment and Conservation of Landscape Character: The Warwickshire Landscapes Project Approach. Cheltenham, England, . Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife Service, . Craik, K. “Comprehension of Everyday Physical Environments.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners  (): –. Crawford, D. “Using Remotely Sensed Data in Landscape Visual Assessment.” Landscape and Urban Planning  (): –. Crow, S. “Alcovy River and Swamp Interpretation Center: An Application of Geographic Information System (GIS) and Technology in Site Selection.” M.L.A. thesis, University of Georgia, . Daniel, T., and R. Boster. Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Research Paper RM-. Ft. Collins, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, . Daniel, T., and H. Schroeder. “Scenic Beauty Estimation Method: Predicting Perceived Beauty of Forested Landscapes.” In Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and management of the Visual Resource, ed. G. Elsner and R. Smardon,  –. Berkeley, Calif.: U.S.



ⱍ

References

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, . Daniel, T., and J. Vining. “Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Landscape Quality.” In Behavior and the Natural Environment, ed. I. Altman and J. Wohlwill,  –. New York: Plenum, . Dansereau, P. “Biogeographie dynamique de Quebec.” In Etudes de la geographie de Canada, ed. F. Grenier,  –. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, . Dansereau, P., and G. Pare. Ecological Grading and Classification of Landscape Occupation and Land-Use Mosaics. Geographic paper no. . Ottawa, Ont.: Fisheries and Environment Canada, . Darwin, C. The Origin of Species. New York: D. Appleton, . Davis, J., and J. Ive. Rural Local Government Planning: An Application of SIRO-PLAN. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO Division of Water and Land Resources, . Dee, N., J. Baker, K. Duke, I. Whitman, and D. Fahringer. “An Environmental Evaluation System for Water Resources Planning.” Water Resources Research , no.  ():  –. Deithelm & Bressler. Mount Bachelor Recreation Area: Proposed Master Plan. Eugene, Oreg., . Denig, N. “On Values Revisited: A Judeo-Christian Theology of Man and Nature.” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. Dewey, J. Experience and Nature. . Reprint, New York: Dover, . Diamond, J. “The Island Dilemma: Lessons of Modern Biogeographic Studies for the Design of Natural Reserves.” Biological Conservation  ():  –. Diamond, L. “Comparative Approaches in Lake Management Planning (Chandos and Buffalo Pound Lake, Canada).” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. Dickert, T., and A. Tuttle. “Cumulative Impact Assessment in Environmental Planning: A Coastal Wetland Example.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review  (): – . Dideriksen, R. “SCS Important Farmlands Mapping Program.” In Protecting Farmland, ed. F. Steiner and J. Theilacker, –. Westport, Conn.: AVI Publishing, . Doineau, P. L. “Culturally Informed Design: Heritage Trail for an African-American Community on Sapelo Island.” M.L.A. thesis, University of Georgia, . Donahue, M. “Institutional Arrangement for Great

Lakes Management.” In Perspectives on Ecosystem Management for the Great Lakes: A Reader, ed. L. Caldwell, –. Albany: State University of New York Press, . Dorney, R. “Biophysical and Cultural-Historic Land Classification and Mapping for Canada Urban and Urbanizing Land.” In Proc Workshop on Ecological Land Classification, ed. J. Thie and G. Ironside, –. Ottawa, Ont.: Environment Canada, . ———. The Professional Practice of Environmental Management. Ed. L. Dorney. New York: Springer-Verlag, . Dorney R., and D. Hoffman. “Development of Landscape Planning Concepts and Management Strategies for an Urbanizing Agricultural Region.” Landscape Planning  (): –. Downing, A. J. A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening Adapted to North America. New York: Wiley & Putnam, . Dramstad, W., J. Olson, and R. Forman. Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, . Duerksen, C., D. Elliott, N. Hobbs, E. Johnson, and J. Miller. Habitat Protection Planning: Where the Wild Things Are. Planning Advisory Service, nos.  and . Chicago: American Planning Association, . Duncan, O. “From Social System to Ecosystem.” Sociological Inquiry , no.  ():  –. Duncan, O., and L. Schnore. “Cultural, Behavioral, and Ecological Perspectives on the Study of Social Organization.” American Journal of Sociology  (): –. Dyer, J. “Interactive Goal Programming.” Management Science  (): –. EDAW. Candidate Areas for Large Electric Power Generating Plants. St. Paul: State of Minnesota, . Ehrlich, P. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine Books, . Eliot, C. Charles Eliot, Landscape Architect. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, . Engelen, G., and G. Jones. Developments in the Analysis of Groundwater Flow Systems. International Association of Hydrological Sciences, no. . . Environment Canada, Lands Directorate. Land Capability Classification. Ottawa, Ont., –. Evernden, N. The Social Creation of Nature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, . Fabos, J. Model of Landscape Resource Assessment. Research Bulletin no. . Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Agricultural Experimental Station, .

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, .

ⱍ



———. Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, . Friend, J., and W. Jessop. Local Government and Strategic Choice: An Operational Research Approach to the Process of Public Planning. Andover, Mass.: Tavistock, . Galloway, T., and R. Mahayni. “Planning Theory in Retrospect: The Process of Paradigm Change.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners  (): – . Geddes, P. Cities in Evolution. . Reprint, New York: Howard Fertig, . Geertz, C. The Social History of an Indonesian Town. Cambridge: MIT Press, . Giliomee, J. “Ecological Planning: Method and Evaluation.” Landscape Planning  ():  –. Gilpin, W. Remarks on Forest Scenery and Other Woodland Views Relative Chiefly to Picturesque Beauty, Illustrated for the Scenes of New Forest in Hampshire. London: R. Blamire, . Gimblett, R., R. Itami, and J. Fitzgibbon. “Mystery in an Information Processing Model of Landscape Preference.” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. Glasoe, S. “Utility of the Environmental Threshold Concept in Managing Natural Resources.” M.R.P. thesis, Washington State University, . Glasoe, S., F. Steiner, W. Budd, and G. Young. “Assimilative Capacity and Water Resource Management: Four Examples from the United States.” Landscape and Urban Planning  (): –. Gleick, J. Chaos, the Making of a New Science. New York: Penguin Books, . Glikson, A. The Ecological Basis of Planning. The Hague: Matinus Nijhoff, . Gold, A. “Design with Nature: A Critique.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners , no.  (): –. Golley, F. A History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press, . ———. “Introducing Landscape Ecology.” Landscape Ecology , no.  (): – . Golley, F., and J. Bellot. “Interactions of Landscape Ecology, Planning, and Design.” Landscape and Urban Planning  ():  –. Goodenough, W. Cooperation in Change. New York: Russell Sage, . Gordon, S., and G. Gordon. “The Accuracy of Soil Survey Information for Urban Land-Use Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association , no.  (): –. Graham, E. Natural Principles in Land Use. New York: Greenwood Press, .



ⱍ

References

Green, H. Mind and Image—An 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, . Griffith, C. “Geographical Information Systems and Environmental Impact Assessment.” Environmental Management , no.  (): –. Grime, J. “Vegetation Classification 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 Effects of Size and Isolation on the Conservation Value of Wooded Sites in Britain.” Journal of Biogeography  (): –. ———. “Perception and Preference in Landscape

Appreciation—A Review of Literature.” Landscape Research News , no.  (): – . ———. “The Value of Vegetation for Conservation: Four Land Areas in Britain.” British Journal of Environmental Management  (): –. Hendrix, W., J. Fabos, and J. Price. “An Applied Approach to Landscape Planning Using Geographical Information System Technology.” Landscape and Urban Planning  (): –. Herbert, J. “Visual Resource Analysis: Preference and Prediction in Oakland County, Michigan.” M.L.A. thesis, University of Michigan, . Hersperger, A. “Landscape Ecology and Its Potential Application to Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature , no.  (): –. Herzog, T. “A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Field and Forest Environments.” Landscape Research  ():  –. ———. “A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Urban Nature.” Journal of Environmental Psychology  (): –. Hester, R. “Subconscious Landscapes of the Heart.” Places , no.  (): –. Heylingers, P. “Prospect-Refuge Symbolism of Dune Landscape.” Landscape Research  (): –. Hills, G. A. The Ecological Basis for Land-Use Planning. Research Report no. . Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, . ———. “A Philosophical Approach to Landscape Planning.” Landscape Planning  (): –. Hirata, H., and T. Fukao. “A Model of Mass and Energy Flow in Ecosystems.” Mathematical Biosciences  (): – . Holdridge, L. Life Zone Ecology. San Jose, Costa Rica: Tropical Science Center, . Holling, C. “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics  (): –. ———, ed. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, . Holling, C., and G. Meffe. “Command and Control and the Pathology of Resource Management.” Conservation Biology  (): –. Hopkins, L. “Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps: A Comparative Evaluation.” Journal of the Institute of American Planners  ():  –. Horak, G., E. Vlachos, and E. Cline. Methodological Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Impacts on Fish and Wildlife. Washington, D.C.: Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, .

References

Hough, M. Out of Place: Restoring Identity to the Regional Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press, . Howard, E. Garden Cities of To-Morrow. . Reprint, ed. J. Osborn, Cambridge: MIT Press, . Hunter, F. Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, . Ingmire, T., and T. Patri. “An Early Warning System for Regional Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners , no.  (): –. International Joint Commission. Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes System. Windsor, Ont., . International Planning Associates. A New Federal Capital for Nigeria (Report No. . Site Evaluation and Site Selection). Lagos, Nigeria, . Itami, R. “Scenic Quality in Australia: A Procedure to Assess and Evaluate the Visual Effects of Land Use Changes.” M.L.A. thesis, University of Melbourne, . Ive, J., and K. Cocks. “SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: An Australian Approach to Land-Use Planning. . The LUPLAN Land Use Planning Package.” Environment and Planning B, Planning and Design  (): –. Jackson, J., and F. Steiner. “Human Ecology for LandUse Planning.” Urban Ecology  (): –. Jackson, J. B. “The Historic American Landscape.” In Zube, Brush, and Fabos, Landscape Assessment, –. ———. Landscapes: Selected Writings of J. B. Jackson. Ed. E. Zube. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, . ———. “A Pair of Ideal Landscapes.” In Discovering the Vernacular Landscape, –. New Haven: Yale University Press, . Jacobs, P. “Landscape Development in the Urban Fringe: A Case Study of the Site Planning Process.” Town Planning Review  (): –. Jain, K., and B. Hutchings. Environmental Impact Analysis: Emerging Issues in Planning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, . James, K. “A Nonequilibrium Thermodynamic Framework for Discussing Ecosystem Integrity.” Environmental Management , no.  (): –. Jeans, D. “Review of J. Appleton, The Experience of Landscape,” Australian Geographer  (): – . Jeffers, J. N. An Introduction to System Analysis: With Ecological Applications. Baltimore: University Park Press, . Johnson, A., J. Berger, and I. McHarg. “A Case Study in Ecological Planning: The Woodlands, Texas.” In

ⱍ



Beatty, Patersen, and Swindale, Planning the Uses and Management of Land,  –. Johnson, B., and K. Hill, eds. Ecology and Design: Frameworks for Learning. Washington: Island Press, . Jones, G. Design as Ecogram. College of Architecture and Planning Development Series , no. . Seattle: University of Washington, College of Architecture and Planning, . ———. The Nooksack Plan: An Approach to the Investigation and Evaluation of a River System. Seattle: Jones & Jones, . Jones, G., J. Ady, and B. Gray. “Scenic and Recreational Highway Study for the State of Washington.” Landscape Planning  (): –. Jones, G., and M. Atkinson. “Making a Marriage with the Land: The Future of the Landscape.” Landscape and Urban Planning  (): –. Juneja, N. Medford, Performance Requirements for the Maintenance of Social Values Represented by the Natural Environment of Medford Township, New Jersey. Philadelphia: Center for Ecological Planning Research, University of Pennsylvania, . Kahn, H., W. Brown, and L. Martel. The Next Two Hundred Years. New York: William Morrow, . Kaplan, R. “The Analysis of Perception via Preference: A Strategy for Studying How the Environment Is Experienced.” Landscape Planning  (): –. Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York. . Reprint, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ulrich’s, . Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and T. Brown. “Environmental Preference: A Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors.” Environment and Behavior , no.  (): –. Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. Ryan. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, . Kaplan, S. “A Model of Personality-Environment Compatibility.” Environment and Behavior  (): –. Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger, . Keeney, R., and M. Raffia. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley, . Kellogg, C. “Soil Survey for Community Planning.” In Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, ed. L. Bartelli, A. Klingebiel, J. Baird, and M. Heddleson, –. Madison, Wis.: Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, . Kent, R. “Determining Scenic Quality along High-



ⱍ

References

ways: A Cognitive Approach.” Landscape and Urban Planning  (): –. ———. “The Role of Mystery in Preferences for Shopping Malls.” Landscape Journal , no.  ():  –. Kerkstra, K., and P. Vrijlandt. “Landscape Planning for Industrial Agriculture: A Proposed Framework for Rural Areas.” Landscape and Urban Planning  ():  –. Kleyer, M. “Habitat Network Schemes in Stuttgart.” In Cook and van Lier, Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks, –. Klign, F. Ecosystem Classification for Environmental Management. London: Kluwer, . ———. “Spatially Nested Ecosystems: Guidelines for Classification from a Hierarchical Perspective.” In Klign, Ecosystem Classification for Environmental Management,  –. Klopatek, J., and R. Gardner, eds. Landscape Ecological Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag, . Kluckhohn, C. “Values and Value Orientation in the Theory of Action.” In Toward a General Theory of Action, ed. T. Parsons and E. Shils. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, . Koestler, A. “Beyond Atomism and Holism—The Concept of the Holon.” In Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences, ed. A. Koestler and J. Smithies, –. London: Hutchinson, . Kozolowski, J. Threshold Approach in Urban, Regional, and Environmental Planning. London: University of Queensland Press, . Kreiger, M. “Advice as a Socially Constructed Activity.” Working paper, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Berkeley, Calif., . Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, . Laird, R., J. Perkins, D. Bainbridge, J. Baker, R. Boyd, D. Huntsman, P. Staub, and M. Zucker. Quantitative Land-Capability Analysis. Geological Survey Professional Paper . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, . Landecker, H. “In Search of an Arbiter.” Landscape Architecture , no.  ():  –. Lane, P., R. Wallace, R. Johnson, and D. Bernard. A Reference Guide to Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada. Vol. . Hull, Quebec: Canada Environmental Assessment Research Council, . Leccese, M. “At the Beginning, Looking Back: Paul Friedberg in Landscape Architecture Forum.” In Landscape Architecture , no.  (): – . Lee, B. “An Ecological Comparison of the McHarg

Method with Other Planning Initiatives in the Great Lakes Basin.” Landscape Planning  (): –. Lee, M. “Assessing Visual Preference for Louisiana Landscapes.” In The Future of Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values, ed. C. Smardon, –. Totowa, N.J.: Allanheld, Osmun, . Lenz, R. “Ecosystem Classification by Budgets of Material: The Example of Forest Ecosystems Classified as Proton Budget Types.” In Klign, Ecosystem Classification for Environmental Management, –. Leopold, A. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Ballantine Books, . ———. A Sand County Almanac with Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Books, . Leopold, L., F. Clarke, B. Hanshaw, and J. Balsley. A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact. U.S. Geological Survey Circular . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey, . Levins, R. “Extinction.” In Some Mathematical Questions in Biology, ed. M. Gerstenbauber, :–. Lectures on Mathematics in the Life Sciences. Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical Society, . ———. “Some Demographic and Genetic Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity for Biological Control.” Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America  (): –. Lewis, P. “Axioms for Reading the Landscape.” In Meinig, Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes, –. ———. “Ecology.” AIA Journal, June , – . ———. “Quality Corridors for Wisconsin.” Landscape Architecture , no.  (): –. ———. Recreation and Open Space in Illinois. Urbana: University of Illinois, Bureau of Community Planning, . ———. Tomorrow by Design: A Regional Design Process for Sustainability. New York: John Wiley & Sons, . Likens, G., F. Bormann, R. Pierce, and W. Reiners. “Recovery of a Deforested Ecosystem.” Science  (): – . Lindeman, R. “The Trophic Dynamic Aspect of Ecology.” Ecology , no.  (): –. Linton, B., Jr. Forest Landscape Description and Inventories—A Basis for Land Planning and Design. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper PSW-. Berkeley, Calif.: Pacific Southwest Forestry and Range Experimental Station, . Linton, B., Jr., and R. Tetlow. A Landscape Inventory Framework: Scenic Analysis of the Northern Great

References

Plains. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper PSW-. Berkeley, Calif.: Pacific 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.: Pacific 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 Modified by Human Action. New York: Charles Scribner, .

ⱍ



McAllister, D. Evaluation in Environmental Planning. Cambridge: MIT Press, . McDonald, G., and A. Brown. “The Land Suitability Approach to Strategic Land Use Planning in Urban Fringe Areas.” Landscape Planning  (): – . McHarg, I. American Institute of Architects Task Force on the Potomac. Philadelphia: Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd and the University of Pennsylvania, . ———. A Comprehensive Highway Route Selection Method Applied to I- between the Delaware and Raritan Rivers. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Committee on I-, . ———. Design with Nature. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, . ———. “Ecological Determinism.” In The Future Environment of North America, ed. F. Darling and J. Milton, –. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, . ———. An Ecological Study for the Future Public Improvement of the Borough of Richmond (Staten Island). New York: City of New York Office of Staten Island Development, Borough President of Richmond and Park, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs Administration, . ———. Ecological Study for Twin Cities Metropolitan Region, Minnesota. National Technical Information Series. Philadelphia: U.S. Department of Commerce, . ———. “Human Ecological Planning at Pennsylvania.” Landscape Planning  (): –. ———. Inner Harbor Master Plan. Baltimore: City of Baltimore, . ———. Least Social Cost Corridor Study for Richmond Parkway, New York. New York: New York Department of Parks and Recreation, . ———. Plan for the Valley. Towson, Md.: Green Spring and Worthington Valley Planning Council, . ———. A Quest for Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, . ———. To Heal the Earth: Selected Writings of Ian L. McHarg. Ed. F. Steiner. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, . ———. Towards a Comprehensive Landscape Plan for Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, . McHarg, I., and J. Sutton. “Ecological Planning for the Texas Coastal Plain.” Landscape Architecture , no.  (): – . McKenzie, R. The Pinelands Scenic Study—Summary Re-



ⱍ

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 Rome’s 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. Hatfield, 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 Classification: Some Theoretical and Methodological Issues.” Geojournal , no.  (): –. Muir, J. The Yosemite. New York: Century, . Mumford, L. The Culture of Cities. London: Secker & Warburg, .

Myers, W., and R. Shelton. Survey Methods for Ecosystem Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, . Nairn, I. The American Landscape: A Critical Review. New York: Random House, . Nash, R., ed. The American Environment. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, . Nassauer, J. ed. Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, . National Environmental Policy Act of . U.S. Statutes at Large  (). National Park Act of . U.S. Statues at Large  (). Naveh, Z. “Landscape Ecology as an Emerging Branch of Human Ecosystem Science.” Advances in Ecological Research  ():  –. Naveh, Z., and A. Lieberman. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application. . nd ed. . Reprint, New York: Springer-Verlag, . Ndubisi, F. Development Implications of the Biophysical and Cultural Resource Assessment for the Missisuagas of the New Credit Community, Ontario. Waterloo, Ont.: School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Waterloo, . ———. Ecological Sensitivity Study for Richard B. Russell Lake. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia, Institute of Community and Area Development, . ———. A Participatory and Culturally Interpretive Approach to Dynamic Rural Site Planning: A Conceptual Plan for the Rural Component of the Burwash Native People’s Project. Northern Ontario Outreach Technical Paper . Guelph, Ont.: University of Guelph, . ———. “A Phenomenological Approach to Design for Amer-Indian Cultures.” M.L.A. thesis, University of Guelph, . ———. “Variations in Value Orientation: Implications for Guiding Community Planning Decision Behavior in Native Canadian Communities in Ontario, Canada.” Ph.D. diss., School of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, . Ndubisi, F., T. DeMeo, and N. Ditto. “Environmentally Sensitive Areas: A Template for Developing Greenway Corridors.” Landscape and Urban Planning  (): –. Neef, E. “Stages in the Development of Landscape Ecology.” In Tjallingii and de Veers, Perspectives in Landscape Ecology,  –. The Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Summary of General Ecological Model. Study Report ..B. The Hague: National Physical Planning Agency, .

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. O’Connell, 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, . O’Neill, 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  (): –.

ⱍ



Orians, G. “Diversity, Stability, and Maturity in Natural Ecosystems.” In van Dobben and Lowe-McConnell, Unifying Concepts in Ecology,  –. Ott, W. Environmental Indices: Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, . Park, C. Ecology and Environmental Management: A Geographical Perspective. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, . Palmer, J. “Landscape Perception Model.” Plenary presentation at the Workshop in Landscape Change, – January , Santa Barbara, Calif. Palmer, M. “The Coexistence of Species in Fractal Landscapes.” American Naturalist  ():  –. Park, R., and E. Burgess. Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, . Passons, W. Gestalt Approaches to Counseling. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, . Patten, B., ed. System Analysis and Simulation Ecology. Vol. . New York: Academic Press, . Pelto, P., and G. Pelto. Anthropological Research: The Structure of Inquiry. New York: Harper & Row, . Penfold, G., and F. Ndubisi. The New Post Band No.  Relocation Study and Site Selection. Guelph, Ont.: School of Rural Planning and Development, University of Guelph, . Penning-Rowsell, E. “Assessing the Validity of Landscape Evaluations.” Landscape Research , no.  (): –. Pepper, D. The Roots of Modern Environmentalism. London: Croom Helm, . Pitt, D., and E. Zube. “Management of Natural Resources.” In Handbook of Environmental Psychology, ed. D. Stokols and I. Altman. New York: John Wiley & Sons, . Plotnick, R., H. Gardner, and R. O’Neill. “Lacunarity Indices as Measures of Landscape Texture.” Landscape Ecology  (): –. Pollard, E., M. Hooper, and N. Moore. Hedges. London: Collins, . Porteous, D. “Approaches to Environmental Aesthetics.” Journal of Environmental Psychology , no.  (): –. Porteous, J. Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics, and Planning. New York: Routledge, . Powell, J. Reports of the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Press, . Price, U. An Essay on the Picturesque. London, .



ⱍ

References

Prigogine, I. “Thermodynamics of Evolution.” Physics Today  ():  –. Prochanky, H., W. Ittelson, and G. Rivlin, eds. Environmental Psychology: Man and His Physical Setting. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, . Punter, J. “Landscape Aesthetics, a Synthesis and Critique.” In Valued Environments, ed. J. Gold and J. Burgess, –. London: Allen & Unwin, . Quinby, P. “The Contribution of Ecological Science to the Development of Landscape Ecology: A Brief History.” Landscape Research , no.  ():  –. Rapoport, A. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Non Verbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, . ———. The Mutual Interaction of People and Their Built Environment. Paris: Mouton, . Rappaport, R. Pigs for the Ancestors. New Haven: Yale University Press, . Rapport, D., and A. Friend. Toward a Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Statistics: A StressResponse Approach. Report No. – . Ottawa, Ont.: Statistics Canada, . Rapport, D., H. Reiger, and T. Hutchinson. “Ecosystem Behavior under Stress.” American Naturalist , no.  (): – . Redfield, R. The Primitive World and Its Transformation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, . Reiger, H., and D. Rapport. “Ecological Paradigms Once Again.” Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America  (): –. Relph, E. The Modern Urban Landscape. Kent, England: Croom Helm, . ———. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion, . Repton, H. Sketches and Hints on Landscape Gardening. London: Bulmer, . Rice Center for Community Design and Research. Environmental Analysis for Development Planning, Chambers County, Texas. Houston: Southwest Center for Urban Research, Rice University, . Ridd, M. “Multiple Use.” In Nash, American Environment, –. Risser, P. “Toward a Holistic Management Perspective.” BioScience , no.  (): –. Roberts, M., J. Randolph, and J. Chiesa. “A Land Suitability Model for the Evaluation of Land-Use Change.” Environmental Management  ():  – . Roderick, N. American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation History. New York: McGraw-Hill, . Romme, W. “Fire and Landscape Diversity in Sub-

alpine Forests of Yellowstone National Park.” Ecological Monographs  (): –. Romme, W., and D. Knight. “Fire Frequency and Subalpine Forests of Yellowstone National Park.” Ecological Monographs  (): –. Rose, D. “The Aesthetic and Moral Ordering of the Material World in Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania.” Anthropological Quarterly  (): –. Rose, D., F. Steiner, and J. Jackson. “An Applied Human Ecological Approach to Regional Planning.” Landscape Planning  (–): –. Rosenberg, A. “An Emerging Paradigm for Landscape Architecture.” Landscape Journal , no.  ():  – . Rowe, P., and J. Gevirtz. “A Natural Environmental Information and Impact Assessment System.” In Computers in Urban and Regional Government, ed. O. Anochie. Chicago: Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, . Royal Society of Canada and National Research Council of the United States. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: An Evolving Instrument for Ecosystem Management. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, . Ruzicka, M., and L. Miklos. “Basic Premises and Methods in Landscape Ecological Planning and Optimization.” In Zonneveld and Forman, Changing Landscapes, – . Sancar, F. “Towards Theory Generation in Landscape Aesthetics.” Landscape Journal , no.  ():  –. Sandhu, H., and J. Foster. “Landscape Sensitive Planning: A Benefit/Cost Assessment.” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. Sauer, L. The Once and Future Forest. Washington. D.C.: Island Press, . Schaeffer, D., E. Herricks, and H. Kerster. “Ecosystem Health: . Measuring Ecosystem Health.” Environmental Management , no.  ():  –. Schauman, S. “Countryside Scenic Assessment: Tools and Applications.” Landscape and Urban Planning  (): – . Schindler, D., K. Mills, D. Malley, D. Findlay, J. Sheaver, I. Davies, M. Turner, G. Lindsey, and D. Cruishank. “Long-Term Ecosystem Stress: The Effects of Years of Experimental Acidification on a Small Lake.” Science  (): –. Schneider, D., D. Goldschalk, and N. Axler. The Carrying Capacity Concept as a Planning Tool. PAS Report . Chicago: American Planning Association, . Schreiber, K. “The History of Landscape Ecology in

References

Europe.” In Zonneveld and Forman, Changing Landscapes, –. ———. “Landscape Planning and Protection of the Environment: The Contribution of Landscape Ecology.” Applied Sciences and Development  (): –. Schumacher, E. Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered. New York: Harper & Row, . Seamon, D., ed. Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology. Albany: State University of New York Press, . Sears, P. The Ecology of Man. Eugene: University of Oregon Press, . Sell, J., G. Taylor, and E. Zube. “Toward a Theoretical Framework for Landscape Perception.” In Environmental Perception and Behavior: An Inventory and Prospect, ed. T. Saarinen, D. Seamon, and J. Sell. Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago, . Selman, P. “Landscape Ecology and Countryside Planning: Vision, Theory, and Practice.” Journal of Rural Studies  (): –. Shafer, E. “Perception of Natural Environment.” Environment and Behavior  (): –. Shafer, M. Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, . Shkilnyk, A. A Poison Stronger Than Love: The Destruction of an Ojibway Community. New Haven: Yale University Press, . Shopey, J., and R. Fuggle. “A Comprehensive Review of Current Environmental Impact Assessment Methods and Techniques.” Journal of Environmental Management , no.  (): –. Simberloff, D. S. “Biogeography: The Unification and Maturation of a Science.” In Perspective in Ornithology, ed. A. H. Brush and G. A. Clark Jr., –. London: Cambridge University Press; . Simberloff, D. S., and L. G. Abele. “Conservation and Obfuscation: Subdivision of Reserves.” Oikos  (): –. Simon, H. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press, . Simon, J. The Ultimate Resource. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, . Simon, J., E. Brabec, E. Forster, and F. Ndubisi. A Culturally Sensitive Approach to Planning and Design with Native Canadians. Guelph, Ont.: University of Guelph, . Slocombe, D. “Environmental-Planning, Ecosystem Science, and Ecosystem Approaches for Integrating

ⱍ



Environment and Development.” Environmental Management  (): –. Smardon, C., J. Palmer, and J. Felleman, eds. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, . Smardon, R. “Assessing Visual-Cultural Resources of Inland Wetlands in Massachusetts.” In Zube, Brush, and Fabos, Landscape Assessment, –. Smith, D., and P. Hellmund, eds. Ecology of Greenways: Design and Function of Linear Conservation Areas. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, . Smuts, J. Holism and Evolution. New York: Macmillan, . So, F. “Planning Agency Management.” In The Practice of Local Government Planning, ed. F. So and J. Getzel, –. nd ed. Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association, . Sonzogni, W., and T. Heidtke. Modelling the Great Lakes: A History of Achievement. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Great Lakes Basin Commission, . Soule, M. “Land Use Planning and Wildlife Maintenance: Guidelines for Conserving Wildlife in an Urban Landscape.” Journal of the American Planning Association  ():  –. Spaling, H., B. Smit, G. E. Horak, E. V. Vlachos, and E. W. Cline. Methodological Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Impacts on Fish and Wildlife. Washington, D.C.: Office of Biological Services, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, . Spirn, A. The Language of Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press, . ———. “The Poetics of City and Nature: Toward a New Aesthetic for Urban Design.” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. Stalley, M., ed. Patrick Geddes, Spokesperson for Man and the Environment. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, . State of Wisconsin, Department of Resource Development. Recreation in Wisconsin. Madison, . Statistics Canada. “A Case Study of the StressResponse Environmental Statistics System: The Lower Great Lakes.” Working paper, Office of Senior Advisor on Integration, Ottawa, Ont., . Stauffer, D. and A. Aharony. Introduction to Perculation Theory. nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis, . Steiner, F. “Landscape Planning: A Method Applied to a Growth Management Example.” Environmental Management , no.  (): –. ———. The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to



ⱍ

References

Landscape Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill, ; ed. , . ———. “Resource Suitability: Methods for Analyses.” Environmental Management , no.  (): –. Steiner, F., and J. Theilacker. Whitman County Rural Housing Feasibility Study. Colfax, Wash.: Whitman County Regional Planning Council, . Steiner, F., and H. Van Lier, eds. Land Conservation and Development: Example of Land-Use Planning Projects and Programs. New York: Elsevier, . Steinitz, C. Computers and Regional Planning: The DELMARVA Study. Cambridge: Graduate School of Design, Harvard University, . ———. Defensible Processes for Regional Landscape Design. Landscape Architecture Technical Information Series , no. . Washington, D.C.: American Society of Landscape Architects, . Steinitz, C. “Landscape Change: Models, Alternatives, and Levels of Complexity.” Summarized and presented by Stephen Ervin at the Workshop in Landscape Change,  – January , Santa Barbara, Calif. ———. “Simulating Alternative Policies for Implementing the Massachusetts Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act: The North River Demonstration Project.” Landscape Planning  (): – . ———. “On Teaching Ecological Principles to Designers.” In Johnson and Hill, eds. Ecology and Design, –. ———. “Toward a Sustainable Landscape with High Visual Preference and High Ecological Integrity: The Loop Road in Acadia National Park, U.S.A.” Landscape and Urban Planning  (): – . Steinitz, C., M. Binford, P. Cote, T. Edwards, S. Ervin, R. Forman, C. Johnson, R. Kiester, D. Mouat, D. Olson, A. Shearer, R. Toth, and R. Wills. Biodiversity and Landscape Planning: Alternative Futures for the Region of Camp Pendleton, California. Cambridge: Harvard University, Graduate School of Design, . Steinitz, C., J. Brown, and P. Goodale. Managing Suburban Growth: A Modeling Approach. Cambridge: Harvard University, Landscape Architecture Research Office, . Steinitz, C., Enviromedia Inc., and Roger Associates Inc. Natural Resource Protection. Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minn.: Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, . Steinitz, C., and P. Rogers. A System Analysis Model of Urbanization and Change. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-

versity, Department of Landscape Architecture, . Steinitz, C., T. Murray, D. Sinton, and D. Way. A Comparative Study of Resource Analysis Methods. Cambridge: Harvard University, Department of Landscape Architecture, . Steinitz, C., P. Parker, and L. Jordan. “Hand-Drawn Overlays: Their History and Prospective Uses.” Landscape Architecture  (): –. Steinitz, C., and P. Rogers. A System Analysis Model of Urbanization and Change. Cambridge: Harvard University, Department of Landscape Architecture, . Steward, J. A Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, . Stilgoe, J. “Fair Fields and Blasted Rock: American Land Classification Systems and Landscape Aesthetics.” American Studies  (): –. Swank, W., and D. Crossley, eds. Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. New York: Springer-Verlag, . Switzer, W. “The Canadian Geographic Information System.” In Proceedings of Symposium on Geographic Information Processing, –. Ottawa, Ont.: Carleton University, . Theberge, J., J. Nelson, and T. Fenge. Environmentally Significant Areas in the Yukon Territory. Ottawa, Ont.: Arctic Resources Committee, . Thie, J., and G. Ironside, eds. Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification in Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series, no. . Ottawa, Ont.: Land Directorate, Environment Canada, . Thomas, W., ed. Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, . Thompson, G., and F. Steiner, eds. Ecological Design and Planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, . Thoreau, H. Walden. . Reprint, New York: Modern Library, . Thorne, J. “Landscape Ecology: A Foundation for Greenway Design.” In Smith and Hellmund, Ecology of Greenways,  –. Timmermans, W., and R. Snep. “Ecological Models and Urban Wildlife.” Paper presented at the sixteenth annual symposium of the U.S. Regional Association of the International Association of Landscape Ecology,  – April , Tempe, Ariz. Tjallingii, S., and A. de Veers, eds. Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. Wageningen, Netherlands: PUDOC, . Tomlinson, R., H. Calkins, and D. Marble. Computer Handling of Geographical Data. Paris: UNESCO, .

References

Toth, J. “A Theoretical Analysis of Groundwater in Small Drainage Basins.” Journal of Geophysical Research , no.  (): –. Toth, R. “The Contribution of Landscape Planning to Environmental Protection: An Overview of Activities in the United States.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Landscape Planning, – June , University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany, . ———. Criteria for Evaluating the Valuable Natural Resource of the TIRAC Region. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Tocks Island Regional Advisory Council, . ———. “Hydrological and Riparian Systems: The Foundation Network for Landscape Planning.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Landscape Planning, – June , University of Hannover, Hanover, Germany. Tunnard, C., and B. Pushkarev. Man-Made America: Chaos or Control? New Haven: Yale University Press, . Turner, M., and R. Gardner, eds. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology: The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogeneity. New York: Springer-Verlag, . Turner, G., R. Gardner, and V. O’Neill. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Patterns and Process. New York: Springer-Verlag, . Tyler, M., L. Hunter, F. Steiner, and D. Roe. “Use of Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment in Whitman County, Washington, USA.” Environmental Management , no.  (): –. Tylor, E. Primitive Culture. London: Murray, . United Nations Environmental Programme. Environmental Data Report. London: Basil Blackwell, . Prepared for UNEP by GEMS Monitoring and Assessment Research Center, U.K., in cooperation with the World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., and the U.K. Department of the Environment, London. U.S. Congress. “National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning.” Federal Registrar , no.  (): . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. National Forest Landscape Management, USDA Handbook No. . Vol. . Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Important Farmland Inventory, Land Inventory, and Monitoring Memorandum—. Washington, D.C., .

ⱍ



———. Land Capability Classification. Agricultural Handbook No. . Washington, D.C., . ———. National Agriculture Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Handbook. Washington, D.C., . ———. Procedure to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture. Technical Release . Washington, D.C., . U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Division of Recreation and Cultural Resource. Visual Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, . Urban, D., R. O’Neill, and H. Shugart. “Landscape Ecology: A Hierarchical Perspective Can Help Scientists Understand Spatial Patterns.” Bioscience  (): –. Usher, M., and M. Williamson, eds. Ecological Stability. London: Chapman & Hills, . Van Buuren, M., and K. Kerkstra. “The Framework Concept and the Hydrological Landscape Structure: A New Perspective in the Design of Multifunctional Landscapes.” In Vos and Opdam, Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environment,  –. Van Dobben, W., and R. Lowe-McConnell, eds. Unifying Concepts in Ecology. The Hague: Junk, . Van Langevelde, F. “Conceptual Integration of Landscape Planning and Landscape Ecology, with a Focus on the Netherlands.” In Cook and van Lier, Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks, – . Van Leeuwen, C. “A Relation Theoretical Approach to Pattern and Process in Vegetation.” Wentia  (): – . Vayda, A., and R. Rappaport. “Ecology, Cultural and Noncultural.” In Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, ed. J. Clifton, – . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, . Verboom, R., J. Metz, and E. Meelis. “Metapopulation Models for Impact Assessment of Fragmentation.” In Vos and Opdam, Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environment, –. Vining, J., and J. Stevens. “The Assessment of Landscape Quality: Some Methodological Consideration.” In Smardon, Palmer, and Felleman, Foundations for Visual Project Analysis, –. Vink, A. Land Use in Advancing Agriculture. New York: Springer-Verlag, . Vogt, W. Road to Survival. New York: William Sloane Associates, . Von Bertalanffy, L. General Systems Theory. New York: George Braziller, . Von Franz, M. Projection and Recollection in Jungian Psychology. London: Open Court, .



ⱍ

References

Vos, C., and P. Opdam, eds. Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environment. London: Chapman & Hall, . Wallace, D., I. McHarg, W. Roberts, and T. Todd. Woodlands New Community.  vols. Philadelphia, –. Walters, C., and C. Holling. “Large-scale Management Experiments and Learning by Doing.” Ecology  (): –. Wamsley, M., G. Utzig, T. Vold, E. Moon, and J. van Barnveld, eds. Describing Ecosystems in the Field. RAB Technical Paper . Victoria, B.C.: Ministry of Environment, . Warner, M., and E. Preston. A Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies. EPA-/ – –. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, . Wathern, P., S. Young, I. Brown, and D. Roberts. “Ecological Evaluation Techniques.” Landscape Planning  (): –. Weaver, C. Regional Development and the Local Community: Planning, Politics, and Social Context. New York: John Wiley & Sons, . White, L. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” In Ecology and Religion in History, ed. D. Spring and E. Spring,  –. New York: Harper & Row, . First published in Science  (): –. Whitmore, W., E. Cook, and F. Steiner. “Public Involvement in Visual Assessment: The Verde River Corridor Study.” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. Wiens, J. “Metapopulation Dynamics and Landscape Ecology.” In Metapopulation Biology, ed. I. Hanski and M. Gilpin, –. New York: Academic Press, . Wilcox, B., and D. Murphy. “Conservation Strategy: The Effects of Fragmentation on Extinction.” American Naturalist  (): –. Willems, E. “An Ecological Orientation to Psychology.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly  (): –. Wolfe, J. “Comprehensive Community Planning among Indian Bands in Ontario.” Paper presented to the Native American Specialty Group, annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, , Detroit, Mich. Wood, C. “The Extended Garden Metaphor: Increasing Public Awareness of the Profession of Landscape Architecture.” M.L.A. thesis, University of Georgia, . Woodcock, D. “A Functionalist Approach to Environ-

mental Preference.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, . World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press, . Wright, L., W. Zitzmann, K. Young, and R. Googins. “LESA—Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment.” Journal of Soil Water Conservation , no.  (): –. Wynee-Edwards, V. C. Animals Dispersion in Relation to Social Behavior. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, . Young, G. “Human Ecology as an Interdisciplinary Concept: A Critical Inquiry.” In Young, Origins of Human Ecology, –. ———, ed. Origins of Human Ecology. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Hutchinson Ross, . Young, G., F. Steiner, K. Brooks, and K. Struckmeyer. “Determining the Regional Context for Landscape Planning.” Landscape Planning  (): –. Zelinsky, W. “North American’s Vernacular Regions.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers  (): –. Zonneveld, I. Land Ecology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SPB Academic Publishing, . ———. “The Land Unit—A Fundamental Concept in Landscape Ecology, and Its Applications.” Landscape Ecology , no.  (): –. ———. “Scope and Concepts of Landscape Ecology as an Emerging Science.” In Zonneveld and Forman, Changing Landscapes, –. Zonneveld, I., and R. Forman. Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag, . Zube, E. “Evaluation of the Visual and Cultural Environment.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation , no.  (): –. ———. The Islands—Selected Resources of the United States Virgin Islands. Prepared in conjunction with the Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, . ———. “Landscape Meaning, Assessment, and Theory.” Landscape Journal , no.  (): –. ———. “Landscape Research: Planned and Serendipitous.” Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research , no.  (): –. ———. “Landscape Values: History, Concepts, and Applications.” In Smardon, Palmer, and Felleman, Foundations for Visual Project Analysis,  –.

References

———. “Perceived Land Use Patterns and Landscape Values.” Landscape Ecology , no.  (): –. ———. “Scenery as a Natural Resource.” Landscape Architecture  ():  –. ———. “Themes in Landscape Assessment Theory.” Landscape Journal  (): –. Zube, E., O. Brush, and J. Fabos, eds. Landscape Assessment: Values, Perception, and Resources. Stroudsburg, Pa: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, . Zube, E., and C. Carlozzi. An Inventory and Interpreta-

ⱍ



tion—Selected Resources of the Island of Nantucket. Cooperative Extension Service, no. . Amherst: University of Massachusetts, . Zube, E., D. Pitt, and T. Anderson. Perception and Measurement of Scenic Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Publication No. R- –. Amherst, Mass.: Institute for Man and His Environment, . Zube, E., J. Sell, and J. Taylor. “Landscape Perception: Research, Application, and Theory.” Landscape Planning , no.  (): –.

index

abiotic-biotic-cultural strategy (ABC), – , , , , . See also Bastedo, Jamie; Dorney, Robert; Therberge, John Acts: Antiquities Act (), ; Clean Air Act (), ; Clean Water Act (amended ), ; Coastal Zone Management Act (), ; Countryside Act (), ; Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act (), ; Forest Management Act (), ; Land and Water Conservation Act (), ; Massachusetts Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act (), ; Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act (), ; National Endangered Species Act (), ; National Environment Policy Act (NEPA; ),  –, , , , , , ; National Forest Management Act (), ; National Park Act (), , ; Recreational and Scenic Trails Act (), ; Repeal Timber Culture Laws Act (), ; Water Control Act (), ; Weeks Forest Purchase Act (Weeks Act; ), ; Wild and Scenic River Act (),  Adaptive Management Studies Procedure (Hollings), –  Addison, Joseph,  Adriani, M. J., 

aesthetics: concepts—the pastoral, the picturesque, and the sublime, – ; definitions, –  Agee, James,  aggregate-with-outliers principle, , . See also Forman, Richard agricultural-land-evaluation, – Ahern, Jack, ,  allocation-evaluation methods, –, . See also landscape suitability, second landscape suitability approach (LSA ) Alterra Green World Research at Wageningen, The Netherlands,  Anderson, Jay,  Andropogon, ,  Appleton, Jay, , , , , , ; prospect refuge theory, ,  –, . See also Experience of the Landscape, The Appleyard, Donald, , . See also View from the Road applied-ecosystem approach: critique and synthesis,  –, , ; definitions and overview, ,  –, ; key concepts, –; subgroups,  applied-human-ecology approach: conceptual foundation, –; critique and synthesis, –, –, ; definitions and overview, , , – , ; procedural directives, –  applied-landscape-ecology approach:

concepts, –; critique and synthesis, –, , , , ; definitions and overview, , –,  – ; historical summary, –; procedural directives, –  Arizona State University,  Arthur, Johnson,  Atkinson, Megan,  attractiveness measures,  Bailey, R. G.,  Bakuzis, E. V.,  Barker, Roger,  Baschak, L., – Bastedo, Jamie, –, –, , . See also abiotic-biotic-cultural strategy (ABC) Battelle technique,  behavioral paradigm, , –, , , , – , , . See landscape values and landscape perception Bennett, Hugh Hammond,  Bennett, John, – ,  Berdoulay, M., . See also Paysage et Systeme Ecologique Berger, Jonathan, , , , , ,  – , –, –; New Jersey Pinelands Study, –, . See also Guidelines for Landscape Synthesis Berman v. Parker (),  Bertalanffy, Ludwig von, , 





ⱍ

Index

bioclimatic-life-zones classification, , . 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 People’s 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 President’s 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: effect assessment (CEA), ,  –; impact assessment, ; threshold approach,  cybernetics, , , , 

California State Polytechnic University of Pomona, , . See also Lyle, John; Wodtke, Mark von Canadian ecological land classification, ,  Canadian Geographical Information System (CGIS),  Canadian Land Inventory System (CLI),  Canter, David, –,  carrying capacity, , , , , – , , , , , , ,  Carson, Allen,  Carson, Rachel,  Catlin, George, ,  Central Arizona–Phoenix 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 Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO),  compartment flow classification, – ,  compartment flow model, , . See also Odum, Eugene Comte, Auguste, 

Daniel, Terry, , . See also scenic beauty estimation method (SBE) Dansereau, Pierre, , . See also energy flux classification Darwin, Charles,  Dasman, Raymond,  Dearden, G.,  Deitholm & Bressler,  descriptive statistics,  Design for Human Ecosystems (Lyle), , , ,  Design with Nature (McHarg), , , , – , ,  development actions, , , –,  Diamond, J. M.,  Dickert, Thomas,  Doineau, Philippe,  – dominant species technique, . See also Tansley, Arthur Donahue, Michael,  Dorney, Robert, , , , , ,  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, – 

Ecology of Greenways, . See also Hellmund, Paul Carwood; Smith, Daniel ecosystem: definitions, ; health, , , ; integrity, , , ; landscape classification methods, –; value, , . See also Tansley, Arthur Ecosystem Classification for Environmental Management (Klijn), ,  Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness ( Johnson),  ecotype, , ,  EDAW,  Egler, F. E.,  Eliot, Charles, , , , . See also McHarg, Ian, Mount Desert Island Study Emerson, Ralph Waldo, , ,  energy flux, ,  energy flux classification, , . See also Dansereau, Pierre; Moss, M. R. Engelen, G. B., – environmental: indicator, ; indices, ; monitoring, ; threshold approach, , , – Environmental Data Report (UNEP), ,  environmental-impact assessment (EIA),  environmental-impact statement (EIS),  environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs),  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, Jeffery,  Farina, A., . See Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology Fines, K. D., ; East Sussex Study,  fitness, , , , , , , , , , –. See also landscape suitability

Index

Fitzgibbon, John,  floristic 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, Clifford,  – general ecological model (GEM), – ,  general systems theory (GST), , , , –, , , ; definitions 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, –

growth guidance systems,  Guidelines for Landscape Synthesis (Berger),  Haase, G., ,  Haber, Wolfgang, ,  habitat-network, ,  Haeckel, Ernst,  Harris, L.,  Harvard University, , , , , , . See also Steinitz, Carl Hawley, Amos,  Heidegger, Martin,  Helliwell, D.,  Hellmund, Paul Carwood, – . See also Ecology of Greenways Hendrix, William,  –, ,  Herbert, J.,  Hersperger, Anna,  Herzog, T.,  Hester, Randolph,  hierarchy theory, ,  Hills, Angus, , , – , , –; Angus Hills method, –, ; physiographic-unit method, , , , , , ,  Holderidge, L., , . See also bioclimatic life zones classification holism, , , , , , , . See also Smuts, John Christian Holism and Evolution (Smuts),  holistic-ecosystem management method (HEM), , , –, , ,  Hollings, C. S., – holon,  homeorhesis,  homeostasis, ,  Hopkins, Lewis, , , –, –. See also “Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps: A Comparative Evaluation” Hoskins, W. G., , ,  Hough, Michael, , – . See also Out of Place: Restoring Identity to the Regional Landscape Hudson Valley School,  human ecology, , , –, –, , , , – . See also appliedhuman-ecology approach Humboldt, A. von,  Hunter, F.,  hydrological approach,  hydrological landscape structure, , , – , –  Illinois Recreation and Open State Plan, – Image of the City (Lynch),  impact-predicting suitability models, .

ⱍ



See also landscape suitability, second landscape-suitability approach (LSA ) index-based assessment methods, –. See also applied-ecosystem approach inferential statistics,  International Biologicial Program (IBP), , – , ,  International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes,  International Union of Conservation for Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN),  Ironside, G., ,  island biogeography, , ,  Itami, Robert,  – Ittelson, W. H.,  Jackson, J. B., , , –, ,  – ,  Jacob, Peter, ,  Jeffers, J. N.,  Jefferson, Thomas,  Jensen, Jens, , , ,  Johnson, Darryll, . See also Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness Jones & Jones, – , –; Nooksack River Study,  Jones, G. P., – Jones, Grant, ,  Juneja, Narendra, , , , . See also McHarg, Ian, Medford Township Study Kaplan, Rachel, , , , – , – ; information-processing framework, , –. See also Experience with Nature; Kaplan, Stephen; With People in Mind Kaplan, Stephen, , , , – , – 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 configuration,  Land Mosaics (Forman), , 



ⱍ

Index

landscape classification methods, . See applied-ecosystem approach; landscape suitability Landscape Ecological Analysis and Rules for the Configuration of Habitat (LARCH), ,  landscape ecology, – . See appliedlandscape-ecology approach Landscape Ecology (Forman & Godron), , , , ,  landscape-ecology-and-optimization method (LANDEP), –,  Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning (Dramstad, Forman & Olson),  Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice (Gardner & O’Neill),  Landscape Perception: Values, Perceptions, and Resources (Brush & Zube),  landscape-perception paradigm, – . See paradigms of landscape values and perception Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks (Cook & Lier),  landscape regeneration, –  Landscape Research Group,  landscape suitability: first landscape suitability approach (LSA ), –; second landscape suitability approach (LSA ), – landscape-resource survey and assessment methods, , , –, –, , . See also landscape suitability, second landscape suitability approach (LSA ) landscape values and landscape perceptions, – Land Use in Advancing Agriculture (Vink), ,  layer-cake model, ,  Lee, Brenda,  Lee, Michael,  Leiden University, . See also Klijn, Frans Lenz, Roman,  Leopold, Aldo, , , , , –, ,  Leopold, Luna, – Leser, H.,  Levin, R., ,  Lewis, Philip, Jr., , , – , , , , ; Illinois Recreation and Open State Plan, ; Outdoor Recreation Plan for State of Wisconsin, ; Philip Lewis, or resource-pattern, method, – , , ; Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study, . See also Tomorrow by Design Lewis, Pierce, , 

Lieberman, Arthur, , , , . See also Total Human Ecosystem Likens, Gene, , ,  Lindeman, Raymond, ,  linear combination technique, –. See also landscape suitability, second landscape suitability approach (LSA ) Linton, Burton, – ,  –, ; visual-classification system, ,  Living Landscape, The (Steiner), ,  Lorenzetti, Ambrogio,  Lorrain, Claude,  Lotka, Alfred James,  Lowenthal, David, , , ,  Lukerman, F.,  LUPLAN, ,  Lyle, John, , , , – ,  –, , , , –; impact-predicting suitability models, ; process models, , , ; San Diego County Project, . See also Design for Human Ecosystems; Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development Lynch, Kevin, , , . See also Image of the City; View from the Road

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 classification, ; 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

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),  National Research Council (NRC),  National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly Soil Conservation Service [SCS]), , – ,  –, , –, , , , , , . See also soil, capability system natural history classification,  –. See also McHarg, Ian Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice (Shafer),  Naveh, Zev, , , , ,  Ndubisi, Forster, ; Ojibway Indian Community Study, , , – Neef, Ernst,  Newby, P. T.,  New Deal Plan, , ,  New Jersey Pinelands Study, –,  Nooksack River Study,  North Atlantic Region (NAR), ,  Noss, Reed, , ,  O’Connell, Michael, . See also Science of Conservation Planning, The Odum, Eugene, , , , , , ; culture and ecology, ; ecological stability, ; ecosystem-compartment model, , – , . See also compartment flow model Odum, Howard, , , ,  Ojibway Indian Community Study, , – . See also Burwash Native Peo-

Index

ple’s Project (BNPP); Ndubisi, Forster Ojibway Indians,  Olmstead, Fredrick Law, Sr., –, , , , , ,  Olshowy, G.,  Olson, J., – . See also Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning O’Neill, Robert, , –, ,  Out of Place: Restoring Identity to the Regional Landscape (Hough), – paradigms of landscape values and perception, – ,  parametric approaches, . See also landscape suitability, second landscape suitability approach (LSA ) Park, R. E.,  patch-corridor-matrix spatial framework, , , , –. See also Forman, Richard; Godron, Michel Paysage et Systeme Ecologique (Berdoulay & Phipps),  Penfold, George,  Penning-Rowsell, E.,  percolation theory,  Phillips, J.,  Phipps, M., . See also Paysage et Systeme Ecologique physiographic-unit method, –, , , –, , . See also Hills, Angus, Angus Hills method Pinchot, Gifford,  Pinelands Natural Reserve Study,  place constructs, –, ,  Poetics of City and Nature, The (Spirn),  Polland, E.,  Pope, Alexander,  Porteous, D.,  possibilism,  Poussin, Nicholas,  Powell, John Wesley,  prairie style landscape design, . See also Jensen, Jens President’s 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

landscape values and landscape perception Proshansky, H.,  prospect-refuge theory, , , , . See also Appleton, Jay psychophysical model, , , –, , . See also landscape values and landscape perception Punter, J.,  Puritan ethic,  Pushkarev, B.,  Quality Corridor Study for Wisconsin, . See also Lewis, Philip, Jr. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology (Gardner & Turner),  Rapoport, Amos, , ,  Redman, Charles,  Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development (Lyle), , ,  regional natural units (RNUs), ,  Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA),  Relph, Edward, , , , ,  resource-pattern method, –. See also Lewis, Philip, Jr., Philip Lewis, or resource-pattern, method Rice University Center for Community Design Research,  Rio Summit (),  Risser, Paul,  Roberts, M.,  Romme, W. H., ,  Rosa, Salvator,  Rose, Dan, ,  –, , , . See also University of Pennsylvania Royal Society of Canada (RSC),  rules of combination, , –, , ,  Rural Development Outreach Project,  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 (O’Connell & Murphy),  Sears, Paul,  Sells, S. B., ,  Selman, Paul, , – Shafer, E., ,  Shafer, M. L., . See also Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice Shkilynk, A., 

ⱍ



sieve mapping,  –. See also landscape suitability, second landscape suitability approach (LSA ) Simon, Joan,  Sinton, John, , , –, . See also New Jersey Pinelands Study SIRO-PLAN,  –, ,  Smardon, Richard, ,  Smit, Barry, ,  Smith, Daniel, . See also Ecology of Greenways Smuts, John Christian, , , . See also holism; Holism and Evolution Snep, Robert,  So, Frank,  Sochava, V.,  soil: capability system, , ,  –, , . See also Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA); National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly Soil Conservation Service [SCS]) Spaling, Harry, ,  Spirn, Anne, , –; The Language of Landscape, ; The Poetics of City and Nature,  stability, , – , –; resilience, ; resistance, . See also ecosystem Statistics Canada Stress-Response Environmental Statistical System (S-RESS),  –, ,  Steele, Richard,  Steiner, Frederick, , ; KennettRegion Human-Ecological Planning Study, –; strategic suitability method,  – , –, , ; Verde River Study,  –, . See also Living Landscape, The Steinitz, Carl, , ,  –, , , , , , – , –, , ; Arcadia National Park Study, –; Boston Information System, , , , – , ; Camp Pendelton Study, , ; Honey Hill Project, ; Monroe County Study, , ; Mount Desert Island Study, ; process models, , , ; Upper San Pedro River Study, , ,  –, , ,  Stevens, Joseph,  Steward, A. G., ,  Steward, Julian, ,  –. See also cultural-core concept Stilgoe, John, , , ,  stimulus-response methods,  strategic landscape-suitability method,  –, , , . See also SIROPLAN; Steiner, Frederick; strategic suitability method



ⱍ

Index

Strategy of Ecosystem Development, The (Odum),  Strong, Ann,  suitability analysis, – Sukachev, V. N.,  surrogates, , , ,  Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,  Tansley, Arthur, , , , , . See also ecosystem Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),  Tetlow, R.,  Therberge, John, , ,  Thie, J., ,  Thoreau, Henry David,  –, , ,  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 California–Berkley, , , – ,  University of Georgia, , ,  University of Guelph, ,  University of Massachusetts, , , ,

, , , , . See also Metropolitan Landscape Planning (METLAND) University of Michigan,  University of Montreal,  University of Pennsylvania, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ; University of Pennsylvania suitability method, , – , . See also McHarg, Ian University of Waterloo,  Upper San Pedro River Watershed, , ,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), , ,  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, , , ,  U.S. Forest Service (USFS), , ; Pacific Southwest Experimental Station, – , , . See also Linton, Burton U.S. Geological Service (USGS),  Van Buuren, Michael, – , –  Van der Maarel, E.,  Van Langevelde, F.,  Van Leeuwen, C.,  Van Lier, Hubert, . See also Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks vegetation classification,  Vernadsky, Vladimir Ivanovich,  View from the Road (Appleyard, Lynch & Meyer),  Vining, J., ,  Vink, A. P. A., , , ; Land Use in Advancing Agriculture,  Vinogradov, V.,  visual-resource-management systems (VRMs), – , , – Vogt, William, – Volterra, Vito,  Vrijlandt, P.,  Wageningen University, . See also Kerkstra, Klass; Van Buuren, Michael Warming, Eugenius,  Washington State University, , , .

See also Glasoe, Stuart; Hendrix, William; Ndubisi, Forster; Young, Gerald Wathern, P.,  Waugh, Frank,  – Whitehouse Conference on Natural Beauty (),  Whitmore, W.,  –, ; Verde River Study, –,  Willems, E. P.,  Wilson, E. O., ,  With People in Mind (Kaplan & Kaplan),  WMRT, , . See also McHarg, Ian; Roberts, M.; Todd, Thomas Wodtke, Mark von, , , , –,  –, ,  Wohwill, J.,  Wood, Denis,  World Conservation Strategy,  World Resource Institute for Environment and Development,  Wright, Frank lloyd, ,  Yellowstone National Park, , , , ,  Yosemite Valley,  Young, Gerald, , ,  – , . See also human ecology Zedler, P. H., ,  Zelinsky, Wilbur,  Zonneveld, Isaak, –, , , ,  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) President’s Award for Contributions to Education in Landscape Architecture (1993), and he was a co-recipient of the Georgia ASLA President’s Award for Excellence in Professional Achievement (1994). His research on approaches to ecological planning won the only ASLA’s 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.

