Landscape Ecology
Brief illustration
Landscape Ecology: History
Milan Ruzicka
1975 IALE
Czechoslovakia
Landscape Ecology has been energized by key contributions from
landscape architects,
 foresters,
 planners,
 geographers,
 artists,
 environmentalists,
 philosophers…
Inclusive rather than Exclusive
Landscape ecology: what is it?
Landscape ecology is the study of spatial variation in
landscapes at a variety of scales. It includes the
biophysical and societal causes and consequences
of landscape heterogeneity. Above all, it is broadly
interdisciplinary.
The conceptual and theoretical core of landscape
ecology links natural sciences with related human
disciplines.
On the official website of IALE, 2011
http://www.landscape-ecology.org/
„Geography“ period
Where it is?
 What this is?
 Look on the landscape at a time in great scale
 Carl Troll, 1936, using air/born photo
of landscape


LANDEP, Ruzicka, 1980, tools for landscape
planing
„THE“ period
Zev Naveh, Isaak Zoneveld
1975 .....1980, 1990
geography, humanity
explicity ecumenical

„Do not draw boundaries around the field too
soon. Welcome to use the insight of all relaled
fields that chaose to build liknages“
Integration, THE, intedisciplinarity...
• Bridge
between
science and
humanities
(Zev Naveh)
Spatial period
Forman R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape
Ecology.
Mosaic patterns, process and change
Patch – corridor – matrix model
LE offers methodologically opportunities for
reserch and theory
LE spatially integrating people and nature
Balance between land-use and human culture
„Out of human system“ period
J.I. Nassauer, R. G. H. Bunce, 1990
Spatial details
Models
Landscape
sociology period?
Advanced
illustration
Shift towards landscape (and)
sociology?
Landscape ecology
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tools for better landscape planning
Balance between land-use and human culture
Filling societal demands
Societal demands ….carrying capacity
Landscape as narrative system
Landscape as valuable system itself
…landscape (and) sociology?




Spatial problems of landscape – no human
phenomenon
Human as the other ecological factor –
external effect
Human as demands system, aim, strategy
– planning
Human as a system itself, culture,
perception, values – very rare in
landscape ecology
Integration, THE, intedisciplinarity...
Proclamations and facts
• Bridge
between
science and
humanities
(Zev Naveh)
Our Research: Metodology
Content analyses 1999-2008 leading LE journals Landscape Ecology:



Landscape Ecology
Landscape and Urban Planning
Ekológia (Bratislava).
LE
708
LUP
930
Ekológia 890
Total
2528
no
articles,
proceeding
papers,
review
articles
yes
editorials,
introductions,
prefaces,
perspectives,
comments,
replies
Metodology
We reviewed 2528 abstracts of scientific articles in LE
and LUP journals.
This number means all articles from the decade
available through Web of Science (LE) and Science
Direct (LUP).
Articles were divided into 3 groups/categories
according to the position of human system (Social,
Natural & Technical management). All abstracts were
read, not just checked according to keywords. In
Social group all full version of articles were
reviewed.
Categories

Social


NT management


human system is an object of research
for human, but human system is not research
object
Natural

human system is not an object of reserach
Results
Landscape Ecology
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
přírodní
technické
sociální
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Landscape Ecology
Natural
83%
Social
5%
NT
mngmt
12%
Results
Landscape and Urban Planning
100%
80%
přírodní
60%
technické
40%
sociální
20%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Landscape and Urban Planning
Natural
33%
Social
37%
NT mngmt
30%
Results
Ekológia
100%
80%
přírodní
60%
technické
40%
sociální
20%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Ekológia
8%
12%
80%
Results (%)
LE
LUP
Ekológia
Social
5,5
36,2
8,4
NT
mngm
11,9
30,3
11,5
Natural
82,6
33,4
80,1
LE
LUP
Ekológia
Discussion and conclusion
•
While some other studies and reviews are focused on more criterias, i.e. Wiens
(1992), Hobbs (1997) and Andersen (2008), we focused mainly on social system
in landscape as primary research object, which requires connection with social
sciences. From this point of view we can note that LUP has evidently better
proportional concern on social aspects of landscape than LE, even higher than
Antrop’s study shows (2001). Landscape Ecology, the house journal of IALE,
doesn’t meet its proclamated role to be the bridge between nature and culture,
between science and humanities. Analysis of our total sample of abstracts and
articles shows Andersen’s (2008) conclusion about articles focusing on
sociology in LE like overemphasized, maybe due to random sampling of 50
cases and classification of papers belonging to Social system following her
very broad definition as „some aspect of sociology“.
•
Results show that the real cooperation with social sciences (Golley, 1996),
integrating humans into landscape ecology (Wu and Hobbs, 2002) and concept
of Total Human Ecosystem (Naveh, 2000) are more proclamations and wishes
than a real way of thinking among the group of landscape ecologists
presenting their papers in the elite house journal of IALE. It looks like
reductionism towards landscape science bears fruit.
•
Isn´t it the right time for return to landscape ecology?
Conclusion I
patterns
patterns
pattern
s
scale
process
process
changes
patterns – process - changes
disturbances
disturbances
Conclusion II
Have humanities something valuable to
offer to natural sciences?
• Isn’t landscape too cultural construct?
• Reduction of landscape to too scientific
term without any cultural context.

Ecological reality

Social construction
Next presentation: Landscape as
nature - culture continuum

Sociological perspectives
or
Final essay concerns the possible future
development of Landscape Sociology or
Landscape Studies in general