ВІСНИК ЛЬВІВ. УН-ТУ
Серія географічна. 2004. Вип.31. С. 56–65
VISNYK LVIV UNIV
Ser.Geogr. 2004.№31. Р. 56–65
УДК 911:2
ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPES – ADOPTING AND
DEVELOPING NEEF’S LANDSCAPE RESEARCH IN SAXONY / GERMANY
O. Bastian
Saxon Academy of Sciences, Dresden, Germany D-01097 Dresden,
Olaf.Bastian@mailbox.tu-dresden.de
The scientific concept of landscape research essentially coined by the German
geographer E. Neef, proves to be a key for the analysis, diagnosis and prognosis of the
human environment, and it is very important for modern landscape planning. A brief survey
of the historical development shows varying paradigms in the definition and investigation
of landscape. Especially such items like bottom-up landscape classifications, potentials of
nature / landscape functions, and the problems of landscape visions (leitbilder) are special
contributions of the Dresden working group “Natural balance and regional characteristics”
of the Saxon Academy of Sciences. Regarding practical application, complex,
complementary and transdisciplinary views on landscapes become more and more
important.
Key words: landscape, landscape ecology, geography, spatial units, landscape
planning
Landscape research has a long tradition in Germany. After Alexander von
Humboldt used the term landscape 200 years ago in the sense of the „total character of a
selected part of the earth“ (Totalcharakter von Erdgegenden), research on landscape
became popular as a branch of geography. Especially the holistic view on landscape, which
was mainly supported by Troll, Paffen, Schmithüsen and Neef in the beginning of
landscape research, was an innovation offering a useful approach to solve environmental
problems which were realized by scientists and the general public more and more.
Among others, the ideas and principles developed by the German geographer Ernst
Neef and his scientific school in Saxony have been important not only for shaping
geography, landscape research and landscape ecology as basic sciences, they also show
permanently increasing importance for practical purposes such as environmentally-friendly
land use, landscape planning, and sustainable development, generally. The paper will give a
brief survey of some theoretical and practical aspects of landscape research and landscape
planning influenced by the ideas and approaches of E. Neef and his scientific school.
Landscape research: Aspects of the historical development. According to Neef
[31] landscape is a part of the earth’s surface with “a uniform structure and functional
pattern”, both in its appearance and constituent components. The components or
‘geofactors’ to be identified are relief, soil, climate, water balance, flora, fauna, people and
their creations and artefacts in the landscape (Fig. 1). Appearance also included ideas about
spatial position. From the outset, beginning with A. von Humboldt, landscape was
intended as an holistic idea. Thus 1850, Rosenkranz [in 42] defined landscapes in terms of
the hierarchically organized local systems made up of all the kingdoms of nature. Such
________________________
© Bastian O., 2004
ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE ...
57
ideas reflected similar ideas being developed across Central and Eastern Europe at this
time, and which continue to be expressed by more recent scholars. Apart from Neef, also
(other) contemporary authors have stressed the fact that landscape is not only the sum of
separate geofactors, but also represents the integration of factors into a geographical
complex or ‘geosystem’ [20]. For them, the landscape ecosystem is defined by the spatial
pattern of abiotic, biotic and anthropogenic components which form a unified functional
entity and which serves as the environment for people.
However, one has to understand that ‘landscape’ is a term with manifold
connotations, and therefore has no single and final definition. A lot of reasons for
discussion in the German geography gave the description of the term in a sense of
landscape as ‘Wesenheiten’ (intrinsic entities) instead of purpose-based spatial constructs.
People were trying to grasp the character of a landscape (‘Wesen der Landschaft’ [35]),
which was to be understood as a real existing organic ‘Gestalt-complex’ – as entity – which
with the help of the experienced view of the geographer could be made out and analysed.
Some authors such as Hard [21] defined landscape as “a primarily aesthetic phenomenon,
closer to the eyes than to the mind, more related to the heart, the soul, the moods than to the
intellect.” But also the focus on cultural landscapes which has become important during
recent years within landscape research [e.g., 10, 12, 46] refers to a more comprehensive
understanding of landscapes.
Today, the understanding of landscape tends to a relativized, complementary view:
on the one side landscapes are depending on scientific law and principles, on the other side
they are artificial constructs of our mind following complementarity which was supposed
by N. Bohr (at the beginning of the last century) to be a general dialectic principle in
scientific research, and that was adopted to geography and landscape research in the 1980s
by Buchheim [11] and Neef [34]. The meaning of complementarity in landscape research is
the parallelism of independent research disciplines. This is not a scientific shortcoming, but
a necessity in the investigation of geographical (landscape) complexes. Landscape as a very
complicated phenomenon is analysed and described from various points of view by
different scientific approaches and disciplines. To gain a comprehensive picture of the
landscape, all the manifold ecological, social, cultural, psychological aspects must be taken
into consideration [4]. This is obvious especially in the field of landscape delimitation and
classification.
Traditionally, the geographer’s approach to landscape can generally be described
as ‘integrative’ rather than ‘sectoral’ [e.g., 23]. This characteristic is, probably, mostly
stressed in the holistic view of landscape developed by workers from the former GDR and
from Eastern Europe. Such approaches were stimulated in recent years by work such as that
by Haase et al. [17], Mannsfeld & Neumeister [27], Zepp & Müller [47] and Krönert et al.
[22]. Using Neef’s formulation of the landscape concept, involving the integration of
nature, humans, and society in a single system, both physical and human geography
approaches could be combined.
These developments in the former GDR were, however, not typical of those in
other parts of the country were reductionist views in the environmental sciences and
geography tended to dominate. In geography the term landscape was pushed into the
background, and it lost its crucial position in the second half of the last century. In the
1970s Neef [33] criticised the ‘trend’ of defining geography as a special kind of social
science, along with the tendency to separate the physical and human sides of the discipline.
Mannsfeld [26] has also identified the issue of geography developing towards a specified
sectoral science at the expense of its more traditional integrative approach.
О. Bastian
58
transformation of radiation energy
and heat through physical processes
transformation of heat energy
through biochemical processes
transformation of water
air
transformation of gaseous and
liquid inorganic matter
fauna
air near ground
flora
relief / ground surface
edaphon
humus / soil
transformation of organic matter
transformation of clastic inorganic matter
bedrock
processes of same direction
epidermis: two dimensional
compartment of the geomorphosphere
landscape component
Figure 1. Model of vertical landscape structure and processes [25, modified after 39].
Only recently [40] the interest in more holistic approaches is being reawakened in
geography, planning and ecology, and the term ‘landscape’ is starting to coming back into
research, partly as the result of the growth of landscape ecology as a distinct research focus
[1, 30, 4, 37], and partly because the term ‘landscape’ has been taken up by other
disciplines, and particularly by those which propose more transdisciplinary approaches.
Landscape ecology gave very important stimuli to landscape research. The term
‘landscape ecology’ was created and defined by C. Troll [45] as follows: “Studium des
gesamten, in einem bestimmten Landschaftsausschnitt herrschenden komplexen
Wirkungsgefüges zwischen den Lebensgemeinschaften (Biozönosen) und ihren
Umweltbedingungen. Dieses äußerst sich räumlich in einem bestimmten Verbreitungsmuster
ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE ...
59
oder eine naturräumlichen Gliederung verschiedener Größenordnungen,” (Study of the
whole, in a certain landscape unit dominating complex interaction between biocoenoses and
their environmental conditions. This interaction is expresses spatially in a certain spatial
pattern or natural regional units at different scales“).
Schmithüsen [41] extended Troll’s approach and included cultural landscapes.
Neef and his scholars took the next step (towards a further development of landscape
ecology in the 1950s by concentrating on two issues:
 basing landscape ecology on a natural science approach (for example through
‘geoecology’ and the ‘theory of geographical dimensions’), and
 including society and its (human) impacts on landscape ecosystems.
According to Leser [23], landscape ecology deals with the interrelations of all functional
and visible factors representing the landscape ecosystem.
Besides, the current research agendas in Germany focus on interactions between
holism and the sectoral views, principle of complementarity, relation of physical and
perceptual approaches to the landscape concept, transdisciplinarity, scale-related issues. In
the more applied arena, key issues are the study of environmental impacts/problems on
landscapes arising from intensive farming, industrialisation and urbanisation. A key task is
to use the outputs from landscape studies to help protect the most valuable landscape and
nature areas, as well as to develop strategies for the sustainable management of such areas
as well as for landscapes heavily impacted by human activities.
Landscape diagnosis, landscape functions, and “leitbilder”. Taking human
factors into account, is an essential step in the development of landscape research, esp.
regarding aspects of practical application. For it, one of the most important approaches
developed in Germany is the concept of landscape diagnosis. The term ‘landscape
diagnosis’ was introduced in Germany in the 1950s [24] to draw the analogy with medical
practice. Landscape diagnosis is based upon the results of landscape analysis, which
attempts to provide a description of landscape structure in terms of its natural features, its
use by people, and its dynamic characteristics. It has as its primary objective to
systematically and methodically determine the ‘capability’ of landscapes to meet various
social requirements and to define limiting or standard values “for securing the stability of
natural conditions and for, if possible, increasing of performance capacities” [16] (Fig. 2).
An important and crucial stage in diagnosis is that of landscape evaluation, which
seeks to convert information about the various scientific parameters into socio-political
categories as a framework for decision-making and management. This step is described by
Neef [32] as the ‘transformation problem’ which is clearly complex because it involves the
relations between the evaluator and the object being evaluated. At best, counting,
measuring, classifying and similar procedures can be regarded as preliminary stages but not
as complete evaluations; they are not enough to provide results being relevant to practical
purposes (e.g., landscape planning). It is generally accepted that the goal of evaluation is
objectively to identify the capacity of the landscape to perform its essential functions (i.e., to
maintain its ‘natural balance’) [8, 9]. The ideas of landscape functions / potentials of
nature, which had been used first by Neef [(1966) in a geographical context and later
developed by Haase [15], Mannsfeld [25] and others prove as helpful approaches not only
for the analysis and the assessment of the landscape but also to draft landscape-ecological
targets. The term function is not only used to flag landscape or ecosystem properties such
as the various fluxes of energy, mineral nutrients and or the distribution and movement of
species between landscape elements, but also in their direct relation to human society.
О. Bastian
60
landscape analysis
determination of landscape structure and functioning
physical region, ecosystem, land use (structure),
landscape dynamics
landscape diagnosis
(landscape assessment I)
determination of performances to meet socioeconomic requirements
limits and normative values to secure stability of
natur conditions
performance
capability
loading and
carrying capacity
suitability of
utilization
natural
potentials,
resources, risks
and environment
degree of
straining, levels of
capacity,
sensitivity,
persistence
degree of
functional
performance,
multifunctionality,
suitability
availability and disposability
(neighborhood effects, material and functional unwieldiness, forms
of multiple utilization)
landscape management
landscape prognosis
(landscape assessment II)
assessment of possible (favorable, appropriate,
necessary) landscape changes
landscape planning, control, protection and
architecture
Figure 2: Interrelations and connections between landscape analysis, diagnosis and
landscape management [18, after 17].
Landscape functions / potentials of nature characterize the capability and usability
of a landscape in a broad sense. This is a suitable tool to evaluate landscapes in the context
of managing such problems as soil erosion, water retention, groundwater recharge,
groundwater protection, habitat function, landscape potential for recreation. On the one
hand we understand by landscape functions / potentials of nature regulation and
regeneration of single geofactors (and landscape compartments) and whole ecosystems
(landscape complexes) as an entity, on the other hand the ability of landscape to satisfy
needs and demands of human society [15, 25, 13, 28, 2, 7, 8]. Landscape assessment with
the help of landscape functions and natural potentials is an important step to transform
scientific knowledge to social categories, and to bridge the gap between nature (sciences)
and human society.
The assessment of landscape functions has to take the scale-dependence into
consideration. For the particular scales / dimensions specific methods have to be applied. In
view of the accelerating landscape change [e.g., 6], the knowledge of landscape functions
at different times is important, esp. in the framework of qualified landscape monitoring
programmes. The inclusion of assessing landscape functions / potentials of nature in studies
of landscape change goes far beyond the pure comparison of structural parameters like land
use or landscape elements.
ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE ...
61
The importance of understanding the link between the ecological elements and the
societal, cultural and economic aspects of landscape is also stressed by the recent
discussions of the ‘leitbild’ concept in the German-language literature [14, 38]. The
development of a leitbild or vision (prognosis or scenario) for a given area, is seen as
providing a means whereby stakeholders can more easily choose between different
alternatives for the conservation and utilization of both nature and the environment [5].
Leitbilder identify among others the essential ecological and aesthetical objectives
for a given territory (reference unit) within a reasonable short timescale. They may be
visualised as a picture and are an expression of an integrated view of nature conservation
and landscape development. They represent a part of the rather comprehensive system of
environmental targets. General environmental targets (principles, guidelines) can be further
differentiated by so-called ‘objectives’ and ‘standards’ of environmental quality. The
‘objectives’ represent certain qualities of natural resources, their potentials and functions
which should be maintained or developed. They are specified by standards, i.e. they are
transformed into measurable indications and values [2]. The contribution to landscape
visions or targets (leitbilder) deals only with special landscape-ecologically founded
aspects. It is a matter of ecological norms, minimal demands, constraints, limits of threats
and carrying capacity, which must be considered in order to enable a landscape-specific
sustainable development. In other words, landscape targets or, in general, environmental
targets can be proposed by scientists, for their implementation, however, political decisions
are necessary.
The development of tools and concepts that can help people develop such visions
represents one of the major challenges facing contemporary transdisciplinary landscape
research in Germany.
Landscape classification. Beginning in early stages, landscape research dealt with
the delimitation, description and classification of landscape units. For Germany, Meynen
and Schmithüsen [29] should be mentioned who divided Germany into areas defind through
the natural basis at la scale of 1:1 million and 1:200,000. This approach was more
descriptive than basing on detailed ecological information being not available in a sufficient
manner. Later, this conception was improved shifting towards a view using more analytical
data, among them from field research, and stressing the bottom-up principle [e.g., 31]. In
this sense, the units defined, called ‘geochores’, may be regarded as associations of mosaics
of basic topic elements. The term ‘geochore’ means a geographically defined, or delineated,
unit. ‘Tope’ or ‘topic’ refers to a particular locality. The most important feature of these
geochores is their heterogeneous structure. The properties of choric spatial units result from
the combination of topic elements, as well as their arrangement in space. Finally, on a
higher level of aggregation geochores have new properties beyond the mere sum of the
parts. Microgeochores (short: ‘microchores’) are combinations (mosaics) of geotopes
associated on a higher level. On an average, they consist of 80 to 100 geotopes, which in
most cases can be assigned to 12 to 15 different types (geoforms). The pattern of topes in
microchores reflects primarily the landscape-genetic (landscape history) conditions of their
development and succession. Microchores (delimited in Saxony) have an average size of
12 km² (3 to 30 km²).
During the last years, for a whole German federal state (Saxony: 18,338 km², 5.1%
of German territory) landscape was classified from a physical-geographical point of view
by the working group ‘Natural balance and regional characteristics’ of the Saxon Academy
of Sciences. The landscape units (microgeochores) were mapped, described, classified,
and documented [19]. A comprehensive, rather complicated methodology was used, which
combines two approaches: (1) the deductive way of working (top-down): larger areas are
62
О. Bastian
subdivided step by step, and (2) the inductive way of working (bottom-up) basing on
comprehensive landscape-ecological analyses. Sources of data have been: (1) soil maps (for
agricultural areas – scale 1:25,000, for forestry areas – scale 1:10,000); (2) geological maps,
hydrogeological maps; (3) maps of biotopes and land use.
The results are:
 a map series 1:50,000 (55 sheets) with about 1,450 landscape units
(microgeochores);
 documentation of each landscape unit in a written and GIS (ArcInfo) formats
(characteristics according to the geocomponents: geological structure, soils, relief,
waters, climate, vegetation, valuable biotopes, land use);
 a computer-based enquiry system as a rational base of utilization and
interpretation.
It is possible to assess the suitability of such (natural landscape) units for human
activities, the functioning of natural balance, the carrying capacity, but also to draft
regionalized targets (leitbilder) of landscape management [3, 5]
Landscape planning. Within the wide range of practical applications for the results of
modern landscape research, one of the most important instruments is landscape planning.
Landscape planning in Germany has developed mainly out of landscape gardening and
landscape architecture, but also of landscape management and nature and countryside
conservation. The first landscape plans go back to the late 1930s. In its more analytic or
scientific style landscape planning was developed in Germany and other countries in the
1950s. By law, the concept of landscape planning then was formally introduced as a
planning instrument at federal level in Germany in 1976.
Landscape planning is aimed at preservation and restoration of an effective,
ecologically intact and aesthetically appealing landscape. Landscape planning is not
restricted to single aspects only as the protection of flora and fauna (protection of nature in
a narrow sense) and forethought for recreation, but it contains all natural resources and
effects of natural balance, (i.e., soil, water, climate/air) as a natural living base for people.
In other words, landscape planning deals with all landscape phenomena caused by nature or
humans. Therefore, landscape planning is integrative, and it shall represent and coordinate
different social values with respect to the landscape. The complex consideration of
landscape (functions and uses) is important because the problems resulting from land use
conflicts are not resolvable from the isolated points of view of economic branches alone.
Landscape planning should take place as much as possible in a comprehensive approach,
hierarchically ordered on different levels and consequently on different scales.
The work in different dimensions (scales), the assessment of landscape functions /
potentials of nature, the consideration of time aspects (landscape changes) are typical
geographical aspects and approaches.
Outlook. The role of landscape research is increasing mainly with regard to the
challenges of the effective use and the protection of natural resources in the framework of
the sustainable development demanding complex, transdisciplinary approaches. Landscape
is the object where ecological, economic and societal spheres are integrated. Presently and
in future, especially the following aspects/research questions are or will be relevant:
1. It is necessary to strengthen holistic views and to balance the relation between holism
and sectoral approaches [4, 37];
2. Two different concepts of the landscape, which developed separately over years, are
still around. More and more the aesthetic and also mental aspect of the landscape is
considered, when using the landscape concept. Landscape can be considered not only
ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE ...
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
63
as a product of reality, but also of perception [e.g., 36, see also the European
Landscape Convention]. According to Tress et al. [44]: “Landscape is neither a solely
objective nor a purely subjective reality; it is both simultaneously. Thus, its scientific
examination needs a common effort across traditional disciplines. The examination of
geological, biological, aesthetic, historical, psychological, social or economic
dimensions in isolation is not appropriate to landscape’s complex reality;”
It is important to find a good relation between physical and mental approaches within
the landscape concept;
The principle of complementarity should be highlighted in research projects [4];
The problem of transformation, or evaluation, which deals with the problematic
connecting of facts (natural scientific analytical knowledge of landscape and the socioeconomic demands by society) needs more and better methodological solutions;
The transdisciplinary character of landscape ecology [e.g., 43] should be considered to
a larger extent;
Scale-related issues (i.e., methodology and dimension of validation of results) need
more attention.
________________________
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Antrop M. Geography and Landscape Science // BELGEO. 2000. No 1-4.
Bastian O. The assessment of landscape functions – one precondition to define
management goals // Ekológia (Bratislava). 1998a. No 17 (Suppl).
Bastian O. Landscape-ecological goals as guiding principles to maintain
biodiversity at different planning scales // Ekológia (Bratislava). 1998b. No 17(1).
Bastian O. Landscape ecology – towards an unified discipline? // Landscape
Ecology. 2002. No 16.
Bastian O. Functions, leitbilder, and red lists – expression of an integrative
landscape concept // Brandt J., Vejre H. (eds.) Multifunctional landscapes. Vol.
I: Theory, values and history. Ashurst, Southampton: WIT Press, 2004.
Bastian O., Bernhardt A. Anthropogenic landscape changes in Central Europe
and the role of bioindication // Landscape Ecology. 1993. No 8.
Bastian O., Röder M. Assessment of landscape change by land evaluation of
past and present situation // Landscape and Urban Planning. 1998. No 41.
Bastian O., Schreiber K.-F. Analyse und Bewertung der Landschaft. Jena:
Gustav Fischer, 1999.
Bastian O., Steinhardt U. (eds.). Development and perspectives in landscape
ecology. Concepts, methods, applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002.
Bork H.-R., Dalchow C., Faust B., Piorr H.-P., Schatz T.
Landschaftsentwicklung in Mitteleuropa. Gotha, Stuttgart: Klett-Perthes, 1998.
Buchheim W. Beiträge zur Komplementarität // Abhandl. Sächs. Akad. Wiss.,
Math.-nat. Kl. 1983. No 55.
Burggraaff P., Kleefeld K.-D. Historische Kulturlandschaft und
Kulturlandschaftselemente // Angewandte Landschaftsökologie. 1998. No 20.
De Groot R.S. Functions of Nature: Evaluation of nature in environmental planning,
management and decision making. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1992.
Gaede M., Potschin M. Anforderungen an den Leitbild-Begriff aus planerischer
Sicht // Berichte zur Deutschen Landeskunde (Flensburg). 2001. No 75(1).
Haase G. Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von Naturraumpotentialen //
Petermanns Geogr. Mitt. 1978. No 122(2).
64
О. Bastian
16. Haase G. Approaches to and methods of landscape diagnosis as a basis for landscape planning and landscape management // Ekológia (Bratislava). 1990. No 9(1).
17. Haase G., Barsch H., Hubrich H., Mannsfeld K., Schmidt R. (eds.).
Naturraumerkundung und Landnutzung. Geochorologische Verfahren zur
Analyse, Kartierung und Bewertung von Naturräumen // Beiträge zur
Geographie. 1991. No 34(1).
18. Haase D., Haase G. Approaches and methods of landscape diagnosis. // Bastian
O., Steinhardt U. (eds.). Development and perspectives in landscape ecology –
concepts, methods and applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002.
19. Haase G., Mannsfeld K. (eds.). Naturraumeinheiten, Landschaftsfunktionen und
Leitbilder am Beispiel von Sachsen // Forschungen zur deutschen Landeskunde,
Vol. 250. Flensburg, 2002.
20. Haber W. Concept, origin and meaning of „landscape“. // von Droste B., Plachter
H., Rössler M. (eds.). Cultural landscapes of universal value. Jena: Gustav
Fischer, 1995.
21. Hard G. Die „Landschaft“ der Sprache und die „Landschaft“ der Geographen //
Colloquium geograph. 1970. No 11.
22. Krönert R., Steinhardt U., Volk M. (eds.). Landscape balance and landscape
assessment. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2001.
23. Leser H. Landschaftsökologie. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer, 1997.
24. Lingner R., Carl F.E. Landschaftsdiagnose der DDR. Berlin, 1957.
25. Löffler J. Vertical landscape structure and functioning. // Bastian O., Steinhardt
U. (eds.). Development and perspectives in landscape ecology – concepts,
methods and applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002.
25. Mannsfeld K. Landschaftsanalyse und Ableitung von Naturraumpotentialen //
Abhandl. Sächs. Akad. Wiss., Math.-nat. Kl. 1983. No 55(3).
26. Mannsfeld K. Reform der Geographieausbildung ohne theoretisches Konzept? //
Die Erde. 1995. No 126.
27. Mannsfeld K., Neumeister H. (eds.). Ernst Neefs Landschaftslehre heute //
Petermanns Geogr. Mitt. 1999. Suppl. Vol. 294.
28. Marks R., Müller M., Leser H.-J., Klink H.-J. Anleitung zur Bewertung des
Leistungsvermögens des Landschaftshaushaltes // Forschungen zur deutschen
Landeskunde, Vol. 229. Trier, 1992.
29. Meynen E., Schmithüsen J.(eds.). Handbuch der naturräumlichen Gliederung
Deutschlands. Remagen: Bundesanstalt f. Landeskunde, 1953-1962.
30. Naveh Z. What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction //
Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000. No 50.
31. Neef E. Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschaftslehre. Gotha, Leipzig: H.
Haack, 1967.
32. Neef E. Der Stoffwechsel zwischen Gesellschaft und Natur als geographisches
Problem // Geographische Rundschau. 1969. No 21.
33. Neef E. Vom Fachgebiet zum Erkenntnisbereich Geographie // Petermanns Geogr.
Mitt. – 1970. No 114.
34. Neef, E. Über den Begriff Komplementarität in der Geographie // Petermanns Geogr.
Mitt. 1985. No 129.
35. Paffen K.H. (ed.). Das Wesen der Landschaft. Darmstadt, 1973.
36. Pedroli B. (ed.). Landscape – our home. Zeist, Stuttgart: Indigo, Freies Geistesleben,
2000.
37. Potschin M. Landscape ecology in different parts of the world. // Bastian O., Steinhardt
U. (eds.). Development and perspectives in landscape ecology –concepts, methods and
applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2003.
ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE ...
65
38. Potschin M., Haines-Young R. Improving the quality of environmental
assessments using the concept of Natural Capital: a case study from Southern
Germany // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2003. No 63.
39. Richter H. Naturräumliche Strukturmodelle // Petermanns Geogr. Mitt. 1968. No
112.
40. Schenk W. Landschaft und Kulturlandschaft – getönte Leitbegriffe für aktuelle
Konzepte geographischer Forschung und räumlicher Planung // Petermanns
Geogr. Mitt. 2002. No 146.
41. Schmithüsen J. Die landschaftliche Gliederung des lothringischen Raumes //
Deutsches Archiv für Landes- und Volksforschung. 1942. No 6(1).
42. Schmithüsen J. Was ist eine Landschaft? // Erdkundl. Wissen. 1964. No 9.
43. Tress B., Tress G. Begriff, Theorie und System der Landschaft. Ein
interdisziplinärer Ansatz zur Landschaftsforschung // Naturschutz und
Landschaftsplanung. 2001. No 33(2/3).
44. Tress B., Tress G., Décamps H., d’Hauteserre A.-M. Bridging human and natural
sciences in landscape research // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. No 57.
45. Troll C. Luftbildplan und Ökologische Bodenforschung // Z. Ges. Erdkunde.
1939.
46. Wöbse H.H. Historische Kulturlandschaften, Kulturlandschaftsteile und
Kulturlandschafts-elemente // Beiträge zur regionalen Entwicklung (Hannover).
2001. No 92.
47. Zepp H., Müller M.J. (eds.). Landschaftsökologische Erfassungsstandards. Ein
Methodenbuch // Forschungen zur deutschen Landeskunde, Vol. 244, Flensburg,
1999.
ОЦІНКА ТА КЛАСИФІКАЦІЯ ЛАНДШАФТІВ: ВПРОВАДЖЕННЯ ТА
РОЗВИТОК ЛАНДШАФТНИХ ДОСЛІДЖЕНЬ
Е. НЕЕФА У САКСОНІЇ (НІМЕЧЧИНА)
О. Бастіан
Саксонська академія наук, Дрезден, Д-01097 Німеччина
Olaf.Bastian@mailbox.tu-dresden.de
Наукова концепція ландшафтних досліджень, сформульована німецьким
географом Е. Неефом, стала основою для аналізу, діагнозу та прогнозу людського
середовища. Вона дуже важлива для сучасного ландшафтного планування. Короткий
історичний огляд демонструє різні парадигми щодо визначення та дослідження
ландшафту. Дрезденська робоча група “Природний баланс та регіональні
характеристики” Саксонської академії наук опрацювала такі питання, як
класифікація ландшафтів “знизу догори”, потенціал природних та ландшафтних
функцій, ландшафтні сценарії (leitbilder). Щодо прикладних досліджень ландшафту,
то усе більшої ваги набувають комплексні, комплементарні та трансдисциплінарні
підходи.
Ключові слова: ландшафт, ландшафтна екологія, географія, просторові
одиниці, ландшафтне планування.
Стаття надійшла до редколегії 12.04.2004
Прийнята до друку 16.06.2004