Skip to main content
Log in

Landscape ecology as a bridge from ecosystems to human ecology

  • Part III. Legacy and action of landscape ecology in nature-human system
  • Published:
Ecological Research

‘Landscape’ as a subject of (terrestrial) ecology can be interpreted: first, as a piece of land composed of different ecosystems; and second, as a holistic entity of aesthetic perception derived from landscape paintings and parks of the 18th and 19th century. Such entities display a characteristic arrangement of ‘landscape elements’ regarded as a whole and taking them apart for specific investigation will break up and virtually destroy it (e.g. a symphony dissociated into single notes). Landscape as a holistic entity satisfies emotional human needs like identification with regions, and explains the attraction of tourists. ‘Entity features’ are land-use and land cover combined with openness and a certain naturalness. A key question is whether you call a piece of the earth’s surface just ‘land’ or ‘landscape’– and why. Such questions touch the interface between landscape ecology and human ecology. But human ecology must not dismiss landscape functions. The most beautiful landscape will be reduced to a mere picture if it does not also provide basic life-support. Therefore, energy and matter flows and transformations between the ecosystems of a landscape have to be determined along with its climate, geomorphology (relief), soils, hydrology, species and ecosystem diversity. These different approaches, however, may never be combined into a unified whole. There is no ‘superscience’, and incidentally, its complexity would by far exceed human brain capacity. What we can achieve is bridge-building by approximation of selected facts. A conscious spatial arrangement of diversified land-use units (ecotopes) will promote (bio)diversity and may be perceived as an integral landscape pattern. A spatially and temporally differentiated energy input into land-use units will result in a gradient of utilization intensity and allow more species to thrive, again enhancing both diversity and landscape beauty. Modern humans have deliberately chosen artificial surroundings to achieve complete environmental control, even in rural lifestyles. But as far as emotional needs are concerned, this artificiality seems to be neither human nor ecological. Something ‘natural’ is lacking, and landscape in its holistic sense can provide it – be it a landscaped open space in a city, a rural scene, a seashore or a mountain range. Maintaining and managing such ‘naturalness’ requires sound ecological knowledge – not as an aim in itself, but to provide a bridge for humans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appleton J. (1975) The Experience of Landscape. Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleton J. (1984) Prospects and refuges revisited. Landscape Journal 3: 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck H. (1978) Alexander von Humboldt[s] Kosmos, für die Gegenwart bearbeitet. Brockhaus, Stuttgart. (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Geographie und der Reisen Band 12).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourassa S. C. (1988) Toward a Theory of Landscape Aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 15: 241–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dansereau P. (1973) Inscape and Landscape. CBC Learning Systems, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R. T. T. (1996) Land Mosaics. The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haber W. (2001) Kulturlandschaft zwischen Bild und Wirklichkeit. Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte der Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hannover) 215: 6–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haber W. (2002) Das MAB 6-Projekt ‘Der Mensch und die Biosphäre’–Ökosystemforschung Berchtesgaden von 1984 bis 1991. Forschungsberichte Nationalpark Berchtesgaden 46: 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Humboldt A. (1806) Ideen zu einer Physiognomik der Gewächse. In: Alexander von Humboldt, Schriften zur Geographie der Pflanzen (ed. H. Beck 1989) pp. 43–79. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Humboldt A. (1978) Kosmos. Für die Gegenwart bearbeitet von H. Beck. Brockhaus, Stuttgart. (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Geographie und der Reisen Band 12).

    Google Scholar 

  • Makowski H. & Buderath B. (1983) Die Natur dem Menschen untertan. Ökologie im Spiegel der Landschaftsmalerei. Kindler, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier V. (2001) Landschaft aus der Sicht einer Geographin. In: Alpenforschung – Landschaft und Lebensraum aus kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive (Workshop in Thun, 3./4.11.2000 (ed. Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften), pp. 37–44. Bern, Switzerland.

  • Naveh Z. & Lieberman A. (1984) Landscape Ecology. Theory and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naveh Z. & Lieberman A. (1993) Landscape Ecology. Theory and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P., Foppen R., Vos C. (2001) Bridging the Gap between Ecology and Spatial Planning in Landscape Ecology. Landscape Ecology 16: 767–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piepmeier R. (1980) Das Ende der ästhetischen Kategorie ‘Landschaft’. Zu einem Aspekt neuzeitlichen Naturverhältnisses. Westfälische Forschungen, Mitteilungen des Provinzialinstituts für westfälische Landes- und Volksforschung. (Münster) 30: 8–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolf K. S. (1998) Wahrnehmung und Landschaft. Die Evolution der Wahrnehmung und ihre Bedeutung im Mensch-Natur-Verhältnis. Schriftenreihe der Fachhochschule Weihenstephan (Freising) Band 4.

  • Simmel G. (1957) Philosophie der Landschaft. In: Brücke und Tür (ed. M. Landmann), pp. 141–152. Cotta, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow C. P. (1959) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steingräber E. (1985) Zweitausend Jahre Europäische Landschaftsmalerei. Hirmer, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansley A. G. (1935) The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms. Ecology 16: 284–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trepl L. (1997) Ökologie als konservative Naturwissenschaft. Von der schönen Landschaft zum funktionierenden Ökosystem. In: Geographisches Denken (eds U. Eisel & H.-D. Schultz). Urbs et Regio 65 (Sonderband) pp. 467–492. GHS, Kassel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tress B. & Tress G. (2001) Capitalising on Multiplicity: a Transdisciplinary Systems Approach to Landscape Research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troll C. (1939) Luftbildplan und ökologische Bodenforschung. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde Berlin 7/8: 297–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winiwarter V. (2001) Beiträge der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung österreichischer Kulturlandschaften. In: Alpenforschung – Landschaft und Lebensraum Aus kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive (Workshop in Thun, 3./4.11.2000 (ed. Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften) pp. 21–33. Bern, Switzerland.

  • Zonneveld I. S. (1995) Land Ecology. SPB Publishing, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang HABER.

About this article

Cite this article

HABER, W. Landscape ecology as a bridge from ecosystems to human ecology. Ecol Res 19, 99–106 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1703.2003.00615.x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1703.2003.00615.x

Key words

Navigation