Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discursive Relationships Between Landscape Science, Policy and Management Practice: Concepts, Issues and Examples

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture

Abstract

Different approaches have been proposed to help the science of landscape ecology achieve greater policy relevance. A common feature is the central role of landscape scientists as experts in solving ‘place based problems’ in effective ways. In practice however landscape ecologists have seldom had the impact they seek. This chapter uses concepts drawn from deliberative planning and case examples from the USA and Denmark to critically examine the science-practice interface between landscape ecology and landscape planning. It highlights the way that different roles, values, and interests interact at different stages in place based studies, and this may require a re-framing of landscape ecological science to become part of a multivalent discourse about landscape conditions and possibilities.

An erratum to this chapter is available at 10.1007/978-94-007-6530-6_17

An erratum to this chapter can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6530-6_17

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahern J. Greenways as strategic landscape planning: theory and application. Wageningen NL: Wageningen University; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrechts L. Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined. Environ Plann B: Plann Des. 2004;31:743–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander LR. Rationality revisited: planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist perspective. J Plann Educ Res. 2000;19:242–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen W, Fenemor A, Kilvington M, Harmsworth G, Young RG, Deans N, Horn C, Phillips C, Montes de Oca O, Ataria J, Smith R. Building collaboration and learning in integrated catchment management: the importance of social process and multiple engagement approaches. NZ J Mar Freshwat Res. 2011;45(3):525–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger P. Towards a Post–Positivist Typology of Planning Theory. Planning Theory. 2002;1(1):77–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amdam R. Empowerment Planning in Regional Development. European Planning Studies. 2010;18(11):1805–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews ANL. Landscape values in public policy. In: Elsner R and Smardon R, editors. Our National Landscapes: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual landscape. USDA Forest Service, Berkeley Ca., Pacific SouthWest Forest and Range Experimental Station; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arler F. A true landscape democracy. In: Arntzen S, Brady E, editors. Humans in the land: the ethics and aesthetics of the cultural landscape. Oslo: Oslo Academic Press; 2008. p. 75–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austen DJ. Landscape conservation cooperatives: a science-based network in support of conservation. The Wildlife Professional, Fall. 2011;2011:32–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker JP, Hulse DW, Gregory SV, White D, Van Sickle J, Berger PA, et al. Alternative futures for the Willamette river basin. Ecol Appl. 2004;14(2):313–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker MM, van Doorn AM. Farmer-specific relationships between land use change and landscape factors: Introducing agents in empirical land use modelling. Land Use Policy. 2009;26(3):809–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beunen R, Opdam P. When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landscape Urban Plann. 2011;100:324–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2003;100(14):8046–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells M. The world has changed: can planning change? Urban Landscape Plann. 1992;22:73–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells M. The rise of the network society. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff P. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. J Am Plann Assoc. 1965;31(4):331–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demeritt D. Ecology, objectivity and critique in writings on nature and human society. J Hist Geog. 1994;20(1):22–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias-Sardina I, Primdahl J, Craveiro D, Kristensen LS. Participatory processes for strategic planning in two rural regions: the case of Sáo Domingos Mine, Alentejo, Portugal and the case of Lihme, Jutland, Denmark. In: Paniagua Á, Bryant R, Kizos T, editors. The political ecology of depopulation: inequality, landscape, and people. Ceddar: Zaragoza; 2012. pp. 151–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diertz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2005;30:335–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovey K, Downton P, Missingham G. editors. Place and Placemaking. Melbourne; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dramstad WE, Olson JD, Forman RTT. Landscape ecological principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Washington: Island Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drysek J. Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS. Disursive designs: critical theory and political institutions. Am J Polit Sci. 1987;31(3):656–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS. The politics of the Earth: environmental discourses. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff G, Garnett D, Jacklyn P, Landsberg J, Ludwig J, Morrison J, Novelly P, Walker D, Whitehead P. A collaborative design to adaptively manage for landscape sustainability in North Australia: lessons from a decade of cooperative research. Landscape Ecol. 2009;24:1135–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmelin L. Landscape impact analysis: a systematic approach to landscape impacts of policy. Landscape Res. 1996;21(1):13–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F. Democracy and expertise: reorientating policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F, Forrester J. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Raleigh: Duke University Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvberg B. Rationality and power: democracy in practice Chicago. Illinois: Chicago University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvberg B. Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Godron M. Landscape ecology. New York: Wiley; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester J. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester J. The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning process. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M. The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann J. Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry G, Tress B, Tress G. Integrative landscape research: facts and challenges. In: Wu J, Hobbs R, editors. Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge CUP; 2007. p. 246–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, McDaniels T, Fields D. Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: creating insights through structured environmental decisions. J Policy, Anal Manage. 2001;20:415–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J The structural transformation of the public sphere. (Lawrence TB. Trans). Massechusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge. 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R. Sustainable development and sustainable landscapes: defining a new paradigm for landscape ecology. Fennia. 2000;178(1):7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall P, Graley H, Drewitt R The containment of urban Britain. Allen and Unwin London. 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey P. Planning through debate- the communicative turn in planning theory. Town Plann Rev. 1992;63(2):233–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey P. Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Plann Rev. 1998;69(1):1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey P. In Search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making. Plann Theory Practice. 2009;10(4):439–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillier J, Rookesby E, editors. Habitus: a sense of place. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs R. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape Urban Plann. 1997;37:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Caldwell NJ, John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulse D, Gregory S, Baker J (2002) Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas. In: Hulse D, Gregory S, Baker J, editors. Corvallis. Oregon State University Press. Oregon. 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MB, Person B, Guldager S, Reeh U, Nilsson K. Green structure and sustainability-developing a tool for planning. Landscape Urban Plann. 2000;52:117–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BR, Campbell R. Ecology and participation in landscape—based planning within the Pacific Northwest. Policy Stud J. 1999;27(3):502–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn H, Weiner AJ. The year 2000: a framework for speculation on the next thirty years. New York: Macmillan; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane J. Public life and late capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B. Politics of nature: how to bring sciences into democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard ST. Critical theory in political practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luz F. Participatory landscape ecology-a basis for acceptance and implementation. Landscape Urban Plann. 2000;50:157–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister DM. Evaluation in environmental planning. Cambridge: Mass: MIT Press; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHarg I. Design with nature. NY: Doubleday; 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussachio LR. The ecology and culture of landscape sustainability: emerging knowledge and innovation in landscape research and practice. Landscape Ecol. 2009a;24:989–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussachio LR. The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: A conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol. 2009b;24:993–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Corry RC. Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol. 2004;19:343–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Opdam P. Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol. 2008;23:633–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naveh Z (2005) Towards a transdisciplinary landscape science. In: Weins J, Moss M, editors. Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. CUP. p. 346–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndubisi F. Ecological Planning: a historical and comparative synthesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Foppen R, Vos C. Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol. 2002;16:767–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Kolasa J, Jones CG Ecological understanding: the nature of theory and the theory of nature. Academic Press. New York. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper K Logik der Forschung Verlag von Julius Springer, Vienna, Austria. First published in English as Popper K 1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery Hutchinson and Sons. London. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primdahl J, Kristensen LS, Busck AG, Vejre H. Functional and structural changes of agricultural landscapes: how changes are conceived by local farmers in two Danish rural communities. Landscape Res. 2010;35(6):633–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Primdahl J, Swaffield S. Segregation and multifunctionality in New Zealand landscapes. In: Brouwer Floor, editor. Sustaining agriculture and the rural environment: governance, policy and multifunctionality. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2004. p. 266–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primdahl, J, Handgaard H, Kristensen LK, Stahlschmidt P, Rask A, Willadsen H Det åbne land i kommuneplanprocessen. Byplan 1. 2010. pp. 32–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Relph E Place and placelessness. London: Pion. 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shearer AW. Approaching scenario-based studies: three perceptions about the future and considerations for landscape planning. Environ Plann B: Plann Des. 2005;32:67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneekloth LH, Shibley CG. Placemaking: the art and practice of building communities. New York: Wiley; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein SM, Harper TL. Power, trust, and planning. J Plann Edu Res. 2003;23:125–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C. A framework for theory application to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landscape J. 1990;9:136–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C, Arias H, Bassett S, Flaxman M, Goode T, Maddock IIIT, Mouat D, Peiser R, Shearer A. (2003) Alternative futures for changing landscapes: the Upper San Pedro river basin in Arizona and Sonora. Washington: Island Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens CJ, Fraser I, Mitchley J, Thomas MB. Making ecological science policy-relevant: Issues of scale and disciplinary integration. Landscape Ecol. 2007;22:799–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Termorshuizen J, Opdam P. Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol. 2009;24:1037–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theobald DM, Spies T, Kane J, Maxwell B, Hobbs NT, Dale VH. Ecological support for rural land use planning. Ecol Appl. 2005;15(6):1906–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A. Cultural Theory. Westview Press: Boulder; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tress B, Tress G, van der Valle A, Fry G Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary landscape studies: potentials and limitations. Delta Series 2. Wageningen. 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Belt M Mediated modeling: a systems dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Washington: Island Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardle P, Collins H, editors. Beyond reasonable drought: adapting dryland farming to climate change. Nelson. New Zealand Land Care Trust; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams BK, Brown ED Adaptive management: The U.S. department of the interior applications guide. Adaptive management working group, U.S. department of the interior. Washington DC. http://www.usgs.gov/sdc/publications.html. 2012.

  • Weins JA. What is landscape ecology, really? Landscape Ecol. 1992;7:149–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J. Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity and sustainability science. Landscape Ecol. 2006;21:1–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Hobbs R. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol. 2002;17:355–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Observations upon alternative futures planning were drawn from work undertaken towards a PhD thesis by Mark Hoversten. We appreciate the invitation to submit the chapter by the Chinese Academy of Science and the insightful comments and suggestions from an anonymous reviewer. Michelle Collings helped prepare the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Landscape Architecture, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand

    Simon Swaffield

  2. GeoScience and Nature Management, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jorgen Primdahl

  3. Landscape Architecture, University of Idaho, Idaho, USA

    Mark Hoversten

Authors
  1. Simon Swaffield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorgen Primdahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Hoversten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Swaffield .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Res. Center for Eco-Environmental Sci., Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, People's Republic

    Bojie Fu

  2. University of Nevada, Desert Research Institute University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

    K. Bruce Jones

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Swaffield, S., Primdahl, J., Hoversten, M. (2013). Discursive Relationships Between Landscape Science, Policy and Management Practice: Concepts, Issues and Examples. In: Fu, B., Jones, K. (eds) Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6530-6_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation