Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ecologies as a complement to ecosystem services? Exploring how landscape planners might advance understanding about human–nature relationships in changing landscapes

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

One of the key challenges for landscape planners is to reframe the meaning of ecosystem services. In this context, alternative concepts such as ecologies have potential to complement ecosystem services when applied to human–nature relationships in changing landscapes.

Objectives

The objectives of this article are: (1) to review how landscape planners use major critical approaches to translate the meaning of ecosystem services and (2) to introduce why ecologies provides helpful insights to complement ecosystem services.

Methods

A conceptual framework examines how landscape planners use critique to reframe the meaning of ecosystem services. This framework is then revised as a scenario to reframe the meanings of ecologies and ecosystem services.

Results

Landscape planners use three critical approaches to reframe the meaning of ecosystem services to advance the understanding of human–nature relationships in changing landscapes. Yet, they identify some important issues and gaps that emerge when it is applied. These issues and gaps are part of the rationale for why landscape planning is at a crossroads with ecosystem services. This rationale is then extended to create a scenario for why a revised conceptual framework is needed for landscape planners to reframe the meanings of ecologies and ecosystem services.

Conclusion

The translational challenge of ecologies and ecosystem services is an example of the key role that landscape planners play in developing a deeper understanding of human–nature relationships.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahern J (2013) Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecol 28:1203–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahern J, Cilliers S, Niemelä J (2014) The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: a framework for supporting innovation. Landsc Urban Plan 125:254–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert C, Aronson J, Fürst C, Opdam P (2014a) Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landscape Ecol 29:1277–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert C, Hauck J, Buhr N, von Haaren C (2014b) What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecol 29:1301–1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banham R (2009) Los Angeles: the architecture of four ecologies. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe RU, Walz U, Wende W (2014) Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landscape Ecol 29:1463–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton-Short L, Short JR (2013) Cities and nature. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth DB, Roy AH, Smith B, Capps KA (2016) Global perspectives on the urban stress syndrome. Freshw Sci 35:412–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun B (2005) Environmental issues: writing a more-than-human urban geography. Prog Hum Geogr 29:635–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan MS (2006) The values and vulnerabilities of metaphors within the environmental sciences. Soc Nat Resour 19:921–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corner J (ed) (1999) Recovering landscape: essays in contemporary landscape architecture. Princeton Architectural Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Grêt-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe RG, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, von der Dunk A (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:8812–8819

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Deming ME, Swaffield S (2011) Landscape architecture research methods: inquiry, strategy, and design. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Desimini J, Waldheim C (2016) Cartographic grounds: projecting the landscape imaginary. Princeton Architectural Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KM, Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Leadley PW, van Oudenhoven APE, van der Plaat F, Schröter M, Lavorel S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bukvareva E, Davies K, Demissew S, Erpul G, Failler P, Guerra CA, Hewitt CL, Keune H, Lindley A, Shirayama Y (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359:270–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Francis RA, Lorimer J, Raco M (2012) Urban ecosystems as ‘natural’ homes for biogeographical boundary crossings. Trans Inst Br Geogr 37:183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M (2000) Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Sci Public Policy 27:159–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grose MJ (2014) Gaps and futures in working between ecology and design for constructed ecologies. Landsc Urban Plan 132:69–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guattari F (2000) The three ecologies. The Athlone Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Heynen N (2006) Green urban political ecologies: toward a better understanding of inner-city environmental change. Environ Plan A 38:499–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley PT, Emery MR, McClain R, Poe M, Grabbatin B, Goetcheus CL (2016) Whose urban forest? The political ecology of foraging urban nontimber forest products. In: Isenhour C, McDonogh G, Checker M (eds) Sustainability in the global city: myth and practice. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 187–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanouse S (2011) A post-naturalist field kit: tools for the embodied exploration of social ecologies. In: Caquard S, Vaughan L, Cartwright W (eds) Mapping environmental issues in the city: arts and cartography cross perspectives. Springer, Berlin, pp 160–177

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kilbane S, Weller R, Hobbs R (2017) Beyond ecological modelling: ground-truthing connectivity conservation through a design charrette in Western Australia. Landsc Urban Plan. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.05.001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langhorst J (2014) Re-presenting transgressive ecologies: post-industrial sites as contested terrains. Local Environ 19:1110–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus A (2009) Rethinking political ecologies of water. Third World Q 30:953–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorimer J (2012) Multinatural geographies for the Anthropocene. Prog Hum Geogr 36:593–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorimer J (2015) Wildlife in the Anthropocene: conservation after nature. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matilsky BC (1992) Fragile ecologies: contemporary artists’ interpretations and solutions. Rizzoli, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath B (2013) Introduction. In: McGrath B (ed) Urban design ecologies. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, pp 8–15

    Google Scholar 

  • McPhearson T, Andersson E, Elmqvist T, Frantzeskaki N (2015) Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 12:152–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney P (2014) A systematic approach to incorporating multiple ecosystem services in landscape planning and design. Landsc J 33:141–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musacchio LR (2009a) Pattern: process metaphors for metropolitan landscapes. In: McDonnell MJ, Breuste J, Hahs AK (eds) Ecology of cities and towns: a comparative approach. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 484–502

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Musacchio LR (2009b) 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 24:993–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musacchio LR (2013a) Cultivating deep care: integrating landscape ecological research into the cultural dimension of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 28:1025–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musacchio LR (2013b) Key concepts and research priorities for landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol 28:995–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (2012) Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 106:221–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ndubisi F (2002) Ecological planning: a historical and comparative synthesis. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • North A, Waldheim C (2013) Landscape urbanism: a North American perspective. In: Pickett S, Cadenasso M, McGrath B (eds) Resilience in ecology and urban design: linking theory and practice for sustainable cities. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 391–406

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P (2013) Using ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: science is not ready to deliver. In: Fu B, Jones KB (eds) Landscape ecology for sustainable environment and culture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 77–101

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Albert C, Fürst C, Grêt-Regamey A, Kleemann J, Parker D, La Rosa D, Schmidt K, Villamor G, Walz A (2015) Ecosystem services for connecting actors–lessons learnt from a symposium. Change Adapt Socio-Ecol Syst 2:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Luque S, Nassauer J, Verburg PH, Wu J (2018) How can landscape ecology contribute to sustainability science? Landscape Ecol 33:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, McGrath B (2013) Ecology of the city as a bridge to urban design. In: Pickett S, Cadenasso ML, McGrath B (eds) Resilience in ecology and urban design: linking theory and practice for sustainable cities. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 7–28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Poe MR, LeCompte J, McLain R, Hurley P (2014) Urban foraging and the relational ecologies of belonging. Soc Cult Geogr 15:901–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed C, Lister NM (2014) Ecological thinking, design practices. In: Reed C, Lister NM (eds) Projective ecologies. Harvard Graduate School of Design and Actar Publishers, New York, pp 14–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichers M, Barkmann J, Tscharntke T (2016) Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 17:33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders WS (ed) (2012) Designed ecologies: the landscape architecture of Kongjian Yu. Birkhäuser, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröter M, van der Zanden EH, Oudenhoven APE, Remme RP, Serna-Chavez HM, de Groot RS, Opdam P (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments arguments. Conserv Lett 76:514–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane DW (2013) Urban patch dynamics and resilience: three London design ecologies. In: Pickett S, Cadenasso ML, McGrath B (eds) Resilience in ecology and urban design: linking theory and practice for sustainable cities. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 131–161

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Spirn AW (2005) Restoring Mill Creek: landscape literacy, environmental justice and city planning and design. Landscape Research 30:395–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swyngedouw E (2006) Circulations and metabolisms: (hybrid) natures and (cyborg) cities. Sci Cult 15:105–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24:1037–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Riper CJ, Landon AC, Kidd S, Bitterman P, Fitzgerald LA, Granek EF, Ibarra S, Iwaniec D, Raymond CM, Toledo D (2017) Incorporating socialcultural phenomena into ecosystem-service valuation: the importance of critical pluralism. Bioscience 67:233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachsmuth D (2012) Three ecologies: urban metabolism and the society-nature opposition. Sociol Quarterly 53:506–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldheim C (ed) (2006) The landscape urbanism reader. Princeton Architectural Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP II (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:706–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerink J, Opdam P, van Rooij S, Steingröver E (2017) Landscape services as a boundary concept in landscape governance: building social capital in collaboration and adapting the landscape. Land Use Policy 60:408–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whatmore S (2002) Hybrid geographies: natures cultures spaces. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2010) Landscape of culture and culture of landscape: does landscape ecology need culture? Landscape Ecol 25:1147–1150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28:999–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu JG (2014) Urban ecology and sustainability: the state-of-the-science and future directions. Landsc Urban Plan 125:209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, He CY, Huang GL, Yu DY (2013) Urban landscape ecology: past, present, future. In: Fu B, Jones KB (eds) Landscape ecology for sustainable environment and culture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 37–53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is partially based on part of my activities with my resident fellowship at the Institute on the Environment and teaching research methods and issues to Master of Landscape Architecture students at the University of Minnesota. I want to thank three anonymous reviewers, David Hulse, Beth Mercer-Taylor, and David Pitt for providing helpful feedback as I developed this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Landscape Architecture, Conservation Biology, Urban and Regional Planning Programs, University of Minnesota, 89 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Laura R. Musacchio

Authors
  1. Laura R. Musacchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura R. Musacchio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Musacchio, L.R. Ecologies as a complement to ecosystem services? Exploring how landscape planners might advance understanding about human–nature relationships in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 33, 847–860 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0646-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0646-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation