Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 12, pp 2047–2059 | Cite as

Integration of ecosystem services into a conceptual spatial planning framework based on a landscape ecology perspective

  • Javier Babí AlmenarEmail author
  • Benedetto Rugani
  • Davide Geneletti
  • Tim Brewer



The study of ecosystem services has extended its influence into spatial planning and landscape ecology, the integration of which can offer an opportunity to enhance the saliency, credibility, and legitimacy of landscape ecology in spatial planning issues.


This paper presents a conceptual framework suitable for spatial planning in human dominated environments supported by landscape ecological thinking. It seeks to facilitate the integration of ecosystem services into current practice, including landscape metrics as suitable indicators.


A literature review supported the revision of existing open questions pertaining to ecosystem services as well as their integration into landscape ecology and spatial planning. A posterior reflection of the current state-of-the-art was then used as a basis for developing the spatial planning conceptual framework.

Results and conclusion

The framework is articulated around four phases (characterisation, assessment, design, and monitoring) and three concepts (character, service, and value). It advocates integration of public participation, consideration of “landscape services”, the inclusion of ecosystem disservices, and the use of landscape metrics for qualitative assessment of services. As a result, the framework looks to enhance spatial planning practice by providing: (i) a better consideration of landscape configuration in the supply of services (ii) the integration of anthropogenic services with ecosystem services; (iii) the consideration of costs derived from ecosystems (e.g. disservices); and (iv) an aid to the understanding of ecosystem services terminology for spatial planning professionals and decision makers.


Ecosystem services Landscape services Landscape metrics Stakeholder engagement techniques Spatial planning Nature-based solutions 



J.B.A. would like to acknowledge the support of the Liebig-Cranfield scholarship which permitted the conceptualisation and development of this research. In addition, J.B.A. and B.R. also acknowledge funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Grant 494 No: 730468 (, which supported the finalisation of this research. Finally, all the authors would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.


  1. ADAS (2017). PGIS Mapping your valued places. Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Alberti M (2016) Cities that think like planets: complexity, resilience, and innovation in hybrid ecosystems. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  4. Alcamo J, Bennett EM, (Program) MEA (2003) ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Balmford A, Rodrigues A, Walpole M, ten Brink P, Kettunen M, Braat L, de Groot R (2008) Review on the economics of biodiversity loss: scoping the science. European Commission, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastian O (2001) Landscape ecology - towards a unified discipline? Landscape Ecol 16:757–766Google Scholar
  7. Bauduceau N, Berry P, Cecchi C, Elmqvist T, Fernandez M, Hartig T, Krull W, Mayerhofer E, Sandra N, Noring L (2015) Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-based Solutions & Re-naturing Cities: Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on’Nature-based Solutions and Re-naturing Cities’Google Scholar
  8. Bergsten A, Galafassi D, Bodin Ö (2014) The problem of spatial fit in social-ecological systems: detecting mismatches between ecological connectivity and land management in an urban region. Ecol Soc. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertrand G, Tricart J (1968) Paysage et géographie physique globale. Esquisse méthodologique. Rev Geogr Pyren Sud Ouest 39:249–272Google Scholar
  10. Borges F, Glemnitz M, Schultz A, Stachow U (2017) Assessing the habitat suitability of agricultural landscapes for characteristic breeding bird guilds using landscape metrics. Env Monit Assess 189:166.Google Scholar
  11. Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739Google Scholar
  12. Bottero M (2011) Indicators assessment systems. In: Cassatella C, Peano A (eds) Landscape indicators. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 15–29Google Scholar
  13. Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626.Google Scholar
  14. Briassoulis H (1989) Theoretical orientations in environmental planning: an inquiry into alternative approaches. Environ Manag 13:381–392.Google Scholar
  15. Brown G (2013) The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv 5:58–68.Google Scholar
  16. Brown G, Fagerholm N (2014) Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv 13:119–133.Google Scholar
  17. Brunet-Vinck V (2004) Méthode pour les atlas de paysages: enseignements méthodologiques de 10 ans de travaux. Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable, Direction de la nature et des paysages, Sous direction des sites et paysages, Bureau des paysagesGoogle Scholar
  18. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29.Google Scholar
  19. Busch M, La Notte A, Laporte V, Erhard M (2012) Potentials of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:89–103.Google Scholar
  20. Busquets J, Cortina A (2009) Gestión del paisaje: manual de protección, gestión y ordenación del paisaje. Ariel, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  21. Campagne CS, Roche PK, Salles JM (2018) Looking into Pandora’s Box: ecosystem disservices assessment and correlations with ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 30:126–136.Google Scholar
  22. Cashmore M (2004) The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24:403–426Google Scholar
  23. Castro AJ, Verburg PH, Martin-Lopez B, Garcia-Llorente M, Cabello J, Vaughn CC, Lopez E (2014) Ecosystem service trade-offs from supply to social demand: a landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landsc Urban Plan 132:102–110.Google Scholar
  24. Ceddia MG, Bartlett M, Perrings C (2007) Landscape gene flow, coexistence and threshold effect: the case of genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Ecol Model 205:169–180Google Scholar
  25. Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS, Hannahs N, Levine J, Norton B, Ruckelshaus M, Russell R, Tam J, Woodside U (2012) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744–756.Google Scholar
  26. Chen A, Yao L, Sun R, Chen L (2014) How many metrics are required to identify the effects of the landscape pattern on land surface temperature? Ecol Indic 45:424–433.Google Scholar
  27. Choi H-A, Song C, Lee W-K, Jeon S, Gu JH (2017) Integrated approaches for national ecosystem assessment in South Korea. KSCE J Civ Eng 22:1634–1641.Google Scholar
  28. Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S (2016) Nature-based Solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  29. Cornforth IC (1999) Selecting indicators for assessing sustainable land management. J Environ Manag 56:173–179Google Scholar
  30. Corry RC, Nassauer JI (2005) Limitations of using landscape pattern indices to evaluate the ecological consequences of alternative plans and designs. Landsc Urban Plan 72:265–280.Google Scholar
  31. Cortinovis C, Geneletti D (2017) Ecosystem services in urban plans: what is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Urban Inf 272:841–847Google Scholar
  32. Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141:350–352.Google Scholar
  33. Coulon A, Aben J, Palmer SCF, Stevens VM, Callens T, Strubbe D, Lens L, Matthysen E, Baguette M, Travis JMJ (2015) A stochastic movement simulator improves estimates of landscape connectivity. Ecology 96:2203–2213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Davies HJ, Doick KJ, Hudson MD, Schreckenberg K (2017) Challenges for tree officers to enhance the provision of regulating ecosystem services from urban forests. Environ Res 156:97–107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. de Bolós M (1992) Manual de Ciencia del Paisaje. Teoría, métodos y aplicaciones. Colección Geogr Masson SA, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  36. de Groot R, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010a) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. de Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J, Haines-young R, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela R, Ring I, Blignaut J, Brondízio E, Costanza R, Jax K, Kadekodi GK, May PH, Mcneely J, Shmelev S (2010b) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. Taylor and Francis, Milton ParkGoogle Scholar
  38. de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eggermont H, Balian E, Azevedo JMN, Beumer V, Brodin T, Claudet J, Fady B, Grube M, Keune H, Lamarque P, Reuter K, Smith M, van Ham C, Weisser WW, Le Roux X (2015) Nature-based solutions: new influence for environmental management and research in Europe. GAIA - Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 24:243–248.Google Scholar
  40. EPA US (2015) National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS): Framework Design and Policy Application. EPA-800-R-15-002. United States Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  41. Etherington TR (2016) Least-cost modelling and landscape ecology: concepts, applications, and opportunities. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep 1:40–53.Google Scholar
  42. Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N (2009) Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fenn J Geogr 187:43–60Google Scholar
  43. Feld CK, De Bello F, Bugter R, Grandin U, Hering D, Lavorel S, Mountford O, Pardo I, Partel M, Römbke J (2007) Assessing and monitoring ecosystems–indicators, concepts and their linkage to biodiversity and ecosystem services. RUBICODE Proj Biodivers Conserv Dyn EcosystGoogle Scholar
  44. Fisher B, Kerry Turner R (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol Conserv 141:1167–1169Google Scholar
  45. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653.Google Scholar
  46. Fleury-Bahi G, Marcouyeux A, Préau M, Annabi-Attia T (2012) Development and validation of an environmental quality of life scale: study of a French sample. Soc Indic Res 113:903–913.Google Scholar
  47. Frank S, Furst C, Koschke L, Makeschin F (2012) A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:30–38.Google Scholar
  48. Geneletti D (2015) A conceptual approach to promote the integration of ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 17:1550035Google Scholar
  49. Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U, Jeltsch F, Mooij WM, Steven F, Thulke H, Weiner J, Wiegand T, Deangelis DL, Railsback SF (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Am Assoc Adv Sci 310:987–991.Google Scholar
  50. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2005) Building landscape character indicators. Eur Landsc Character Areas Typologies Cartogr Indic Assess Sustain Landscapes Final Proj Rep as Deliv from EU’sGoogle Scholar
  51. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 110–139Google Scholar
  52. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2014) Typology/Classification of Ecosystem Services. OpenNESS Ecosyst Serv Ref B 1–8Google Scholar
  53. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2017) 2.4. Categorisation systems: The classification challenge. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) Ecosystem, Common International Classification of Structu, Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised StructureGoogle Scholar
  55. Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Kienast F (2012) Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol Indic 21:39–53.Google Scholar
  56. Harris J, Tewdwr-Jones M (2010) Ecosystem Services and Planning. T Ctry Plan 222–226Google Scholar
  57. Hassine K, Marcouyeux A, Annabi-Attia T, Fleury-Bahi G (2014) Measuring quality of life in the neighborhood: the cases of air-polluted Cities in Tunisia. Soc Indic Res 119:1603–1612.Google Scholar
  58. Heink U, Hauck J, Jax K, Sukopp U (2016) Requirements for the selection of ecosystem service indicators–the case of MAES indicators. Ecol Indic 61:18–26Google Scholar
  59. Heink U, Kowarik I (2010) What are indicators? On the definition of indicators in ecology and environmental planning. Ecol Indic 10:584–593Google Scholar
  60. Jaeger JAG (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 15:115–130.Google Scholar
  61. Karl HA, Susskind LE, Wallace KH (2007) A dialogue, not a diatribe: effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 49:20–34Google Scholar
  62. King MF, Renó VF, Novo EMLM (2014) The concept, dimensions and methods of assessment of human well-being within a socioecological context: a literature review. Soc Indic Res 116:681–698.Google Scholar
  63. Koschke L, Fürst C, Frank S, Makeschin F (2012) A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol Indic 21:54–66.Google Scholar
  64. Kumar M, Kumar P (2008) Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 64:808–819.Google Scholar
  65. La Notte A, D’Amato D, Mäkinen H, Parachini ML, Liquete C, Egoh B, Geneletti D, Crossman ND (2017) Ecosystem services classification: a systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol Indic 74:392–402.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Landers DH, Nahlik AM (2013) Final ecosystem goods and services classification system (FEGS-CS). Anon EPA United States Environ Prot Agency Rep Number EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914Google Scholar
  67. Limburg KE, O’neill RV, Costanza R, Farber S (2002) Complex systems and valuation. Ecol Econ 41:409–420.Google Scholar
  68. Lustig A, Stouffer DB, Roigé M, Worner SP (2015) Towards more predictable and consistent landscape metrics across spatial scales. Ecol Indic 57:11–21.Google Scholar
  69. Lyytimäki J, Sipilä M (2009) Hopping on one leg - the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban For Urban Green 8:309–315.Google Scholar
  70. Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Liquete C, Braat L, Berry P, Egoh B, Puydarrieux P, Fiorina C, Santos F (2013) Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their servicesGoogle Scholar
  71. Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Llorente M, Montes C (2014) Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol Indic 37:220–228.Google Scholar
  72. Maynard S, James D, Davidson A (2010) The development of an ecosystem services framework for South East Queensland. Environ Manag 45:881–895.Google Scholar
  73. McGarigal K (2013) Landscape Pattern Metrics. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  74. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: general synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  75. Messean A, Angevin F, Gómez-Barbero M, Menrad K, Rodríguez-Cerezo, E, Messéan A, Angevin F, Gomez-Barbero M, Menrad K, Rodriguez-Cerezo E, Messean A (2006) New case studies on the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops in European agricultureGoogle Scholar
  76. Munns WR, Rea AW, Mazzotta MJ, Wainger LA, Saterson K (2015) Toward a standard lexicon for ecosystem services. Integr Environ Assess Manag 11:666–673.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23:633–644.Google Scholar
  78. Nesshover C, Assmuth T, Irvine KN, Rusch GM, Waylen KA, Delbaere B, Haase D, Jones-Walters L, Keune H, Kovacs E, Krauze K, Kulvik M, Rey F, van Dijk J, Vistad OI, Wilkinson ME, Wittmer H (2017) The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sci Total Env 579:1215–1227.Google Scholar
  79. Opdam P (2010) Learning science from practice. Landscape Ecol 25:821–823.Google Scholar
  80. Opdam P, Foppen R, Vos C (2001) Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 16:767–779.Google Scholar
  81. Park J-H, Cho G-H (2016) Examining the association between physical characteristics of green space and land surface temperature: a case study of Ulsan, Korea. Sustainability 8:777.Google Scholar
  82. Pickard BR, Daniel J, Mehaffey M, Jackson LE, Neale A (2015) EnviroAtlas: a new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management. Ecosyst Serv 14:45–55.Google Scholar
  83. Potschin MB, Haines-Young RH (2011) Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog Phys Geogr 35:575–594.Google Scholar
  84. Potschin M, Kretsch C, Haines-Young R, Furman E, Berry P, Baró F (2015) Nature-based solutions. OpenNESS Ecosyst Serv Ref Book OpenNESS Synth Pap Available http//www openness-project eu/library/reference-book/sp-NBSGoogle Scholar
  85. Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 22:501–518.Google Scholar
  86. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949.Google Scholar
  87. Rehm EM, Baldassarre GA (2007) The influence of interspersion on Marsh bird abundance in New York. Wilson J Ornithol 119:648–654.Google Scholar
  88. Ruiz-Frau A, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ (2011) Mapping stakeholder values for coastal zone management. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434:239–249.Google Scholar
  89. Sala P (2007) Els indicadors de paisatge de Catalunya. Obs del Paisatge CatalunyaGoogle Scholar
  90. Sala P (2009) Els catalegs del paisatge de Catalunya. In: Nogué J, Puigbert L, Bretcha G (eds) Ordenació i gestió del paisatge a Europa. Observatori del Paisatge de Catalunya, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  91. Schaubroeck T (2017) A need for equal consideration of ecosystem disservices and services when valuing nature; countering arguments against disservices. Ecosyst Serv 26:95–97.Google Scholar
  92. Schindler S, Poirazidis K, Wrbka T (2008) Towards a core set of landscape metrics for biodiversity assessments: a case study from Dadia National Park, Greece. Ecol Indic 8:502–514Google Scholar
  93. Scholte SSK, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2015) Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ 114:67–78.Google Scholar
  94. Schröder B, Seppelt R (2006) Analysis of pattern-process interactions based on landscape models-Overview, general concepts, and methodological issues. Ecol Model 199:505–516.Google Scholar
  95. SEEA (2012) System of Environmental-economic accounting 2012: central framework. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  96. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636.Google Scholar
  97. Shackleton CM, Ruwanza S, Sinasson Sanni GK, Bennett S, De Lacy P, Modipa R, Mtati N, Sachikonye M, Thondhlana G (2016) Unpacking Pandora’s Box: understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems 19:587–600.Google Scholar
  98. Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ (2011) A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl Geogr 31:748–760.Google Scholar
  99. Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. ESRI, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  100. Susskind L, Camacho AE, Schenk T (2012) A critical assessment of collaborative adaptive management in practice. J Appl Ecol 49:47–51Google Scholar
  101. Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88.Google Scholar
  102. TEEB (2011) TEEB manual for cities: ecosystem services in urban managementGoogle Scholar
  103. Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24:1037–1052.Google Scholar
  104. Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P, van den Brink A (2007) Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 79:374–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Tudor C (2014) An approach to landscape character assessmentGoogle Scholar
  106. Turner KG, Anderson S, Gonzales-Chang M, Costanza R, Courville S, Dalgaard T, Dominati E, Kubiszewski I, Ogilvy S, Porfirio L, Ratna N, Sandhu H, Sutton PC, Svenning J-C, Turner GM, Varennes Y-D, Voinov A, Wratten S (2016) A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecol Model 319:190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. UKNEA (2011) The UK national ecosystem assessment: synthesis of the key findingsGoogle Scholar
  108. UKNEA (2013) The UK national ecosystem assessment: synthesis of the key findings. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  109. UN EU, FAO IMF (2014) System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework. 2014)[2015-01-30]. http//unstats. un. org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/SEEA _CF_Final_en. pdfGoogle Scholar
  110. Uuemaa E, Roosaare J, Mander Ü (2005) Scale dependence of landscape metrics and their indicatory value for nutrient and organic matter losses from catchments. Ecol Indic 5:350–369Google Scholar
  111. van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de Groot RS (2012) Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:110–122.Google Scholar
  112. Viaud V, Monod H, Lavigne C, Angevin F, Adamczyk K (2008) Spatial sensitivity of maize gene-flow to landscape pattern: a simulation approach. Landscape Ecol 23:1067–1079.Google Scholar
  113. von Döhren P, Haase D (2015) Ecosystem disservices research: a review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecol Indic 52:490–497.Google Scholar
  114. Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability scienceGoogle Scholar
  116. Wu J (2012) Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the Allerton Park workshop. Landscape Ecol 28:1–11.Google Scholar
  117. Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28:999–1023.Google Scholar
  118. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RDI Unit on Environmental Sustainability Assessment and Circularity (SUSTAIN), Environmental Research & Innovation (ERIN) DepartmentLuxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST)BelvauxLuxembourg
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Molecular SciencesUniversity of BordeauxTalenceFrance
  4. 4.School of Water, Energy and EnvironmentCranfield UniversityCranfieldUK

Personalised recommendations