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.
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
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
Albert C, Aronson J, Fürst C, Opdam P (2014a) Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landscape Ecol 29:1277–1285
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
Banham R (2009) Los Angeles: the architecture of four ecologies. University of California Press, Berkeley
Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe RU, Walz U, Wende W (2014) Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landscape Ecol 29:1463–1479
Benton-Short L, Short JR (2013) Cities and nature. Routledge, Abingdon
Booth DB, Roy AH, Smith B, Capps KA (2016) Global perspectives on the urban stress syndrome. Freshw Sci 35:412–420
Braun B (2005) Environmental issues: writing a more-than-human urban geography. Prog Hum Geogr 29:635–650
Carolan MS (2006) The values and vulnerabilities of metaphors within the environmental sciences. Soc Nat Resour 19:921–930
Corner J (ed) (1999) Recovering landscape: essays in contemporary landscape architecture. Princeton Architectural Press, New York
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
Deming ME, Swaffield S (2011) Landscape architecture research methods: inquiry, strategy, and design. Wiley, New York
Desimini J, Waldheim C (2016) Cartographic grounds: projecting the landscape imaginary. Princeton Architectural Press, New York
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
Francis RA, Lorimer J, Raco M (2012) Urban ecosystems as ‘natural’ homes for biogeographical boundary crossings. Trans Inst Br Geogr 37:183–190
Gibbons M (2000) Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Sci Public Policy 27:159–163
Grose MJ (2014) Gaps and futures in working between ecology and design for constructed ecologies. Landsc Urban Plan 132:69–78
Guattari F (2000) The three ecologies. The Athlone Press, London
Heynen N (2006) Green urban political ecologies: toward a better understanding of inner-city environmental change. Environ Plan A 38:499–516
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
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
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)
Langhorst J (2014) Re-presenting transgressive ecologies: post-industrial sites as contested terrains. Local Environ 19:1110–1133
Loftus A (2009) Rethinking political ecologies of water. Third World Q 30:953–968
Lorimer J (2012) Multinatural geographies for the Anthropocene. Prog Hum Geogr 36:593–612
Lorimer J (2015) Wildlife in the Anthropocene: conservation after nature. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Matilsky BC (1992) Fragile ecologies: contemporary artists’ interpretations and solutions. Rizzoli, New York
McGrath B (2013) Introduction. In: McGrath B (ed) Urban design ecologies. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, pp 8–15
McPhearson T, Andersson E, Elmqvist T, Frantzeskaki N (2015) Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 12:152–156
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC
Mooney P (2014) A systematic approach to incorporating multiple ecosystem services in landscape planning and design. Landsc J 33:141–171
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
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
Musacchio LR (2013a) Cultivating deep care: integrating landscape ecological research into the cultural dimension of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 28:1025–1038
Musacchio LR (2013b) Key concepts and research priorities for landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol 28:995–998
Nassauer JI (2012) Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 106:221–229
Ndubisi F (2002) Ecological planning: a historical and comparative synthesis. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
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
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
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
Opdam P, Luque S, Nassauer J, Verburg PH, Wu J (2018) How can landscape ecology contribute to sustainability science? Landscape Ecol 33:1–7
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
Poe MR, LeCompte J, McLain R, Hurley P (2014) Urban foraging and the relational ecologies of belonging. Soc Cult Geogr 15:901–919
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
Reichers M, Barkmann J, Tscharntke T (2016) Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 17:33–39
Saunders WS (ed) (2012) Designed ecologies: the landscape architecture of Kongjian Yu. Birkhäuser, Basel
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
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
Spirn AW (2005) Restoring Mill Creek: landscape literacy, environmental justice and city planning and design. Landscape Research 30:395–413
Swyngedouw E (2006) Circulations and metabolisms: (hybrid) natures and (cyborg) cities. Sci Cult 15:105–121
Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24:1037–1052
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
Wachsmuth D (2012) Three ecologies: urban metabolism and the society-nature opposition. Sociol Quarterly 53:506–523
Waldheim C (ed) (2006) The landscape urbanism reader. Princeton Architectural Press, New York
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
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
Whatmore S (2002) Hybrid geographies: natures cultures spaces. Sage Publications, London
Wu J (2010) Landscape of culture and culture of landscape: does landscape ecology need culture? Landscape Ecol 25:1147–1150
Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28:999–1023
Wu JG (2014) Urban ecology and sustainability: the state-of-the-science and future directions. Landsc Urban Plan 125:209–221
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
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
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0646-8