Evidence and Opportunities for Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Planning across Multiple-Use Landscapes


Enhancing natural resource management has been a focus of landscape ecology since its inception, but numerous authors argue that landscape ecology has not yet been effective in achieving the underlying goal of planning and designing sustainable landscapes. We developed nine questions reflecting the application of fundamental research topics in landscape ecology to the landscape planning process and reviewed two recent landscape-scale plans in western North America for evidence of these concepts in plan decisions. Both plans considered multiple resources, uses, and values, including energy development, recreation, conservation, and protection of cultural and historic resources. We found that land use change and multiscale perspectives of resource uses and values were very often apparent in planning decisions. Pattern-process relationships, connectivity and fragmentation, ecosystem services, landscape history, and climate change were reflected less frequently. Landscape sustainability was considered only once in the 295 decisions reviewed, and outputs of landscape models were not referenced. We suggest six actionable opportunities for further integrating landscape ecology concepts into landscape planning efforts: 1) use landscape sustainability as an overarching goal, 2) adopt a broad ecosystem services framework, 3) explore the role of landscape history more comprehensively, 4) regularly consider and accommodate potential effects of climate change, 5) use landscape models to support plan decisions, and 6) promote a greater presence of landscape ecologists within agencies that manage large land bases and encourage active involvement in agency planning efforts. Together these actions may improve the defensibility, durability, and sustainability of landscape plan decisions.

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


  1. 1.

    Risser PG, Karr JR, Forman RTT. Landscape ecology: directions and approaches. In: Survey INH, editor. Special Publication No 2. Champaign, IL; 1984.

  2. 2.

    Wu JG. Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the Allerton Park workshop. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28(1):1–11.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Fazey I, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. What do conservation biologists publish? Biol Conserv. 2005;124(1):63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Cvitanovic C, Fulton CJ, Wilson SK, van Kerkhoff L, Cripps IL, Muthiga N. Utility of primary scientific literature to environmental managers: an international case study on coral-dominated marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2014;102:72–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    von Haaren C, Warren-Kretzschmar B, Milos C, Werthmann C. Opportunities for design approaches in landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;130:159–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ahern J. Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28(6):1203–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gagne SA, Eigenbrod F, Bert DG, Cunnington GM, Olson LT, Smith AC, et al. A simple landscape design framework for biodiversity conservation. Landsc Urban Plan. 2015;136:13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Nassauer JI, Opdam P. Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landsc Ecol. 2008;23(6):633–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Naveh Z. Landscape ecology and sustainability. Landsc Ecol. 2007;22(10):1437–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    McAlpine CA, Seabrook LM, Rhodes JR, Maron M, Smith C, Bowen ME, et al. Can a problem-solving approach strengthen landscape ecology's contribution to sustainable landscape planning? Landsc Ecol. 2010;25(8):1155–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Wu JG, Hobbs R. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landsc Ecol. 2002;17(4):355–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Leitao AB, Ahern J. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan. 2002;59(2):65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Pearson DM, McAlpine CA. Landscape ecology: an integrated science for sustainability in a changing world. Landsc Ecol. 2010;25(8):1151–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Freeman OE, Duguma LA, Minang PA. Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecol Soc. 2015;20(1):24.

  15. 15.

    Huber PR, Greco SE, Thorne JH. Spatial scale effects on conservation network design: trade-offs and omissions in regional versus local scale planning. Landsc Ecol. 2010;25(5):683–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kukkala AS, Moilanen A. Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biol Rev. 2013;88(2):443–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Jones KB, Zurlini G, Kienast F, Petrosillo I, Edwards T, Wade TG, et al. Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining ecosystem services from existing spatial patterns and knowledge. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28:1175–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Forman RTT, Alexander LE. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1998;29:207–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Leinwand IIF, Theobald DM, Mitchell J, Knight RL. Landscape dynamics at the public-private interface: a case study in Colorado. Landsc Urban Plan. 2010;97:182–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Theobald DM. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecol Soc. 2005;10(1):32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32/

  21. 21.

    Theobald DM. Land-use dynamics beyond the American urban fringes. Geogr Rev. 2001;91:544–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G. The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience. 2002;52:891–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Krosby M, Breckheimer I, Pierce DJ, Singleton PH, Hall SA, Halupka KC, et al. Focal species and landscape “naturalness” corridor models offer complementary approaches for connectivity conservation planning. Landsc Ecol. 2015;30(10):2121–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cavender-Bares J, Polasky S, King E, Balvanera P. A sustainability framework for assessing trade-offs in ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. 2015; 20(1):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06917-200117

  25. 25.

    Reed J, Van Vianen J, Deakin EL, Barlow J, Sunderland T. Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22(7):2540–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Office of the Solicitors. The Federal Land Policy and management act. Washington, D. C: Bureau of Land Management; 2001. p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    California Energy Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management. Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. 2014. http://www.drecp.org/draftdrecp/.

  28. 28.

    Bureau of Land Management. Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Land Use Plan Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, Bishop Resource Management Plan and Bakersfield Resource Management Plan. 2016. p. 268. http://www.drecp.org/finaldrecp/#lupa.

  29. 29.

    Management BoL. Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Record of Decisions for the Land Use Plan Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, Bishop Resource Management Plan, and Bakersfield Resource Management Plan. 2016. p. 110. http://www.drecp.org/finaldrecp/#rod.

  30. 30.

    Carr NB, Leinwand IIF, Wood DJA. A multiscale index of landscape intactness for management of public lands. In: Carter SK, Carr NB, Miller KH, Wood DJA, editors. Multiscale guidance and tools for implementing a landscape approach to resource management in the Bureau of Land Management: U.S. Geological Survey. 2017. p. 55–74. USGS Open-File Report 2016–1207. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161207.

  31. 31.

    Trammell EJ. Landscape and ecological integrity. In: Trammell EJ, Carlson ML, Fresco N, Gotthardt T, ML MT, Vadapalli D, editors. North slope rapid Ecoregional assessment. Anchorage: Alaska Center for Conservation Science; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Bureau of Land Management. Record of Decisions for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Integrated Activity Plan. 2013. p. 106. https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplfront-office/projects/nepa/5251/42462/45213/NPR-A_FINAL_ROD_2-21-13.pdf

  33. 33.

    Bureau of Land Management. National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 2012. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=67091&dctmId=0b0003e880c49eae.

  34. 34.

    Wu JG. Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28(6):999–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Mcrae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology. 2008;89(10):2712–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Smith AC, Fahrig L, Francis CM. Landscape size affects the relative importance of habitat amount, habitat fragmentation, and matrix quality on forest birds. Ecography. 2011;34(1):103–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Jackson ND, Fahrig L. Landscape context affects genetic diversity at a much larger spatial extent than population abundance. Ecology. 2014;95(4):871–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Turner M, Gardner RH, O'Neill RV. Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. New York: Springer; 2001. 416 p.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Mantyka-Pringle CS, Visconti P, Di Marco M, Martin TG, Rondinini C, Rhodes JR. Climate change modifies risk of global biodiversity loss due to land-cover change. Biol Conserv. 2015;187:103–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Verheyen K, Guntenspergen GR, Biesbrouck B, Hermy M. An integrated analysis of the effects of past land use on forest herb colonization at the landscape scale. J Ecol. 2003;91(5):731–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Keane RE, Hessburg PF, Landres PB, Swanson FJ. The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in landscape management. For Ecol Manag. 2009;258(7):1025–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Chornesky EA, Ackerly DD, Beier P, Davis FW, Flint LE, Lawler JJ, et al. Adapting California's ecosystems to a changing climate. Bioscience. 2015;65:247–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hinzman LD, Bettez ND, Bolton WR, Chapin FS, Dyurgerov MB, Fastie CL, et al. Evidence and implications of recent climate change in northern Alaska and other arctic regions. Clim Chang. 2005;72:251–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Kopperoinen L, Maes J, Schagner JP, Termansen M, et al. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol Indic. 2014;45:371–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Gunton RM, Marsh CJ, Moulherat S, Malchow AK, Bocedi G, Klenke RA, et al. Multicriterion trade-offs and synergies for spatial conservation planning. J Appl Ecol. 2017;54(3):903–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Liang YJ, Liu LJ, Huang JJ. Integrating the SD-CLUE-S and InVEST models into assessment of oasis carbon storage in northwestern China. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):15.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Turner MG, Donato DC, Romme WH. Consequences of spatial heterogeneity for ecosystem services in changing forest landscapes: priorities for future research. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28(6):1081–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Terrado M, Acuna V, Ennaanay D, Tallis H, Sabater S. Impact of climate extremes on hydrological ecosystem services in a heavily humanized Mediterranean basin. Ecol Indic. 2014;37:199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Griebler C, Avramov M. Groundwater ecosystem services: a review. Freshwater Science. 2015;34(1):355–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I, Perfecto I, et al. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv. 2012;151(1):53–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Fuhlendorf SD, Engle DM, Elmore RD, Limb RF, Bidwell TG. Conservation of pattern and process: developing an alternative paradigm of rangeland management. Rangel Ecol Manag. 2012;65(6):579–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Scharf EA. Deep time: the emerging role of archaeology in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol. 2014;29(4):563–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Trammell EJ, Thomas JS, Mouat D, Korbulic Q, Bassett S. Developing alternative land-use scenarios to facilitate natural resource management across jurisdictional boundaries. J Environ Plan Manag. 2018;61(1):64–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1289901

  54. 54.

    Gustafson EJ. When relationships estimated in the past cannot be used to predict the future: using mechanistic models to predict landscape ecological dynamics in a changing world. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28(8):1429–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Shearer AW. Scenario-based studies for landscape planning. Land use scenarios: environmental consequences of development. Integrative studies in water management and land development. Boca Raton: Crc Press-Taylor & Francis Group; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Brown I, Castellazzi M. Scenario analysis for regional decision-making on sustainable multifunctional land uses. Reg Environ Chang. 2014;14:1357–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund J-L, Sheil D, Meijaard E, et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(21):8349–56.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank Sara Gagne for the invitation to write this manuscript. The authors also thank Todd Esque for providing additional information on the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, and two reviewers for strengthening our manuscript. S. Carter received funding from the National Operations Center of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management under interagency agreements L16PG00147 and L15PG00136.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Jamie Trammell.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Landscape Design and Planning for Ecological Outcomes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trammell, E.J., Carter, S.K., Haby, T. et al. Evidence and Opportunities for Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Planning across Multiple-Use Landscapes. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 3, 1–11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-018-0029-5

Download citation


  • Applied landscape ecology
  • Natural resource management
  • Multiple-use lands
  • Landscape sustainability
  • Proactive planning