Landscape Ecology

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 343–356 | Cite as

Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology

  • Joan Iverson Nassauer
  • Robert C. Corry
Article

Abstract

The normative landscape scenario is one of many types of scenario methods that are used by landscape ecologists. We describe how normative landscape scenarios are different from other types and how these differences create special potential for engaging science to build landscape policy and for exploring scientific questions in realistic simulated landscapes. We describe criteria and a method for generating normative scenarios to realize this potential in both policy and landscape ecology research. Finally, we describe how the method and criteria apply to an interdisciplinary project that proposed alternative scenarios for federal agricultural policy and related futures for agricultural watersheds in Iowa, USA.

Agriculture Futures Interdisciplinary Landscape change Planning Policy Scenarios 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahern J. 2001. Spatial concepts, planning strategies and future scenarios: A framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning.. In: Klopatek J. and Gardner R. (eds), Landscape Ecological Analysis: Issues and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Ahern J., France R., Hough M., Burley J., Turner W., Schmidt S., Hulse D., Badenhope J. and Jones G. 2002. Integrating ecology ‘across’ the curriculum of landscape architecture. In: Johnson B.R. and Hill K. (eds), Ecology and Design, Frameworks for Learning. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 397–414.Google Scholar
  3. Bantayan N.C. and Bishop I.D. 1998. Linking objective and subjective modeling for landuse decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning 43: 35–48.Google Scholar
  4. Beck M.B. 2002. Environmental Foresight and Models: A Manifesto. Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Beck M.B., Chen J., Osidele O. 2002. Random search and the reachability of target futures.. In: Beck M.B. (ed.), Environmental Foresight and Models: A Manifesto. Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford, UK, pp. 207–226.Google Scholar
  6. Bierzychudek P. 1999. Looking backwards: assessing the projections of a transition matrix model. Ecological Applications 9: 1278.Google Scholar
  7. Caza C. and Kaarik A.. 1994. Envisioning Future Canadian Landscapes: A Source Book. Wildlife Habitat Canada and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  8. Cocks D. 1999. Scenarios for Australian landscapes. Visions of Future Landscapes. Fenner Conference on the Environment, Canberra, ACT, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, pp. 75–82.Google Scholar
  9. Coiner C., Wu J. and Polasky S. 2001. Economic and environmental implications of alternative landscape designs in the Walnut Creek Watershed of Iowa. Ecological Economics 38: 119–139.Google Scholar
  10. Cole S. 2001. Dare to dream: Bringing futures into planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 67: 372–383.Google Scholar
  11. Corry R.C. 2002. A landscape index approach to evaluating the small mammal habitat quality of designed scenarios for agricultural watersheds. PhD Dissertation. University of Michigan, Rackham Graduate School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Countryman D.W. and Murrow J.C. 2000. Economic analysis of contour tree buffer strips using present net value. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55: 152–160.Google Scholar
  13. Cruse R.M. 1990. Strip intercropping.. In: Keeney D. (ed.), Farming Systems for Iowa: Seeking Alternatives. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, Iowa, USA, pp. 39–41.Google Scholar
  14. Emmelin L. 1994. Landscape impact analysis: a human ecological approach to landscape futures.. In: Caza C. and Kaarik A. (eds), Envisioning Future Canadian Landscapes: A Source Book. Wildlife Habitat Canada and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 19–28.Google Scholar
  15. Exner D.N., Davidson D.G., Ghaffarzadeh M., Cruse R. 1999. Yields and returns from strip intercropping on six Iowa farms. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14(2): 69–77.Google Scholar
  16. Franklin J. and Forman R.T.T. 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: ecological consequences and principles. Landscape Ecology 1: 5–18.Google Scholar
  17. Freemark K. 1995. Assessing effects of agriculture on terrestrial wildlife: developing a hierarchical approach for the US EPA. Landscape and Urban Planning 31: 99–115.Google Scholar
  18. Freemark K.E., Hummon C., White D., Hulse D. 1996. Modeling Risks to Biodiversity in Past, Present, and Future Landscapes. Canadian Wildlife Service Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 60 p.Google Scholar
  19. Fry G.L.A. 2001. Multifunctional landscapes — towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 159–168.Google Scholar
  20. Goudy W. and Burke S.C. 1994. Iowa’s Counties: Selected Population Trends, Vital Statistics, and Socioeconomic Data. Census Services, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA, 427 p.Google Scholar
  21. Gustafson E.J. and Crow T.R. 1998. Simulating spatial and temporal context of forest management using hypothetical landscapes. Environmental Management 22(5): 777–787.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamblin A. 1999. Visions of Future Landscapes. Fenner Conference on the Environment, Canberra, ACT, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Hammond A.L. 1998. Which World? Scenarios for the 21st Century. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Hansson L., Fahrig L., Merriam G. 1995. Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. Chapman &Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Hobbs R. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 1–9.Google Scholar
  26. Hulse D., Eilers J., Freemark K., Hummon C., White D. 2000. Planning alternative future landscapes in Oregon: Evaluating effects on water quality and biodiversity. Landscape Journal 19: 1–20.Google Scholar
  27. Hulse D., Gregory S. and Baker J., (eds) 2002. Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Iowa State University 1996. Iowa Soil Properties and Interpretations Database. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA, 28 p.Google Scholar
  29. Jenerette G.D. and Wu J. 2001. Analysis and simulation of land-use change in the central Arizona-Phoenix region, USA. Landscape Ecology 16: 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson G.D., Myers W.L. and Patil G.P. 1999. Stochastic generating models for simulating hierarchically sgtructured multi-cover models. Landscape Ecology 14: 413–421.Google Scholar
  31. Jones S. 1999. Participation and community at the landscape scale. Landscape Journal 18: 65–78.Google Scholar
  32. Keane R.E., Morgan P. and White J.D. 1999. Temporal patterns of ecosystem processes on simulated landscapes in Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. Landscape Ecology 14: 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keitt T.H. 2000. Spectral representation of neutral landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15: 479–493.Google Scholar
  34. Nassauer J.I. and Corry R.C. 1999. Rural Watersheds and Policy, World-Wide Web. Universal Resource Locator http://www.snre.umich.edu/nassauer/ Google Scholar
  35. Nassauer J.I., Corry R.C. and Cruse R.M. 2002. Alternative landscape future scenarios: a means to consider agricultural policy. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 57: 44A–53A.Google Scholar
  36. Opdam P., Foppen R. and Vos C. 2002. Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 16: 767–779.Google Scholar
  37. Pearson S.M., Turner M.G. and Drake J.B. 1999. Landscape change and habitat availability in the sourthern Appalachian highlands and Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Applications 9: 1288–1329.Google Scholar
  38. Peterson G.D., Cumming G.S., Carpenter S.R. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17: 358–366.Google Scholar
  39. Ralls K. and Starfield A.M. 1995. Choosing a management strategy: Two structured decision-making methods for evaluating the predictions of stochastic simulation models. Conservation Biology 9: 175–181.Google Scholar
  40. Ribe R., Morganti R., Hulse D. and Shull R. 1998. A management driven investigation of landscape patterns of northern spotted owl nesting territories in the high Cascades of Oregon. Landscape Ecology 13: 1–13.Google Scholar
  41. Risser P.G., Karr J.R. and Forman R.T.T. 1984. Landscape Ecology: Directions and Approaches. Illinois Natural History Survey, 22 p.Google Scholar
  42. Rustigian H.L., Santelmann M.V. and Schumaker N.H. 2003. Assessing the potential impacts of alternative landscape designs on amphibian population dynamics. Landscape Ecology 18: 65–81.Google Scholar
  43. RIZA 1996. Ecological networks in river rehabilitation scenarios: Rhine-Econet. M-Directorate — General for Public Works and Water Management: Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Agriculture, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 23 p.Google Scholar
  44. Sala O.E., Chapin F.S.I., Armesto J.J., Berlow E., Bloomfield J., Dirzo R., Huber-Sanwald E., Huenneke L.F., Jackson R.B., Kinzig A., Leemans R., Lodge D.M., Moodey H.A., Oesterheld M., Poff N.L., Sykes M.T., Walker B.H., Walker M. and Wall D.H. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287.Google Scholar
  45. Samson F.B. and Knopf F.L. 1996. Putting ‘ecosystem’ into natural resource management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 51: 288–292.Google Scholar
  46. Santelmann M., Freemark K., White D., Nassauer J., Clark M., Danielson B., Eilers J., Cruse R., Galatowitsch S., Polasky S., Vaché K. and Wu J. 2001. Applying ecological principles to land-use decision-making in agricultural watersheds.. In: Dale V.H. and Haeuber R.A. (eds), Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, pp. 226–252.Google Scholar
  47. Santelmann M., White D., Freemark K., Nassauer J., Eilers J., Vaché K., Danielson B., Corry R., Clark M., Polasky S., Cruse R., Sifneos J., Coiner C., Wu J. and Debinski D. 2004. Assessing alternative futures for agriculture in the U.S. Cornbelt. Landscape Ecology 19: 357–374.Google Scholar
  48. Schoonenboom I.J. 1995. Overview and state of the art of scenario studies for the rural environment.. In: Schoute J.F.T., Finke P.A., Veeneklass F.R. and Wolfert H.P. (eds), Scenario studies for the rural environment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
  49. Science Advisory Board 1995. Beyond the Horizon: Using Foresight to Protect the Environmental Future. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  50. Schwartz P. 1991. The Art of the Long View. Doubleday, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  51. Steinitz C. 1990. A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landscape Journal 9: 136–143.Google Scholar
  52. Steinitz C. and MacDowell S. 2001. Alternative Futures for Monroe County Pennsylvania.. In: Dale V. and Haeuber R.A. (eds), Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  53. Steinitz C., Arias H., Bassett S., Flaxman M., Goode T., Maddock III T., Mouat D., Peiser R. and Shearer A. 2003. Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes: The Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  54. Steinitz C. 2002. On teaching ecological principles to designers.. In: Johnson B.R. and Hill K. (eds), Ecology and Design. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 231–244.Google Scholar
  55. Swetnam R.C., Ragou P., Firbank L.G., Hinsley S.A. and Ballamy P.E. 1998. Applying ecological models to altered landscapes: scenario-testing with GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 41: 3–18.Google Scholar
  56. Tilman D., Fargione J., Wolff B., D’antonio C., Dobson A., Howarth R., Schinder D., Schlessinger W.H., Simberloff D., Swackhamer D. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292: 281–284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Tischendorf L. 2001. Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecology 16: 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tress B. and Tress G. 2003. Scenario visulization for participatory landscape planning — a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning. In Press.Google Scholar
  59. Turner M.B. and Romme W.H.. 1994. Landscape dynamics in crown fire ecosystems. Landscape Ecology 9: 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turner M.G., Gardner R.H. 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process. Springer — Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  61. USDA 2001. Food and Agricultural Policy. Taking Stock for a New Century. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  62. Vaché K., Eilers J. and Santelmann M. 2002. Water quality modeling of alternative agricultural scenarios in the U. S. Corn Belt. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38: 773–787.Google Scholar
  63. Varis O. 2002. Belief networks: Generating the feared dislocations.. In: Beck M.B. (ed.), Environmental Foresight and Models: A Manifesto. Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford, UK, pp. 169–205.Google Scholar
  64. Wachs M. 2001. Forecasting versus envisioning: A new window on the future. Journal of the American Planning Association 67: 367–373.Google Scholar
  65. Waide J.B. and Hatfield J.L. 1995. Preliminary MASTER assessment of the impacts of alternative agricultural management practices on ecological and water resource attributes of Walnut Creek watershed, Iowa. FTN Associates Limited, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.Google Scholar
  66. White D., Minotti P.G., Barczak M.J., Sifneos J.C., Freemark K.E., Santelmann M.V., Steinitz C.F., Kiester A.R. and Preston E.M. 1997. Assessing risks to biodiversity from future landscape change. Conservation Biology 11: 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wickham J.D., O’Neill R.V. and Jones K.B. 2000. A geography of ecosystem vulnerability. Landscape Ecology 15: 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan Iverson Nassauer
    • 1
  • Robert C. Corry
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of Environmental Design & Rural DevelopmentUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations