Advertisement

Territory and/or Scenery: Concepts and Prospects of Western Landscape Research

  • Marc AntropEmail author
  • Veerle Van Eetvelde
Chapter
Part of the Innovations in Landscape Research book series (ILR)

Abstract

Landscape has etymologically multiple meanings, hence a wide variety of interpretations and approaches to study it. The word originated in Western Europe during the thirteenth century, denoting both a tract of land organized by people and its visual appearance. The way the land was organized and shaped created a distinct scenery. Therefore, the landscape is essentially a holistic concept. As a spatial unit, it characterizes the identity of the land of a community and defines a territory where custom rights apply. Both territory and scenery are manifestations of local, regional or national relationships between a community and the way it is using the environment. The landscape also gives the basis of cultural identity and defines value systems. During history, this dynamical relationship changed and so did the meanings and ways of seeing the landscape. This resulted in different approaches in the study of the landscape and its visualization. We summarize the development of landscape research along these two dimensions, territory and scenery. We discuss how landscape research differentiated and diffused with the Western culture all over the world. Many of the shifts were caused by cultural differences, in particular, linguistic and semiotic, resulting in a growing divergence of interpretations and applications. Also, environmental, economic and technological driving forces steered the development of landscape research, adding new related concepts, new methods to analyze and new perspectives. In a globalizing world, the polarization and compression of the geographical time–space resulted in faster urbanization and land abandonment simultaneously, so all landscapes are affected. The demand grew for more proactive and applied research and transdisciplinary approaches to landscape management. Formal definitions, in particular, the European Landscape Convention, offer platforms for integrating all fragmented efforts.

Keywords

Western culture Landscape disciplines Landscape science History Holism Approaches Ways of seeing 

References

  1. Aalen FHA, Whelan K, Stout M (eds) (1997) Atlas of the Irish rural landscape. Cork University Press, Cork, p 352Google Scholar
  2. Aldred O, Fairclough G (2002) Historic landscape characterization—taking stock of the method. The National HLC Method Review 2002, English Heritage & Somerset County CouncilGoogle Scholar
  3. Antikainen J (2005) The concept of Functional Urban Area—findings of the ESPON project 1.1.1. Informationen Raumentwicklung Heft 7:447–452Google Scholar
  4. Antrop M (1997) The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The example of Flanders Region. Landscape Urban Plann 38:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antrop M (2000) Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landscape Ecol 15(3):257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape Urban Plann 1–2:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Antrop M (2006) Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landscape Urban Plann 75:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Antrop M (2012) Intrinsic values of landscapes. In: Papayannis T, Howard P (eds) 2012. Reclaiming the Greek Landscape, Athens, Med-INA, pp 31–42Google Scholar
  9. Antrop M (2019) A brief history of landscape research. In: Howard P, Thompson I, Waterton E, Atha M (eds) The Routledge companion to landscape studies (2nd edn). Routledge, London and New York, pp. 1–15Google Scholar
  10. Antrop M, Van Eetvelde V (2017) Landscape perspectives—the holistic nature of landscape. Landscape series, vol 23. Springer, p 436Google Scholar
  11. Antrop M (1991) Rethinking carrying capacity. In: Brandt J, Agger P (eds) Proceedings of the European of the international association for landscape ecology (IALE) on practical landscape ecology. Roskilde University Centre: Roskilde, vol III, pp 55–64Google Scholar
  12. Antrop M (2008) Landscapes at risk: about change in the European landscapes. In: Dostal P (ed) Evolution of geographical systems and risk processes in the global context. Charles University Prague, pp 57–79Google Scholar
  13. Bell S (2004) Elements of visual design in the landscape. Spon Press, London, p 196Google Scholar
  14. Bell S (1999) Landscape. Pattern, perception and process. Taylor & Francis Group, 344pGoogle Scholar
  15. Botequilha Leitão AB, Ahern J (2002) Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape Urban Plann 59(2):65–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Botequilha Leitão A, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K (2006) Measuring landscapes. A planner’s handbook. Island Press, London, 245 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Burel F, Baudry J (2003) Landscape ecology: concepts, methods and applications. Science Publishers, Inc., Enfield, New Hampshire, USA, 362 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Burrough PA, McDonnell RA (1998) Principles of geographical information systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 333 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Buttimer A (ed) (2001) Sustainable landscapes and lifeways: scale and appropriateness. Cork University Press, Cork, 398 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheshire P (1995) A new phase of urban development in Western Europe? The evidence for the 1980s’. Urban Stud 32(7):1045–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Claval PL (2004) The languages of rural landscapes. In: Palang H, Sooväli H, Antrop M, Setten S (eds) European rural landscapes: persistence and change in a globalising environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 11–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cosgrove D, Daniels S (1988) The iconography of landscape. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 318Google Scholar
  23. Cosgrove D (2002) Landscape and the European sense of sight—eyeing nature. In: Anderson K, Domosh M, Pile S, Thrift N (eds) Handbook of cultural geography. Chapter 12. SAGE Publications, London, pp 249–268Google Scholar
  24. Cosgrove D (2003) Landscape: ecology and semiosis. In: Palang H, Fry G (2003) Landscape interfaces. Cultural heritage in changing landscapes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 15–20 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Council of Europe (2000) European landscape convention. Firenze, 20.10.2000. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm. Accessed 15 Mar 2019
  26. Council of Europe (2006) Landscape and sustainable development—challenges of the European landscape convention. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, p 213Google Scholar
  27. Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Ind 8(5):691–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. de la Blache PV (1922) Principes de géographie humaine. Armand Colin, Paris (trans: Principles of human geography), de Martonne E (ed). Holt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Eastman JR, Kyem PAK, Toledano J, Jin W (1993) GIS and decision making. UNITAR Explorations in GIS Technology, vol 4. UNITAR, Geneva, p 112Google Scholar
  30. Egoz S, Jørgensen K, Ruggeri D (eds) (2018) Defining landscape democracy: a path to spatial justice. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.  https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786438348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Egoz S, Makhzoumi J, Pungetti G (eds) (2011) The right to landscape: contesting landscape and human rights. Routledge, London and New York, p 337Google Scholar
  32. Egoz S, De Nardi A (2017) Defining landscape justice: the role of landscape in supporting wellbeing of migrants, a literature review. Landscape Res.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1363880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. European Environmental Agency (1995) Europe’s environment—the Dobríš assessment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, p 680Google Scholar
  34. European Environmental Agency (2002) Urban morphological zones 2000 (UMZ2000)Google Scholar
  35. European Commission (2008) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/index_en.htm. Accessed 15 Mar 2019
  36. Fahrig L (2005) When is a landscape perspective important? In: Wiens JA, Moss MR (eds) Issues in landscape ecology. Studies in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  37. Farina A, Belgrano A (2006) The eco-field hypothesis: toward a cognitive landscape. Landscape Ecol 21(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Farina A (2009) Ecology, cognition and landscape: linking natural and social systems. Landscape series, vol 11. Springer Science & Business Media, 161 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Forman RTT, Godron M (1981) Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. Bioscience 31(10):733–740. In: Wiens JH, Moss MR, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds.) Foundation Papers in Landscape Ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 246–253Google Scholar
  40. Forman R, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York, p 619Google Scholar
  41. Fry GL, Sarlov Herlin I (1995) Landscape design: how do we incorporate ecological, cultural and aesthetic values in landscape assessment and design principles? In: Griffiths GH (ed) Landscape ecology: theory and application. Proceedings IALE-UK conference, Reading, 51–60 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience 52(2):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Granö JG (1929) Reine Geographie. Eine methodologische Studie beleuchtet mit Beispielen aus Finnland und Estland. Helsinki, Helsingfors. Acta Geogr 2(2):202 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. Granö O, Paasi A (eds) (1997) Pure geography. In: Granö JG (trans: Hicks M). The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 191 ppGoogle Scholar
  45. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision-making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Groth P, Bressi TW (eds) (1997) Understanding ordinary landscapes. Yale University Press, New Haven, 272 ppGoogle Scholar
  47. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hartshorne R (1939) The nature of geography. A critical survey of current thought in the light of the past. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 29(3–4):173–658Google Scholar
  49. Hägerstrand T (2001) A look at the political geography of environmental management. In: Buttimer A (ed) Sustainable landscapes and lifeways: scale and appropriateness. Cork University Press, Cork, pp 35–58Google Scholar
  50. Jepsen MR, Kuemmerle T, Müller D, Erbe K, Verburg PH, Haberl H, Vesterager JP, Andric M, Antrop M, Austrheim G, Björn I, Bondeau A, Bürgi M, Bryson J, Caspar G, Cassaro JF, Conrado E, Chromy P, Daugirdas V, Van Eetvelde V, Elena-Rosselló R, Gimmi U, Izakovicova Z, Jancák V, Jansson U, Kladnik D, Kozak J, Konkoly-Gyurów E, Krausmann F, Mander Ü, McDonagh J, Pärn J, Niedertscheider M, Nikodemus O, Ostapowicz K, Pérez-Soba M, Pinto-Correia T, Ribokas G, Rounsevell M, Schistou D, Schmit C, Terkenli TS, Tretvik AM, Trzepacz P, Vadineanu A, Walz A, Zhllima E, Reenberg A (2015) Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy 49:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jones M (2007) The European landscape convention and the question of public participation. Landscape Res 32(5):613–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jones M, Daugstad K (1997) Usages of the “cultural landscape” concept in Norwegian and Nordic landscape administration’. Landscape Res 22(3):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jones M, Stenseke M (eds) (2011) The European landscape convention. Challenges of participation. Landscape series, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht, 326 ppGoogle Scholar
  54. Kant I (1764) Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime [Beobachtungen über das Gefühl des Schönen und Erhabenen]. (eds and trans by P. Frierson, P. Guyer). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 396 (2011)Google Scholar
  55. Klijn JA (2004) Driving forces behind landscape transformation in Europe, from a conceptual approach to policy options. In: Jongman RHG (ed) The new dimensions of the European landscapes Alterra Green World Research, Landscape Europe. Wageningen UR frontis series, vol 4. Springer, pp 201–218Google Scholar
  56. Kolen J, Renes H, Hermans R (eds) (2015) Landscape biographies. Geographical, historical and archaeological perspectives on the production and transmission of landscapes. Landscape and heritage studies. Amsterdam University Press, p. 437Google Scholar
  57. Laszlo E (1994) The choice: evolution or extinction. A thinking person’s guide to global issues. C.P. Putnam & Sons, New York, p 215Google Scholar
  58. Lemaire T (2002) Met open zinnen. Natuur, landschap, aarde. Amsterdam, Ambo, p 358Google Scholar
  59. Leopold A (1949) The land ethic. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, New York, p 182Google Scholar
  60. Leopold LB, Clarke FE, Hanshaw BB, Balsley JR (1971) A procedure for evaluating environmental impact, vol 645. US Geological Survey Circular, Washington DC, p 13Google Scholar
  61. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol 19(4):389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Li H, Wu J (2007) Landscape pattern analysis: key issues and challenges. In: Wu J, Hobbs RJ (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Studies in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, pp 39–61Google Scholar
  63. Longley PA, Goodchild MF, Maguire DJ, Rind DW (2001) Geographic information systems and science. Wiley, New York, p 454Google Scholar
  64. Lowenthal D (1975) Past time present place: landscape and memory. Geogr Rev 65(1):1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Luginbühl Y (2012) La mise en scène du monde. Construction du paysage européen. Paris: CRNS Editions. 432 ppGoogle Scholar
  66. Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, 194 ppGoogle Scholar
  67. Mac Nally R (2005) Scale and an organism-centric focus for studying interspecific interactions in landscapes. In: Wiens JA, Moss MR (eds) Issues in landscape ecology. Studies in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 52–69Google Scholar
  68. Mander Ü, Uuemaa E, Roosaare J, Aunap R, Antrop M (2010) Coherence and fragmentation of landscape patterns as characterized by correlograms: a case study of Estonia. Landscape Urban Plann 94(1):31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Mansvelt JD (1997) An interdisciplinary approach to integrate a range of agro-landscape values as proposed by representatives of various disciplines. Agric Ecosyst Environ 63:233–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-351Google Scholar
  71. Mitchell B (1979) Geography and resources analysis. Longman, London, p 399Google Scholar
  72. Moss MR (1999) Fostering academic and institutional activities in landscape ecology. In: Wiens JA, Moss MR (eds) Issues in landscape ecology. International association for landscape ecology, fifth world congress, Snowmass Village, CO, USA, 138–144Google Scholar
  73. Muir R (2000) The new reading the landscape. Fieldwork in landscape history. University of Exeter Press, Exeter, p 256Google Scholar
  74. Nassauer JI (2012) Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landscape Urban Plann 106:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Naveh Z, Lieberman A (1994) Landscape ecology: theory and application. Springer, New York, p 360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Naveh Z (2007) Transdisciplinary challenges in landscape ecology and restoration ecology—an anthology. Landscape series, vol 6, XVII. Springer, Dordrecht, 423 ppGoogle Scholar
  77. Neef E (1967) The theoretical foundations of landscape study (Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschaftslehre) (trans) Geographisch-Kartographische, Anstalt, ed., 18–38. VEB Hermann Haack, Gotha/Leipzig. In: Wiens JH, Moss MR, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) Foundation papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 225–245Google Scholar
  78. Nicolson (1995) A historical introduction. In: von Humboldt A (ed) Personal narrative of a journey to the equinoctial regions of the new continent. Abridged and translated by Jason Wilson and a historical introduction by Malcolm Nicholson. Penguin Books, London, p 311Google Scholar
  79. Nijhuis S, van Lammeren R, van der Hoeven F (2011) Exploring the visual landscape, research in urbanism series, vol 2. IOS Press, Amsterdam, p 334Google Scholar
  80. Nohl W (2001) Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception—preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape Urban Plann 54:223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ode Å, Tveit MS, Fry G (2008) Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Res 33(1):89–117Google Scholar
  82. OECD (2012) Defining Functional Urban Areas (FUA) for the OECD metropolitan database. OECD, 9 ppGoogle Scholar
  83. Olwig KR (1996) Recovering the substantive nature of landscape. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 86(4):630–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Olwig KR (2002) Landscape, nature and the body politic: from Britain’s renaissance to America’s new world. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, p 299Google Scholar
  85. Opdam P, Luque S, Jones KB (2009) Changing landscapes to accommodate for climate change impacts: a call for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 24(6):715–721.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9377-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Paffen K (ed) (1973) Das Wesen der Landschaft. Wege der Forschung, Band XXXIX, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 514 ppGoogle Scholar
  87. Parris K (2003) Agricultural landscape indicators in the context of the OECD work on Agri-10 environmental indicators. In: Dramstad W, Sogge C (eds) Agricultural impacts on landscapes; developing indicators for policy analysis. Proceedings from the NIJOS/OECD expert meeting on agricultural landscape indicators in Oslo, Norway, 7–9 Oct 2002, pp 10–18Google Scholar
  88. Parris K (2004) Measuring changes in agricultural landscapes as a tool for policy makers. In: Brandt J, Vejre H (eds) Multifunctional landscapes. Theory, values and history, vol I. WIT Press, Southampton, 193–218 ppGoogle Scholar
  89. Pasqualetti M, Stremke S (2018) Energy landscapes in a crowded world: a first typology of origins and expressions. Energy Res Soc Sci 36:94–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Passarge S (1919–1921) Grundlage der Landschaftskunde, 3 vol. Friedrichsen, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  91. Passarge S (1921–1930) Vergleichende Landschaftskunde, 5 vol. Reimer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  92. Phipps M (1984) Rural landscape dynamics: the illustration of some key concepts. In: Brandt J, Agger P (eds) Proceedings of the first international seminar of IALE on the methodology in landscape ecological research and planning, vol I, Theme I. Roskilde University Centre, Roskilde, pp 47–54Google Scholar
  93. Pinto-Correia T, Gustavsson R, Pirnat J (2006) Bridging the gap between centrally defined policies and local decisions—towards more sensitive and creative rural landscape management. Landscape Ecol 21(3):333–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Pinto-Correia T, Cancela d’Abreu A, Oliveira R (2003) Landscape areas in Portugal—can they be a support for applying indicators? NIJOS/OECD expert meeting on agricultural landscape 7–9 Oct 2002, Oslo, Norway, NIJOS rapport 7/2003, pp 309–316Google Scholar
  95. Pinto-Correia T, Primdahl J, Pedroli B (2018) European landscapes in transition—implications for policy and practice. Cambridge University Press, 330 ppGoogle Scholar
  96. Plieninger T, Draux H, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Bürgi M, Kizos T, Kuemmerle T, Primdahl J, Verburg PH (2016) The driving forces of landscape change in Europe: a systematic review of the evidence. Land Use Policy 57:204–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Potschin MB, Haines-Young RH (2006) Landscapes and sustainability. Landscape Urban Plann 75(3–4):155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Price C (2019) Researching the economics of landscape. In: Howard P, Thompson I, Waterton E, Atha M (eds) The Routledge companion to landscape studies, 2nd edn. Routledge, London, pp 387–401Google Scholar
  99. Prigogine I (1955) Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes. Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL, p 115Google Scholar
  100. Prigogine I (1987) Exploring complexity. Eur J Oper Res 30(2):97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Primdahl J, Swaffield S (Eds.) (2010) Globalization and agricultural landscapes—change patterns and policy trends in developed countries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 292 ppGoogle Scholar
  102. Rees W (2001) Ecological footprint, concept of. In: Encyclopedia of biodiversity, vol 4. Academic Press, Waltham, MA, pp 229–244Google Scholar
  103. Roe M (2019) Landscape and participation. In: Howard P, Thompson I, Waterton E, Atha M (eds) The Routledge companion to landscape studies, 2nd edn. Routledge, London, pp 402–417Google Scholar
  104. Rolston HI (1988) Environmental ethics. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, p 373Google Scholar
  105. Salerno F, Viviano G, Manfredi EC, Caroli P, Thakuri S, Tartari G (2013) Multiple carrying capacities from a management-oriented perspective to operationalize sustainable tourism in protected areas. J Environ Manage 128:116–125PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. Sauer CO (1925) The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in Geography, 2; reprinted in Leighly J (ed) (1974) Land and life. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp 315–350Google Scholar
  107. Saul H, Waterton E (2019) Anthropocene landscapes. In: Howard P, Thompson I, Waterton E, Atha M (eds) The Routledge companion to landscape studies, 2nd edn. Routledge, London, pp 139–151Google Scholar
  108. Schama S (1995) Landscape and memory. A. Knopf, New York, p 652Google Scholar
  109. Selman P (2006) Planning at the landscape scale. Routledge, London, p 213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Smuts JC (1926) Holism and evolution. The Macmillan Company, New York, p 376Google Scholar
  111. Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsche L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthropocene Rev 2(1):81–98.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Steffen W, Crutzen J, McNeil JC (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio 36:614–621PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  113. Swanwick C (2002) Landscape character assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage. https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-02/Publication%202002%20-%20Landscape%20Character%20Assessment%20guidance%20for%20England%20and%20Scotland.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2019
  114. Taylor C (2006) The making of the English landscape and beyond: inspiration and dissemination. Landscapes 2:96–104Google Scholar
  115. Thomas WL (ed) (1956) Man’s role in the changing face of the earth. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p 1193Google Scholar
  116. Tremorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24(8):1037–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Tsjallingii SP, de Veer AA (eds) (1982) Perspectives in landscape ecology. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  118. Tuan Y-F (1974) Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 260 ppGoogle Scholar
  119. UNESCO (1992) Cultural landscapes. http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/#1. Accessed 15 Mar 2019
  120. United Nations (1998) Aarhus convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. United Nations, Aarhus. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/Publications/Aarhus_Implementation_Guide_interactive_eng.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2019
  121. Unwin D (1981) Introductory spatial analysis. Methuen, London, p 212Google Scholar
  122. Uuemaa E, Mander Ü, Marja R (2012) Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: a review. Ecol Ind 28:100–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Uuemaa E, Antrop M, Roosaare J, Marja R, Mander Ü (2009) Landscape metrics and indices: an overview of their use in landscape research. Living Rev Landscape Res 3:1–28. http://lrlr.landscapeonline.de/Articles/lrlr-2009-1/
  124. von Humboldt A (1849) COSMOS: Sketch of a physical description of the universe, Vol. II, Translated by Sabine E, 7th edn, Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, LondonGoogle Scholar
  125. von Humboldt A (1858) Cosmos – a sketch of the physical description of the universe, Vol. I, Translation Otte, E.C., John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and LondonGoogle Scholar
  126. Vos W, Klijn J (2000) Trends in European landscape development: prospects for a sustainable future. In: Klijn J, Vos W (eds) From landscape ecology to landscape science. WLO, Wageningen, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 13–30Google Scholar
  127. Wascher D (2003) Overview on agricultural landscape indicators across OECD countries. In: Dramstad W, Sogge C (eds) Agricultural impacts on landscapes; developing indicators for policy analysis. Proceedings from the NIJOS/OECD expert meeting on agricultural landscape indicators in Oslo, Norway, 7–9 Oct 2002, pp 19–36Google Scholar
  128. Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28:999–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Wulf A (2015) The Invention of Nature – Alexander von Humboldt’s New World. A.A.Knopf, New York, 473 ppGoogle Scholar
  130. Zhang DD, Brecke P, Lee HF, He Yuan-Qing, Zhang J (2007) Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history. PNAS 104(49):19214–19219PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  131. Zhang DD, Lee HF, Wang Cong, Li Baosheng, Pei Qing, Zhang J, An Ylun (2011) Causality analysis of climate change and large-scale human crisis. PNAS 108(42):17296–17301PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  132. Zonneveld JIS (1980) Het gat in de geografie. K.N.A.G. Tijdschrift, XIV 2:93–98Google Scholar
  133. Zonneveld IS (1989) The land unit—a fundamental concept in landscape ecology and its applications. Landscape Ecol 3(2):67–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Zonneveld IS (1995) Land ecology. SPB Academic Publishing bv, Amsterdam, 199 ppGoogle Scholar
  135. Zonneveld IS (2005) The land unit as a black box: a Pandora’s box? In: Wiens JA, Moss MR (eds) Issues in landscape ecology. Studies in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 331–345Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Landscape Research—Department of GeographyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations