Advertisement

Bridging the Gaps: Connecting Spatial Planning with Land-Use Science and Political Ecology

  • Carlo RegaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cities and Nature book series (CITIES)

Abstract

In this chapter, the concept and principles of ecological rationality are examined more specifically with regard to planning theory and practice. We discuss the inherent inability of current decision-making systems in general and planning systems, in particular, to effectively address complex ecological issues. To address this and to redefine planning under the paradigm of ecological rationality, we propose a deeper cross-fertilization between planning and two cognate disciplines: Land-Use Science and Political Ecology. We illustrate and discuss the main principles and concepts of these disciplines and the potential interplays with spatial planning theory. We also discuss potentialities and limitations of Landscape Ecology and put forward possible novel lines of research for mutual enhancement of these different disciplinary areas towards a holistic conceptual frame.

References

  1. Ahern J (1999) Integration of landscape ecology and landscape design: an evolutionary process. In Wiens, Moss (eds) Issues in landscape ecology. International association for landscape ecology, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, pp 119–123Google Scholar
  2. Albrechts L, Balducci A (2017) Introduction. In: Albrechts L, Balducci A, Hillier J (eds) Situated practices of strategic planning—an International Perspective. Routledge, New York, pp 15–21Google Scholar
  3. Almenar JB, Rugani B, Geneletti D, Brewer T (2018) Integration of ecosystem services into a conceptual spatial planning framework based on a landscape ecology perspective. Landsc Ecol 33(12):2047–2059.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0727-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baber WF, Bartlett RV (2005) Deliberative environmental politics: democracy and ecological rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 276Google Scholar
  5. Blaikie PM, Brookfield H (eds) (1987) Land degradation and society. Methuen, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonifazi A (2009) Evaluation and the environmental democracy of cities. PhD dissertation, Politecnico di Bari—Facoltà di Ingegneria I (Bari, Italy), Ph.D. Programme in “Pianificazione Territoriale e Urbanistica”—Ciclo XXIGoogle Scholar
  7. Botequilha Leitão A, Ahern J (2002) Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 59(2):65–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00005-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Botequilha Leitão A, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K (2012) Measuring landscapes: a planner’s handbook. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Brannstrom C, Vadjunec J (eds) (2013) Land Change Science, Political Ecology, and Sustainability. Routledge, London.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203107454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brannstrom C, Vadjunec JM (2014) Notes for avoiding a missed opportunity in sustainability science: integrating land change science and political ecology. In: Land change science, political ecology, and sustainability: synergies and divergences, pp 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203107454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryant RL (ed) (2015) The international handbook of political ecology. Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  12. Corry RC, Nassauer J (2005) Limitations of using landscape pattern indices to evaluate the ecological consequences of alternative plans and designs. Landsc Urban Plan 72:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahl RA (1973) Participation and opposition. Yale University Press, PolyarchyGoogle Scholar
  14. de Molina MG, Toledo VM (2014) The social metabolism: a socio-ecological theory of historical change, vol 3. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  15. Dramstad W, Olson JD, Forman RT (1996) Landscape ecology principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Island Press, Wasgington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Dryzek JS (1987) Rational ecology: the political economy of environmental choice. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Dryzek JS (2005) The politics of the earth. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Dryzek JS (2009) Democracy and earth system governance. Paper presented at symposium, Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change “Earth System Governance: People, Places and the Planet”, Amsterdam, 2–4 December 2009Google Scholar
  19. Dryzek JS (2016) Institutions for the anthropocene: governance in a changing earth system. Br J Polit Sci 46(4):937–956.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fahrig L (2005) When is a landscape perspective important? In Wiens J. Moss M (eds) Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology (Cambridge Studies in Landscape Ecology, pp. 3–10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614415.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faludi A (2014) Europeanisation or Europeanisation of spatial planning? Plan Theory Pract 15(2):155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.902095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fortin MJ (1999) Spatial statistics in landscape ecology. In: Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape Ecological Analysis. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. Gergel SE, Turner MG (eds) (2017) Learning landscape ecology: a practical guide to concepts and techniques. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  24. Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1(2):143–156.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gutman G, Janetos AC, Justice CO, Moran EF, Mustard JF, Rindfuss RR, … Cochrane MA (eds) (2004) Land change science: observing, monitoring and understanding trajectories of change on the earth’s surface, vol 6. Springer Science & Business Media. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-2562-4.pdf
  26. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Healey P (2007) Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Hersperger AM, Oliveira E, Pagliarin S, Palka G, Verburg P, Bolliger J, Grădinaru S (2018) Urban land-use change: the role of strategic spatial planning. Glob Environ Change 51:32–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jongman RHG (2005) Landscape ecology in land use planning. In Wiens JA, Moss MR (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, pp 316–328Google Scholar
  30. Lambin E, Geist H (eds) (2006) Land-use and land-cover change: local processes to global impacts. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindblom CE (1965) The intelligence of democracy: decision making through mutual adjustment. Free PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Martínez-Alier J, Muradian R (2015) (eds) Handbook of ecological economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471416
  33. Marull J, Cattaneo C, Gingrich S, de Molina MG, Guzmán GI, Watson A, MacFadyen J, Pons M, Tello E (2019) Comparative energy-landscape integrated analysis (ELIA) of past and present agroecosystems in North America and Europe from the 1830s to the 2010s. Agric Syst 175:46–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mathews F (1995) Community and the ecological self. Environ Polit 4(4):66–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGarigal K (2014) Landscape pattern metrics. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineGoogle Scholar
  36. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General technical report—US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, (PNW-GTR-351)Google Scholar
  37. Metternicht G (2018) Land use and spatial planning—enabling sustainable management of land resources. springer briefs in earth sciences. Springer Nature, Switzerland, 116 pGoogle Scholar
  38. Müller D, Munroe DK (2014) Current and future challenges in landuse science. J Land Use Sci 9(2):133–142.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423x.2014.883731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naess A (2005) What kind of democracy? The Trumpeter 21(2):10–15Google Scholar
  40. Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landsc Ecol 23:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Opdam P, Foppen R, Vos C (2001) Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 16(8):767–779Google Scholar
  42. Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion: An index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landsc Ecol 18(2):113–126Google Scholar
  43. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge. University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paulson S, Gezon LL, Watts M (2003) Locating the political in political ecology: an introduction. Human Organization 62:205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perez AC, Grafton B, Mohai P, Hardin R, Hintzen K, Orvis S (2015) Evolution of the environmental justice movement: activism, formalization and differentiation. Environ Res Lett 10(10).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/105002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Perreault T, Bridge G, McCarthy J (eds) (2015) The Routledge handbook of political ecology. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Plumwood V (1995) Has democracy failed ecology? An ecofeminist perspective. Environ Polit 4(4):134–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Popper K (2012) The open society and its enemies. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Robbins P (2011) Political ecology: a critical introduction, vol 16. WileyGoogle Scholar
  50. Rounsevell MDA, Pedroli B, Erb K, Gramberger M, Busck AG, Haberl H, … Wolfslehner B (2012) Challenges for land system science. Land Use Policy 29(4):899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sharifi A, Yamagata Y (2018) Resilience-oriented urban planning. In Sharifi A, Yamagata Y (eds) Resilience-oriented urban planning—theoretical and empirical insights. Springer, Cham, pp 3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor LE, Hurley PT (eds) (2016) A comparative political ecology of exurbia: planning, environmental management, and landscape change. Springer, pp 1–310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29462-9Google Scholar
  53. Tello E, Galán E, Sacristán V, Cunfer G, Guzmán GI, González de Molina M, Krausmann F, Gingrich S, Padró R, Marco I, Moreno-Delgado D (2016) Opening the black box of energy throughputs in farm systems: A decomposition analysis between the energy returns to external inputs, internal biomass reuses and total inputs consumed (the Vallès County, Catalonia, c.1860 and 1999). Ecol Econ 121:160–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P, van den Brink A (2007) Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 79(3–4):374–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner II BL (2009) Land change (systems) science. In: Castree N, Demeritt D, Liverman D, Rhoads B (eds) A companion to environmental geography. A companion to environmental geography, pp 1–588.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444305722Google Scholar
  56. Turner II BL, Robbins P (2008) Land-change science and political ecology: similarities, differences, and implications for sustainability science. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.022207.104943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turner II BL, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(52):20666–20671.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704119104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vayda AP, Walters BB (1999) Against political ecology. Human Ecol 27(1):167–179Google Scholar
  59. Verburg PH, Crossman N, Ellis EC, Heinimann A, Hostert P, Mertz O, Zhen L (2015) Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: a global land project perspective. Anthropocene 12:29–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2015.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walker PA (2005) Political ecology: where is the ecology? Prog Human Geo 29(1):73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wildavsky A (1966) The political economy of efficiency: cost-benefit analysis, systems analysis, and program budgeting. Pub Admin Rev 292–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITERAS - Research Centre for Sustainability and Territorial InnovationBariItaly

Personalised recommendations