Landscape Ecology as a Scientific and Educational Tool for Teaching the Total Human Ecosystem

  • Zev Naveh
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 18)


The prerequisite for teaching the Total Human Ecosystem is the creation of a conceptual ecological framework with clear definition of man’s position in the organic world, based on the following principles:
  1. 1.

    The hierarchic organization of nature and the living world as open systems or “holons” with increasing complexity through emerging qualities with biocybernetic feedback controls for their self-regulation.

  2. 2.

    Ecosystems as the basic functional units of nature, integrating live-space with living units and driven by inputs of energy/material/information.

  3. 3.

    Distinction between “bio-ecosystems”, maintained by solar energy, autotrophic organisms and bio-physical information, and “techno-ecosystems”, man-made and maintained by fossil energy, artifacts, and cultural information.

  4. 4.

    The dichotomic position of modern man between the biosphere and the technosphere — as largest, global bio- and techno-ecosystems — and the need for their integration in the ecosphere within the Total Human Ecosystem, as the highest level and the landscape as its concrete, spatial ecosphere entities.


Landscape ecology, dealing with the interrelationship between the landscape and human society, can be used as a scientific and educational tool for teaching the Total Human Ecosystem with an inter- and transdisciplinary approach. In this the interdependence between physical, biological, socio-economical, psychological, historical, aesthetical and other cultural factors can be demonstrated and studied as real visual and functional entities of landscape units in the field and with visual aids also in the classroom and the cognitive and affective foundations for positive involvement in environmental conservation can be laid.


Landscape Ecology Environmental Education Teaching Tool Fossil Energy Landscape Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory. Brazilier, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Egler, F. E. 1942. Vegetation as an object of study. Philos. of Sci. 9: 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Egler, F. E. 1970. The Say of Science. A Philosophy of Ecology for the Layman. Hafner, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Ellenberg, H. 1973. Oekosystem Forschung. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  5. Eulenfeld, G. 1976. An ecological approach to restructuring school biology J. Biol. Educ. 10: 196–202.Google Scholar
  6. Jantsch, E.Design for Evolution. Self-Organization and Planning in the Life of Human Systems. Brazilier, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Koestler, A. 1969. Beyond atomisms and holism–the concept of the holon. In Koestler, A. and J. R. Smithies (eds.) Beyond Reductionism, New Perspectives in the Life Sciences. The Alpach Symposium 1968, pp. 192–233. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  8. Lorenz, K. 1973. Die Rueckseite des Spiegels. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte menschlichen Erkennens. Piper & Co., Muenchen.Google Scholar
  9. Mesarovic, M. and E. Pestel. 1974. Mankind at the Turning Point. The Second Report of the Club of Rome. Dutton, London.Google Scholar
  10. Naveh, Z. 1973. The neo-technological landscape degradation and its ecological restoration. In Barekette, E. D. (ed.) Pollution, Engineering and Scientific Solutions, pp. 168–181. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Naveh, Z. 1978. Landscape ecology as an emerging branch of human ecosystem science. Advances in Ecological Research. (In press)Google Scholar
  12. Nicholson, M. 1970. The Environmental Revolution. Hodder & Stoughton, London.Google Scholar
  13. Novak, J. D. 1977. A Theory of Education. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  14. Prigogine, I., G. Nicolis and A. Baloyantz. 1972. Thermodynamics of evolution. Phys. Today 25: 11–12Google Scholar
  15. Schaefer, B. and U. Kattmann. 1976. IPN unit bank biology–a new type of biology curriculum. J. Biol. Educ. 10: 242–248.Google Scholar
  16. Schultz, A. M. 1977. Interdisciplinarity in the context of environmental education. UNEP Report, Nov. 1977. Nairobi, Kenya. (mimeo. )Google Scholar
  17. Schultz, A. M. 1978. Environmental Education at Sde Boker. Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. (mimeo. )Google Scholar
  18. Vester, F. 1976. Urban Systems in Crisis. Understanding and Planning of Human Living Space: The Biocybernetic Approach. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  19. Vester, F. 1978. Our World an Interlaced Network System. Deutscher Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  20. Weiss, P. 1969. The living system: determinism stratified. In Koestler, A. and J. R. Smithies (eds.) Beyond Reductionism, pp. 3–55. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Young, G. L. 1974. Human ecology as an interdisciplinary concept: A critical inquiry. Adv. in Ecol. 4:1–103.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zev Naveh
    • 1
  1. 1.Technion — Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations