Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landscape ecological science has produced knowledge about the relationship between landscape pattern and landscape processes, but it has been less effective in transferring this knowledge to society. We argue that design is a common ground for scientists and practitioners to bring scientific knowledge into decision making about landscape change, and we therefore propose that the pattern–process paradigm should be extended to include a third part: design. In this context, we define design as any intentional change of landscape pattern for the purpose of sustainably providing ecosystem services while recognizably meeting societal needs and respecting societal values. We see both the activity of design and the resulting design pattern as opportunities for science: as a research method and as topic of research. To place design within landscape ecology science, we develop an analytic framework based on the concept of knowledge innovation, and we apply the framework to two cases in which design has been used as part of science. In these cases, design elicited innovation in society and in science: the design concept was incorporated in societal action to improve landscape function, and it also initiated scientific questions about pattern–process relations. We conclude that landscape design created collaboratively by scientists and practitioners in many disciplines improves the impact of landscape science in society and enhances the saliency and legitimacy of landscape ecological scientific knowledge.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal A (2005) Environmentality: technologies of government and the making of subjects. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahern J (2006) Theories, methods and strategies for sustainable landscape planning. In: Tress B, Tress G, Fry G, Opdam P (eds) From landscape research to landscape planning. Aspects of integration, education and application. Springer, Dordrecht, NL, pp 119–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Amidon DM (1997) Innovation strategy for the knowledge economy: the ken awakening. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Azerrad JM, Nilon CH (2006) An evaluation of agency conservation guidelines to better address planning efforts by local government. Landsc Urban Plan 77:255–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bal D, Reijnen R (1997) Nature policy practice: efforts, effects, expectations and changes. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety, Ede, the Netherlands (in Dutch)

  • Bal D, Beije HM, Fellinger M, Haveman R, Van Opstal AJFM, Van Zadelhoff FJ (2001) Handbook nature target types. MANFS Expertise Centre Report number 2001/020, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety, Ede, the Netherlands

  • Broekmeyer M, Steingröver EG (eds) (2001) Handbook of robust corridor planning and design. Alterra, Wageningen, The Netherlands (in Dutch, http://www.ontwerpenmetnatuur.wur.nl)

  • Brody SD (2003) Implementing the principles of ecosystem management through local land use planning. Popul Environ 24:511–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Nat Acad Sci 100(14):8086–8091

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. PNAS 100:8059–8061

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doering OC, Nassauer JI, Kling CL, Scavia D (2007) Agricultural policy choices. In: Nassauer JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D (eds) From the Corn Belt to the Gulf: societal and environmental implications of alternative agricultural futures. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 185–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Dvir R, Pasher E (2004) Innovation engines for knowledge cities: an innovation ecology perspective. J Knowledge Manage 8:16–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabos JG, Ryan RL (2004) International Greenway planning: an introduction. Landsc Urban Plan 68:143–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry G, Tress B, Tress G (2007) Integrative landscape research: facts and challenges. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 246–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobster P, Nassauer J, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22:959–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golley FB (1987) Introducing landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 1(1):1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy P (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 23:217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ (2002) Habitat networks and biological conservation. In: Gutzwiller KJ (ed) Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 150–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Horlick-Jones T, Sime J (2004) Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity. Futures 36:441–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson SA (2005). The nexus: where science meets society. Science 310(5754):1634–1639

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BR, Campbell R (1999) Ecology and participation in landscape-based planning within the Pacific Northwest. Policy Stud J 27:502–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Grubler A, Huntley B, Jager J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B III, O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knight AT, Cowling RM, Campbell BM (2006) An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conserv Biol 20:408–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lammers GW, Zadelhoff FJ (1996) The Dutch national ecological network. In: Nowicki P, Bennett G, Middleton D, Rientjes S, Wolters R (eds) ECNC Publications series on man and nature (vol 1): perspectives on ecological networks. European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg Netherlands, pp 101–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J et al (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MANFS (1990) Nature Policy Plan 1990. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety, The Hague, The Netherlands. http://www.mnp.nl/mnc/i-en-1298.html

  • MANFS (2001) Nature Policy Plan 2001: nature for people, people for nature. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety, The Hague, The Netherlands. http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640408&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL)

  • Nassauer JI (1992) The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landsc Ecol 6:239–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (1997) Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. In: Nassauer JI (ed) Placing nature: culture in landscape ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 65–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 19:343–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Corry RC, Cruse RM (2002) The landscape in 2025: alternative landscape future scenarios as a means to consider agricultural policy. J Soil Water Conserv 57:44A–53A

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Corry RC, Dowdell JA (2007a). Farmers’ perceptions. In: Nassauer JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D (eds) From the Corn Belt to the Gulf: societal and environmental implications of alternative agricultural futures. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 67–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D (eds) (2007b). From the Corn Belt to the Gulf: societal and environmental implications of alternative agricultural futures. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 223

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H (2005) Science and society: high- and low-cost realities for science and society. Science 308:1117–1118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Blackwell, Malden MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P (2002) Assessing the conservation potential of habitat networks. In: Gutzwiller KJ (ed) Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 381–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Foppen R, Reijnen R, Schotman A (1995) The landscape ecological approach in bird conservation, integrating the metapopulation concept into spatial planning. Ibis 137:139–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landsc Ecol 18:113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Steingröver E, Van Rooij S (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:322–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M et al (2004a) Ecological science and sustainability for a crowded planet. Ecological Society of America, p 55

  • Palmer M, Bernhardt E, Chornesky E, Collins S, Dobson A, Duke C, Gold B, Jacobsen R, Klingsland S, Kranz R, Mappin M, Martinez ML, Michelli F, Morse J, Pace M, Pascual M, Palumbi S, Reichman OJ, Townsend A, Turner M (2004b) Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 304:1251–1252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pelk MLH, Van Etteger R, Bal D, Wieman E (1999) Quality by connectivity: why, where and how? Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety. The Hague, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast JR, Quinn RM, Lawton JH (1999) The gaps between theory and practice in selecting nature reserves. Conserv Biol 13:484–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullin AS, Knight TM, Stone DA, Charman K (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making?. Biol Conserv 119:245–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santelmann MV, White D, Freemark K, Nassauer JI, Danielson BJ (1997) Modeling effects of alternative landscape design and management on water quality and biodiversity in midwest agricultural watersheds, US-EPA STAR grants program (Water and Watersheds, grant #R-825335-01)

  • Santelmann MV et al (2004) Assessing alternative futures for agriculture in the U.S. Corn Belt Landsc Ecol 19:357–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scavia D, Nassauer JI, (2007) Policy insights from alternative futures and integrated assessments. In: Nassauer JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D (eds) From the Corn Belt to the Gulf: societal and environmental implications of alternative agricultural futures. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Termorshuizen J, Opdam P, Van den Brink A (2007) Incorporating ecological sustainability in landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 79:374–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theobald DM, Hobbs NT, Bearly T, Zack JA, Shenk T, Riebsame WE (2000) Incorporating biological information in local land use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landsc Ecol 15:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tress B, Tress G (2001). Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landsc Urban Plan 57(3–4): 143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Green Building Council (2007) Leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) for neighborhood development. Washington, DC

  • Verboom J, Foppen R, Chardon P, Opdam P, Luttikhuizen P (2001) Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: an example for marshland bird. Biol Conserv 100:89–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam P, ter Braak CJF (2001) Towards ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am Nat 157:24–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos C, Opdam P, Steingröver E, Reijnen R (2007) Transferring ecological knowledge to landscape planning: a design method for robust corridors. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 227–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landsc Ecol 17:355–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Hobbs R (2007) Landscape ecology: the state-of-the-science. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 271–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Zube E (1986) The advance of ecology. Landsc Architecture 76:58–67

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church St., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1041, USA

    Joan Iverson Nassauer

  2. Department of Land Use Planning & Alterra Landscape Center, Wageningen University Center, PO Box 46, Wageningen, 6700 AA, The Netherlands

    Paul Opdam

Authors
  1. Joan Iverson Nassauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Opdam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan Iverson Nassauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nassauer, J.I., Opdam, P. Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23, 633–644 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9226-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9226-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation