Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:08:00.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Integrative landscape research: facts and challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2010

By
Gary Fry ,
Bärbel Tress  and
Gunther Tress
Edited by
Jianguo Wu  and
Richard J. Hobbs
Gary Fry
Affiliation:
Institute of Landscape Planning, Agricultural University of Norway, N-1432 Aas, Norway
Jianguo Wu
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Richard J. Hobbs
Affiliation:
Murdoch University, Western Australia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

There are many tensions in landscape management at spatial scales from individual fields to regions and upwards to global environmental change (Dalgaard et al. 2003). Farmers are under increasing pressure to produce nonfood products including recreational opportunities, attractive landscapes, and habitats for wildlife. The many different forms of agri-environmental payment schemes are witness to these pressures. In urban landscapes we see a new emphasis on urban green space, urban green structures, and greenways fulfilling multiple goals (Fábos 2004, Gobster and Westphal 2004).

One of the trends in the funding of landscape research over the last 20 years has been the rapid growth of large-scale integrative projects (Höll and Nilsson 1999, Tress et al. 2005a). This trend must be seen against the background of environmental concerns that have placed greater demands on the way landscapes are managed and the widening range of objectives they should fulfil. This has fuelled the demand for new research tools to address these problems. Since the problems are complex and span several disciplines, it was natural to consider integrative forms of research as the way forward (Balsiger 2004). In this chapter, we explore several of the major concepts associated with integrative research modes, what funding bodies and researchers expect from such research, and what is being delivered. We discuss the organisational barriers to integration, merit system, and ways to improve the theory base. Finally, we present education and training needs for integrative research and recommend measures to enhance integrative landscape research.

Type
Chapter
Information
Key Topics in Landscape Ecology , pp. 246 - 268
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antrop, M. 2001. The language of landscape ecologists and planners: a comparative content analysis of concepts used in landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 55, 163–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balsiger, P. W. 2004. Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale. Futures 36, 407–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastian, O. 2002. Landscape ecology: towards a unified discipline?Landscape Ecology 16, 757–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, J. 2000. Editorial: the landscape of landscape ecologists. Landscape Ecology 15, 1–8.Google Scholar
Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N. J., and Porter, J. R.. 2003. Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 100, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Décamps, H. 2000. Demanding more of landscape research (and researchers). Landscape and Urban Planning 47, 105–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defila, R. and A. Di Giulio. 1998. Interdisziplinarität und Disziplinarität. Pages 111–37 in Olbertz, J. H. (ed.). Zwischen den Fächern – über den Dingen?Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dover, J. 2000. Human, environmental and wildlife aspects of corridors with specific reference to UK planning practice. Landscape Research 25, 333–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dramstad, W. E., Fry, G., Fjellstad, W. J., et al. 2001. Integrating landscape-based values. Landscape and Urban Planning 57, 257–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewel, K. C. 2001. Natural resource management: the need for interdisciplinary collaboration. Ecosystems 4, 716–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fábos, J. G. 2004. Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning 68, 321–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. 1998. The Meaning of Everything. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Fjellstad, W. J., Dramstad, W. E., Strand, G.-H., and Fry, G. L. A.. 2001. Heterogeneity as a measure of spatial pattern for monitoring agricultural landscapes. Norwegian Journal of Geography 55, 71–6.Google Scholar
Fry, G., Skar, B., Jerpåsen, G. B., V. Bakkestuen, , and L. Erilestad. 2004. Predicting archaeological sites: a method based on landscape indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning 67, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, G. L. A. 1991. Conservation in agricultural ecosystems. Pages 415–43 in Spellerberg, I. F., Goldsmith, F. B., and Morris, M. G. (eds.). The Scientific Management of Temperate Communities for Nature Conservation. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fry, G. L. A. 2001. Multifunctional landscapes: towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57, 159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, G. L. A. 2003. From objects to landscapes in natural and cultural heritage management: a role for landscape interfaces. Pages 237–53 in Palang, H. and Fry, G. (eds.). Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., et al. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Gobster, P. H. and Westphal, L. M.. 2004. The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning 68, 147–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, R. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 37, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höll, A. and Nilsson, K.. 1999. Cultural landscape as subject to national research programmes in Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning 46, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, C. H., Hels, T., and McLaughlin, W. J.. 2004. Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analysis: a cross country comparison. Forest Policy and Economics 6, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinzig, A. P. 2001. Bridging disciplinary divides to address environmental and intellectual challenges. Ecosystems 4, 709–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, J. T. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, J. T. 2004. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 36, 515–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klijn, J. and Vos, W., (eds.). 2000. From Landscape Ecology to Landscape Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lattuca, L. R. 2001. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among College and University Faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
, Leitão A. B. and Ahern, J.. 2002. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 59, 65–93.Google Scholar
Mander, Ü., Palang, H., and Ihse, M.. 2004. Editorial: development of European landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 67, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, M. 2000. Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the “Transformation of Agricultural Landscapes.” Landscape Ecology 15, 303–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassauer, J. I. 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10, 229–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naveh, Z. 2001. Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57, 269–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naveh, Z. and Lieberman, A.. 1994. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application. 2nd edn. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H.. 1995. The Knowledge-creating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olff, H. and Richie, M. E.. 2002. Fragmented nature: consequences for biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 58, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palang, H., Mander, Ü., and Naveh, Z.. 2000. Holistic landscape ecology in action. Landscape and Urban Planning 50, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarlöv-Herlin, I. and Fry, G.. 2000. Dispersal of woody plants in forest edges and hedgerows in a Southern Swedish agricultural area: the role of site and landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 15, 229–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C. and Fry, G. L. A.. 2001. The influence of landscape grain size on butterfly diversity in grasslands. Journal of Insect Conservation 5, 163–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smoliner, C., R. Häberli, and M. Welti. 2001. Mainstreaming transdisciplinarity: a research-political campaign. Pages 263–71 in Klein, J. T., Grossenbacher-Mansu, W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R. W., and Welti, M. (eds.). Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. Basel: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaapen, J. B. and Wamelink, F. J. M.. 1999. The Evaluation of University Research: A Method for the Incorporation of Societal Value of Research. The Hague: NRLO-report 99/12.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., and Merriam, G.. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68, 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tress, B. and G. Tress. 2002. Disciplinary and meta-disciplinary approaches in landscape ecology. Pages 25–37 in Bastian, O. and Steinhardt, U. (eds.). Development and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tress, B., Tress, G., Décamps, H., and d'Hauteserre, A.. 2001. Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57, 137–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tress, B., Tress, G., and Fry, G.. 2005a. Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 177–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tress, G., Tress, B., and Fry, G.. 2005b. Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 20, 479–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tress, B., Tress, G., Valk, A., and Fry, G. (eds.). 2003a. Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Landscape Studies: Potential and Limitations. Wageningen: Delta Series 2.Google Scholar
Tress, G., B. Tress, and G. Fry. 2003b. Knowledge creation and reflection in integrative and participatory projects. Pages 14–24 in Tress, G., Tress, B., and Bloemmen, M. (eds.). From Tacit to Explicit Knowledge in Integrative and Participatory Research. Wageningen: Delta Series 3.Google Scholar
Asselt, M. B. A. and Rijkens-Klomp, N.. 2002. A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change 12, 167–84.Google Scholar
Winder, N. 2003. Successes and problems when conducting interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary (= integrative) research. Pages 74–90 in Tress, B., Tress, G., Valk, A. V.d., and Fry, G. (eds.). Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Landscape Studies: Potential and Limitations. Wageningen: Delta Series 2.Google Scholar
Wu, J. and Hobbs, R.. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17, 355–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonnenveld, I. S. 1995. Land Ecology: An Introduction to Landscape Ecology as a Base for Land Evaluation, Land Management and Conservation. Amsterdam: SPB.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×