Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-r7xzm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T07:56:16.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - The preoccupation of landscape research with land use and land cover

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2010

Marc Antrop
Affiliation:
Geography Department, Ghent University, B9000, Ghent, Belgium
Jianguo Wu
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Richard J. Hobbs
Affiliation:
Murdoch University, Western Australia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

For most people, their initial contact with the landscape is by the observation of landform and land cover. Human-perception analysis evaluates what is observed in a holistic way and interprets simultaneously according to the available knowledge. Landscape can be approached in multiple ways (Muir 1999, Cosgrove 2003, Claval 2005) and similar concepts have subtle differences in meaning. In common language and disciplines related to policy and planning, the concepts of land use and land cover are sometimes erroneously used as synonyms, while scientific communities use clearly distinct definitions (Baulies and Szejwach 1997). An important conceptual difference also exists between landscape and land (Zonneveld 1995, Antrop 2001, 2003, Olwig 2004). Land is more associated with territory, terrain, soil, and land value, which depend on its utility. The landscape is considered as a perceivable expression of the dynamic interaction between natural processes and human activities in an area (Council of Europe 2000). Although land use and land cover are essential components in the characterization of the landscape, the concept of landscape is broader and encompasses social, economic, and symbolic aspects as well. The increasing magnitude and pace of the changes in land use and land cover have become of worldwide concern in policy-making (Fresco et al., 1996), land management (Dale et al. 2000, Pontius et al. 2004), and modeling land-use changes (Veldkamp and Lambin 2001, Agarwal et al. 2002).

Type
Chapter
Information
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

Agarwal, C., Green, G. M., Grove, J. M., Evans, T. P., and Schweik, C. M.. 2002. A Review and Assessment of Land-Use Change Models: Dynamics of Space, Time, and Human Choice. General Technical Report NE-297. Newtown Square, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.Google Scholar
Akbari, H., Rose, L. Shea, and Taha, H.. 2003. Analyzing the land cover of an urban environment using high-resolution orthophotos. Landscape and Urban Planning 63, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Antrop, M. 2003. Continuity and change in landscapes. Pages 1–14 in Mander, U. and Antrop, M. (eds.). Multifunctional Landscapes Vol. 3: Continuity and Change. Southampton: WIT Press.Google Scholar
Bastian, O. 2001. Landscape ecology: towards a unified discipline?Landscape Ecology 16, 757–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baulies, X. and G. Szejach (eds.). 1997. LUCC Data Requirements Workshop. LUCC Report Series No.3, Barcelona: Institut Cartográfic de Catalunya.
Brandt, J. and H. Vejre. 2004. Multifunctional landscapes: motives, concepts and perceptions. Pages 3–32 in Brandt, J. and Vejre, H. (eds.). Multifunctional Landscapes: Theory, Values and History. Vol. I. Southampton: WIT Press.Google Scholar
Brin, S. and Page, L.. 1998. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks 30, 107–17.Google Scholar
Claval, P. 2005. Reading the rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosgrove, D. 2003. Landscape: ecology and semiosis. Pages 15–20 in Palang, H. and Fry, G. (eds.). Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. 2000. European Landscape Convention. Firenze (http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/Landscape/).
Dale, V. H., Brown, S., Haeuber, R. A., et al. 2000. Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological Applications 10, 639–70.Google Scholar
Forman, R. and Godron, M.. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Fresco, L., Leemans, R., II, B. L. Turner, et al. (eds.). 1996. Land Use and Cover Change (LUCC) Open Science Meeting Proceedings. LUCC Report Series No.1., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Fry, G. 2001. Multifunctional landscapes: towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57, 159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hägerstrand, T. 1995. A Look at the Political Geography of Environmental Management. Landscape and Life: Appropriate Scales for Sustainable Development, LASS Working Paper No.17. Dublin: University College Dublin.Google Scholar
Haines-Young, R. 2000. Sustainable development and sustainable landscapes: defining a new paradigm for landscape ecology. Fennia 178, 7–14.Google Scholar
Litkowski, K. C. 1999. Towards a meaning-full comparison of lexical resources. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics Special Interest Group on the Lexicon, June 21–22, College Park, Maryland (http://www.clres.com/Comparison_of_Lexical_Resources.html).
Miller, M. M. and B. P. Riechert. 1994. Identifying themes via concept mapping: a new method of content analysis. In Communication Theory and Methodology Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia (http://excellent.com.utk.edu/~mmmiller/pestmaps.txt).
Mücher, C. A., Bunce, R. G. H., Jongman, R. H. G., et al. 2003. Identification and Characterisation of Environments and Landscapes in Europe. Wageningen: Alterra-rapport 832.Google Scholar
Muir, R. 1999. Approaches to Landscape. London: MacMillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassauer, J. I. 1997. Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Olwig, K. R. 2004. “This is not a landscape”: circulating reference and land shaping. Pages 41–66 in Palang, H., Sooväli, H., Antrop, M., and Setten, S. (eds.). European Rural Landscapes: Persistence and Change in a Globalising Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opdam, P., Foppen, R., and Vos, C.. 2001. Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 16, 767–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontius, R. G., Shusas, E., and McEachern, M.. 2004. Detecting important categorical land changes while accounting for persistence. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 101, 251–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popping, R. 2000. Computer-Assisted Text Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridings, C. and M. Shishigin. 2002. PageRank Uncovered (http://www.texaswebdevelopers.com/docs/pagerank.pdf).
Steinitz, C. 2001. Landscape ecology and landscape planning: links and gaps and common dilemmas. Pages 48–50 in Mander, U., Printsmann, A., and Palang, H. (eds.). Development of European Landscapes. Tartu: Publicationes Instituti Geographici Universitatis Tartuensis.Google Scholar
Tress, B., Tress, G., and Fry, G.. 2003. Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Landscape Studies: Potential and Limitations. Wageningen: Delta Series 2.Google Scholar
Tress, B., Tress, G., and Fry, G.. 2005. Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 177–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veldkamp, A. and Lambin, E. F.. 2001. Predicting land-use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 85, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. D. (ed.). 2001. Applications of Computer Content Analysis. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, I. S. 1995. Land Ecology. Amsterdam: SPB Academic Publishing.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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
×