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-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:19:10.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Transferring ecological knowledge to landscape planning: a design method for robust corridors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2010

By
Claire C. Vos ,
Paul Opdam ,
Eveliene G. Steingröver  and
Rien Reijnen
Edited by
Jianguo Wu  and
Richard J. Hobbs
Claire C. Vos
Affiliation:
Department of Landscape Ecology, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Jianguo Wu
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Richard J. Hobbs
Affiliation:
Murdoch University, Western Australia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

There is still a big gap to cross between ecology and planning (Moss 2000, Opdam et al. 2002). This lack of integration is a problem in several ways. If a regional development plan projects a spatial pattern of ecosystems not sustaining the key ecological processes to serve the nature conservation objectives, it is by definition ecologically unsustainable. Moreover, for landscape ecology as an applied problem-solving science, its future and its justification (Moss 2000) is at stake, if landscape ecological knowledge is unable to provide a sound scientific basis for the planning of landscapes. In this chapter, we present an approach for the transfer of knowledge on population ecology to planning and design procedures. The method is based on two assumptions: regional stakeholders determine conservation targets as well as landscape design, and such decision-making is based on the principles of ecological sustainability. We developed this method in the context of the planning of robust corridors in the Netherlands.

Why should regional development plans be ecologically sustainable? Sustainable development is a widely accepted strategic framework in decision-making concerning land use now and in the future (IUCN 1992). It demands that landscape planning aims for “a condition of stability in physical and social systems, achieved by accommodating the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (WCED 1987, Ahern 2002).

Type
Chapter
Information
Key Topics in Landscape Ecology , pp. 227 - 245
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

Ahern, J. 1999. Spatial concepts: planning strategies and future scenarios: a framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning. Pages 175–201 in Klopatek, J. and Gardner, R. (eds.). Landscape Ecological Analysis. New York: Springer.CrossRef
Ahern, J. 2002. Greenways as Strategic Landscape Planning: Theory and Application. Ph.D. Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen.
Bal, D., H. M. Beije, M. Fellingern, et al. 2001. Handbook Nature Target Types. LNV Expertise Centre Report Number 2001/020, Wageningen.
Bal, D. and Reijnen, R.. 1997. Nature Policy Practice: Efforts, Effects, Expectations and Chances. Wageningen: Expertise Centrum LNV.Google Scholar
Beentjes, R. A. and Koopman, J. C. M.. 2000. Pulsing Veins: Giving an Impulse to the Realisation of Ecological Corridors in the Netherlands. Den Haag: Projectgroup Ecological Corridors.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. F. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom: The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Forest Conservation Programme.
Jensen, Bergen M., Persson, B., Guldager, S., Reeh, U., and Nilsson, K.. 2000. Green structure and sustainability – developing a tool for local planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 52, 117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekmeyer, M. and Steingrover, E. (eds.). 2001. Handbook of Robust Corridors and Ecological Prerequisites. Wageningen: Alterra.Google Scholar
Cabeza, M. and Moilanen, A.. 2001. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. TREE 16, 2–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Cox, J., Kautz, R., MacLaughlin, M., and Gilbert, T.. 1994. Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. Tallahassee: Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission.Google Scholar
Etienne, R. S., C. J. F. Ter Braak, and C. C. Vos. 2004. Application of stochastic patch occupancy models to real metapopulations. Pages 105–32 in Hanski, I. and Gaggiiotti, O. E. (eds.). Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution of Metapopulations. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Golly, F. B. and Bellot, J.. 1991. Interactions of landscape ecology, planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning 21, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines-Young, R. 2000. Sustainable development and sustainable landscapes: defining a new paradigm for landscape ecology. Fennia 178, 7–14.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. 1999. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87, 209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henkens, R. J. H. G. 1998. Ecological Capacity of Ecosystem Types I: The Effect of Outdoor Recreation on Breeding Birds. IBN-report 363. Wageningen: IBN.Google Scholar
Hill, D., Hockin, D., Price, D., et al. 1997. Bird disturbance: improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 275–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. 2002. Habitat networks and biological conservation. Pages 150–70 in Gutzwiller, K. J. (ed.). Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IUCN. 1992. The Rio Declaration on the Environment. Gland: IUCN, UNEP, WWF.
Jongman, R. H. G., Külvik, M., and Kristiansen, I.. 2003. European ecological networks and greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning 68, 305–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambeck, R. J. 1999. Landscape planning for biodiversity conservation in agricultural regions. In Biodiversity Technical Paper Number 2. Canberra: Environment Australia.Google Scholar
Lambeck, R. J. and R. J. Hobbs. 2002. Landscape and regional planning for conservation. Pages 360–80 in Gutzwiller, K. J. (ed.). Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linehan, J. R. and Gross, M.. 1998. Back to the future, back to basics: the social ecology of landscapes and the future of landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 42, 207–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luck, G. W., Daily, G. C., and Ehrlich, P.. 2003. Population diversity and ecosystem services. TREE 18, 3–3.Google Scholar
MANFS. 1990. Nature Policy Plan 1990. Den Haag: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety.
MANFS. 2001. Nature Policy Plan 2001: Nature for People, People for Nature. Den Haag: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety.
McDonnell, M.-D., Possingham, H. P., Ball, I. R., and Cousins, E. A.. 2002. Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environmental Modelling and Assessment 7, 107–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. G., Knight, R. L., and Miller, C. K.. 1998. Influence of recreational trials on breeding birds communities. Ecological Application 8, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, M. 2000. Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the “Transformation of Agricultural Landscapes”. Landscape Ecology 15, 303–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nature Policy Agency. 1999. Nature Balance 1999. Samsom H. D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aan den Rijn, RIVM.
Noss, R. F. and Cooperrider, A.. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press.Google Scholar
Opdam, P. 2002. Assessing the conservation potential of habitat networks. Pages 381–404 in Gutzwiller, K. J. (ed.). Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opdam, P., Foppen, F., and Vos, C. C.. 2002. Bridging the gap between empirical knowledge and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 16, 767–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opdam, P., Foppen, R., Reijnen, R., and Schotman, A.. 1995. The landscape ecological approach in bird conservation, integrating the metapopulation concept into spatial planning. Ibis 137, 139–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opdam, P., E. Steingröver, and S. van Rooij. 2005. Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning (in press).
Opdam, P., Verboom, J., and Pouwels, R.. 2003. Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 18, 113–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opdam, P. and Wascher, D.. 2004. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale level in research and conservation. Biological Conservation 117, 285–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ovaskainen, O. and I. Hanski. 2004. Metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes. Pages 73–104 in Hanski, I. and Gaggiiotti, O. E. (eds.). Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution of Metapopulations. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pelk, M., Heijkers, B., Ettiger, R., et al. 1999. Quality by Connectivity: Why, Where and How. Wageningen: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety.Google Scholar
Pouwels, R., M. J. S. M. Reijnen, J. T. R. Kalkhoven, and J. Dirksen. 2002. Ecoprofiles for Species Analysis of Spatial Cohesion with LARCH. Wageningen: Alterra. Alterra-Report 493.
Ray, N., Lehmann, A., and Joly, P.. 2002. Modelling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: a GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodiversity and Conservation 11, 2143–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reijnen, R. E., Grift, E., Veen, M., et al. 2000. The Road to Least Resistance: Priority List of to Be Removed Barriers. Wageningen: Alterra and Expertise Centrum LNV.Google Scholar
Ricketts, T. H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 158, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothley, K. 2002. Dynamically based criteria for the identification of optimal bioreserve networks. Environmental Modelling and Assessment 7, 1–2.Google Scholar
Steiner, F. 2000. The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, J. J., Levey, D. J., Haddad, N. M., et al. 2002. Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. PNAS 99, 12923–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theobald, D. M., Hobbs, N. T., Bearly, T., et al. 2000. Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision-making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landscape Ecology 5, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tress, B., G. Tress, A. Van der Valk, and G. Fry. 2003. Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Landscape Studies: Potentials and Limitations. Wageningen: Delta Series 2.
Verboom, J., Foppen, R., Chardon, P., Opdam, P., and Luttikhuizen, P.. 2001. Introducing the key-patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: an example for marshland birds. Biological Conservation 100, 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vos, C. C., H. Baceco, and C. J. Grashof-Bokdam. 2002. Corridors and species dispersal. Pages 84–104 in Gutzwiller, K. J. (ed.). Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vos, C. C., Opdam, P., and Pouwels, R.. 2003. Recreation and biodiversity: a landscape approach. Landschap 20, 3–14.Google Scholar
Vos, C. C., Verboom, J., Opdam, P. F. M., and Braak, C. J. F.. 2001. Towards ecologically scaled landscape indices. American Naturalist 157, 24–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WCED – World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wu, J. and Hobbs, R.. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17, 355–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalden, P. E. and Yalden, D. W.. 1990. Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers (Pluvialis apricarius). Biological Conservation 51, 243–62.CrossRefGoogle 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
×