Received: 30.08.07 Received in revision: 03.12.07 Accepted: 01.04.08 Published: 17.08.

2008

I. Ferrari & A. Ferrarini

From Ecosystem to Landscape Ecology: a Progression Calling
for a Well-founded Research and Appropriate Disillusions
Landscape Online 6, 1-12 . DOI:10.3097/LO.200806

From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology:

a Progression Calling for a Well-founded Research
and Appropriate Disillusions
Ireneo Ferrari 1* & Alessandro Ferrarini 2
1
University of Parma (Italy), Department of Environmental Sciences, Parco Area delle Scienze 11/a; 43100
Parma; +39 (0)521 905609, +39 (0)521 905402, [email protected]
2
Via Giuseppe Saragat 4; 43100 Parma (Italy); +39 (0)347 8995713, [email protected]
* Corresponding author

Abstract

I n this paper, 1) a delineation of main theoretical, methodological and applicative issues of landscape ecology,
2) a comparison between landscape and ecosystem ecology, 3) a critical overview of actual limits of landscape
ecology, are depicted. We conclude that: a) from a theoretical viewpoint, ecosystem and landscape ecology differ
since they deal with ecological topics having very different spatial and temporal scales, b) from a practical stand-
point, they deal with dissimilar purposes emerging both from unlike research scales and different approaches, as
the interest of landscape ecology is mainly focused on the whole ecological mosaic rather than on single compo-
nents, in this view assuming an “horizontal” ecological perspective, c) transdisciplinarity is still a work in progress
in landscape ecology, d) several research purposes in landscape ecology are far from being reached, e) a bridge
lacks between the “horizontal” perspective adopted from landscape ecology and the “vertical” approach distincti-
ve of ecosystem ecology, therefore, they actually behave as detached disciplines. However, in our vision, landscape
ecology contains the seeds for becoming a self-contained scientific discipline as well as the interface among the
distinct sectors of environmental research and planning.

Keywords:
Landscape Ecology, Ecosystem Ecology, Issues In Progress, Research Challenges

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 1

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008
The spread of the scientific research aiming at a) con-
serving environmental integrity, b) analyzing various
1 Introduction types of impact on biodiversity, c) restoring degraded
areas, d) applying and validating methods and models
for protective environmental management, has inevi-
1.1 Motivation tably transcended the level of ecosystem research, and
large-scale studies on population biology and ecology
After a descendent phase, coinciding with the exponen- have been deeply developed with important results and,
tial growth of the research in population and commu- above all, extensive investigations at the landscape scale
nity ecology, the ecosystem approach has acquired new were experimented with positive outcomes (Roy et al.
vigor. Various research lines contributed to this trend, 2000, Zurlini et al. 2004). In this view, the ideas pro-
stimulated by the diffusion of a more vital attention to moted by Holling (Holling et al. 1998, Holling 1998)
the goals of the protection and conservation of natural on the need for an integrated science of the conserva-
resources and, at the same time, by the growth of an tion in support of a sustainable development appear to
urgent need to better define criteria and methods, in- have been successful.
dicators and procedures for an environmental planning
inspired by principles and objectives of sustainability. 1.2 Goals of the paper
One might think of the raise of adaptive management
experiments linked to the promotion of long-range Many recent experiments concerning the interaction
monitoring programs (Norton & Steinemann 2001, between ecologists of different extraction (e.g., geogra-
Gregory et al. 2006) or of the success of Costanza’s phers, city planners, landscape architects) evoked new
ideas on evaluating, in monetary terms, the natural ca- and stimulating questions, and helped define landscape
pital that ecosystem functions and services represent ecology as an emergent approach for dealing with in-
(Costanza et al. 1997, Farber et al. 2002). tegrated large-scale ecological processes (Antrop 1998,
Leitao & Ahern 2002). In this view, the evidence for a
On the other hand, the reappearance of ecosystem renewed vigor of ecosystem research and the conco-
ecology as pivotal discipline in environmental analysis mitant diffusion of awareness about limits and delays
revealed non-marginal elements of fragility concerning still afflicting it led us to reason about the actual con-
both the theoretical basis and the practical value of sistency of the shift of theoretical and methodological
this approach. The progress of the scientific research, suggestions from the ecosystem scale to the landscape
which in last decades has been consistent and signifi- level.
cant in Italy as well, brought to our attention serious
knowledge gaps within areas of primary interest (e.g., In particular, we seek to answer three questions:
population and community dynamics, functions linked
to the microbial loop, key mechanisms for regulating 1) is there a bridge between ecosystem and
cycles of material, relationships between functions of landscape ecology, or they should be considered deta-
the ecosystem and biodiversity), revealing the subs- ched, even if complementary, disciplines?;
tantial inadequacy of models that, for a long time, ap-
peared promising also for their transfer to applications. 2) is landscape ecology actually answering the
The reluctance of aquatic communities to adhere to need for an effective scientific transdisciplinarity in
the assumptions of the trophic cascade theory and to ecology?;
the results expected from top-down bio-manipulation
practices may be remarked as a pivotal example (Gli- 3) can landscape ecology drive the challenging
wicz 2005). Some authors (Belovsky et al. 2004) wrote process of intermixing the different sectors of envi-
about the transience of the theoretical constructions ronmental research?
of ecology and the occurrence of fashions which, from
time to time, attract ecologists.

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 2

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

The meaning of contemporaneous holistic landscape

2 From ecosystem to landscape ecology ecology can be fully perceived only in the broader con-
text of the post-modern scientific revolution (Kuhn,
1970). This revolution started when new conceptual
Landscape as a scientific subject, conceptualized by Carl schemes replaced those of well-established paradigms
Troll (Schreiber 1990), is a particular level of organiza- of the conventional science. Such a conceptual change
tion in the hierarchy of life, i.e. a mosaic of ecosystems replaced the blind trust on entirely linear and determi-
(or ecotopes) sensu Forman & Godron (1986). When nistic processes with non-linear, cybernetic and chaotic
enlarging the view from one ecosytem to a mosaic of driving forces. In the holistic perspective we can expect
ecosystems, various topics emerge (Forman & Godron that by putting the elemental parts of complex phe-
1986, Forman 1995) : nomena together conceptually or experimentally, the
whole both with its complex functions and structures
a) a global ecological perspective replaces a will emerge (Mandelbrot 1982).
more local one; the “inside-outside” metaphor shared
by ecosystem ecology is substituted by the contextu- Landscape ecology is also closely related to hierarchy
al view proposed by landscape ecology; no internal theory (Allen & Starr 1982) whose basic paradigm is
or external environments really exist, but a mosaic of the hierarchical organization of nature with multi-
systems separated by structural boundaries where the leveled stratified open systems, ranging from sub-ato-
outside of a system is the inside of another; mic entities as the smallest natural entities, to universe
as the largest. In this hierarchical organization, each
b) man and anthropogenic areas become an es- higher level acquires new emerging properties and it is
sential and endogenous constituent of the research area therefore more complex than lower subsystems. Mo-
rather than external agents as they are usually handled reover, higher levels are functionally and spatially more
in ecosystem ecology; towns, industrial areas, quarries constant over time and thereby they also serves as the
and so forth are conceived as “human ecosystems” context for lower levels. In addition, the functioning of
and they are studied through the same methdological each system is given by its lower sub-system, while the
and conceptual instruments as natural or semi-natural purpose is given by its super-systems.
ones;
Transdisciplinarity is another prerequisite in lands-
c) the functioning of the whole system (land- cape ecology (Musacchio et al. 2005). In fact, when
scape) becomes predominat with respect to its com- facing the increasing complexity of environmental to-
ponents (ecosystems); how individual ecosystems work pics, landscape researchers have to venture frequently
is not of primary importance as their functioning is into other fields, even if for limited periods of time,
mainly determined by the surroundings; thus implying a ‘‘come-and-go’’ between disciplinary
and transdisciplinary approaches. The previous para-
d) landscape is revealed as a complex system in digms (holism, hierarchic teory and transdisciplinarity)
which heterogeneity, non-linearity and contingency are were first proposed during the 1960s (Buckley 1967,
the norm. Emergent properties, phase transitions, and Klin 1969, Steiss 1967), but they were then neglected
threshold behavior characterise the landscapes since throughout the successive 2 decades, at least from a
they are the outcomes of nonlinear dynamics of spati- methodological and applicative point of view. Lands-
ally heterogeneous ecosystems. cape ecology first retrieved these conceptual schemes
during the 1980s (Forman & Godron 1986) and tried
As discussed below, these topics involved new theore- to implement them into methodological tools and ope-
tical and methodological paradigms when compared to rative models.
those inherent in ecosystem ecology.

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 3

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

Does landscape ecology actually serve these paradigms involves areas from hundreds to hundred thousands of
in a competent manner? If so, can landscape ecology hectares. Sometimes these areas correspond to admi-
be considered a detached, despite complementary, dis- nistrative limits (e.g. provinces, regions, seldom muni-
cipline with respect to ecosystem ecology, or does a cipalities), more often they match natural boundaries
bridge exist between these disciplines? To answer the- such as a single watershed or groups of watersheds.
se questions, a brief and comparative overview of the These extents represent land mosaics with hundreds or
theoretical, methodological and applicative aspects of thousands of ecosystems and the focus is mainly on the
landscape and ecosystem ecology is required. mosaic rather than on single ecosystems. As the spatial
window is so wide, the spatial resolving unit is logically
From a theoretical viewpoint, ecosystem and lands- inversely correlated, being 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 sca-
cape ecology can be compared along time and space les the most common resolutions in landscape ecology.
dimensions (Fig. 1). Undoubtedly they deal with dif- On the contrary, ecosystem ecology privileges micro-
ferent spatial extents, as landscape ecology generally (1:1,000) and meso- (1:10,000) scales.

Figure 1: Schematic comparison between ecosystem and landscape ecology along time and space dimensions.

Temporal scales are different too. Landscape ecology remote information, such as satellite images. Statistics
privileges wide temporal extents (years or decades) with is common in both disciplines, but ecosystem ecology
coarse resolution, as the focus is on processes having privileges univariate methods, while landscape ecology
broad wavelengths. In fact, according to the hierarchy favours multivariate ones. This discrepancy is based on
theory, higher levels of life organisation bear a lower the fact that the landscape ecologist attempts to ob-
frequency behavior. serve very large areas where environmental processes
are due to multiple factors that act simultaneously and
From a methodological point of view, ecosystem and interactively. His interest is not focused on testing in-
landscape ecology actually show both similarities and ferential hypotheses, but mainly on building overall de-
divergences (Fig. 2). Both disciplines use GIS widely, scriptive models of the landscape functioning. The use
while remote sensing is much more common in land- of spatial statistics (geo-statistics) is also different: in
scape ecology as it gives a synoptic view of large are- ecosystem ecology geo-statistics is frequently used to
as of landscape where ecologists rarely visit. Ground analyze point and linear (transect) data coming from
truth is thus an essential divergence between ecosystem samplings of the study area; on the contrary, landscape
and landscape ecology, since the former is usually based ecology privileges areal statistics, such as moving win-
on in situ surveys while the latter makes heavy use of dow analysis or landcover pattern analysis (e.g. Olsen

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 4

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

Figure 2: Schematic comparison between ecosystem and landscape ecology with respect to methodological issu-
es.

et al. 2007). Decision making is common in both dis- ble about its scope. The European tradition of lands-
ciplines but, as for statistics, the current use is rather cape ecology often emphasizes the role of humans and
different: the ecosystem ecologist is more interested in their activities, being aligned closely with land plan-
the best scenario assessment, while the landscape eco- ning: its focus is mainly anthropocentric (Opdam et al.
logist is usually concerned in best allocation estimation 2002). However, landscape ecology also encompasses
(e.g. Geneletti & van Duren 2008). From an operative the causes and consequences of spatial pattern at vari-
standpoint, the topics faced by landscape ecology du- able resolution scales as determined by the organisms
ring last ten years are various (Tab. 1). or processes of interest, thus reflecting the traditions
in North America and Australia (Turner 2005). The
Some of these topics seem distinctive of landscape eco- two approaches are both contrasting and complemen-
logy, such as landscape multiscalar (Riitters et al. 2000; tary (Wu & Hobbs 2002). The North American school
Zurlini et al. 2006) and structure (Gustafson 1998, undoubtedly pays more attention to quantitative and
Bartel 2000) assessment, landscape planning (Leitao & methodological topics, while the European approach is
Ahern 2002, Lenz et al. 2006), land use change (Cou- more qualitative, rarely relying on complex algorithms
sins 2001, Hietel et al. 2004) and forecasting (Lopez et for the analysis, modelling and simulation of the land-
al. 2001, Sui &Zeng 2001). Other issues such as ecolo- scape. As a consequence, the European school focuses
gical flows (Adriaensen et al. 2003, Morales et al. 2005), on arguments that are “softer” from a methodological
scenic perception (Parsons & Daniel 2002, Palmer, viewpoint, such as the assessment of the visual quality
2004), human impacts assessment (Saunders & Briggs of landscape and its psychological effects on people
2002, Sukopp, 2004), decision making (Phua & Minowa (Krause 2001, Lange 2001, Arriaza et al. 2004).
2005; Svoray et al. 2005) and species suitability (Miller
et al. 1997, Riitters et al. 1997) appear to be the same We repute that the primary difference between ecosys-
as for ecosystem ecology, even if applied to a different tem and landscape ecology is the contrasting approach:
hierarchic level. landscape ecology applicative interest is almost entirely
focused on the mosaic of ecosystems rather than on
Nonetheless, when describing the characteristics of single components, in this view assuming a “horizon-
landscape ecology, it should be noted that landscape tal” ecological perspective. Single components of the
ecology has developed two distinct approaches that, landscape are virtually viewed as a part of the whole
although not mutually exclusive, have led to some jum- mosaic, thus no interest is given to them individually. In

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 5

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

Table 1: A list of the most common arguments faced by landscape ecology during last ten years. For each
subject, two significative references are accounted.

this view, the holistic approach is actually met in land- ones, must be based on specific and precise disciplina-
scape ecology. On the other hand, ecosystem ecology ry skills. Our feeling is that this risk is actually present
assumes a more “vertical” viewpoint, since spatial and in landscape ecology but it is not overwhelming, since
temporal boundaries are narrow and the “research vo- holism’s limitations are well-known from many years
lume” is mainly given by the deep knowledge of single to the scientific community. Rather than a trivial use of
ecosystems. different scientific spheres, we observe that the actual
risk of holism in landscape ecology is the moment in
which these disciplines become integrated to determi-
ne the final outcomes about, for instance, landscape
planning. We repute that the convergence point is the
3 Landscape ecology: weak ring of the scientific chain claimed by holism,
since individual disciplines follow their own paths up
limits and disillusions to the moment in which they are integrated, thus ris-
king a collision instead of a compounding. In this view,
multidisciplinarity seems to be the rule in landscape
Holism in landscape ecology is undoubtedly observed. ecology rather than transdisciplinarity.
Many works show the integration of environmental,
social and economic spheres over larges study areas In effect, we think that transdisciplinarity is still a work
(e.g. Ferrarini et al. 2001, Wiggering et al. 2006). A risk in progress in landscape ecology (Bastian 2001). Many
we perceive in these studies is that the horizontal per- papers show a considerable degree of multidisciplina-
spective (i.e. different scientific and disciplinary points rity but an effective transdisciplinarity is often lacking,
of view) may become overloaded with respect to the since transdisciplinary research requires both cross-dis-
vertical perspective (i.e. the use of a deeply-probed ciplinary interactions and participation from non-aca-
single discipline of investigation). Holism cannot be demic stakeholders and governmental agencies bearing
the disposition to know a little about many disciplines, a common goal. It might not be easy to overcome the
moreover developing activities at interdisciplinary in- strict conditioning of the implicit infrastructure of the
terfaces, such as linking the hard sciences to the social modern discipline-oriented academic thought that led

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 6

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

to the fragmentation of science and to a fundamental nonlinear dynamics into landscape modelling. Very
collapse of communications between areas which are common models based on multivariate statistics suf-
considered to be reciprocally irrelevant. fers a deficiency of realism as they are nearly linear, not
interactive (predictor variables act independently) and
Furthermore, it is also necessary to get a clear idea of the monotonic (predictor variables always act in the same
disciplinary boundaries and a more unpretentious view direction). Instead, the integration of nonlinear model-
of one‘s own disciplinary expertise. The acceptance of ling (neural networks, cellular automata, system-based
these scientific developments may also be hampered in modelling, if-then-else methods, multi-agent systems,
landscape ecology by the tendency of many scientists individual-based models) should be the rule and not
to rigidly adhere to a familiar idea of “inner order“. the exception (Lek et al. 1996, Lek & Guegan 1999).
This is especially true for those paradigms arised in a Finally, we stress the need for a sufficiently developed
narrow-minded reductionistic, mechanistic and positi- theory on how to optimize the landscape pattern. If
vistic perception of science, ignoring the broader cul- landscape pattern influence landscape processes, how
tural, psychological and socio-economic issues which can we optimize the landscape pattern to regulate (i.e.,
landscape ecology comprehends. For these reasons, turn on, turn off, increase, decrease) processes we are
scientists still retreat to the familiarity of their own dis- interested in? Or, how can we force landscape proces-
ciplines when faced with problems of extreme com- ses in order to regulate landscape structure? Which are
plexity, thus making transdisciplinarity very infrequent the bottlenecks we can control to drive landscape ?
(Allen et al. 1992).
Concerning previous reflections, our feeling is that
Moreover, several other issues in landscape ecology landscape ecology has mainly developed its basic con-
seem far from being reached. One of these limitations ceptual references using the descriptive models of ho-
has to do with the pivotal aspect of the structure- listic ecology of the 1960’s and 1970’s, without con-
functions relationship, i.e. the ecological flows (energy, sidering their limited heuristic relevance, and perhaps
material, information, organisms) through landscape strengthening a tendency to adopt ideologically even
mosaic. How does landscape pattern influence popu- the most recent innovative contributions (e.g., evalu-
lations movements or exotic species intrusions? How ating ecosystem health and integrity, assessing natural
do changes (e.g. land cover transitions) at a particular capital value, testing sensitivity and vulnerability indi-
point propagate along the landscape? How long does cators on large scale). In its turn, landscape ecology
a barrier to species movement persist as a constraint transferred many crucial concepts (e.g., fragmentation
before becoming just a friction cost? and connectivity, networks and corridors) to a wide pu-
blic, helping to enrich the glossary currently used by
Another limit deals with proper landscape indicators environmental and landscape planners, who however
relating to ecological processes (Müller & Lenz 2006). rarely are notable for the consistent application of the
The underlying hypothesis that processes can be infer- ecological knowledge.
red by structural patterns needs to be critically exami-
ned and better documented and the inherent mecha- Passing from ecosystem to landscape ecology, a pro-
nisms understood (Tischendorf 2001, Li et al. 2004). gressive lessening of the interest for the rigor of cru-
How much does a landscape need to change before cial findings can be observed. The unpredictability of
a metric can detect such change? How to determine the assumptions about the ecosystem extends to the
whether or not changes in landscape indicators are sta- higher levels, thus causing an even more obvious ef-
tistically and ecologically significant? Which metrics are fect of imprecision and approximation. The result is
most sensitive to human disturbance? upsetting, above all with regard to semantic aspects.
The abused and abusive use of theories, methods and
A third problem we repute very far from a satisfying expressions taken from basic ecology, such as “ecolo-
conclusion in landscape ecology is the integration of gical functions and related services” or “environmental

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 7

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

quality and related indicators”, reminds us of Panta- We perceive some encouraging signals, such as
gruel on the island of the ice words which provoke a
frightful confusion when melting. In addition, lands- a) the significant experiments developed to
cape ecology actually suffers a series of drawbacks that link naturalists’ experiences with those traditionally ex-
are diffused within ecology in general. An article by pressed by urban planners and landscape architects;
Belovsky et al. (2004) contains a series of appeals to
ecologists in order to stimulate them to overcome de- b) the gradual maturing of a new generation of
fects and mistakes that strongly limit the effectiveness administrators having a more vital scientific and cultu-
of their research. ral sensitivity;

The authors consider the integration between empirical c) the activities of several environmental asso-
and theoretical ecology and between natural history and ciations, non-governmental organizations among them,
experimentation to be inadequate; they complain of marked by a substantial scientific awareness.

We also refer to the spontaneous aligning dynamics

a) the persistence of useless conflicts between that follow the strategic indications and requisites in-
modelers of equilibrium and those of non-equilibri- volved by the latest EU directives regarding environ-
um; mental protection. The initiatives of scientific societies
outside universities give a healthy boost to these dyna-
b) the lack of precision in gathering data aimed mics and help contrast the inertia and inconsistencies
at creating long-term series; still widely diffused in the world of academic research.
These positive signals are too weak however with res-
c) the dependence of research on the availabili- pect to the opposition coming from many areas of civil
ty of advanced technologies and methodologies made society and from the worlds of business, politics and
massive and pervasive by the scientific market when information. A strong commitment (e.g., governments,
collecting and statistically processing ecological data; public and business institutions) is required to support
finally, qualified environmental research projects; moreover a
coherent effort is needed for reorganizing the formati-
d) they point out the tendency of many resear- ve system (first of all, the academic system) to provide
chers to follow recent fashions dedicating little atten- incentives for transdisciplinary experiments on which
tion to the literature of the past, an attitude that is basing the preparation of a new generation of experts
favored by the mercantile drift of the publishers of in environmental and landscape analysis and manage-
international journals. ment (Wu 2006).

A few words about the feasibility of a “cross-disci- Linked to these issues, there should be a process of
plinary language” to improve communication within improvement of activities regarding environmental
the ecological community are of absolute priority education and communication, as well as the experi-
here (Buchecker et al. 2003). There is in fact an urgent menting of ways of public participation open to solid
need for developing landscape ecological principles knowledge and real competence about pivotal environ-
and pragmatic guidelines for applications in resource mental questions. Maybe these observations betray a
management, land use planning, and biodiversity con- disenchanted mental habit, but the dramatic size and
servation (Antrop 2001). Landscape ecology should complexity of problems about health and quality of
be an integrative science in which basic research our environments should led us to radically changed
and applications are fully merged. Such an integra- approaches in order to overcome “élite” attitudes. We
tion should be mutual, i.e. research directs practical should “disarrange ourselves”, sensu Bateson (Bateson
applications and applications feed back to research. 1979, Manghi 2004), rethinking new possibilities for

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 8

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

improving the “triangle model” based on the hypothe- research and planning. In this view, this paper was in-
sis of a geometry of skilled retroactions among educa- tended to be a sincere contribution to the construc-
tion, research and environmental decision-making, as tion of a “cross-disciplinary language”, an objective
proposed by the American Society of Ecology (Lub- that presumes the disposition to venture into paths of
chenco et al. 1991) before the Summit at Rio in 1992. auto-critical evaluation by the researchers of other dis-
ciplines as well.

4 Conclusions
Acknowledgments

The idea of ecology as a sovereign science that synthe- Anonymous reviewers helped us improve the ma-
sizes the knowledge provided by many specialized dis- nuscript. We thank them all.
ciplines is over. Ecology cannot make it on its own, nor
can an improbable coalition of hundreds of ecologists
involved in autonomous disciplines. The opportuni-
ties for contaminating ecology with the learning co-
ming from human and social sciences and from tech- References
nological innovations should be fostered. Ecologists
should occupy the spaces at the interface with other
fields of knowledge and research, disassembling those Adriaensen, F.; Chardon, J.P.; De Blust, G.; Swinnen, E.;
mechanisms of closure of the disciplinary boundari- Villalba, S.; Gulinck, H. & E. Matthysen 2003. The
es on which the ordinary functioning of our academic application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional
system thrives. This effort will not be easy for sure, landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning
but it appears increasingly indispensable. The challenge 64, 233-247. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6
for a potential future of environmental sustainability
involves deep innovations in approaches and methods, Allen, T.F.H. & T.W. Hoekstra 1992. Toward a Unified
in the cultural predisposition and in the professional Ecology. Columbia University Press, New York.
skills; it calls for the mental skill of understanding, ana-
lyzing and foreseeing by interweaving and integrating Allen, T.F.H. & T. B. Starr 1982. Hierarchy, perspecti-
an extremely wide range of competences. It is clear ve for ecological complexity. University of Chicago
that not only ecologists and naturalists, but also experts Press, Chicago.
belonging to the most solid professional tradition in va-
rious sectors of environmental research and planning, Antrop, M. 1998. Landscape change: plan or cha-
should cooperate in this skilled integration process. os? Landscape and Urban Planning 41, 155-161.
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00068-1
The role of landscape ecology could be overriding in
this operation, because of its prevailing holistic and Antrop, M. 2001. The language of landscape ecologists
transdisciplinary trait. Unfortunately, several theore- and planners: a comparative content analysis of
tical, methodological and applicative advances will be concepts used in landscape ecology. Landscape and
needed before landscape ecology is equipped to lead Urban Planning 55, 163-173. doi:10.1016/S0169-
this revolutionary development. In our vision, howe- 2046(01)00151-7
ver, landscape ecology contains the seeds for becoming
both a self-contained scientific discipline and the ad- Arriaza, M.; Canas-Ortega, J.F.; Canas-Madueno, J.A. &
hesive agent among various sectors of environmental P. Ruiz-Aviles 2004. Assessing the visual quality of

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 9

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69, Cousins, S.A.O. 2001. Analysis of land-cover transitions
115-125. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029 based on 17th and 18th century cadastral maps and
aerial photographs. Landscape Ecology 16, 41-54.
Bartel, A. 2000. Analysis of landscape pattern: towards doi:10.1023/A:1008108704358
a ‘top down’ indicator for evaluation of landu-
se. Ecological Modelling 130, 87-94. doi:10.1016/ Farber, S.; Costanza, R. & M. Wilson 2002. Economic
S0304-3800(00)00214-3 ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services.
Ecological Economics 41, 375-392. doi:10.1016/
Bastian, O. 2001. Landscape ecology: towards a uni- S0921-8009(02)00088-5
fied discipline? Landscape Ecology 16, 757-766.
doi:10.1023/A:1014412915534 Ferrarini, A.; Bodini A. & M. Becchi 2001. Environ-
mental quality and sustainability in the Province of
Bateson, G. 1979. Mind and nature: a necessary unit. Reggio Emilia (Italy): using multi-criteria analysis to
Bantam Books, Dutton, New York. assess and compare municipal performance. Journal
of Environmental Management 63, 117-131.
Belovsky, G.E.; Botkin, D.B.; Crowl, T.A.; Cummins, K.W.;
Franklin, J.F.; Hunter, M.L.; Joern, A.; Lindemayer, Forman, R.T.T. & M. Godron 1986. Landscape Ecolo-
D.B.; MacMahon, J.A.; Margules, C.R. & J.M. Scott gy. Wiley, New York.
2004. Ten suggestions to strenghten the science of
ecology. Bioscience 54, 345 - 351. doi:10.1641/0006- Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics. The Ecology of
3568(2004)054[0345:TSTSTS]2.0.CO;2 Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University
Press.
Buckley, W. 1967. Sociology and Modern Systems The-
ory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Geneletti, D. & I. van Duren 2008. Protected area zo-
ning for conservation and use: A combination of
Buchecker, M.; Hunziker, M. & F. Kienast 2003. Par- spatial multicriteria and multiobjective evaluation.
ticipatory landscape development: overcoming co- Landscape and Urban Planning 85, 97–110.
sical barriers to public improvement. Landscape
and Urban Planning 64, 29-46. doi:10.1016/S0169- Gliwicz, Z.H. 2005. Food web interactions: why are
2046(02)00199-8 they reluctant to be manipulated? Verhandlungen
der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische
Collinge, S.K. 1996. Ecological consequences of habitat und Angewandte Limnologie 29, 73-88.
fragmentation: implications for landscape architec-
ture and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning Gregory, R.; Failing, L. & P. Higgins 2006. Adaptive
36, 59-77. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00341-6 management and environmental decision making:
a case study application to water use planning.
Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Gras- Ecological Economics 58, 434-447. doi:10.1016/j.
so, M.; Hannon, B.; Naeem, S.; Limburg, K.; Pa- ecolecon.2005.07.020
ruelo, J.; O’Neill, R.V.; Raskin, R.; Sutton, P. & M.
van den Belt 1997. The value of the world’s ecosys- Gustafson, E.J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial
tem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253- pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1,
260. doi:10.1038/387253a0 143-156. doi:10.1007/s100219900011

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 10

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

Hietel, E.; Waldhardt R. & A. Otte 2004. Analysing land- Lenz, R. & D. Peters 2006. From data to decisions.
cover changes in relation to environmental variables Steps to an application-oriented landscape research.
in Hessen, Germany. Landscape Ecology 19, 473- Ecological Indicators 6, 250-263. doi:10.1016/j.
489. doi:10.1023/B:LAND.0000036138.82213.80 ecolind.2005.08.012

Holling, C.S.; Berkes, F. & C. Folke 1998a. Science, sus- Li, H.B. & J.G. Wu 2004. Use and misuse of land-
tainability and resource management. In: F. Berkes, scape indices. Landscape Ecology 19, 389-399.
C.Y. Folke & J. Colding (eds): Linking social and doi:10.1023/B:LAND.0000030441.15628.d6
ecological systems. Cambridge Press, 342-362.
Lopez, E.; Bocco, G.; Mendoza, M. & E. Duhau 2001.
Holling, C.S. 1998b. Two cultures of ecology. Conser- Predicting landcover and land use change in the ur-
vation Ecology [online] 2, 4. Available from the In- ban fringe. A case in Morelia city, Mexico. Landsca-
ternet. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss2/ pe and Urban Planning 55, 271-285. doi:10.1016/
art4/ (Date: 14.07.2008). S0169-2046(01)00160-8

Klin, G.J. 1969. An Approach to General Systems The- Lubchenco, J.; Olson, A. M.; Brubaker, L.B.; Car-
ory. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. penter, S.R.; Holland, M.M.; Hubbel, S.P.; Levin,
S.A.; MacMahon, J.A.; Matson, P.A.; Melillo, J.M.;
Krause, C.L. 2001. Our visual landscape. Managing the Mooney, H.A.; Peterson, C.H.; Pulliam, H.R.; Real,
landscape under special consideration of visual as- L.A.; Regal, P.J. & P.G. Risser 1991. The sustainable
pects. Landscape and Urban Planning 54, 239-254. biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda.
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00139-6 Ecology 72: 371- 412. doi:10.2307/2937183

Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The Structure of the Scientific Revo- Mandelbrot, B.H. 1982. The Fractal Geometry of Na-
lution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ture. Freeman, New York.

Lange, E. 2001. The limits of realism: perceptions of Manghi, S. 2004. La conoscenza ecologica. Attualità di
virtual landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning Gregory Bateson. Raffaello Cortina Editore, Mila-
54, 163-182. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00134-7 no.

Leitao, B.A. & J. Ahern 2002. Applying landscape Miller, J.N.; Brooks, R.P. & M.J. Croonquist 1997. Ef-
ecological concepts in sustainable landscape plan- fects of landscape patterns on biotic communities.
ning. Landscape and Urban Planning 59, 65-93. Landscape Ecology 12, 137-153. doi:10.1023/
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00005-1 A:1007970716227

Lek S., Delacoste, M., Baran, P., Dimopoulos, I., Lau- Morales, J.M.; Fortin, D.; Frair, J.L. & E.H. Merrill 2005.
ga, J. & S. Aulagnier 1996. Application of neu- Adaptive models for large herbivore movements in
ral networks to modelling nonlinear relations- heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecology 20,
hips in ecology. Ecological Modelling 90, 39-52. 301-316. doi:10.1007/s10980-005-0061-9
doi:10.1016/0304-3800(95)00142-5
Müller, F. & R. Lenz 2006. Ecological indicators: the-
Lek, S. & J.F. Guegan 1999. Artificial neural networks oretical fundamentals of consistent applications in
as a tool in ecological modelling, an introduction. environmental management. Ecological Indicators
Ecological Modelling 120, 65-73. doi:10.1016/ 6, 1-5. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.001
S0304-3800(99)00092-7

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 11

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

Musacchio, L.; Ozdenerol, E.; Bryant, M. & T. Evans pe-level approach. Biological Conservation 81, 191-
2005. Changing landscapes, changing discipli- 202. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00145-0
nes: seeking to understand interdisciplinarity in
landscape ecological change research. Landscape Riitters, K.H., O’Neill, R.V., Jones, K.B. & E. Smith
and Urban Planning 73, 326-338. doi:10.1016/j. 2000. Global-scale patterns of forest fragmentation.
landurbplan.2004.08.003 Conservation Ecology 4, 3. http://www.consecol.
org/vol4/iss2/art3 (Date: 23.05.2008).
Norton, B.G. & A.C. Steinemann 2001. En-
vironmental values and adaptive manage- Roy, P.S. & S. Tomar 2000. Biodiversity characteriza-
ment. Environmental Values 10, 473-506. tion at landscape level using geospatial modelling
doi:10.3197/096327101129340921 technique. Biological Conservation 95, 95-109.
doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00151-2
Olsen, L.M.; Dale V.H. & T. Foster 2007. Landscape
patterns as indicators of ecological change at Fort Saunders, D.A. & S.V. Briggs 2002. Nature grows in
Benning, Georgia, USA. Landscape and Urban Pl- straight lines - or does she? What are the conse-
anning 79, 137–149. quences of the mismatch between human-imposed
linear boundaries and ecosystem boundaries? An
Opdam, P.; Foppen, R. & C. Vos 2002. Bridging the Australian example. Landscape and Urban Planning
gap between ecology and spatial planning in land- 61, 71-82. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00103-2
scape ecology. Landscape Ecology 16, 767-779.
doi:10.1023/A:1014475908949 Schreiber, K.F. 1990. The history of landscape ecolo-
gy in Europe. In: I.S. Zonneveld & R.T.T. Forman
Palmer, J.F. 2004. Using spatial metrics to predict (eds.): Changing landscapes: an ecological perspecti-
scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, ve. Springer-Verlag, New York, 21-33.
Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 69,
201-218. Steiss, A.W. 1967. Urban Systems Dynamics. Lexington
Books, Toronto.
Parsons, R. & T.C. Daniel 2002. Good looking: in
defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape Sui, D. & H. Zeng 2001. Modeling the dynamics of
and Urban Planning 60, 43-56. doi:10.1016/S0169- landscape structure in Asia‘s emerging desakota re-
2046(02)00051-8 gions: a case study in Shenzhen. Landscape and Ur-
ban Planning 53, 37-52. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046-
Phua M. & M. Minowa 2005. A GIS-based multi-cri- (00)00136-5
teria decision making approach to forest conser-
vation planning at a landscape scale: a case study Sukopp, H. 2004. Human-caused impact on preser-
in the Kinabalu Area, Sabah, Malaysia. Landscape ved vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 68,
and Urban Planning 71, 207-222. doi:10.1016/j. 347-355.
landurbplan.2004.03.004
Svoray, T.; Bar, P. & T. Bannet 2005. Urban land-use al-
Purtauf, T.; Thies, C.; Ekschmitt, K.; Wolters, V. & J. location in a Mediterranean ecotone: habitat hetero-
Dauber 2005. Scaling properties of multivariate geneity model incorporated in a GIS using a multi-
landscape structure. Ecological Indicators 5, 295- criteria mechanism. Landscape and Urban Planning
304. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.016 72, 337-351. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.05.001

Riitters, K.H., O’Neill, R.V. & K.B. Jones 1997. Asses-

sing habitat suitability at multiple scales: a landsca-

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 12

 Ferrari & Ferrarini Landscape Online
From Ecosystem Ecology to Landscape Ecology 6 / 2008

Tischendorf, L. 2001. Can landscape indices predict

ecological processes consistently? Landscape Eco-
logy 16, 235-254. doi:10.1023/A:1011112719782

Turner, M.G. 2005. Landscape ecology in North Ame-

rica: past, present, and future. Ecology 86, 1967–
1974. doi:10.1890/04-0890

Wiggering, H.; Dalchow, C.; Glemnitz, M.; Helming,

K.; Muller, K.; Schultz, A.; Stachow, U. & P. Zan-
der, P. 2006. Indicators for multifunctional land use.
Linking socio-economic requirements with land-
scape potentials. Ecological Indicators 6, 238-249.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.014

Wu, J. & R.J. Hobbs 2002. Key issues and research pri-
orities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthe-
sis. Landscape Ecology 17, 355-365. doi:10.1023/
A:1020561630963

Wu, J. 2006. Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity,

and sustainability science. Landscape Ecology 21,
1- 4. doi:10.1007/s10980-006-7195-2

Zurlini, G.; Rossi, O.; Ferrarini, A.; Rossi, P.; Petrosil-

lo, I. & N. Zaccarelli 2004. Ecological risk assess-
ment through landscape science approaches. In: C.
Teaf & B. Yussekin (eds.): Risk assessment as a tool
for environmental decision making in Central Asia.
Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 155-173.

Zurlini, G.; Zaccarelli, N. & I. Petrosillo 2006. Indica-

ting retrospective resilience of multi-scale patterns
of real habitats in a landscape. Ecological Indicators
6, 184-204. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.013

© 2008 IALE-D. All rights reserved. www.landscapeonline.de ISSN 1865-1542 Page 13